Diplomacy, UN, etc

[rynnor]

Originally posted by xane
The UN already determined Saddam has WMD or the means to produce them, also coupled with the means to deliver them (the long range missiles).

This is not assumed, it has been an approved view of the UN or over 12 years.

Saddam had WOMD as we and the Americans provided the means for their production - that said the only launch vehicles he had were Skuds which the British Intelligence agencies admit that he only has a handfull left after Gulf war 1.

If the International community was agreed that he currently posessed WOMD then we would not have had the last few months of speculation on their existence.

If you are referring to the Al Samoud II as a long range missile your kind of pushing it - a couple of hundred kilometers is not very far - the illegal capacity it had was an extra 75Km.

No doubt he still has some stocks of the Anthrax the US gave him and products of the chemical weapon plants we in the UK helped him set up.

We cannot escape resposibility for Saddams use of chemical weapons as our government allowed their supply when they believed (rightly) that he would use them against Iran which was the 'great evil' of the time.

Saddam was once an ally of sorts to the western states who supplied him with weapons to support his regime.

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by xane
Plenty of countries have been supplied, but normally bio-chemical samples are for use to develop defences against them, and nuclear equipment is for energy use only, Iraq obviously had other ideas.

Hmm - this would be valid if we could actually believe that countries like the US/China/Russia were only engaged in creating defenses against biological weapons rather than the weapons themselves.

The same mindset that justified the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima/Nagasaki can easily justify the creation of any weapon that makes their country more powerfull.

It is interesting to note that the long running Anthrax scare in the US with Anthrax spores being sent through the mail was eventually traced back to an origin in an American Bio weapons lab sent by a disgruntled scientist.

Maybe the Americans should look a little closer to home before hunting for WOMD around the world...

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Munkey-
what this chap said. I was trying to say that a dispute over a lawnmower is trivial compared to the movements of world countrys. Easy enough to understand. There is always a form to diplomacy.

I said nothing about lawn mowers or neighbour's munkey

It was you with the following two references:

you may not like your next door neighbour but you still be nice to him

and

This isnt some dispute over the neighbour not returning the lawn mower, this is between two nations

Clearly not that easy to understand that you seem to be contradicting yourself and then trying to act as if I said something about lawn mowers, I can assure you I know the difference between neighbours/lawn mowers and war :sleeping:

 

[xane]

Originally posted by rynnor
Saddam had WOMD as we and the Americans provided the means for their production - that said the only launch vehicles he had were Skuds which the British Intelligence agencies admit that he only has a handfull left after Gulf war 1.

And a few other countries helped, even Japanese scientists were in Basra Univeristy studying bio weaponry, don't try and finger it all on US/UK, everyone was in on it.

Saddam developed longer range missile specifically because the mobile lanchers had been more or less destroyed, so he could operate them from semi-mobile sites.

Originally posted by rynnor
If the International community was agreed that he currently posessed WOMD then we would not have had the last few months of speculation on their existence.

There is no "if", Saddam threatened to use them and _has_ used them. Their existance is not the debate, the whole issue is why he has not opened them up for inspection or accounted for their destruction.

Originally posted by rynnor
If you are referring to the Al Samoud II as a long range missile your kind of pushing it - a couple of hundred kilometers is not very far - the illegal capacity it had was an extra 75Km.

"Long range" as defined by the UN resolution, which he agreed with, in any case, he was building more missiles and developing longer ranged weapons when he had agreed to disarm, how do you figure that one ?

Originally posted by rynnor
No doubt he still has some stocks of the Anthrax the US gave him and products of the chemical weapon plants we in the UK helped him set up.

We cannot escape resposibility for Saddams use of chemical weapons as our government allowed their supply when they believed (rightly) that he would use them against Iran which was the 'great evil' of the time..

Again, as you seem to have misunderstood, Saddam signed up to a non-proliferation treaty at the time, as have many other nations who have recieved these items, and again more than US/UK was involved.

Originally posted by rynnor
Saddam was once an ally of sorts to the western states who supplied him with weapons to support his regime.

