Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Former UN Weapons Inspectors assessment

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Loomer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Loomer


    Originally posted by Man
    which gases would you be talking about there now...??
    Vx, syron..mustard...... :p
    mm

    Syron??? Isn't that the thing on top of a fyor enjin?


  • Options
    #33
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,404 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Man
    syron..
    Sarin.


  • Options
    #34
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Originally posted by Victor
    Sarin.
    It's my culchie accent:D
    mm


  • Options
    #35
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,580 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    And yet here you are arguing that Saddam is the way he was a decade ago because people dont change.

    Saddam didnt change - as you said, only his *image* changed - and then his image as defender of the west was extremely patchy at best. Previous administrations allied themselves to him. This administration has set itself to toppling him. The man himself didnt suddenly turn "bad" after 91.
    Indeed - it could have been (gasp, horror) conventional military operations....which are completely legitimate, and which Iraq retains the right to keep hidden from the UN.

    It may, but it also has an obligation to completely satisfy weapons inspections - by implication conventional milatary secrets may be slightly impacted by being 100% sure that WMD werent in that bunker or similar installations, that it was merely as you say conventional weaponry.
    Yup - except that the UN Security Council (at the least) would never have come into existence without the major powers being given veto rights, and it is their exercising of these veto rights which has prevented most of the realistic things you refer to.

    Exactly - the UN was never meant to have any real power - how could it - its not an independant organisation, its just a front operation for major powers ( stressing the term when referring to France and Britain tbh ) to carve up the post war world. Its a talking shop, a flag of convenience.
    My point is that if the world's foremost power is not willing to work with the UN, its a bit facetious to then criticise the UN as being ineffectual.

    If the UN was a viable organisation the lack of co-operation from *one* member shouldnt be enough to render it ineffectual. If it is then at best the UN is an advisory board for US foreign policy whilst the final decisions are made in the White house. At worst....
    Its so convenient to say that "its all about X" for some of the nations, then rubbish the exact same idea when it is applied to others - for no reason other than that it supports a particular stance. And yet it gets trotted out time and time again...

    The US could go the french/russian route and just relax the sanctions, make friends with Saddam and buy the oil far more cheaply than fighting a war which will inflame anti - american sentiment, cost them a hell of a lot of money and, potentially, lives whilst getting potentially bogged down in Iraqi nation building. The fact that they arent suggests theres more to their position than oil. Theres nothing to suggest the french/russian position is about anything other than a good oil deal, with the germans tagging along on the back of populist sentiment.


Advertisement