Should the Alliance ease Iraqi pressure?

SloanerF1

From BBC News:

Iraq has warned it might halt the destruction of its al-Samoud II missiles if the United States continues to threaten military action without backing from the United Nations.

"If it turns out that in the early stages during this month America is not going the legal way... why should we continue [destroying missiles]?" Iraqi presidential adviser General Amir al-Saadi said at a news conference.

General al-Saadi said Iraq had destroyed 10 missiles since Saturday, meeting a deadline set by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.

He also said that Iraq's missing anthrax had now been accounted for with the digging up of almost 157 bombs at a site south of Baghdad.

The announcement came as Iraqi and UN officials held talks in Baghdad on Sunday night to try to clarify what has happened to missing stocks of anthrax and VX nerve gas.

General al-Saadi said that Baghdad had now dealt with "practically all" of the UN inspectors' demands.

He said excavations at the al-Aziziya air base, about 104 kilometres (65 miles) south-west of Baghdad, had uncovered the remains of bombs containing anthrax, aflotoxin and botulin, which Iraq said it had unilaterally destroyed in 1991.

The general said eight of the bombs had been uncovered intact.

Iraq's failure to account for some 157 R-400 bombs, designed to deliver biological and chemical weapons, has been a key sticking point with the United Nations.

General al-Saadi also said Iraq had destroyed six more al-Samoud II missiles and two casting chambers on Sunday, in what he called an example of Iraq's "pro-active co-operation" with UN inspectors.

Washington on Saturday dismissed Iraq's destruction of the al-Samoud II missiles as a predictable "part of their game of deception".

The US and their allies have clearly put enough pressure on Iraq to force them to move on disarmament. I think it is now time for them to ease the pressure and pull back from Iraq to allow weapons destruction to continue. Can we afford to look back on this in 20 years' time as a missed opportunity that could have saved thousands of time?

Clintons Cat

I think that the US and its "Allies" should keep the preasure up on iraq,at least until Blix has concluded his report However Long that takes.
Any softening of the stance may lead to another disasterous misinterpretatation by sadamn on the "international communities" resolve to go to war should he fail to comply with UN resolution 1441.As happenened in 1990 when he failed to comply with UN resolutions to withdraw from Kuwait prior to Desert Storm.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
I think that the US and its "Allies" should keep the preasure up on iraq,at least until Blix has concluded his report However Long that takes.
Any softening of the stance may lead to another disasterous misinterpretatation by sadamn on the "international communities" resolve to go to war should he fail to comply with UN resolution 1441.As happenened in 1990 when he failed to comply with UN resolutions to withdraw from Kuwait prior to Desert Storm.

But should they not at least soften the language temporarily to see if more disarmament results?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by daveirl
From today's events I actually think we are finally seeing a reasonable level of Iraqi compliance.

Agreed

if Saddam screws up attack the palace he wouldn't let be inspected or whatever.

Do we not need a little more evidence than that to attack somewhere?

Clintons Cat

But should they not at least soften the language temporarily to see if more disarmament results?

No.

Whats worse Harsh language now or a full blown war later?

If sadamn is serious about disarming,then he should comply entirely and unconditionally with the Weapons Inspectors as is required by resolution 1441,he shouldnt be giving the Americans a way to circumvent the United Nations by non-complience.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Whats worse Harsh language now or a full blown war later?

But what if harsh lanugage leads to full-blown war, while the lack of it might have prevented it?

Clintons Cat

is there any evidence that Sadamn has ever voluntarily complied with UN resolutions without the threat of Imminent force?
It took what 5 years to get him to readmit the Weapons inspectors after he threw them out last time.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
is there any evidence that Sadamn has ever voluntarily complied with UN resolutions without the threat of Imminent force?

If the tables were turned, GWB might not let weapons inspectors in without threat of force!

mike65

Originally posted by daveirl
What I'd like to see is a military force on standby indefinitely and if Saddam screws up attack the palace he wouldn't let be inspected or whatever.

