Iraq to destroy missiles

[Tarkus]

Now, that's a surprise.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79763,00.html

Tarkus

[edm]

yup, and not to start anything, but it's annoying how the rest of the World will view this as Saddam's compliance to the UN Wake up people..

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by edm
yup, and not to start anything, but it's annoying how the rest of the World will view this as Saddam's compliance to the UN Wake up people..

That was exactly my contention.

Tarkus

[Taur]

What is up with you people? Does the Whitehouse really think the American people have that short of memory?

A week ago President Bush went live to the nation during primetime and preached about these stupid missiles. "Non compliance is noncompliance no matter if it is just a few miles or a thousand miles." He went on for about an hour about these missiles and then the news stations took over and went on for another 30 minutes about these damn missiles. Now, a week later the Whitehouse is trying to spin that they never said these Missiles were that important.


FLASHBACK---Does anybody rember when the last president interupted primetime viewing to make his case to the nation that he was not having sexual relations with an intern in the whitehouse? Then a week later the Whitehouse came out and tried to spin the word "SEX"

Just how stupid do they think the American people are? If these missiles are destroyed today the War Monger Bush won't have a leg to stand on. MR. President you called out Sadam on these stupid Missiles now you are going to have to eat crow IF he follows through on YOUR plan.

[oykib]

This is the Bushies worst Nightmare. The problem is that they had to have seen this coming. But they still seem like they have been caught with their pants down.

[ACStrider]

Another empty promise that Saddam doesn't intend to keep. Jeez, you would think he has Bill Clinton as a spokesman or something. Just go in and get rid of him like you should have done half a year ago, Bush. You have all the support you need enough talk, let's do this and get it over with.

[Tasan]

What he stands on is the FACT that these missiles were just the latest violation, even if they were destroyed now, its still a violation. He still has not accounted for stockpiles of nerve and other gases which he admitted to having in the early '90s, but has not said where they are now. That is the biggest thing causing worry. Do you people understand that? That is the main material breach, but nobody wants to even discuss that because they can't FIND them as he's hiding it on his bases he won't even let inspectors in. Do you people realize that he doesn't even let inspectors into about 90% of areas that someone would actually store these kinds of weapons?

[Easy Mac]

But if we could FIND the trucks "moving" things from the compounds, surely our sattelites could constantly track them, right? I'm not saying the missiles don't exist, b/c surely they do. But isn't it just as much our fault if we don't find them.

And if there are underground bunkers, as we claim (and there probably are), wouldn't we have noticed over the years insanes amount of dirt leaving specific areas? Surely we could point to those places and say, hmmm, something must be happening there. Or do our sattelites really suck badly?

[Dutch]

But if we could FIND the trucks "moving" things from the compounds, surely our sattelites could constantly track them, right? I'm not saying the missiles don't exist, b/c surely they do. But isn't it just as much our fault if we don't find them.

hehe....actually, you can't just "drive" satellites around in space. You can, a little bit, but for the most part, every 4 hours or so, there is a window of a few minutes to take your photo's and then wait for 4 more hours.

The only way we can actually "prove" they have what the U.N. has claimed they have had for 12 years is to take control of the country and search it. The only other way is for Hussein to implement the use of these hidden stockpiles. However, we also know that Hussein will not implement these weapons, he will have his operatives use them. Operatives that cannot be traced back to him.

You make this sound so easy to make your point. But if the world can't stop drug lords in South America or any of the world's mafia's, why do you insist that an entire regime can be stopped so easily?

So you can bitch, I presume.

[Joe Canadian]

Why do I think that if Sadaam "magicly" agreed to give up every bomb/weapon he has the US politicians would still make a case for a war. Thats a bit of an exageration, but you can get what I am saying.

I don't understand the logic Bush is using... He wants compliance with the UN "rules" but when he gets it, it is used as evidence of how they aren't compling with the UN... I realize Sadaam is trying to put things off as long as possible, but it seems like Bush is turning into a walking contradiction. One minute these missles are REALLY important, the next minute... not so important.

[Dutch]

Why do I think that if Sadaam "magicly" agreed to give up every bomb/weapon he has the US politicians would still make a case for a war.

Because you believe that if we do not overthrow Saddam, that there will be peace. I wish that were true, but it wasn't the case prior to US politicians deciding enough is enough, why would it be now? How many people does Saddam have to kill before we understand he has to go? He's killed 2 million people with his horrendous political agenda and that's not made up.

Thats a bit of an exageration, but you can get what I am saying.

It's fair to distrust politicians. But if Saddam were the focal point of your distrust, you would probably understand better why such a vast majority of governments on this planet agree he and his regime need to go away.

I don't understand the logic Bush is using... He wants compliance with the UN "rules" but when he gets it, it is used as evidence of how they aren't compling with the UN...

I didn't realize Saddam has complied with the U.N.! That's a news break I missed! Seriously though, he destroyed 4 missles...that's not complying...that's leading the U.N. on...

I realize Sadaam is trying to put things off as long as possible, but it seems like Bush is turning into a walking contradiction. One minute these missles are REALLY important, the next minute... not so important.

They are important, but the greater message is clear. Destroy your WMD before UN inspectors and comply with the terms of the 1991 cease fire and the 17 U.N. resolutions placed before Iraq.

He destroyed 4 missles on a day when Hans Blix spoke and the Turkish Parliament were voting to open a 2nd front for UN and/or US troops. That's not complying...that's teasing those eager to be teased.

When the threat of war goes away, so do Saddam's "cooperative tactics". That's what Bush has been saying all along, and Clinton before him, actually.

[ACStrider]

Hey Joe,
I think I'm with you on that point. The problems started when Bush decided to go with resolution number 17 which requires number 18 for any consequences to result. All it really should have taken was a message to the U.N...."Hussein's never lived up to his word, here's our evidence, let's take him out and consider this our invitation. We'll go it alone if we have to but you're more then welcome to be a part." On the one hand, I do see it as a bit difficult for Saddam to look like he's complying no matter what he does. On the other, he hasn't been forthcoming about ANYTHING until after the fact (does a number on credibility if you ask me).

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
Why do I think that if Sadaam "magicly" agreed to give up every bomb/weapon he has the US politicians would still make a case for a war. Thats a bit of an exageration, but you can get what I am saying.

I don't understand the logic Bush is using... He wants compliance with the UN "rules" but when he gets it, it is used as evidence of how they aren't compling with the UN... I realize Sadaam is trying to put things off as long as possible, but it seems like Bush is turning into a walking contradiction. One minute these missles are REALLY important, the next minute... not so important.

So do you think that those handful of missiles are about all we have to worry about? Blix wants to avoid war. He wants Saddam to make a token disarmament to buy himself more time. If Saddam had his druthers, I bet he'd cling to every missile he has and destroy nothing. But since these were found, I guess they'd better go.

I don't remember who said this, but someone recently made the point that if a man is aiming a gun at you and when you ask him to disarm he he takes one of the bullets out. Is this disarmament?

I think it's a sad day when the world gives more credibility to a murderous dictator than to the United States. Hey, I think we could be doing a better job of working with the international community, but come on . Saddam is a charlatan, and how long will the rest of the world watch his act and applaud?

[Joe Canadian]

I did not say I don't want Sadaam to go, I hate the B@stard too. In a perfect world we could just go in, pick him up, and starp him to the North Pole (you know the one that looks like a barber shop pole ) But this isn't a perfect world, and it is very hard to "take him out" without starting a war. I'll admit that... and in reality I know that more than likely there will be a war.

In saying that, I still do not support a war. I guess I'm not a violent kind of guy . I think there are other ways of resolving this situation without war... I have no idea what they are, but with all these "smart" people running the world, you'd think they could come up with a better solution than war. But hey thats just my opinion.

