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.

Iraq In Further Breach 4 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 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

      • 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 is actively working to give us all the information we require, and is working to destroy all prohibited weapons," the UK and US will provide a new resolution to the Security Council declaring inspections a failure.

          Even Secy. General Kofi Annan has said a new resolution is probably necessary, because inspections are failing, and there is little chance they can succeed.

          There are now 34 nations that are saying inspections have failed. The Portugese ambassador chastised the German Foreign Minister for grandstanding about "lack of evidence," and told him that he was not offering any alternatives to what they all recognize as failure (inspections) and the last resort (war).

          Two weeks. That's how much time Iraq has to destroy its weapons, to provide all its information, to prove that inspections can work.

          It is not about these weapons being proof Iraq is a threat, it is about them being proof that inspections are not working to effect disarmament.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.