What to do about Sadam Hussain? - Page 4

Barry the Sprout · 03-08-2002, 07:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

Um Barry....weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for years, because Saddam refused them access to facilities. His violation of that part of the cease-fire was enough then, and is enough now to resume military action, on whatever scale necessary, in order to resume the inspections.

After the Gulf War inspectors did find enough militarized Botulism to kill every man, woman, and child on the Earth 3 times. Of course, the Iraqies aren't the only ones who believe in being able to kill everyone on Earth more than once.

Inspectors did not find nuclear weapons materials (maybe because they weren't allow access?), but did find huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these were attached to scud missles, though they were not found on the launchers, if I remember correctly. And let us not forget, he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. I'm sure his Kurdish countrymen would be willing to tell you he knows how to make chemical/biological weapons, has access to the materials, and isn't afraid to use them.

Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion!

Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind.

Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it?

Ronn_Bman · 03-08-2002, 08:33 AM

quote:
Originally posted by AzureWolf:

Please tell me you are kidding about tightened sanctions

Sorry Azure, but I'm not kidding. Tightening the sanctions doesn't mean we don't allow anything to come into the country. The sanctions should be enforced until the inspectors are allowed access. I don't mean the UN should no longer allow Iraq to use it's funds for humanitarian items, but instead, that they should not have access to anything else.

Does Iraq really need access to more weapons?

Ronn_Bman · 03-08-2002, 08:36 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion!

Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind.

Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it?

Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations.

Barry the Sprout · 03-08-2002, 11:09 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations.

Apparently, and this is once again coming from weapons inspectors, he refused access when they tried to break the treaty by entering what he defined as private residences. So the West will say that he was obviously classifying missile silos as residences. Apparently this is not the case. When the inspectors tried to enter buildings like villas and mansions they were refused entry as this was obviously against the treaty in question. So this got a bad press for various reasons, no one liking a mass murderer and all that. But still the weapons inspectors are pretty certain that they got all of his weapons and the buildings they couldn't get in are just not practical for storing weapons.

So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain?

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

Cerek the Barbaric · 03-08-2002, 11:18 AM

I avoided this thread at first, because the original Post asked what the REST of the world thought should be done about Hussein. As expected, that didn't last very long...so I might as well jump in here too.

Barry, Ronn Bman is 100% correct. Saddam Hussein completely denied UN access to MOST of his "weapons facilities" initially. He did allow them to "inspect" old stations that hadn't been used in years. As Ronn pointed out, this was done solely to allow him time to "clean up" the sites the UN wanted to inspect. I remember watching the news reports at the time and ALL the inspectors (not just the US ones...in fact, I believe a Brit rep was the elected spokesperson, but I could be wrong about that)were furious. Saddam was basically thumbing his nose at them and refused to acknowledge their position of authority. He successfully used stalling, threats, and intimidation to keep them out of the places (and NOT just private residences) until he could move WHATEVER was there to a better hiding place.

Sephorith, you want a democratically elected gov't supported by the Iraqi people...guess what...so do they. Unfortunatley, Saddam has been less than cooperative in stepping aside to allow democracy to have a chance. You say...just leave them alone and eventually one of his generals will kill him...maybe, but I doubt it. Several years ago, his TOP 2 advisors (who also happened to be his son-in-laws) decided to defect to the U.S. He managed to convince one of them to abandon this plan and promised there would be no reprisals if he "returned to the fold"...that son-in-law was dead within a week.

Do NOT underestimate the potential danger this man represents. He has crushed his weaker opponents and weaseled his way out of retribution from superior foes. He is a bomb that is just waiting for the opportunity to explode....and Osama has shown how to strike a major blow against a superior foe without really "getting your hands dirty". This is right up Saddam's alley. He can spread terror and death around the world and claim innocence at the same time.

BTW, Barry, would you care to provide a list of the "numerous failed assassination attempts against Castro" that you mentioned earlier? The U.S. hasn't made any serious moves against him in over 25 years or so.

Ronn_Bman · 03-08-2002, 11:57 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain?

Barry, the inspectors and reports I've seen state that they found little after the initial stockpiles, but they always quantify it by saying they were not allowed timely access to some areas and were completely refused other suspected areas. We aren't just talking about storing weapons. We are talking about the facilities used to create such weapons.

