Missile Destruction "Unacceptable"



Is this the proof America needs that Saddam isn't cooperating to disarm?

More like the latest in a long list...

What confuses me is why the UN has yet to demand their destruction. Besides the argument that they are "only a few miles above the limit" which makes the "limit" very difficult to take seriously...

Nothing the UN does, or doesn't do, surprises me.

I never had respect for the UN, respect must be earned. I did have hope though.

Now, even the hope is gone.

I think saddam needs to hand over the missles or lead the inspectors to all of the sites with it, and allowit t be destroyed.If they dont they should face military action with the US no matter of protest or not. Need i remind you people didn't want to go to war with al-quada urging fo peace, this is just pre-war jiters

Who is this "you people"?

AD wasn't around when we began our military action in Afghanistan.

I think he meant: "need I remind you, people..."

Another source of amazement, who gave Iraq the idea they could call destruction of illegal weapons unacceptable? Didn't they accept just that twelve years ago?
It's amazing they think they are still in a position to make ridiculous demands.

NO NO i mean the people of america...

More questions. How does this factor into Iraq's "cooperation" with the UN?
It pretty much blows away the notion that they are interested in disarmament.

How about if Iraq put NASCAR style restrictor plates on those missiles and brought them back a few miles inside the limits?

Eeyore:
I don't believe the resolution call for either altering banned weapons or negotiating terms with the UN.
Besides, I don't believe Iraq is proposing that. It's too busy calling enforcing the resolutions "unacceptable".

Shoot, once again NASCAR fails to provide the path to world peace.

Please debate this topic seriously.

...and the beat goes on.

The violations continue and the UN fails to act. But asks for more time. To discover even more violations. So they can fail to act again. On and on and on......

This whole charade is coming to an end soon. There will be one last ploy by Saddam though. He will try to lure Kofi Anan to Iraq around March 1st. He might even attempt to include Jimmy Carter. Last minute saviors and all that.

I don't think Anan will fall for it, but I do think Carter's ego and naivete make him a perfect dupe.

Stay tuned.....

Apparently Blix has given Iraq a March 1st deadline to destroy the missiles. It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.

Will an Iraqi refusal aid the case against Iraq? And more importantly, will the U.N. back a new proposed resolution on Iraq should it refuse?

I think it will

But i really think, knowing Saddam, he will either wait until the last day to do it (destroy his missiles) or he'll just say no & the US will have it's proof that Saddam doesn't care




Oh definetly. If they didn't, that would be proof that they are irrelevent & World Opinion of the Security Council & possibly the UN would drop like a brick

and which country are you talking about here? Iraq? Turkey? Israel? Morocco? Us?

the Bush administration won't consider Saddam disarmed until he has no weapons what so ever. why should Saddam disarm anyway, does deterrence not work? if so Americans have been scammed for several trillion dollars. Saddam would not use his WMDs, if he did, he would get nuked back to the stone age. (that kept Stalin and Mao from ever using nukes) also, warn him that if he sells WMD to terrorist and they are used, Saddam would be punished as well. I can guarantee Saddam wouldn't use his WMDs.

Deterrance has never worked 100% Otherwise we would never have any wars/attacks


How?

bush has already said that any group that use WMDs on America would be retaliated against with nuclear weapons, and if it were a terrorist group, that the country that provided the WMDs to the terrorists would pay.

if Saddam were to get, say a nuke, were he to use it against America or an ally (specifically Israel) he would nuked back to the stone age, thus keeping him from using them. he knows using any WMD would result in his removal from power, and he will do what it takes to retain his power, including refraining from using nukes. he also would not sell WMDs to any terrorist, because if they were traced back to him (and it is likely they would be) he would get removed from power as well, which he wants to avoid.

I would say that this was the last chance for Saddam to disarm. He signed the treaty at the end of the Gulf War that banned missles with a range greater than 90 miles. Now he has a stock pile of missles that leave that agreed upon range and won't rid himself of them. C'mon...what more evidence do people need. A new resolution needs to be voted on or else it is time for the United States and it's current allies to disarm Iraq alone.

He better get rid of them. He has until March 1st to do so or face consequences.



That's the problem...they don't like the evidence.

