U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday he would next week present evidence proving Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction as well as linking Baghdad to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network
How is he going to prove it ?
Posted 31 January 2003 - 08:39 AM
That's how it always is with you guys. USA has better documentation, pictures, evidence than anyone else in the world (They won't release ALL Intel - that's NEVER done by anyone), YET you guys just call it fake (EVEN BEFORE IT IS PRESENTED!). There IS NO form of evidence you guys would EVER accept and YOU KNOW IT! Name some form of evidence you'd accept. Video? You'd call it fake. Sat photos? You'd call it fake. Actual Iraqi Scientist spilling the beans - You'd call him a plant - AND FAKE! Yet the resolution and detail of any Photographic evidence would be second to none in the world - and you'd STILL call it fake. Oh that's right - we had Hollywood fake the moon shot!!!
But to cut to the real point. Iraq has not shown where they have destroyed the Bio-Chemo weapons they had 12 years ago. They also NEED to account for what they had - they haven't -it dissappeared - but NO evidence that it was ever destroyed - NOT ONLY THAT - they haven't EVEN offered any evidence of it being destroyed when asked.
The USA doesn't have to find their eveidence of destroyed stuff they had, IRAQ HAS TO SHOW IT WAS DESTROYED. I'm sure you'd accept a note from Saddam's mother that it was destroyed and what quantities though!
Posted 31 January 2003 - 09:56 AM
let me think, oh yeah, i have vague recollections of babies being hauled out of incubators. now who did that? oh yeah, saddam before the last 'war'. ummm, what was the name of the american president who promoted this lie?
perhaps you could remind me.
Posted 31 January 2003 - 11:08 AM
Originally posted by JezMan
Any comment from you on the timing?
Why the inspectors were not told about the evidence before ?
Because said evidence was gleaned through the same channels that the US is currently using to monitor Iraqi preparations for the war, or the placement of weapons caches, for example?
Spill the beans too quick and all of a sudden, your source of intel can dry up just when you need it most - during the conflict.
But as Cheborneck pointed out to you, this is all beside the point. Implicit in your question is the assumption that the inspectors were there to play hide-and-seek with Saddam, and so needed "intelligence" to go find what's there.
That's not what the inspectors went to Iraq to do. They went there to verify, not engage in some fools errand with an uncooperative regime.
Posted 31 January 2003 - 11:19 AM
I am not sure why did you go to such extend to tell me that the inspectors were only a play.
IMO if the inspectors were informed where the evidence is, the whole situation would be clearer. (Or maybe I live on diferent planet all together )
Posted 31 January 2003 - 06:19 PM
secondly when i wrote the former united states president of the united states george h.w. bush....sr. apout a conspericy with his own government he didn't act apon it. he did act apon how to run the war in iraq which i wrote in my letter. the first gulf war was an act of high treason in it's self as the second perpose action in iraq.
i hope the united states resorces does not go to war in irag but knowing personally how this current admistration is ran it will go through like the warmongers plan following a back burner plan of illegal agression.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users