Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

pudge (1)

pudge
  (email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)

I run this joint, see?

Journal of pudge (1)

Saturday February 15, 2003
07:43 PM

Iraq In Further Breach

[ #10611 ]

Iraq has missles. Those missles are, according to Hans Blix speaking to the UN Security Council yesterday, patently prohibited under Resolution 687. Iraq says the destruction of those prohibited weapons, required under the same resolution, would be unacceptable.

Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq.

And I would love to hear ideas for disarmament that do not amount to war.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • You neglected to mention that these particular missiles are in breach because they go six miles beyond the prescribed limit, and that's only because they don't have a guidance system. Is a 6 mile discrepancy sufficient in your mind to start a war?
    • 1. I don't know if you imply this or not, but their existence is a breach, with or without a guidance system. Hans Blix was clear on this.

      2. You apparently did not read what I wrote. Read the second paragraph again. Here it is: "Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq."

      I did not say anything about war the
    • Hey, but at least you got to protest before today, eh? Looks like the biggest storm in Philly since the one in January 1996 (which I was in Bensalem for) ...
    • Six miles? Where did you get your information?
      The estimate is currently 24 miles. My source is Hans Blix [yahoo.com]. Here's the relevant extract from the article:

      Mr. Blix has already told the Council that the missiles, with a range of about 180 kilometers, or 114 miles, appeared to be a "prima facie" case of a violation by Iraq of the range limit of 150 kilometers, or about 90 miles, established by the Council. The missiles have already been given to the Iraqi armed forces, he said. The panel did not reach a concl

      • This is no clerical error or simple mistake on the part of the Iraqis. Iraq has developed, and intends to develop further, missiles that violate their previous commitments.

        This is exactly what inspections are there to prove, one way or the other.


        No, no, no. The inspections are not to prove anything. They are there to disarm Iraq, to verify Iraq's statements, to destroy the weapons. They are there to give Iraq the opportunity to prove they have disarmed, not to themselves prove Iraq has disarmed (or no
      • Six miles? Where did you get your information?

        The second paragraph in the article pudge linked:

        Aziz said the missiles exceeded the range by less than six miles and only because they lacked guidance systems. He said they do not pose a threat that would warrant their destruction.

        A 6 mile discrepancy strikes me as more of a technicality than a cause for war. Frankly, so does 24 miles.

        There may well be good reasons we're on the brink of war with Iraq. For instance, I'm as interested as the next g

        • waltman, and I agree with you. It is not a smoking gun. It is not cause for war. It is one thing: proof that Iraq continues -- after 12 years -- to not comply with Resolution 687. That's all Resolution 1441 is for, to give Iraq one more chance to prove inspections can work to disarm Iraq. They have proven that inspections are NOT working to disarm Iraq, and this is just the most recent evidence of that.

          Blix speaks again on February 28. Unless he says "inspections are now working to disarm Iraq; Iraq
  • I have been repelled by Saddam Hussein and his regime for over twenty years, ever since he invaded Iran. I was appalled when the Reagan administration improved relations with Iraq and even began providing military aid in spite of knowledge that it was using chemical weapons. And I really think that the world would be a better place if Iraq were disarmed.

    But I have to say that the present Bush administration scares me much much more than Iraq does. Perhaps there is some justification to going to war agains

    • "Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq."

      You are talking about inspections in terms other than disarmament. That is entirely inappropriate. Please stop.

      And, again, I did not say anything about war, and, in fact, said, "And I would love to hear ideas for disarmament that do not amount to war."

      I wish peop
        • Aziz said destruction of the missiles "would be unacceptable" not that they would never be destroyed under any circumstances. It's too soon, therefore, to say that "inspections will not work."

          That is wrong on two counts.

          First: we already have plenty of evidence inspections have not worked, and are not working. This was just offered as more evidence of this, not the evidence. More to the point, Iraq must itself show evidence that inspections can work, and this situation is counterevidence of that.

          Seco
    • Interesting that there are many intelligent, well-reasoning people who would disagree with the assumptions you assert are "clearly" true. Any particular reason you felt you had to imply that these are clear to everyone and anyone who does not agree with them are clearly wrong?

      thus deprive Islamic extremists of the excuse that we're occupying their holy land to justify terrorist attacks against the US.

