http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/3890339
Oh, look. Mustard gas, too.
Feb 10, 2003
So Iraq makes a good faith declaration of a prohibited missile program, and now that’s the best excuse we can come up with to justify an invasion ? That certainly puts the lie to Bush’s claim that he’s a man of peace who won’t invade if Saddam complies with 1441.
Then, why is the UN still conducting inspections? Why is there eagerness to hear the inspectors’ report tomorrow? BTW Jojo thinks that Iraq probably doesn’t have any WMDs. I suspect many others in the US and especially in Europe remain unconvinced of Saddam’s WMDs or unconvinced of the full extent of his WMDs.
ISTM that doubt about WMDs was the approved anti-war position not very long ago. Colin Powell’s speech pretty well vanquished that point. Now anti-war people have gone to the fallback position which you outlined.
However, the fallback is also unrealistic. Since when have liberals been isolationists? Wasn’t it right wing ignoramuses who could be expected to say, “We don’t care if Israelis, Turks, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaitis, Iranis get massacred with WMDs. They’re just a bunch of furriners!”
Furthermore, it’s wishful thinking to exclude Europe. North Korea has missiles that could reach the Western United States. Iraq either has missiles that can reach Europe or may soon have them.
If it is good enough for the UN to pass a second Resolutiuon, then it is good enough for me.
Because when the inspectors find things, they get destroyed. And because when the inspectors are poking around all over the place, Iraq has a very difficult time creating or acquiring more forbidden weapons. Thus, the goal of disarmament (which everybody shares) is served without going to war (a rather high priority of much of the world, including most of our closest allies).
::laugh my arse off::
Come off it. Iraq is not allowed to have missiles that have a range longer than 150km, and this one is something like 154km.
A good tail wind or a smaller payload could do it. :rolleyes:
This is an idea floated by some anti-war folks as a fallback position. However, it is not the UN’s reason for inspections. Resolution 1441 does not support this POV.
Sez you.
Tell us about UNSCR 1441, december. As I read the document, the intent for the inspection regime is to bring about the full and verified disarmament of Iraq.
Does it bother you at all that you’re citing the “discovery” of these missiles (prompted by disclosure from the Iraqi gov’t, according to Hans Blix) as a reason for abandoning the inspection regime, when it’s clearly a measure of the success of that regime?
Sez Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG, United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
why doesn’t the US do anything about North Korea?
shouldn’t the us invade north korea and oust the regime there?
doesn’t north korea have 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?
isn’t the president of north korea more wacko than saddam?
[quote]
(1) why doesn’t the US do anything about North Korea?
(2) shouldn’t the us invade north korea and oust the regime there?
(3) doesn’t north korea have 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?
(4) isn’t the president of north korea more wacko than saddam?(numbers mine)
[quote]
(1)This is the strangest argument that the morally opposed to any and all military action make. Kim Jong Il, and his father before him, have been squandering the limited resources of NK for a half century on the largest-per-capita land army in the world, in one of the hungriest countries in the world. They have a gigantic - offensively oriented - military within a few miles of the border and within a couple dozen miles of Seoul, SK. There will be little, or no, obvious signs of preparation if NK decides to invade SK, because the NK Army is always oriented in such a way as to be ready to invade the South.
Listen carefully: North Korea is what happens if you let really crazy dictators - no, not GWB, put down the Chomsky - abuse a whole nation to produce a war machine, including NBCW, to strike at its neighbors.
By comparison, if the US had 30 armored divisions poised to strike at Canada, and about, um, 30,000 artillery / rocket / SRM pieces ready to hit every major city near the border. Oh, that’s all of them? Canada hates us now. But, if South Korea is any indication, they would be very polite if we just flexed a little muscle. Defense spending might go up though.
Which brings up another issue: the Korean Peninsula is the most militarized area in the entire WORLD. Yes, India and Pakistan have huge forces arrayed near Kashmir, and so on. But, experts agree, the place with the greatest capacity for mayhem in the shortest period of time is the area around the “DMZ” - ha, ha - in Korea.
(2) This question indicates you need to reread the answer to one.
(3) Yes, a tragedy. Now explain why it is a good idea to allow dictators like Saddam and KJI to possess nukes?
(4) Probably, yes. Wacko, with nukes, commanding a huge offensive army within a half hour tank drive of Seoul.
OK, solve the problem of aggressive nuclear armed Korean Stalinist dictators poised to invade or pan-Arab Stalinist dictators with biological and chemical weapons. What should we do?
The cooperation that comes from the barrel of a gun. Now, if we just keep the forces positioned for a few years.
Excellent idea, Beagle, except I’d recommend reducing the forces by at least half and setting up duty rotations.
If necessary, that’s exactly what we should do. The fact that credible threats are required to get him to comply doesn’t justify war.
Just like any law enforcement situation, the only morally defensible use of force is the minimum use of force. You can’t shoot a perp for any act of resistance. You can only shoot when the perp actually threatens the life of the officer. Iraq is no threat to the US, and no threat to the UN.
Now if there actually were an imminent threat to the USA from Iraq, than this wouldn’t be a police situation, and we would be justified in a preemptive strike. Saddam bears watching, but he is laughably far from being a threat to the USA at this point.
Which is why I just have to laugh whenever Sam comes running to tell us about yet another violation of UN regs. So what? As Minty pointed out we know there are at least a few prohibited weapons in Iraq. The fact of those weapons has never been a justification for war in an of itself.
Sam finds another gun. But, like all of the other guns, this one is not only not smoking. It’s not even loaded.
Here’s a hint Sam: more unloaded guns isn’t going to convince anyone. Find an actual, present day, credible threat to the US. OR get the UN to decide that war is the only way to enforce their edicts in Iraq. Either one will do, but nothing else will convince us law-and-order types to go to war at this time.
As I said, as Saddam plays along it would be foolish to rush into offensive operations. If the inspectors can make real - that is certainly debatable - progress, let them continue. In the case of missiles being turned over, that is real progress. I wonder how long a force stays credible to Saddam? Will only three carrier groups get substantial compliance? How about six for enthusiastic?
Oh, since this is a UN thing, I’m sure nobody minds if we send y’all the tab, right?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756987.stm
So, two different classes of missiles, that have too large a diameter (Can carry a larger warhead), that can travel too far, that are powered by a disallowed engine, that can be upgraded to a more powerful engine to travel even further.
Noted by Blix, pointed out by Powell, and then admitted to by Iraq.
So… look! Blatantly illegal object! Designed, tested, and built post-war.
Plus the chem warheads and the mustard gas.
It’s
Uh-oh. When I read this part, I realized maybe I’d been duped. I question the actual compliance the Russians are touting.
OK, seven carrier groups and some strikes on key Iraqi military targets. We’ll send an invoice.
Yeah, because look how well that worked in Beirut.