POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candletrader, Dec 8, 2002.

Which of these is most likely?

  1. Co-ordinated large-scale bombings of shopping malls and offices (similar to September 11, but not us

    12 vote(s)
    133.3%
  2. Biological attacks on schools, malls, airports etc

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  3. Highly co-ordinated machine gun mow-downs of crowds by suicide gangs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. One person suicide bombings (similar to that carried out by Hamas) co-ordinated across numerous smal

    30 vote(s)
    333.3%
  5. Devastating car bombs set to go off amongst traffic queues of commuters crawling into work in the ru

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  6. It won't be as obvious as any of the above, but it will make September 11 look like a wasp bite com

    26 vote(s)
    288.9%
  7. No repercussions

    95 vote(s)
    1,055.6%
  1. Let me get this strait:

    for 12 years saddam has violated UN RULES and RESOLUTIONS?

    THE UN INSPECTORS WERE KICKED OUT IN VIOLATION OF THESE RULES AND RESOLUTIONS IN 1998


    THE UN HAD NO INTENTION OF addressing IRAQ UNTIL BUSH petitioned THEM 9-12-02

    THEY HAVE SENT IN INSPECTORS AND HAVE FOUND BANNED WEAPONS.


    .....and Koffi is saying we would be in violation of the un if we act alone??????? what am i missing here?
     
    #1481     Mar 10, 2003
  2. Blix is obviously doing a whole lot more beyond his job description and with the duplicity of France, Germany and Russia. His job is to determine whether Iraq is in compliance with 1441, not play policy maker.
     
    #1482     Mar 10, 2003

  3. As I recall, US spies were identified amongst that cohort, before the inspectors withdrew...
     
    #1483     Mar 10, 2003
  4. ges

    ges

    "3:23PM Iraqi troops offer surrender; told to come back later : London's Mirror reports that terrified Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started. According to the report, the band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise. The stunned paratroopers from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender."

    Briefing.com

    I did not make this up.

    g
     
    #1484     Mar 10, 2003
  5. Yes, I heard the same thing...
     
    #1485     Mar 10, 2003


  6. .....the point? they were in violation correct? The UN did nothing about it and allowed their inspectors to be thrown out and did not bring an immediate resolution to either a) let them back in r b) face consequneces......WHAT DID THE UN DO FROM 1998-2002???
     
    #1486     Mar 10, 2003
  7. Nice post msfe... the hypocrisy contained within that second paragraph ("destabilising") is most amusing...
     
    #1487     Mar 10, 2003
  8. msfe

    msfe

    TM Direct:`WHAT DID THE UN DO FROM 1998-2002???´

    the USA and the UK [veto wielding UN members] illegally bombed Iraq during all those years - up until today.
     
    #1488     Mar 10, 2003
  9. "respectfully take your comments on board, but somehow fail to believe that Blix would be complicit in taking sides with Iraq."

    Candle you really believe in BLIX don't you.

    France said today not only will they VETO the new resolution, but that if the United States Attacks IRAQ, they will not participate in the War on Terrorism anymore.

    With that comment, all crediblity is lost for France (if they ever had any) France is DESPARATE!

    SINK the Aircraft Carrier DeGaul, Take no Prisoners, they support the Terrorists, (of course we will find their fingerprints on Saddams WMD).



    and the United Nations will pass to the DUST BIN of HISTORY like the league of nations.

    Wave GOOD BYE to the UN!
     
    #1489     Mar 10, 2003
  10. Exactly...
     
    #1490     Mar 10, 2003