Yes, at least some of the missiles fired at Kuwait were supposedly Al Samoud 2s. They also may have used some other short-range missiles. (This makes the performance of the PAC III missiles even more impressive as the short range missiles are harder to shoot down.) I don't think they've determined what all of the missiles were yet... at least I haven't heard any confirmation.
if they were being destroyed obviously they were not allowed, just as SCUDs were not, so either way he is using missiles that violate UN weapons limits...
Yes, but if all Iraq had was a stash of Al Samoud 2 missiles the invasion would have no justification. Since those missiles were located by the inspectors (I expect only because Saddam didn't feel they were worth hiding) and were in the process of being destroyed. If the missiles were SCUDs, those would be in violation of the resolution due to their range and also as a result of their not being declared.
You got it and it is fairly simple reasoning.
The inspectors would not have been back in Iraq without the threat of force. Iraq complied only because of that threat. Once France had effectively taken that threat off of the table by saying that they would veto any resolution that involved force there was no peaceful means to resolve the situation. It was at that point threats withh no teeth. The only way that Saddam would have been disarmed would have been a very concerted and united front by all of the security council nations. Once a split appeared he was back to playing his games and he could have drug the situation out for years. That course was unacceptable. It left the final alternative as the only alternative.
my point is if even having them was a violation, surely USING them must be as well, I'm pretty sure the whole point of banning them was so he couldn't legally use them....
My point is that we're not going to war over the Al Samoud missiles. Obviously, Saddam will use whatever weapons he has in the war. If those missiles were all he had, the US and UK would get an incredible amount of crap from the world community and their own citizens. If the fired missiles were SCUDs, it would lend instant, irrefutable validity to the military action. If not, we'll have to wait.
Her opinion is of value, but it should not be an overriding factor in Bush's decision to go to war. There has to be something in it for the American people. No matter how cruel a dictator is, the US military can not be used at the whim of the President to free foreign people. That's not how it works.
This is why the war being sold as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' is annoying. It is only a marketing ploy. We're going to war to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam as they are not mutually exclusive. The liberation of the Iraqi people is just an extremely desirable side effect.
Obviously something like this - a compromise - does not come under the banner of a "solution".
Draft Inspection Proposal
Do you think that maybe if something like this had been negotitated that at the end of the proposed timetable there would have been much credability for someone to stand up and say "yes, we need more time" even *if* that happened?
Check out the wording - and remember its coming from those who want to avoid a war.
IMHO if this had been given serious consideration then maybe we'd have a UN action - and a UNSC with credibility even - rather than be in the situation were in now.
Andy
Draft Inspection Proposal
Do you think that maybe if something like this had been negotitated that at the end of the proposed timetable there would have been much credability for someone to stand up and say "yes, we need more time" even *if* that happened?
Check out the wording - and remember its coming from those who want to avoid a war.
IMHO if this had been given serious consideration then maybe we'd have a UN action - and a UNSC with credibility even - rather than be in the situation were in now.
Andy
I would really like to jump on the missile bandwagon - but I think I'll wait a little longer for a bit more analysis.
Andy
That is entirely correct. Threat of force.
Once the US had decided that war was the only way Saddam would comply - as they weren't interested in anything else the other UNSC members may have had to suggest and their "evidence" was becoming a little criticised (not least by the inspection team) - it became pretty obvious that all paths automatically led to war. IMHO at this point the French said what the hell - we'll veto any action leading to the use of force because it seems we're all only here to sanction American led action anyway, which completely undermines what the UNSC is about. From my post above - the interesting thing I find is that it needn't habe gone that way - there was something else that could have been reasonably tried before we got to this point. Not only that but in doing so it would have provided an excellent motivation to get any waverers into the "war camp" if need be.
Well, once everything had been ruled out then yes. At this point the final alternative would have been the only alternative. I just disagree with you in that I think there was a time (see last paragraph) when war wasn't the only alternative. This seems clear and simple to me also.
Andy
As I have said, I agree that a timetable should have been proposed in a UN resolution. However, this should have been proposed in November - I think Powell was convinced that the French would back militar action if Iraq didn't meet the requirements of 1441 which called for immediate disarmament with proof in a month. At that point, the US/UK should have pushed harder for a resolution. I am pretty sure that in their last concession, France allowed for a 30 day window with no ultimatum. That was laughable. I think the modified proposal by the British was the best idea. As the British UNSC rep stated Iraq showed it could make significant progress in a short amount of time if they so desired. So, a very short time table would have been a sufficient final warning (albeit unnecessary due to the fact that 1441 called for immediate compliance).
