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?
    • 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