That plainly won't, indeed can't happen. The logistics involved are not feasible.

Anyway its already a done deal, the US will be going in when they see fit.

Mike.

SloanerF1

Originally posted by mike65
Anyway its already a done deal, the US will be going in when they see fit.

I have a horrible feeling that you're right!

Éomer of Rohan

Unless the UN is willing to apply all pressure equally to the nations she wishes to disarm then the pressure on Iraq should be relaxed without condition.

Yes this does allow Saddam to rearm. What is your point?

It seems as though Saddam has been turned into a focal point for when the Governments of the West need a distraction or need a safety valve. Why should people care what weapons he has? They don't care about Iran or Syria or Jordan or Egypt which are much more threatening towards the US' puppet in the region. Why then should they care about Iraq? I think it is a media thing. Does anyone else agree that the media have an unhealthy amount of influence over people that I would define 'Idiotes' which is greek and collectively means those who are too stupid to know what goes on in the public business for themselves??

Clintons Cat

That plainly won't, indeed can't happen. The logistics involved are not feasible.

Well they have mananged to keep a standing army in the field for niegh on 60 years,first in europe then the the middle east and given America's vote to increase defence spending by a whopping 30 billion in 2001 i cant see them having problems in the logistical area.

If the tables were turned, GWB might not let weapons inspectors in without threat of force!

Should GWB refuse to co operate with UN weapons inspections and the threat of force applied externally,then one would suppose that even a useless fart like Al Gore or his identikit sucessors could mount a successful election campaign to depose him democratically.

Éomer of Rohan

Actually from personal experience, the US is willing to accept criticism from within the country to a certain extent but from without not at all. Thus if the tables were indeed turned, most likely the people of the US and the republicrats (ie two parties, one party line lol) would be united in their desire to stick two fingers up to the world. As they have done so many times. Some of you should read what they write about us; the Brits, Irish, French et cetera - we are the 'socialist, jealous Euro-weenies' to quote a democrat.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

I dont know if you or indeed I appriciate the problems of keeping 150000 ppl in battle readyness in one of the hotest, dustyest and generaly unpleasant places you can be. In Germany they had fully functioning bases the size of a town. In Kuwait you've got....?

Keeping a couple of carriers in the region, is easy, but the ground troops and armoured divisions require a huge ammount of support.

Its not the sort of thing you can fly in in a couple of days.

General Mike.(retired)

Nagilum

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Actually from personal experience, the US is willing to accept criticism from within the country to a certain extent but from without not at all.

What personal experience are you talking about? Maybe it was when you said:

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
If the US invaded North Korea then no offence to all you pacifists but I think NK should blow the bastards to hell - it is about time that someone showed the Americans when to stop bullying nations ... a nuke fired at San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle etc might be the ONLY thing that the American Gov't listen to.

Or maybe:

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Maybe we should just allow Osama and his crackpot adherents to eliminate America entirely. He would be doing the world a favour. America is utterly corrupted by power and therein lies the problems of the world since time began; power corrupts.

Hmm...I don't know why we wouldn't accept your criticism when all you want is simply for someone to kill all of us and destroy our country. :rolleyes:

Let me guess, you're not anti-american?

Theres no need for the US to keep their troops in the middle east, at least not in the numbers they currently have. They've had a garrison in Kuwait, for the last decade, and they've also been bombing Iraq for the last decade, also. What has changed that they need to have 150,000 troops?

This is just the US's bid, to create a Military presence larger than the one they already have in Kuwait. Watch as Iraq, and then Iran, fall, and US presence increases.

Victor

How about options for up, the same, down?

Éomer of Rohan

Anti - American Gov't, American 'Ideals' and American Dream yes. But not anti - american people. They aren't evil just misguided and deluded about the rest of the world.

And I have good reason to say these things. For a selection, see below.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/International.htm