 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
From the Borowitz Report:
quote:
IRAQ AGREES TO WEAPONS INSPECTIONS; CHENEY BEGS THEM TO RECONSIDER
Don’t Make Any Hasty Decisions, Vice President Urges Saddam
Just minutes after the government of Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, Vice President **** Cheney urged the Iraqis to reconsider their decision.
“Let’s not be too hasty about this,” Mr. Cheney urged the Iraqi government. “You could be making a huge mistake here, guys.”
Mr. Cheney added that accepting weapons inspectors back into their country was a “big decision” and encouraged the Iraqis to “sleep on it.”
But hours after Mr. Cheney begged the Iraqis to reconsider, Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein released an official statement of his own, leaving little doubt that he intended to stick with his decision.
“Not only am I sure that I want the weapons inspectors to come back to Iraq,” Saddam’s statement read, “but I am totally stoked about it.”
A less enthusiastic response to Saddam’s decision came from U.S. General Tommy R. Franks, who had just moved his CENTCOM office from Florida to Qatar in preparation for military exercises in the Persian Gulf region.
“No way!” General Franks said when informed of Saddam’s decision. “You’ve got to be yanking my chain!”
Meanwhile, an aide to the Vice President said that Mr. Cheney was returning to his secure undisclosed location for a few days “to be alone,” but denied that the Vice President was “sulking.”
“The Vice President is an optimistic man,” the aide said. “This is a bump in the road, but he is still hopeful that Saddam will change his mind and refuse to allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.” |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:22
|
|
Lincoln posted this in another thread, which I closed to move here.
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynam..._text_id=671535
West on brink of Iraq war
by Joe Murphy, Evening Standard
The US and Britain returned to the brink of war today as Saddam Hussein's dramatic promise to allow unfettered weapons inspections turned out to have strings attached.
Iraq made a surprise offer late last night to provide "unconditional access" to United Nations inspectors, raising hopes of a peaceful outcome to the Gulf crisis.
But today it emerged that the offer only applied to military bases - which could let Saddam hide chemical and biological arms stockpiles elsewhere.
That was not good enough for Downing Street, which insisted: "Inspectors must be allowed to go anywhere, anytime."
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw urged the world to beware of being tricked by Iraq. "We have had games played by Saddam Hussein for the best part of 12 years," he said after meeting the Prime Minister.
"One thing I know for certain about him is he only responds to sustained pressure from the United Nations."
Iraq seemed to have succeeded in opening cracks in the fragile international coalition, however. Although the United States dismissed his offer as a ploy, France and Germany promptly questioned the need for a fresh UN resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to comply with existing rules.
Other countries, too, which have previously been reluctant to back a war against Saddam, seized the opportunity to claim the crisis was all but over. Fears are growing of a split in the 15-member UN security council which will study the offer today.
Amid confusion, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear inspections body, declared it was ready to recommence its work "tomorrow" if the UN agreed.
The disclosure that restrictions were, after all, attached to Saddam's offer was made by the London ambassador of the Arab League which brokered the deal in the first place.
Ali Muhsen Hamid claimed Iraq was being sincere, but he stipulated that civilian sites would not be available to the inspectors. "We support anywhere, any military site (for inspections), but not as some people have suggested for inspections against hospitals, against schools."
Hospitals are among key sites for inspections because of evidence that Saddam uses health laboratories to manufacture viruses for biological weapons.
An Arab League spokesman said only military sites were covered because it would take 10 years for inspectors to examine civilian buildings, which would divert the UN's attention from making Iraq obey its resolutions. "If the US really wants to resolve this dispute it will welcome the offer," he added.
No10 pointed out that during the last, failed, round of inspections, the Iraqi president redesignated about half of his most secret military installations as " presidential palaces", ruling them out of bounds to inspectors.
Iraq capitalised on the disarray to mount a propaganda offensive. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's deputy prime minister, said the offer "thwarted" any reasons for a military attack. He added: "The aim of the American policies is the oil in the Gulf."
The Iraqi state news agency said Saddam may send a personal appeal to the UN within days.
Saddam made his offer in a letter presented to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan late last night after an emergency meeting of his security and diplomatic advisers.
Within minutes, the White House issued a statement scorning the promise as "a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action".
"As such, it will fail," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions."
The concern in Washington is that support for military action will rapidly lose momentum. A State Department official described the offer as " a nightmare stalling technique".
Officials said planning for war would continue unchanged. But there was no longer any guarantee of a resolution ordering Iraq to disarm.
France was the first of the big five Security Council members to waver, suggesting that a new resolution be put on hold. And its top general flatly ruled out any preemptive strike against Saddam.
Armed forces chief General Jean-Pierre Kelche said an attack would bring chaos, adding: "We have to take him at his word."
Russia declared diplomacy had triumphed. Foreign minister Igor Ivanov said: "We have managed to deflect the threat of a military scenario and to steer the process back to a political channel."
A senior European Union official implied that the US was now out of line, saying: " The question now is whether the Americans will take 'yes' for an answer."
Under the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire terms, UN inspectors must verify the dismantling of Iraqi programmes for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and longrange missiles.
President Bush, whose stated policy is the ousting of Saddam, last week told the UN General Assembly that "action will be unavoidable" against Iraq unless the world body forced Baghdad to disarm.
Tony Blair had one consolation - a poll showing far greater support for military action in the wake of President Bush's speech. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I can't understand why people still believe the lies of Sadam. Are these the children of Nevil Chamberlin? Apeasment doesn't work with people like Sadam. Isn't this all a part of history???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
I disagree with the posters who have said, in one form or another, that Sadam has painted himself into a corner. Immediately after the war, a UN resolution was passed to this very effect. That resolution was ignored, toyed with, stretched to its limits, and finally shreded when the UN inspectors were booted out.
It's the same ploy all over again. Absolutely no different this go 'round than last, except in timing of course....and brutally effective timing it was, too. Of course, it could only be expected that the French would be the first to back away.
Will it prevent Bush from going ahead with his plans? I hope so....doing *anything* without a broad base of international support would be foolhardy in the extreme. I'm still stuck in my original position tho....I don't think we should do anything as a pre-emptive strike. We do not arrest criminals before they commit a crime, and we should not go to war with another nation just because they *might* do something bad.
Sure, Sadam has an atrocious track record, but if we were that d@mned concerned about it, then we should have acted during Desert Storm. That hour has long since passed. If Sadam's incessant sabre rattling should turn to invasion of one of his neighbors again, and if that neighbor sends out a call for help, then by all means, we should answer that call, and finish the job that should have been finished a long time ago. Till then, our only options are: a) attack anyway, and become a global pariah, or b) bide our time, trusting Sadam to act as bullies invariably do....and when he does, squash him like the annoying roach he is.
I am NOT advocating any form of appeasement whatsoever, btw! I say we leave well enough alone tho....Sadam has more than enough rope to hang himself, and when he crosses the line, we should respond with simply overwhelming force and remove him from the world's concern. Till then, let him stew....let him crow. His days are numbered, not because of US (well, not directly anyway), but because of HIMSELF. Leave him be, and he WILL get too big for his britches. Bullies are like that.
When he does, I say we make a decisive impression on him.....but not before.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The problem is that the next time he plays the "bully" it may be with weapons that no one wants to confront.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I don't like the idea of a premptive attack either but Sadam will dig his own grave when he defies the next UN resolution (yes, I assume there will be an ultimatum by the UN). We will have to wait and see how this pans out but if this latest revelation is true then there will be some angry people in the UN because they were deceived.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-09-2002 23:59
|