Weren't we at war with the US at one point in history ? If I recall we've had at least three presidents and two prime ministers plus related changes in government since the Iran-Iraq war, this is old history and not valid for argument.

 

[Embattle]

One very basic point....the world, esp Iraq, would most probably be a better place without Saddam.

 

[Xtro]

The world would be a better place without Bush but we aren't about to invade the US of A.

Btw fuck Iraq. I'm not anti-war, just anti-Bush.

 

[mr.Blacky]

But why is Iraq "just" now starting to disarm? Anybody thinks it has to do with Chirac saying they don't want a war or perhaps (just maybe) because the USA led coalition is starting to go to war against Sadam?....
It's all nice for people to say he is disarming, and proof is there that he is. But the only reason is that he is being threatend on a scale that he has to take notice off.

 

[Furr]

Sadams just a prick, and should be gotten rid of!
Why wait another decade or so for him to die! The power will only be passed on to one of his many deranged sons and it starts all over again.

The French are being arrogant fucks as always. And to be honest they do tend to get things wrong. They've got a criminal running the country FFS

Anyway it doesn't matter now, we are going to be at war by Friday. Most likely it will start on Thursday as Friday is the Muslim Sabath day.

Now all we need to care about is the spoils of war!

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by Embattle
One very basic point....the world, esp Iraq, would most probably be a better place without Saddam.

I dont think anybody disagrees with you on that one but the cost of his removal will be high in terms of innocent Iraqi men women and children.

I think that the process of peacefull disarmament should have been given more time even if its ultimate chance of sucess was low - isnt that the least we could do for those who will die on all sides of this war?

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by xane
There is no "if", Saddam threatened to use them and _has_ used them. Their existance is not the debate, the whole issue is why he has not opened them up for inspection or accounted for their destruction.

I think you have mis-understood me - I dont disagree that he had WOMD and that he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds in the north of his country.

But I have followed the debate on this war on terror quite closely and yet I have seen no proof what so ever that Saddam currently posesses WOMD - the americans would like you to accept their assertions as 'true' but they are still just assertions.

I could similarly assert that George Bush was an insane mono-maniacal monster hell bent on world domination - it doesnt neccesarily make it true - its just opinion.

And the Iran Iraq war still effects current events - indeed the US used Saddams use of chemical weapons during the war as one of their justifications for their policy of regime change.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by rynnor
I dont think anybody disagrees with you on that one but the cost of his removal will be high in terms of innocent Iraqi men women and children.

I think that the process of peacefull disarmament should have been given more time even if its ultimate chance of sucess was low - isnt that the least we could do for those who will die on all sides of this war?

He kills many of them any way.

What...12 years isn't enough

 

[Tom]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bombsaddam.shtml

 

[danger]

Slightly moving the scope of the thread here... but, after bush gave saddam his "get the fuck out or prepare to die, cunt" ultimatum... No one expected saddam or his spawns of evil to leave... he isn't going to, big suprise!

But what chance does he realistically think he has of coming out of this alive let alone still in power? He's evil but he's not stupid.. so why do you reckon he doesn't just pack up shop? Maybe he'll pull a "bin laden" after a day or two of war maybe? or maybe we're just seeing one of his supposed 7 doubles who he forced to have plastic surgery, and he's already scarpered?

 

[Furr]

Prediction: Coalition forces take over most of Iraq apart from cities in 3-4 days. Occupy The cities in 7-12 days

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Furr
Prediction: Coalition forces take over most of Iraq apart from cities in 3-4 days. Occupy The cities in 7-12 days

I hope so... wars have a VERY nasty habbit of being unpredictable though.

 

[Lester]

Should be a piece of cake, really. After all we have Prism Tanks and his best weapon is Demolition Trucks. "Watch out for the bumps!"

 

[xane]

Originally posted by rynnor
But I have followed the debate on this war on terror quite closely and yet I have seen no proof what so ever that Saddam currently posesses WOMD - the americans would like you to accept their assertions as 'true' but they are still just assertions.