[The Afoci]

I think we should destroy some missles by ways of presidential palaces in Iraq. It would be our very own way of disarming

[Dutch]

In saying that, I still do not support a war. I guess I'm not a violent kind of guy .

That's not fair, Joe. I am not a violent guy either.

I think there are other ways of resolving this situation without war... I have no idea what they are, but with all these "smart" people running the world, you'd think they could come up with a better solution than war. But hey thats just my opinion.

I think history will prove that the US/UK/Aus with the assistance from Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Turkey and Bahrain did their best for 12 years. There have been plenty of opportunities for the world to come up with better ideas. However, I still insist, that if you can't stop drug lords in South America or Mafia's anywhere, without conflict, you can't stop rogue regimes....without conflict. Where has Hussein considered going into excile? Not until now, and certainly not until troops are on the ground in Iraq. That's the sad reality. If the world could solve this problem any other way, it would have been done by now.

And if anything, the government the "anti-war" crowd has been bashing the most had tried the most and spent the most in trying to come up with a more peaceful solution.

I've seen the US/UK/Aus alliance in action as I've spent a few years in neighboring countries of Iraq in '92 (I remember seeing a few French and Canadians back then), '95, and '01 to present. I haven't seen any effort from those who want to disarm Iraq peacefully besides the US, UK, and Australian governements. And these are the warmongers.

Everybody else that sat on their ass can say we are against peace? Closing our eyes to danger is the most dangerous thing you can do, isn't that right?

[cartman]

The French should know much better about attemps at containment. Wasn't their last effort at containment called the "Maginot Line"?

But before every conflict, there is a sizeable portion of people against a war. Even WW2. The US was firmly against joining, at least until Pearl Harbor. But once the battle gets going, the public gets behind the war. The exception was Vietnam, because that was a continual partial buildup that got out of control, and not a mass deployment like all other conflicts.

I think the main resistance from the rest of the world is not whether or not the war happens, it's who gets to earn the spoils of war in the aftermath. The US screwed over a lot of countries that contributed to the Gulf War. Almost all of the rebuilding contracts to rebuil Kuwait went to US companies. So now the countries that got screwed over, ie France and Germany, are publicy posturing against an invasion, while behind the scenes they are bargaining for a bigger piece of the rebuilding pie. When push comes to shove, they will join the war birds, just so they are not locked entirely out of the rebuilding picture. France has deployed an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, and I don't think it is there to try and stop 5 US Carrier Groups.

[Dutch]

Almost all of the rebuilding contracts to rebuil Kuwait went to US companies. So now the countries that got screwed over, ie France and Germany, are publicy posturing against an invasion, while behind the scenes they are bargaining for a bigger piece of the rebuilding pie.

If France and Germany want to take care of this problem, I'll agree to step down from my horse. But until then, they can kiss my ass if they want to make money without contribution.

But the sad reality is that Russia and France and maybe even Germany have large investment dealings with Hussein and his government, and if he is removed, all of those deals will be null and void.

It's estimated that the French have worked out arrangements for 60 billion dollars in contracts with Hussein if sanctions are ever lifted.

Hell, if you going to wheel and deal for money, at least do something good along the way!

[JPhillips]

This is Friedman's column from the NYTimes March 2, 2003. It does a great job of summing up how I feel about this war.


The Long Bomb
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[W] atching this Iraq story unfold, all I can say is this: If this were not about my own country, my own kids and my own planet, I'd pop some popcorn, pull up a chair and pay good money just to see how this drama unfolds. Because what you are about to see is the greatest shake of the dice any president has voluntarily engaged in since Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan. Vietnam was a huge risk, but it evolved incrementally. And threatening a nuclear war with the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis was a huge shake of the dice by President John Kennedy, but it was a gamble that was imposed on him, not one he initiated.

A U.S. invasion to disarm Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein and rebuild a decent Iraqi state would be the mother of all presidential gambles. Anyone who thinks President Bush is doing this for political reasons is nuts. You could do this only if you really believed in it, because Mr. Bush is betting his whole presidency on this war of choice.

And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country wants to see Iraq dealt with without a war. But President Bush is a man on a mission. He has been convinced by a tiny group of advisers that throwing "The Long Bomb" ? attempting to transform the most dangerous Arab state ? is a geopolitical game-changer. It could help nudge the whole Arab-Muslim world onto a more progressive track, something that coaxing simply will not do anymore. It's something that can only be accomplished by building a different model in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. No, you don't see this every day. This is really bold.

And that leads to my dilemma. I have a mixed marriage. My wife opposes this war, but something in Mr. Bush's audacious shake of the dice appeals to me. He summed it up well in his speech last week: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction ? to a free and peaceful Iraq."

My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support for his vision ? support vital to seeing it through. He and his team are the only people who would ever have conceived this project, but they may be the worst people to implement it. The only place they've been bold is in their military preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin disarming).

What do I mean? I mean that if taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq had been my goal from the minute I took office (as it was for the Bush team), I would not have angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming treaty without offering an alternative. I would not have alienated the entire Russian national security elite by telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty and that they would just have to get used to it. (You're now seeing their revenge.) I would not have proposed one radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, costly nation-building marathon abroad.

I would, though, have rallied the nation for real energy conservation and initiated a Manhattan Project for alternative energies so I would not find myself with $2.25-per-gallon gasoline on the eve of this war ? because OPEC capacity is nearly tapped out. I would have told the Palestinians that until they stop suicide bombing and get a more serious leadership, we're not dealing with them, but I would also have told the Israelis that every new or expanded settlement they built would cost them $100 million in U.S. aid. And I would have told the Arabs: "While we'll deal with the Iraqi threat, we have no imperial designs on your countries. We are not on a crusade ? but we will not sit idle if you tolerate extremists in your midst who imperil our democracy."

No, had Mr. Bush done all these things it would not have changed everything with France, Russia and the Arabs ? or my wife. But I am convinced that it would have helped generate more support to increase our staying power in Iraq and the odds that we could pull this off.

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table ? a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.

[Blackadar]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/02/nkorea.warning/index.html

Bush is sabre-rattling about a couple of 2nd-rate missles from Iraq and here's North Korea threatening Nuclear War. As I've said before, Bush is going after the wrong target and it's going to get a lot of Americans killed before it's all over.

[Taur]

Originally posted by Dutch
hehe....actually, you can't just "drive" satellites around in space. You can, a little bit, but for the most part, every 4 hours or so, there is a window of a few minutes to take your photo's and then wait for 4 more hours.

Let me guess, You must watch alot of TV. My guess is Cable TV. Using your theory a person who watches Satelite TV would only be able to pick up the Satelite for only a few minutes every 4 hours?

Actually there are 2 types of Satelites upper and lower. The lower Satelites(like DirectTV and TheDish) are in what is called geosynchronize orbit. They are caught in the earths gravity. That is why you don't have to ever adjust your little mini-dish on the side of the house. Running out side every 4 hours so you could watch 4 minutes of TV would not be a big selling point.

And, you can bet the farm that we have a "LOW" satelite or two watching Sadam 24/7

Thinking about this makes me laugh as I recall all those cop shows that are still "Trying to trace the Call", I guess Hollywood hasn't discovered the "Low" satelite or the "Caller ID" yet.

[Dutch]

Those "low" satellites are roaming all over America when somebody wants to watch TV? Wow, I didn't know that!

(Read: You are pointing your dish at the 'stationary' satellite)

[Dutch]

Bush is sabre-rattling about a couple of 2nd-rate missles from Iraq and here's North Korea threatening Nuclear War. As I've said before, Bush is going after the wrong target and it's going to get a lot of Americans killed before it's all over.

Actually, the media is focused in on one front. The process of diplomacy is at work with regards to North Korea. Just because CNN doesn't say so, doesn't mean it's not so.