Some people think that a dozen undeclared chemical warheads (without the chemicals), missing anthrax & Vx gas, & an old declaration is not enough to put saddam to sleep

Based on the reply from Aziz that Iraq will not destroy the missiles on the basis that the need them for protection will not go far with the inspectors. Lets also note that just having these missiles puts Iraq in "Material Breach". We are not talking just a couple of missiles they have found over 100 missiles. In my opinion its time for a complete and utter dismantling of all the Iraqi military and its dictatorship government.
Oh bytheway hello everyone I am glad to be here and GOD BLESS AMERICA

Saddam can have them as defensive use but he must keep them out of a certain area but since he tested them outside the range limit he was allowed by the United Nations at the end of the Gulf War, he has to destroy them

I believe the whole basis is that they, (Iraq) agreed to disarm and they aren't.

I really wonder if all the peace rallies here in the past couple of weeks has raised Iraq's beligerence levels.

If Iraq can ignore their own committments and get away with it, then why not?

If the UN members who are so opposed to war just use the threat of a military solution, then maybe we'll see Iraq do a 180 degree turn.....maybe.

IMO, Iraq just seems to be the proverbial playground bully with a glass jaw.

Seeing as this has to do with the topic at hand, i am posting the following:

Saddam won't give em up



A few paragraphs talk about Saddam challenging Bush to a debate but that is a different thread all together

After a few paragraphs, it talks more about the missiles

It appears via Dan Rather's interview, Saddam is still disinterested in disarming. I found it interesting that Saddam asked Rather how the American people felt about possible military action. Mr. Rather stated that the American people were behind the President and Saddam responded, "but that's changing."

About a week ago, I was watching the news and one of Saddam's men was being interviewed. He indicated that he has access to US news and was encouraged to see Americans protesting in Iraq's favor.

I wonder if these protestors understand that this is how Saddam and bin Laden see their actions?

I think if the Iraqi people could tell those protestors how they truly feel about their protesting, they would say something along the lines of...

Not In Our Name!!!

beladonna - did you get a special preview of this interview? CBS is not scheduled to air it until tonight 60 Minutes II - Tonight

No Jaime. I watched a segment on the news this morning analyzing the interview.

I find it appalling that you would suggest that someone's opinion should be affected by this. I believe what I believe in for reasons that have nothing to do with the goals or desires of the Iraqy government/military. If they like what they see, fine. I know I'm not doing it for them.

"I can guarantee Saddam wouldn't use his WMDs. .."

Hopefully I won't embarrass myself too badly in my first post here, but that statement appears to be not as far from the truth as some may think.

Obviously, there are no garauntees in life, and when Saddam is involved, the odds decrease significantly. with that being said, there are four reasons why that statement would be true versus none of why it's not true.

First, Saddam is not suicidal. He's proved that by meekly attempting to work with the UN.

Second, as stated previously, he knows they would probably get nuked into the stone age. As ineffective as chem and bio weapons are (in the larger scheme of things), along with the extraordinary steps we are taking to protect our armed forces from them (protective gear, etc), our losses would be minimal. There is virtually no gain for him.

Third, he will have a tough time getting sympathy from the world if he "proves" Bush is right.

Fourth, he's never used them outside of the 10-12 instances during the Iran/Iraq war. When we were supplying him the precursors for this stuff, he was fighting off invasions from the Iranians. Unfortunatly, the Kurds got caught in a lot of it on 3 different occasions. The biggest incident at Halaja (or whereever the heck it was) is in dispuate as to who really gassed them. According to a US Army War College report submitted to the Pentagon, the Iranians actually did it.

In any case, during Gulf War I, Saddam never used them even though it looked like the ground war was going to overrun Bagdad. No scuds contained chemicals when launched at Israel.

Does this make him a nice guy? Of course not. But there is indication he is predisposed to attack anybody with WMD because there never has been a trend of that.

Saddam had 12 years when nobody was looking to sell WMD to terrorists and they used box cutters instead.

One could hardly assert that Saddam is working meekly with the UN. After actively hiding weapons, kicking out weapons inspections, allowing them back in only after the threat of regime change (Desert Fox wasn't enough), continuing to smuggle weapons and oil in violation of sanctions, claiming never to have had WMD's ,and calling destruction of banned weapons "unacceptable",etc.

Attempting to work with the UN?!

Assuming what Saddam will or will not do with illegal weapons is pointless. He can sell them, which a risk the world need not take.

I thought I read somewhere that these missles did not have a range that take them too far if they were loaded with a warhead. Meaning, with typical weight on them, they can't go as far.

If that's the case (and who knows?), then Iraq would be well in it's right to hold them.

Obviously, they are of no use against us. But we're not Iraq's only enemy. If Iran decided to take advantage of this situation since Iraq has become completely disarmed (versus disarmed of WMD weaponry), they'd have an easy time. And the same for anybody else.

You are correct

but since it violated the limit, than it has to be destroyed.

