 |
|
Djugashvili
|
|
by day, Cher impersonator by night
Dec 1999 time: 05:20
|
|
how is saddam any more of a threat to us than our own government... and why support the saudis over him(besides the obvious: oil)? at least he's secular...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:20
|
|
You underestimate me , KH.
Last edited by Az on 17-06-2002 at 18:36
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:20
|
|
The only source I am afraid of is Iran. The logistics of such an operation would be way too large for a local group , and Israeli HUMINT would be on it in no time. Iran is a different matter. Reaching the is difficult , at best, and multiple sites are there.
You can imagine that news of Israel having a "second strike" capability from submarines don't really reassure me , in the case of a country like that. Regardless of what people say about their 'moderate' political leadership , which is doubtful to me as well, their military leaders are Muslim fanatics of the most dangerous kind, way out there .
In other happy news, Iran is already working on the development of Shihab 4, that will be able to reach europe, despite EU requests that it won't do so. What are the European scientists doing there?!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:20
|
|
quote: In other happy news, Iran is already working on the development of Shihab 4, that will be able to reach europe, despite EU requests that it won't do so. What are the European scientists doing there?! |
And several nations have missiles that can reach Iran, including, I believe, Israel (a nation that has proven it has no qualms against first strikes), so why shouldn't Iran have similar weapons? And why is it any of your business?
And if the Europeans ***** about that, maybe they should sign on to the US ABM project, eh?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by David Floyd
And several nations have missiles that can reach Iran, including, I believe, Israel (a nation that has proven it has no qualms against first strikes), so why shouldn't Iran have similar weapons? And why is it any of your business?
And if the Europeans ***** about that, maybe they should sign on to the US ABM project, eh? |
It's not a matter of rights, but of interests.
Imagine the following situation :
Fidel Castro declares(and gets the support of his people) that he wants the US destroyed. And then starts developing nuclear weapons saying that in the moment he gets them, they will be fired on Florida.
Will the US allow him to continue developing the weapons because he has the right to do so, or will you do everything possible to stop him?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
As it stands, the United States would be in violation of international law in any attempt to oust Saddam. We currently have no provocation. We have to let him make the first move. |
In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. In 1991 the US drove the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and was on the verge of destroying the Republican Guard, the base of Saddams regime. Instead the US signed a ceasefire, one of the conditions of which was UN inspections of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction(this was also called for by the UN Sec Council) So Iraq is under a legal obligation to allow inspections for WMD that goes beyond the obligations of other states under international law, an obligation that goes back to the circumstance under which the gulf war ended. Iraq is (and has been for 4 years) in blatant disregard of its obligations re" weapons inspection. The US has every right to whatever is necessary to physically impose an inspection system. Given that such inspection is unlikely to be effective under the current Iraqi regime (for reasons well documented elsewhere) this entails the right to change the Iraqi regime.
The reasons not to go yet are practical and global balance questions, not legal ones. For example, Iraq has a substantial debt to Russia. Russia must be given iron clad guarantees for this debt. France has a traditional economic/political sphere of influence in Iraq. It rightly fears that any successor regime will favor US interests over French interests. The US must assure France that this is not part of a plan to impose US economic hegemony in place of French interests - US concessions on other areas (like steel tariffs) would help. The turks need assurance that this will not result in independent Kurdistan - the Iraqi Kurds want an Autonomous kurdistan within a democratic, federal Iraq, but the political shape of the successor regime must be fleshed out - ditto wrt to Saudi and the Iraqi Shiites. All parties in the region, but most especially the Kurds, must be assured that the US means business. No point in alienating Saddam unless the US can assure them he wont be there much longer.
LOTM
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|