The question of "proof" has already been decided, by the UN in 1991, not American asserions alone, that Iraq posesses banned weapons in contradiction to the treaties they signed, why you think that "proof" is still needed for their existance is a misunderstanding of what the UN Resolutions and arms inspections are about.

For your records, extracts from UN Resolution 687 (1991):

(...)

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons,

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

(...)

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,

(...)

Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

(...)

(what follows is the instructions to allow arms inspectors etc, etc)

Resolution 687 is referred to in Resolution 1441, specifically that Iraq has not met the requirements.

 

[Quige]

Originally posted by xane
Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,
Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,
Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,

so after dealing with Iraq the US/UN will be demanding that weapons inspectors be sent into Israel to inspect their Nuclear bomb making facilites and their Biological Warfare reseach labs? I mean Israel is now the 6th largest nuclear power apparently, denies it all and has no international oversight of what they are getting up to. They're meant to have nuclear missles, nuclear submarines and nuclear landmines ... WTF is that for ... one tank hits it and it nukes 20 sq miles of county?

People just see a lot of double standards being applied and it makes them uncomfortable about what & why - well it does me.

 

[Munkey-]

Actually, I think the war could drag out for quite a while. In the last war, the iraqis went out to meet the US in the desert and were obliterated. The americans could see the iraqi tanks from 5km away or so using thier advanced equipment, press a button to lock the turret on, and another to fire.

This time they could just put up a token resistance outside in the countryside before tactically retreating into the cities where they would've setup defensive positions. Obviosouly the Americans cant bomb high population areas thus bringing the fight into the cities. I'm not quite sure how the Iraqi's themselves feel about this, but i'm sure a few would fight alongside their army in order to defend their country.

This would mean that America would have to move extremley slowly so that they have the minimum amount of civilian casualties. As it is, they'd most probably come under fire from the international community for civilan casualties anyway.

 

[Munkey-]

Originally posted by quige
so after dealing with Iraq the US/UN will be demanding that weapons inspectors be sent into Israel to inspect their Nuclear bomb making facilites and their Biological Warfare reseach labs? I mean Israel is now the 6th largest nuclear power apparently, denies it all and has no international oversight of what they are getting up to. They're meant to have nuclear missles, nuclear submarines and nuclear landmines ... WTF is that for ... one tank hits it and it nukes 20 sq miles of county?

People just see a lot of double standards being applied and it makes them uncomfortable about what & why - well it does me.

I dont think they quite mean high yield nuclear explosions as they'd be expensive to produce and whats to stop somebody stealing a high yield nuclear land mine? Just doesnt work.

What worries me is that if Iraq in anyway attacks Isreal, which i highly doubt, Isreal say they'll attack Iraq regardless of anyone else. Could become a very convenient excuse in my opinion. That section of the middle east has to big a militant attitude for my liking.

(and i got tape interviewd by some American journalist who asked for my opinions today!)

 

[bodhi]

Can I ask one simple question?



Why are people debating the existence of WMD in Iraq, when Saddam has already started destroying them?

 

[rynnor]

Originally posted by bodhi
Can I ask one simple question?



Why are people debating the existence of WMD in Iraq, when Saddam has already started destroying them?

Officially Iraq has no WOMD - they reckon they destroyed them - the stuff they destroyed recently under weapon inspector scrutiny were some Al Samoud II missiles which were in contravention with an earlier UN mandate because they had too long a range.

Still I guess we'll find out pretty soon if he does have some left - even if he didnt releasing clouds of harmless gasses would be a pretty powerfull psychological weapon now that all the opposing forces are convinced he has them - trying to fight in a desert in a full chem suit would be really nasty...

 

[Tom]

The reason Saddam sent about 40 missiles into Israel during the last Gulf War was to disrupt the coalition - bring Jews into the fighting, and no way would the Muslims want any more to do with the whole thing.

I doubt the same thing will happen this time. And I very much doubt Israel would fire nuclear weapons at Iraq; I can't see the US being happy with that if it were to happen.