New weapons in Iraq... Tic.. Toc.. Tic.. Toc....

[rhino 0]

My brain hurts.. lol

[rhino 0]

Quote

once he has some that is closer to 6,000 miles, I'll start to worry.

o.k. lets sit back and wait until he does..

NOT!! lol

Rhino

[Tasadin 0]

One of my best m8's is working intel in the gulf atm, and he was back here for a couple a weeks about a fortnight ago and having sat down and shot the shit with him over a couple of beers just befroe he went back out I have seen the light!! Further I posted this elsewhere, but the bottom line is that 1441 was THE line drawn in the sand by the UN and was agreed on by Russia, france and the others that are dithering atm, so how many more lines do we need to draw and let him step over before everyone finally decides he is guilty. I dont necessarily want war but this cat and mouse game has to finish, 1441 clearly stated that material breach would enable force to allow disarmament, however it is only because certain countries have vested interests that they continue to oppose the process which is already in place thro 1441. There isnt a need for a second resolution, it is only being sought to keep the international community happy.

Quote

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Al samud missiles!

Quote

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

So technically the cease fire was anulled when he ejected the inspectors!

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

I hate to cut and paste but its there, he is in material breach of the line drawn so how many more resolutions, lines or will the anti-war lobby finally come on side when the next terror attack on US/uk/european soil is a bio/chem attack and the weapon components are traced to Iraq.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and I think those against war have probably made a lot of generals think many times exactly how to undertake this venture to minimise the casualties, but you cannot make an omlete without breaking eggs. I suppose maybe we should hope that SH takes the 72 hr exile deal being brokered by the Pope!!

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[flyingferret 0]

Gawain thanks for the sensible link. I truly dont understand why every is so opposed to this. Ask 3 questions:

1. Did the UN pass resolution 1441 with a description of force to enforce it?
2. Has Iraq broken it?
3. Will all UN credibility disolve if they do not follow their own resolution?

Unless you are an ostrich in the sand, all of these answers are yes. If the most peaceful of persons has to admit that the more news that comes out further implicates the disregard for 1441. Bill: THINK, MAN! This nation is testing/have tested a delivery platform for chem/bio weapons? Do you want those at his discretion? The world already decided no. It simply a matter of following a resolution already passed. We do not follow it, all future UN resolutions are worthless.

As for the french, I dont think they are scared, it is just their own interests. I would bet that as we march into Iraq, we are gonna find a lot of things labeled "Made in France/Germany/Russia"

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I suppose maybe we should hope that SH takes the 72 hr exile deal being brokered by the Pope!! "

See Rhino, the Pope is not such a bad guy after all.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[wildblue 7]

Quote

Quote

once he has some that is closer to 6,000 miles, I'll start to worry.

o.k. lets sit back and wait until he does..

NOT!! lol

Yes, I was trying to say we should wait until he does
I'd like to think out intelligence agencies would know long before he actually had something like that operational. Not to mention, something like an ICBM would be a hair trickier to hide than a handful of scuds. And if you really think that's his intent, I'm sure he could have already had a few ready to go by now.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[airtwardo 7]

Somber thought...
I have a close friend that is flying commecical chatrers with millitary on board to the mid-east.
This weekend several medic / MASH type units were on board...
In the hold among other things were 5000lbs. of nerve agent anti-toxins...8000lbs. of ammo...10,000lbs of body bags.
Kind puts thing a bit in perspective.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Tasadin 0]

Problem is wild blue he doesnt need an ICBM to be a threat. regional instability and his who cares attitude, if you have the money you can have it are going to cause you just as many problems whether ur just down the street from one of his palaces or 12,000 miles away.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[mnischalke 0]

Damn man, I got your point!

Thought it was deja vu.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

In the hold among other things were 5000lbs. of nerve agent anti-toxins...8000lbs. of ammo...10,000lbs of body bags.
Kind puts thing a bit in perspective.

that equals about 2,000 Body bags, and 20,000 anti-toxin kits... not as ominous as the weights would lead someone to think.

Josh

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[peppermint 0]

An odd story to reference, but entertaining nonetheless.

The flowing wave returns not, nor does the passing hour.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I dont necessarily want war but this cat and mouse game has to finish,

Ok...why? What is going to happen while the inspectors are there actively insuring that he disarms? Please explain to me what the rush is? If we don't attack on 3/17 what happens on 3/18? The inspectors are making progress. No, it's not as fast as ideal, and no, Saddam isn't being cooperative. But who fucking cares? They're getting the job done. I don't care how slow it is, it's getting done without bloodshed, and that's the most important part.

Why the hell are we so concerned about WMD? Because we don't want people killed. So what do we plan to do? Kill people (including our own soldiers). It just doesn't make any fucking sense!!!

Let the inspectors do their job. If it comes to a point where they are making zero progress, or we find out there is an EMMINENT threat from Iraq, fine, than we can attack. But what the hell is the rush???? Someone please explain that to me.

[Tasadin 0]

Whats the rush?? Well the rush is that summer's coming for one, which assuming we ended up with an even more smoking gunthan we have now it make war difficult to say the least, and thus we would either have to do it and risk more of our own casualties or wait til the backend of the year and let him be more prepared. This is a samll side argument as far as the military are concerned.

