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

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?
    • 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 not).

        This is the problem most people have when they say they want inspections to continue. We have found weapons, gotten rid of weapons; we can find more, get rid of more, right? No. If the inspections are not successful, after 12 years of trying, why do we think they ever could be successful? A little success here or there is irrelevant. If Iraq is holding back information -- which they indisputably are -- if Iraq is blocking the destruction of prohibited weapons -- which they indisputably are -- then inspections are not working, as defined in Resolution 687.

        There is no greay area. Either Iraq is cooperating fully, or inspections are failing, and the UN must, by its own words, take further steps to effect disarmament. And once again, I am not saying that next step must be war. I am saying inspections have proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a failure, and that something else must be done to effect disarmament; I pray that something else is NOT war.

        I don't want to hear anything about the this stuff except for how to effect disarmament; if someone wants to say inspections can do that, I don't want to hear it unless there's some actual evidence they can do that, some evidence that Iraq is going to completely change their tactics over the last 12 years, something they have not yet done and something they show no signs of doing (as evidenced by the recent refusal to destroy clearly prohibited weapons).

        waltman appears to think I was using this latest incident as evidence we need to go to war with Iraq, that they are in breach. No. I was using it as evidence that Iraq continues to defy UN Resolutions 687 and 1441, that inspections have bneen a failure and that because Iraq is still not cooperating, they will inevitably continue to fail. Only complete cooperation from Iraq can make inspections work. This is the point.