You mentioned earlier, they thought they had 95% of his weapons accounted for. Doesn't it make you a bit nervous that, using those figures and initial inspection findings, he still has enough Botulism to kill 15% of the world's population? Of course the Botulism was just part of his biological stockpile, but for some reason that example has stuck with me through the years.

The thought of war is always troublesome, but I don't believe he can be allowed to return to normal international operations until he allows the return of the inspectors.

khazadman · 03-08-2002, 12:13 PM

i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.

norompanlasolas · 03-08-2002, 12:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by khazadman:
i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.

absolute nonsense. the governments and puppet regimens the us gov supported were as bad as the ones the soviets did. and sometimes even worse. chile, for example, had an honest and good government in the hands of salvador allende, of the communist party, and was overthrown by the murdered and mumbling idiot pinochet, who killed more than 20,000 persons merely for their ideas, and incarcerated and tortured thousands more.

all with the support of the good old us government with henry kissinger pulling the strings... probably the most cruel, sadistic, and hypocritical person ever to grace big politics (and thats a lot to say).

Talthyr Malkaviel · 03-08-2002, 01:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by khazadman:
i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.

Sorry, but none of them were angels.
I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets.

Ronn_Bman · 03-08-2002, 02:15 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:

Sorry, but none of them were angels.
I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets.

The US didn't fund Osama and his causes specifically. Osama was one of many Mujahadin (sp?) fighters as were many of those who would become Taliban and Northern Alliance. The Taliban didn't form until the early 90's, long after the Soviets pulled out and American support stopped.

Of course, you can really lay all this blame at the doorstep of the French. Without their support, the US couldn't have secured it's independance from Great Britain.

03-08-2002, 07:17 AM	#31
Barry the Sprout White Dragon Join Date: October 19, 2001 Location: York, UK. Age: 41 Posts: 1,815	quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Um Barry....weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for years, because Saddam refused them access to facilities. His violation of that part of the cease-fire was enough then, and is enough now to resume military action, on whatever scale necessary, in order to resume the inspections. After the Gulf War inspectors did find enough militarized Botulism to kill every man, woman, and child on the Earth 3 times. Of course, the Iraqies aren't the only ones who believe in being able to kill everyone on Earth more than once. Inspectors did not find nuclear weapons materials (maybe because they weren't allow access?), but did find huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these were attached to scud missles, though they were not found on the launchers, if I remember correctly. And let us not forget, he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. I'm sure his Kurdish countrymen would be willing to tell you he knows how to make chemical/biological weapons, has access to the materials, and isn't afraid to use them. Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion! Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind. Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it? __________________ [img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe

03-08-2002, 08:33 AM	#32
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by AzureWolf: Please tell me you are kidding about tightened sanctions Sorry Azure, but I'm not kidding. Tightening the sanctions doesn't mean we don't allow anything to come into the country. The sanctions should be enforced until the inspectors are allowed access. I don't mean the UN should no longer allow Iraq to use it's funds for humanitarian items, but instead, that they should not have access to anything else. Does Iraq really need access to more weapons? __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-08-2002, 08:36 AM	#33
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion! Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind. Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it? Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-08-2002, 11:09 AM	#34
Barry the Sprout White Dragon Join Date: October 19, 2001 Location: York, UK. Age: 41 Posts: 1,815	quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations. Apparently, and this is once again coming from weapons inspectors, he refused access when they tried to break the treaty by entering what he defined as private residences. So the West will say that he was obviously classifying missile silos as residences. Apparently this is not the case. When the inspectors tried to enter buildings like villas and mansions they were refused entry as this was obviously against the treaty in question. So this got a bad press for various reasons, no one liking a mass murderer and all that. But still the weapons inspectors are pretty certain that they got all of his weapons and the buildings they couldn't get in are just not practical for storing weapons. So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain? [ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ] __________________ [img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe

03-08-2002, 11:18 AM	#35
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	I avoided this thread at first, because the original Post asked what the REST of the world thought should be done about Hussein. As expected, that didn't last very long...so I might as well jump in here too. Barry, Ronn Bman is 100% correct. Saddam Hussein completely denied UN access to MOST of his "weapons facilities" initially. He did allow them to "inspect" old stations that hadn't been used in years. As Ronn pointed out, this was done solely to allow him time to "clean up" the sites the UN wanted to inspect. I remember watching the news reports at the time and ALL the inspectors (not just the US ones...in fact, I believe a Brit rep was the elected spokesperson, but I could be wrong about that)were furious. Saddam was basically thumbing his nose at them and refused to acknowledge their position of authority. He successfully used stalling, threats, and intimidation to keep them out of the places (and NOT just private residences) until he could move WHATEVER was there to a better hiding place. Sephorith, you want a democratically elected gov't supported by the Iraqi people...guess what...so do they. Unfortunatley, Saddam has been less than cooperative in stepping aside to allow democracy to have a chance. You say...just leave them alone and eventually one of his generals will kill him...maybe, but I doubt it. Several years ago, his TOP 2 advisors (who also happened to be his son-in-laws) decided to defect to the U.S. He managed to convince one of them to abandon this plan and promised there would be no reprisals if he "returned to the fold"...that son-in-law was dead within a week. Do NOT underestimate the potential danger this man represents. He has crushed his weaker opponents and weaseled his way out of retribution from superior foes. He is a bomb that is just waiting for the opportunity to explode....and Osama has shown how to strike a major blow against a superior foe without really "getting your hands dirty". This is right up Saddam's alley. He can spread terror and death around the world and claim innocence at the same time. BTW, Barry, would you care to provide a list of the "numerous failed assassination attempts against Castro" that you mentioned earlier? The U.S. hasn't made any serious moves against him in over 25 years or so. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

03-08-2002, 11:57 AM	#36
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain? Barry, the inspectors and reports I've seen state that they found little after the initial stockpiles, but they always quantify it by saying they were not allowed timely access to some areas and were completely refused other suspected areas. We aren't just talking about storing weapons. We are talking about the facilities used to create such weapons. You mentioned earlier, they thought they had 95% of his weapons accounted for. Doesn't it make you a bit nervous that, using those figures and initial inspection findings, he still has enough Botulism to kill 15% of the world's population? Of course the Botulism was just part of his biological stockpile, but for some reason that example has stuck with me through the years. The thought of war is always troublesome, but I don't believe he can be allowed to return to normal international operations until he allows the return of the inspectors. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

03-08-2002, 12:13 PM	#37
khazadman User suspended until [Feb13] Join Date: December 6, 2001 Location: the south side of ol virginny Age: 62 Posts: 1,172	i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all. and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.

03-08-2002, 12:21 PM	#38
norompanlasolas Avatar Join Date: November 13, 2001 Location: madrid, spain... made in argentina Age: 47 Posts: 569	quote: Originally posted by khazadman: i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all. and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels. absolute nonsense. the governments and puppet regimens the us gov supported were as bad as the ones the soviets did. and sometimes even worse. chile, for example, had an honest and good government in the hands of salvador allende, of the communist party, and was overthrown by the murdered and mumbling idiot pinochet, who killed more than 20,000 persons merely for their ideas, and incarcerated and tortured thousands more. all with the support of the good old us government with henry kissinger pulling the strings... probably the most cruel, sadistic, and hypocritical person ever to grace big politics (and thats a lot to say). __________________ no

03-08-2002, 01:55 PM	#39
Talthyr Malkaviel Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: August 31, 2001 Location: Land of the Britons Age: 37 Posts: 3,224	quote: Originally posted by khazadman: i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all. and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels. Sorry, but none of them were angels. I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets. __________________ Resident cantankerous sorcerer of the Clan HADB<br />and Sorcerous Nuttella salesman of the O.R.T<br /> <br /><br />Say NO to the Trouser Tyranny! Can I drill you about this?

03-08-2002, 02:15 PM	#40
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 57 Posts: 5,177	quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Sorry, but none of them were angels. I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets. The US didn't fund Osama and his causes specifically. Osama was one of many Mujahadin (sp?) fighters as were many of those who would become Taliban and Northern Alliance. The Taliban didn't form until the early 90's, long after the Soviets pulled out and American support stopped. Of course, you can really lay all this blame at the doorstep of the French. Without their support, the US couldn't have secured it's independance from Great Britain. __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
State Department Offering $25 Million for Sadam Hussein	Reeka	General Discussion	9	07-04-2003 07:00 PM