"Assuming what Saddam will or will not do with illegal weapons is pointless. He can sell them, which a risk the world need not take..."

Nobody could disagree with that. But why Iraq?

Why would anybody go to Iraq to get WMD when they can go to 5 other countries and get them much easier? Iraq couldn't ship a can of tuna out of the country without the world knowing. Terrorists would go to Korea, Iran, and Libya to get their stuff just like everybody else.

But if you want to talk about the ability to supply terrorists, why not tackle Russia first? The key suppliers of WMD technology are Russia, Korea, China, and Iran (and I think a couple others, but Iraq is NOT one of them according to the CIA).

The world is full of brutal dictators and if my numbers are correct, there's roughly 1.6 billion Muslims that hate us. ANY arab country could do what you suggest. Iraq would have the toughest time right now.

This is a dangerous misconception. There may be 1.6 billion Muslims, but I've never seen a shred of evidence that they all hate America/The West.

(Just thought that it was worth mentioning and didn't merit it's own thread.)

when has he ever kicked weapons inspectors out? UNSCOM left because Clinton was planning on launching crush missiles into Iraq (operation: desert fox) interview with former UNSCOM inspector Ritter http://www.empoweramerica.org/stories/stor...Reader$678 (third paragraph) http://www.get-tuff.com/Breaking/sept-02/br-12.html (the end)

Scott Ritter said the inspectors found and destroyed 90-95% of Iraqs WMDs (from the initial amount Iraq had) the other 5-10% percent were likely destroyed in the gulf war (the original story about the cause of gulf war syndrome was soldiers were downwind from labs when they were bombed)

I will admit that Iraq MIGHT have WMDs if people saying they do will admit that Iraq MIGHT NOT have them.

Scott Ritter, in 1998 when Inspectors were kicked out, he said to the UN security Council that Iraq had not fully disarmed & still had WMD but in Sept of 2002, he changed his statement, saying Iraq DID NOT have WMD. Of course, he was in Baghdad when he made this statement

Make up your mind Scott

Scott Ritter claimed they had destroyed 95% of his WMD.

Weaponized chemicals have a shelf life of 5 years and weaponized bios about 3 years. So, since he left, the remaining 5% has probably died.

But, there is no doubt (even without proof) that Saddam has WMD still. I just don't think he can produce this stuff on a scale everyone is afraid of. All the resources it would take to supply and replenish a facility (or facilities) like that would be fairly obvious to our intelligence.

I mean, Powell released proof of a chemical weapons lab that was some busted up building with no electricity or running water. For the sake of argument, let's say the lab was legit. Well, the US knew about it.

So, the US has given the inspectors their "hitlist" of labs, production facilities, et al. And every "lead" has been bogus. My conclusion is (right or wrong) that Saddam is probably trying to develop some WMD, but doesn't have the resources to make it any kind of effective tool.

For all intents and purposes, I believe Scott Ritter is correct.

No one is worried that Iraq's WMD can be direct military threat, but experience has shown us that small amounts of these weapons can be devastating when used for terrorism.
ex. Sarin gas attack in Japan in '95

All the more reason for the UN to follow through with his disarmament.

POINT OF INFORMATION: Unabomber is quite right. This is one of the biggest lies regarding Iraq to emerge in the past decade or so - and it has been repeated by everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to Bob Woodward.

SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT EXPEL THE UN INSPECTORS. Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with the inspectors leaving. NOTHING. This is not a matter of Scott Ritter's opinion - or anyone else's - it's a matter of historical record. Unscom head Richard Butler withdrew the inspectors in December 1998 just before "Operation Desert Fox". They were withdrawn to protect them from the United States' blitz. 1998 was only five years ago, folks. Do you people not remember this? Or are you all fairly new to current events? If you were following the news then, have you too succumbed to the propaganda campaign which has been in effect since about January 2001? Or, like our cowed media, are you also afraid to remind people of the truth?

Similarly, Iraq's suggestion that they MIGHT resist destroying the rest of their (unarmed) missiles has already become - well, the title of this thread.

Not exactly...



So yes, Iraq did kick out weapons inspectors...

What you are thinking of is the incident in '98. In which inspectors were withdrawn after...



Timeline of the Iraqi crisis

Two different incidents...

I might add that in Turnea's link the timeline says:

Oct. 31st, 1998: Iraq says it has ceased all cooperations with weapons inspectors & monitoring

And as a result:

Dec. 11, 1998: UN orders inspectors out of Iraq & hours later, bombing begins

So basically Iraq was the cause of the inspectors leaving

Turnea: My apologies. You are quiet right. The inspectors were expelled a year before their final removal - and allowed to return three weeks later. I was obviously referring to the removal of the inspectors which resulted in the four-year hiatus, not the three week pause.

One note on the December 16, 1998, BBC report: This is largely a matter of spin. Richard Butler's report claimed, in part, that Iraq was obstructing inspections (in fact, claiming that requested documents had already been turned over) and the decision to withdraw inspectors was entirely his; the BBC correspondent, Jeremy Cooke, reported that it appeared "the ground is being cleared for possible airstrikes by Britain and the United States"; Tariq Aziz claimed that Butler's report was full of lies and designed to justify military strikes on Baghdad.

GA: Whoa - I'm surprised you're not dizzy with that spin. Your "And as a result" has no foundation. Six weeks after the October 31, 1998, report, UN inspectors were still inspecting. Your "hours later" is also a bit off. If you're referring to the withdrawal of non-essential staff on November 11, you're off by more than a month. If you're referring to something which happened on December 11 (as you state), but which does not appear in the BBC timeline to which you refer, you're still off by five days. The bombing began on December 16, which was, indeed, hours after the inspectors were pulled out. Your "Iraq was the cause of the inspectors leaving" is nonsense. The British and US bombing campaign was the cause of the inspectors leaving - though, granted, Iraq's alleged non-cooperation was the justification for the bombing.

For what it's worth, I was just as opposed to Clinton's "Operation Desert Fox" as I am to Bush's "Operation Infinite Folly" or whatever the current palatable euphemism for "Operation Murder and Mutilation of Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Iraqis" is.

It is exactly the sort of war rhetoric that you're using to characterize Richard Butler's removal of UN inspectors as somehow Hussein expelling those inspectors that you used to initiate this thread with your highly prejudicial "refuses to disarm". Why are you so eager to find excuses for all this bloodshed, GA?

Edited to correct spelling error not caught by Spell Check

Just curious, what is your euphemism for Saddam's Murder and Mutilation of Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Iraqis?

No euphemism. I believe in calling spades spades - whether they're Iraqi or American. I do not, however, believe in matching atrocity with atrocity.

Do you have a source, btw, for Hussein murdering and/or mutilating "hundreds of thousands" if Iraqis?

Some facts are so uncontrovertible they need no source.

Besides, sources have been nothing more than
basketballs for you, spinning them on your fingertips.

I also find it ironic that someone who uses a phrase to 'predict' an event asks for 'sources' when that phrase is thrown back at him.

Pretty awkward evasion there, Mr. Middle.


Usually this sort of charge would be backed up by at leat one reference - but, then, providing foundation for any of your claims is not really your style, is it? Derogation, dismissal, generalization, and insult tends to be your idiom. Facts be damned, right?


I have no idea what you're going on about here, but - please - there is absolutely no reason to attempt to enlighten me further. You've already demonstrated that you are incapable - and, if history is any guide, your response would be off topic anyway.

Linking to news reports from virtually every news source for the past 15 years or so would be a bit tedious. Besides, then you'd want to quibble over Hussein's body count.



How about 3 off the top of my head?

1--You 'sourced' that SH was considering destroying the Salmoud missiles. This was the day after Blix called for it. At that time, SH had said no such thing and your source proved it. I called you on it then and remind you of it now.

2--You 'sourced' a global strategy and claimed that it was the strategy of the President. That was and is a lie. I called you on it then and I remind you of it now.

3--You challenged an accurate post regarding the expulsion of UN inspectors and attempted to re-write history with your 'sourcing'. You were proven wrong. You were called on it then and I remind you of it now.




Your phrase, Bush's"Operation Murder and Mutilation of Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Iraqis". As the Prince of Sourcing, maybe you could guide us to your mount as we seem to have missed this event.

You have a 3-prong strategy when posting and it is intellectually dishonest (I'm being very PC here).

1-- When someone disagrees with your leftist view you scream "source, source!"
2--You misrepresent sources to suit your view.
3--And when all else fails you cry 'off-topic off-topic'.

I only cry "off topic" when your posts are off topic - as was your last one in its entirety. Off topic postings are violations of the quidelines here, Middle. I would gladly respond to your distortions and lies, if they were worthy of dignifying, but that would also be off topic. I attempt to respect the rules and guidelines of this forum. You, demonstrably, do not. Trust me, in an unmoderated forum I would have no problem reducing you to a jelly - you are hardly a heavyweight when it comes to debate or abuse. At America's Debate, though, rigorous argument is preferred over personal attack. Your smear tactics are out of place.