      Interesting idea I haven't heard before. And how exactly would that be a bad thing?

      We could even

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
  • Stop the fear.

    Turn off Fox News and chill. I'm not afraid of Iraq and I dont feel that the United States is entitled to judge any other country in terms of disarmament as long as it's "death through firearms" rate is over 100 times as high as in most other developed countries. If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.

    The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld says "Who would have help

    • You are not at all addressing the points I am making.

      The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed. The UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament. Inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed.

      So I won't directly address your comments about comparing Iraq to the US, because it ignores the facts above.

      As to preemption: that misses the point too, but as I have not yet addressed it, I will do so now. There is nothing preemptive about this impending war. To say the coming war is "preemptiv
        • You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though.

          If you want a serious discussion, please say things that aren't patently false.

          Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this.

          In every poll, the majority of Americans favor the disarmament of Iraq.

          There might be good ones, but you know, who lied once...

          This has nothing to do with choosing what to believe, for those who can do a little reasearch. The facts are all before us, and I clearly laid them out, and no one has even attempted
              • Well, at least NATO is mostly decided, except for France, to protect one of its members. Talk about an embarrassment to Europe.
        • And the facts, as they stand now, are resolution 1441 doesn't given permission to the member states to attack and invade Iraq.

          It is not about permission, it is about the UN Security Council enforcing its own resolutions; the question is, if it refuses to do so, why should anyone else take it upon themselves to do so? Because it was not just the UN that was at war with Iraq, it was the US and others.

          These nations were at war with Iraq, they require the disarmament of Iraq, and it is the UN's job to do en
            • But, "fear" is not the main point. Twelve years of Iraqi frustrating its obligations under Resolution 687 is the main point. Bush is on record saying he wanted to deal with Iraq's disarmament well before September 11, 2001.
              • The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.

                Hans Blix said they have NOT found weapons of mass destruction. He said they have found prohibited missles, and that they have found evidence of weapons that has not been explained away (such as unaccounted-for Anthrax and VX), but that they did not find actual weapons of mass destruction.
                  • Ah, yes, UNMOVIC replaced UNSCOM as a result of Resolution 1284; I wasn't sure you were distinguishing them, and I sometimes use them interchangably.
                    • It's technically true, but some would say it is in essence true that they were "kicked out," in that they left only because Iraq would not let them do their job.

                      And the UN ordered it.
                    • Hans Blix has made it quite clear that Iraq is not cooperating.

                      And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.

                      You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong. "Many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for." Repeat Blix's words until it sinks in. Blix has been asking for evidence Iraq is required to give in regards to those weapons -- including VX and anthrax -
                    • Re:Fear (Score:2, Informative)

                      • Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.

                      Why do you say this? There is supposedly detailed defector testimony as to their existence. [washingtonpost.com] Read this article, even the sceptical Biological Weapons specialist, Raymond Zalinkas states:

                      "We know it is possible to build them -- the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane -- but it's a big hassle. That's why this strikes me as

    • The weapons inspections are working according to Blix and El Baradei who are actually running the inspections.

      That is false. Inspections require unconditional and complete cooperation. This is absolutely clear from the UN resolutions. Please read them. If there is not complete cooperation, inspections are definitionally not working. There is no grey area. It is a delightful fancy, but it is not reality.

      Nation after nation recognizes that inspections are not working. France and Germany are basicall
    • Is that a serious statement and question? It doesn't appear to be.

      It is not the US that is requiring Iraqi disarmament. It is the UN Security Council, with about a dozen or more resolutions over the past 12 years, affirming over and again that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. France has repeatedly agreed to this, as has Russia, as has Germany, as has Syria, as has every other nation that has been on the Security Council (except for the new ones which have not yet had the pleasure).

      Also, Iraq has
        • I am not saying there are not a lot more to these things than meets the eye (in fact, I have been trying to let people know that far more is happening than any of us could possibly know).

          However, two things are clear: first, you own your vote. If you vote a certain way, then you have in fact supported what you have voted for.

          Second, there have been many resolutions over the past 12 years reaffirming Resolution 687. It wasn't a one-off deal. France has, dozens of times, reaffirmed its original agreement