28-02-2003 11:58									#31
	Tired of ads?

Yeah, that interview was great! I think he'd whip Bush's ass in the debate though, because Saddam is part used car salesmen and part of him belongs somewhere in Wonderland.

Frogger - the frothing at the mouth folks are right on this one. This is classic Saddam waffling at the last minute. We agree in principle to destroy them, but we need to set up some meetings to talk about how. And meanwhile, do nothing.

If there was any witnessing/destruction protocols to really discuss, the Iraqis could at least demonstrate a real intent to comply by agreeing to immediate disassembly of the missiles, and inviting the inspectors to tag and inventory the disassembled components, pending discussions on what constituted acceptable verified destruction.

They're not doing that, of course, because Hussein's gamble is that he can keep the missiles available for use, while going through the motions of talking about destroying them.

	28-02-2003 12:19									#32
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger It'd be funny if it weren't going to end up with so many dead Iraqis.

I find this darkly amusing. I suppose it's worse that "x" number of innocent Iraqis may die in the next few weeks or months — y'know, a "bubble" of deaths, so to speak — than if they were to die in smaller increments over the following months and years due to Saddam's machinations within and without Iraq.

Same amount of dead people, just differing on when they'll die, at whose hands they will die at, and whether or not there will be that nasty "bubble" of deaths.

Speaking generally, has *anyone* come up with a better way to remove Saddam from power — along with his sycophants — other than a U.S. led invasion? Hmm? Seems like I remember no one ever came up with a better way to get rid of the Taliban, either.

Gatekeeper

	28-02-2003 12:22									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

CNN reported that Saddam has agreed to destroy the missles in principle but has not agreed on any time table or manner in which the missles are to be destroyed. In other words Saddam is continueing to say he is complying but is refusing to actually comply. Nothing has changed he is still the same liar he has always been.

	28-02-2003 14:30									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

All I see is that Saddam is a master at dividing the free world into warring camps. The wounds we are inflicting on ourselves will last. In the end, Saddam will be gone, but the world will not be the better off because of this.

	28-02-2003 19:34									#35
	Got spare money?

quote: Yeah, that interview was great! I think he'd whip Bush's ass in the debate though, because Saddam is part used car salesmen and part of him belongs somewhere in Wonderland.

Oh, come on. A mental giant like George W. should have no problem manhandling Saddam. I mean, really.

I say let Saddam set his own trap with his constant obfuscation. The world looks negatively at the Bush war effort because of his constant bellicose chest-thumping. But perceptions can change given enough time and pressure. Consider this latest round just another building block, and move slooooowly and deliberately.

	28-02-2003 19:55									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, if we can get saddam to comply without military force, that'd be great. We can avoid like a million problems caused by an attack against and occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately I think Saddam is about as trustworthy as ever. As soon as the inspectors leave, he'll go right back to work with everything he's managed to keep hidden.

	28-02-2003 20:34									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: Chile - which is working closely with another non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Mexico - says it wants a solution which includes short and specific timetables to complete the inspections The proposal they're studying appears to be Canadian. It's already been rejected by both the Americans and the French. That means it's on the right track...

Just cause its regected no doesnt mean it may not be important later - both sides are waiting on the Blix report, seeing how the conflicting pressures on the undecided works out. I for one, thought this was a genuine attempt by Canada to be helpful, and i appreciate it. OTOH the recent news that Iraq is repositioning forces from the north to the Bagdad/Tikrit region indicates that time is of the essence, and it may not be worth a 2 to 3 week delay to ease the diplomatic situation.

	28-02-2003 20:35									#38
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said it was on the right track.

	28-02-2003 20:37									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Frogger How so? c) It doesn't matter; the inspectors' job is to keep a lid on his activities, not make him as pure as the driven snow

That is incorrect. UNSC res 1441 makes no reference to "keeping a lid on" or to containment. Rather it calls for full disarmament - at leas wrt WMD, Iraq must be pure as the driven snow.

	28-02-2003 20:39									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And it also makes no reference to military force.

The inspectors' job is to make sure he doesn't start amassing nasty virii or nukes. The US is the one trying to bootstrap it into war.

	28-02-2003 21:14									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Frogger And it also makes no reference to military force. The inspectors' job is to make sure he doesn't start amassing nasty virii or nukes. The US is the one trying to bootstrap it into war.