The main argument I suppose is that, as has been proven in the past he will just keep pissing around the inspectors, and eventually boot them from the country having not really acheived anything. He wil then continue with the programmes he has in place now and we'll be in the same boat all over again in another 10 yrs and no progress on disarmamaent will be made. I put it to you that the only reason we discovered the Al Samud missiles was that he needed to offer something to the UN to swing suppport in his direction otherwise Blix latest report would have paved the way for war with no questions, as it was he had to re-write it at the last minute.

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."

[wildblue 7]

Quote

regional instability and his who cares attitude

Ok... and? We're the ones causing "regional instability" Let his neighbors deal with him. If his neighbors want our help, they can ask. Maybe we can save their asses and they can pay us back in oil. I'm tired of this country being the world's policeman. What? We need to feel important? When we want a big military, it's to protect ourselves and the people of the world. When some idiot running a country with a population almost equivilant to Texas wants a large army, it's because he's evil and wants to rule the world, and we should go kill a shitload of them before they get the first strike in.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The main argument I suppose is that, as has been proven in the past he will just keep pissing around the inspectors, and eventually boot them from the country having not really acheived anything.

Fine, attack when he boots out the inspectors. But as of today, right now, they are destroying his weapons. Who cares if he's only giving up some at a time. We'll eventually get all of them. But if progress stops, we can attack at that point.

I don't want a repeat of what happened in the 90s either. As soon as progress stops, fine, we're justified in attacking. But while we're making progress, I just don't see the reason.

[billvon 3,008]

>So technically the cease fire was anulled when he ejected the inspectors!

He did not eject them; the UN pulled them out because we were threatening retaliation.

"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

[billvon 3,008]

>The world already decided no. It simply a matter of following a
> resolution already passed. We do not follow it, all future UN
> resolutions are worthless.

I agree. So pass a resolution authorizing force by X date if A, B and C are not done. We will then fulfill our obligations under 1441 - the "serious consequence" (impending war) will come to be.

[flyingferret 0]

Well, I have not read the entire resolution, but I was under the impression that that is exactly what 1441 did.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,008]

>Well, I have not read the entire resolution, but I was under the
> impression that that is exactly what 1441 did.

1441 called for "serious consequences" if he did not comply. Clearly no one agrees on what that means. Another resolution that spells it out and gives a date will end the bickering, give Hussein an ultimatum (he never does anything until the last minute) and unite the world behind his disarmament (or his demise if he chooses not to disarm, which is what will probably happen.)

[flyingferret 0]

And how long do you think that would take to pass?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[billvon 3,008]

>And how long do you think that would take to pass?

I don't know. Like the US legislature, you never know who's going to cooperate and who isn't, what deals work and what doesn't. It's a price we pay for democracy. Since we make a big stink about spreading democracy throughout the world, you would think we'd support it in the most important forum on world peace there is.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I agree. So pass a resolution authorizing force by X date if A, B and C are not done. We will then fulfill our obligations under 1441 - the "serious consequence" (impending war) will come to be.

Bill, while I don't agree with that, I will point out that France, Germany and Russia are opposed to this idea as well -- Why?

Not to mention the fact that we shouldn't need to resolve to resolve to resolve to further resolve. 18 resolutions. EIGHTEEN. Eight plus ten. Twenty minus two. This whole deal should have been done with ONE RESOLUTION -- Unforunately, that one resolution restrained the coalition in 1991 from getting rid of Saddam.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,008]

>Bill, while I don't agree with that, I will point out that France,
>Germany and Russia are opposed to this idea as well -- Why?

I think because they dislike the wording of the resolution. So compromise. Get what we want while giving up that which we don't care much about - that's the art of diplomacy.

>Not to mention the fact that we shouldn't need to resolve to resolve
> to resolve to further resolve. 18 resolutions. EIGHTEEN. Eight plus
> ten. Twenty minus two. This whole deal should have been done with
> ONE RESOLUTION -- Unforunately, that one resolution restrained the
> coalition in 1991 from getting rid of Saddam.

How many laws here in the US do we have against fraud? If we have dozens, does that mean we don't need any more? And if a new kind of electronic fraud shows up, do we just throw up our hands and say "hey, we got 26 laws on fraud, no need for any new ones?"

We pass resolutions to make it clear the intent of the UN. "Serious consequences" is unclear. Another resolution will make it clear. And if we pass another weasel worded resolution, shame on us.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

And if we pass another weasel worded resolution, shame on us.

Shame on us for not doing it right the first time. We allowed them to weasel in the "serious consequences" into 1441. We should have stood our ground then.

Some feel the current gun laws are enough and that we don't need any more. They would argue that enforcement of the current laws is what is needed rather than unfunded mandates. I happen to agree.

Chris

[flyingferret 0]

Exactly we backed down 12 years ago instead of using the words "smite thee" Well lots of gratitude they have shown, huh? Seriously, do you really think that Saddam does not know what was intending by 'serious consequences'? And dont you think he also sees the ambiquity that we are fighting over? The laugh is at the world's expense. Bill if you gave Bush as much benefit of the doubt as you give Saddam he could be a patron saint.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.