The bottome line is France seems to have made themselves internationally irrelevant. I don't think Bush is very interested in rebuilding a relationship with them. It was mentioned that Bush called the leaders of China and Russia the day the war started to try to get past the disagreement over the invasion of Iraq. There was no mention of a similar call to France. Although, after the recent report regarding the Russia company selling Iraq military hardware Bush may now be upset with Putin too.
I guess then it comes down to how you think the scenario would have played out at the end of a disarmament timetable.
If you think that the French would push for more time and use their veto as their power - then you can justify the course that has been taken.
If you think that the French would have come on board or at least not vetoed any action then you could agree with my point of view.
Cheers,
Andy
ps Just to try and move on to another subject soon - as this one has pretty been dissected as much as it can be IMHO - how to people see the role of the UN/UNSC now and why? Is it important to have a world forum like the UN?
I don't agree (does that make me irrelevant?). If I'm following you correctly, we were going to continue with the inspections, even after the 2nd resolution...isn't this what France is being criticised for? You say, once a split appeared force was thr only alternative. It's my opinion that force was being planned before the split appeared.
Is it your opinion that if a 2nd resolution had passed (France had gone along with everything) that inspections would have continued?
Just coming from BBC. Will link to full speech when available.
"Tony Blair says public debate needed after war to heal US/Europe rift. More soon."
Its good to hear that this is being recognised as a major issue that needs to be dealt with - and can't just be left lingering in a kind of international "sulk".
Andy
"Tony Blair says public debate needed after war to heal US/Europe rift. More soon."
Its good to hear that this is being recognised as a major issue that needs to be dealt with - and can't just be left lingering in a kind of international "sulk".
Andy
Blair is obviously more concerned with the US/Europe rift since the UK is part of the EU. I expect the rift will eventually be healed. However, I don't think the US/France relationship will ever be that close again.
The UNSC will be irrelevant - one could argue that it has been for some time. I see a major role of the UN being the need to police the world and remove abusive dictators - not single country will do this simply to help the people of the oppressed country. However, they have never done this as far as I remember. However, in this case the UN has proven itself impotent to even enforce their own resolutions - if they had been more forceful with regard to enforcing inspections and making Saddam open his regime up to human rights policing, war may have been avoidable. They didn't even seem to attempt this.
If the second resolution that France, Russia and China wanted had passed at it's conclusion war would not have been the only option. There would have only been a serious consequence. France vehemently opposed military action because they have too much invested in Saddam, as did Russia. I'm not sure China has much, if anything, invested in Saddam. However, they are certainy in favor of the attempted check of US/UK power.
I skipped right to the bottom and didn't read any replies so if this has been said then disreguard...but it is because of the way the President didn't wait for the Security Counsel's approval. While i don't know if it was the best to push so hard for it, i think this is what would have to be done eventually. Sadaam will never change and would eventually have to be forcefully taken from power. It would have been nice to have more approval but that is life for you.
Another reason for the big stink about this (as i explained to my wife who is horrified at the casualties and prisoners) is that we hear about every detail in real time. 20 min after those granades were tossed into the tents in Camp Pennsylvania we heard about it. We saw the video of the pow's. People have never been so involved in a conflict through the media in any time in history as we have in this one. THere will be such a stick about casualties and the trama of hearing about soldiers dieing that people will never want America to go to war again (not that war is good in itself).
But what do you think happened in Nam and WWII. I heard that the roads to Berlin were covered in thick blood and grease from the bodies that were run over by tanks accidentally...Allied and Axis. There were hundreds of casualties in the Gulf War even though it only lasted a few weeks in reality. My point is that the world didn't hear about every little thing that happened in those conflicts as we do in this one. We have the best technology yet we still managed to shoot down one of our own planes. But you know what...that's what happens in war. No way to prevent it. The only change is that we hear about it 20 min later.
I for one am interested to see how the world will react to this war. Not because of the reasoning or causes but because of the new sense of reality. Things change when you see the grief-stricken faces of parents who were told they loss a son or a daughter just that afternoon and we see it on the evening news!