This is incorrect. The inspectors job is to verify the destruction of WMD. Period. Iraq is to provide evidence of destruction or the inspectors are to oversee destruction. This is their only mandate.

WRT military force. "Serious consequences" are called for in the resolution for non-compliance. This term has been interpreted to mean use of force by not only the US, but the other members of the UNSC as well. The question that France has is on timing. They believe that there is a chance that the destruction of banned weapons can take place without use of force at this time . The US simply disagrees.

	28-02-2003 21:50									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Thank you, Plato! Well said.

More Saddam last-minute waffling.

1441 called for him to disarm.

The missiles found are IN VIOLATION of 1441. No ifs, ands, or buts. They are not allowed.

But he kept them anyway.

Only when caught red-handed did he agree hastily to destroy them.

Jesus Christ, what's it gonna take for the peaceniks to get the hint!?

-=Vel=-

	28-02-2003 22:05									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Jesus Christ, what's it gonna take for the peaceniks to get the hint!?-=Vel=-

Why wasn't this cleaned up at the end of the last
Gulf war? Why is enforcing 1441 important now? and
not 5 years ago? How many countries are in violation
of UN rulings? Turkey, Israeli are for sure, maybe the
US should attack them.

OIL (hint, hint)

	28-02-2003 22:07									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Frogger And it also makes no reference to military force. The inspectors' job is to make sure he doesn't start amassing nasty virii or nukes. The US is the one trying to bootstrap it into war.

Frogger, "serious consequences" may include military force.

	28-02-2003 22:07									#45
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ozz OIL (hint, hint)

There isn't enough of it there for the undertaking to be worthwhile for that reason.

	28-02-2003 22:08									#46
	Put an end to popups!

Why is enforcing 1441 important now? and not 5 years ago?

Disarming Hussein was important 5 years ago as well (well, 5 years, 2 months ago ).

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/1...1223144228.html

	28-02-2003 22:12									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ummmm 1441 didn't exist five years ago, Ozz.

But you're right.

The UN should just make resolutions it has no intention of enforcing.

That's good global policy and surely other little tin pot dictators won't interpret that as a signal that they too, can get away with flaunting UN resolutions.

Good thinking!

-=Vel=-

	28-02-2003 22:12									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Why wasn't this cleaned up at the end of the last Gulf war? Why is enforcing 1441 important now? and not 5 years ago? How many countries are in violation of UN rulings? Turkey, Israeli are for sure, maybe the US should attack them. OIL (hint, hint)

Ozz, Five years ago we had Clinton and we did not have 9/11.

Please identify what UN resolutions Turkey and Israel violate? At least with respect to Israel, the resolutions all seem conditioned on reaching a peace agreement with the Arabs. That has not happened.

But this is the first time that I have heard that Turkey is violating UN resolutions. I would be interested to know what they are.

	28-02-2003 22:15									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc There isn't enough of it there for the undertaking to be worthwhile for that reason.

Military bases in Iraq would control the entire Gulf oil area. It's not just the oil under Iraq.

	28-02-2003 22:20									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ozz, Five years ago we had Clinton and we did not have 9/11. Please identify what UN resolutions Turkey and Israel violate? At least with respect to Israel, the resolutions all seem conditioned on reaching a peace agreement with the Arabs. That has not happened. But this is the first time that I have heard that Turkey is violating UN resolutions. I would be interested to know what they are.

9/11 and Saddam are not proven related.
US international policy depends on the individual
president? This has been building for years.

Turkey - military occupation of N. Cyprus.

(edit - wrong smilie)

	28-02-2003 22:24									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It's time to finally clean up this mess.

	28-02-2003 22:29									#52
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS It's time to finally clean up this mess.

Should have been done 13 years ago. This and Korea
are the results of the UN making half-assed war. ie Win the war, and lose the peace.

	28-02-2003 22:50									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ozz Why wasn't this cleaned up at the end of the last Gulf war? Why is enforcing 1441 important now? and not 5 years ago? How many countries are in violation of UN rulings? Turkey, Israeli are for sure, maybe the US should attack them. OIL (hint, hint)

at teh end of the gulf war we agreed to let alternative methods work.

UNSCOM under Richard Butler was sent in.
Iraq cheated and hid its weapons. Real infor didnt come till we had a major defector in 1995 to point out where stuff was. Much was then destroyed. Iraq then decided theyd had enoough of Butler and accused him of being a US spy.

UNSCOM was replaced with UNMOVIC under Hans Blix, hand chosen by France and Russia to take a softer line than Butler.

Blix was also thrown out of Iraq (effectively - thanks Tony)
in '98. Clinton responded by a limited bombing campaign.
In the event this proved ineffective in brining Iraq to heel.
In 1999 Clinotn and Blair were focused on Kosovo. Afterwards Clinton was impeached, and was in no position politically to lead a controversial foreign policy initiative on Iraq. He did attempt to bring peace to Israel and the Pals, which, if successful, could have laid the groundwork for an anti-Saddam coalition. However it failed.

Bush came into office, intent on a for policy of no nation buidling, and focusing on domestic agenda. Powell attempted to maintain containment of Iraq at lower political cost to the US by impementing smart sanctions. He was blocked by France and Russia who wanted to drop sanctions completely.

Then came 9/11
The admin now faced several new factors
1. It was now shown that terror groups could manage things not before thought possible. The absence of conventional delivery systems for WMD capable of reaching North America was now of lesser relevance, irrespective of any direct Iraqi connection to Al Qaeeda
2. Teh administration reexamined evidence for Iraq - AL qaeeda connections - while the evidence was still sketchy, this was taken in light of the fact that all earlier evidence of AQ's intentions and capabilities had been sketchy
3. It was noted that terrorism DID have roots, but unlike foes of US policy, the admin identified these roots in the olitical situation in the Middle east, including anti-west fundamentalism directed by powers in Saudi, among other places
the US thus had a strategic imperative to do the following
A. Solve the pal problem
B. Solve the starving Iraqis problem
C. Begin democratization in the arab/muslim world
D. Gain leverage over states that support terrorism, including Saudi
All of these gained an urgency they did not have before 9/11.
For reasons that we can discuss, the admin saw regime change in Iraq as advancing ALL these issues,and thus as essential to the WOT, in addition to dealing with the issues in 1 and 2.

	28-02-2003 22:53									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ozz 9/11 and Saddam are not proven related. US international policy depends on the individual president? This has been building for years. Turkey - military occupation of N. Cyprus. (edit - wrong smilie)

Could you please cite the resolution for us??

	28-02-2003 23:16									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I don't think that these worthless missiles are even as good as the V2. The V2 had a range of 200 miles.

The Americans must have a copy of 'How to invent a casus belli, for idiots'.

	28-02-2003 23:26									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

The thing is, missles have agreed to destroy Hussein back.
NOW, we're onto something.

	28-02-2003 23:34									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I don't think that these worthless missiles are even as good as the V2. The V2 had a range of 200 miles. The Americans must have a copy of 'How to invent a casus belli, for idiots'.

mileage range is IIUC part of UN resolutions going back some years, it wasnt determined by the Bush Administration.

	28-02-2003 23:35									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of course, Saddam is stalling. Otherwise, he would have accepted the destruction of his Al-Samouds earlier. He accepted at the very last moment to make the Security Council feel awkward, by asking the question :
"is he ready to comply to the UN to avoid losing his head ?"

I'm sure the pro-peace countries feel the answer is yes. And I'm sure the pro-war countries feel the answer is no.

	28-02-2003 23:46									#59
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Of course, Saddam is stalling. Otherwise, he would have accepted the destruction of his Al-Samouds earlier. He accepted at the very last moment to make the Security Council feel awkward, by asking the question : "is he ready to comply to the UN to avoid losing his head ?" I'm sure the pro-peace countries feel the answer is yes. And I'm sure the pro-war countries feel the answer is no.

Spiff:
We note that Alain Juppe and others are expressing concern to maintain the Franco-american relationship. While I realize that Juppe and these others have not expressed views on Iraq that I share, i am heartened that there are some in France who are concerned with Atlanticism, who realize that the US is not the principle threat to peace, and that it is not worth damaging our relationship "to save a dictator"

	28-02-2003 23:59									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I'm sure the pro-peace countries feel the answer is yes. And I'm sure the pro-war countries feel the answer is no.

Just a quibble - those in US who support the admin on Iraq are not "pro-war". we long for peace. we feel that this war now, will advance the long term interests of peace. I realize that one might say that about many wars and be wrong, but i refuse to be tagged as less pro-peace than some whose actions i think have in many instances obstructed peace.