WWI was the "War to end all wars" yet i beleive this will be the "War to change all wars."
Another reason for the big stink about this (as i explained to my wife who is horrified at the casualties and prisoners) is that we hear about every detail in real time. 20 min after those granades were tossed into the tents in Camp Pennsylvania we heard about it. We saw the video of the pow's. People have never been so involved in a conflict through the media in any time in history as we have in this one. THere will be such a stick about casualties and the trama of hearing about soldiers dieing that people will never want America to go to war again (not that war is good in itself).
But what do you think happened in Nam and WWII. I heard that the roads to Berlin were covered in thick blood and grease from the bodies that were run over by tanks accidentally...Allied and Axis. There were hundreds of casualties in the Gulf War even though it only lasted a few weeks in reality. My point is that the world didn't hear about every little thing that happened in those conflicts as we do in this one. We have the best technology yet we still managed to shoot down one of our own planes. But you know what...that's what happens in war. No way to prevent it. The only change is that we hear about it 20 min later.
I for one am interested to see how the world will react to this war. Not because of the reasoning or causes but because of the new sense of reality. Things change when you see the grief-stricken faces of parents who were told they loss a son or a daughter just that afternoon and we see it on the evening news!
WWI was the "War to end all wars" yet i beleive this will be the "War to change all wars."
Hey, guess what people... THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WAR OF RELIGION
Until you understand that, your debates are kind null and void.
Until you understand that, your debates are kind null and void.
<bullhorn>Originally posted by: SammySon
Hey, guess what people... THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WAR OF RELIGION
Until you understand that, your debates are kind null and void.
Please step away from the bong
</bullhorn>
Originally posted by: conjur
<bullhorn>Originally posted by: SammySon
Hey, guess what people... THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WAR OF RELIGION
Until you understand that, your debates are kind null and void.
Please step away from the bong
</bullhorn>
Nicely done.
Why do people think its ok to have the pick of rebuilding/oil contracts etc. when the war is over.
This is about WMD. The Iraqi people are not the enemy. The resources (and that includes rebuilding contracts of post-war Iraq) are the economic future of Iraq. IMHO it is for THEM to decide who gets/does what as it is their country. If it all goes the way of the US via the Iraqi administration so be it - if it doesn't - tough luck, its their decision to make. If they decide the UN is a good option for them - that's their choice too.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Andy
BTW Bush better get on the phone to Blair - because he's been selling this as an Iraqi/UN thing.
This is about WMD. The Iraqi people are not the enemy. The resources (and that includes rebuilding contracts of post-war Iraq) are the economic future of Iraq. IMHO it is for THEM to decide who gets/does what as it is their country. If it all goes the way of the US via the Iraqi administration so be it - if it doesn't - tough luck, its their decision to make. If they decide the UN is a good option for them - that's their choice too.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Andy
BTW Bush better get on the phone to Blair - because he's been selling this as an Iraqi/UN thing.
Agreed. It definitely needs to be a UN/Iraqi collaboration.
As far as some of the contracts, I understand the Haliburton one. Who, after all, is better fit to help put out the oil well fires? They assisted Boots & Coots in 1991.
The other rebuilding contracts should be put to bid by the Iraqi/UN administration.
Is he Blair or Bush? I remember Bush mentioning involving the UN after the fact. (I've also heard of a plan that only using those involved with the coalition of the willing. I also heard that Germany wants to be involved and Bush has assured Putin that Russia will be involved.) However, Chirac was saying that France would not support a UN resolution validating the military action. I agree it would be best to get the UN involved (I wouldn't think it would be necessary to go through the security council to rebuild a country) and the US would be for that as it would help defray any outlay of money.
I expect discussions are under way about how best to approach the rebuilding of Iraq. I fully expect the UN will be involved on some level. I agree that the Iraqi people should have say in who gets what contracts. However, the rebuilding will have to begin before there is a government in place. Therefore, the best solution may be to only award contracts that involve building infrastructure and getting the oil flowing and once the Iraqi government is in place have them negotiate long-term contracts at that point in time.
I meant Blair. I would hope and expect that in the absence of an Iraqi government - the UN could handle the intervening descisions.
Andy
Wonder how long after the oil is flowing will wells/refineries/pipelines be targeted by terrorists?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter