Iraq agrees (in principle) to destroy missiles

[Blindfaith]

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6294&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

This is the part I like:  

 "Iraq agreed in principle today to a United Nations demand to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) announced late Thursday in New York."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear Saddam Hussein, in his "interview" with Dan Rather, that he denied having these missiles?  I could swear that that is what he said.  Hm.  Does this mean that Saddam could possibly be a blatant liar?

What else has he lied about?  First he denies he has any missiles, and now he agrees in principle that he's going to destroy them.

How can he destroy something he doesn't have? 

 

[Didymus]

may be he *forgot* he had them. after all it s hard work bieng an evil tyrant and you can t expect him to remember every little detail. Give the poor guy a break . I ld like to see how you ld do as an evil dictator

 

[seebs]

Hey, maybe he'll agree in principle to destroy his reputation. Oh, wait.

 

[Morat]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I hear Saddam Hussein, in his "interview" with Dan Rather, that he denied having these missiles? I could swear that that is what he said. Hm. Does this mean that Saddam could possibly be a blatant liar?

What else has he lied about? First he denies he has any missiles, and now he agrees in principle that he's going to destroy them

You heard right and you heard wrong.

The Al-Samoud missles were declared in Iraq's initial weapons declaration, and their range violation was brought to the attention of inspectors by Iraq. The inspectors then verifed the range with computer modelling.

What's more, inspectors were on hand when the Al-Samoud missile program was born. We've known about them.

Iraq's contention (and Saddam's) was that the missiles only exceeded the allowable range when not burdened with a full payload or a guidance system. There actually is something of a grey area there (did the restriction mean unloaded missiles, which would be the maximum flight profile? Or missiles in weapons configuration?).

Iraq's contention was that, since the missiles could (and did not) exceed the restricted range when loaded, they weren't violations.

Blix decided otherwise, no one in the Security Council was interested in arguing grey areas (not that I blame them) and Iraq folded.

The transcript of his interview boils down to this:

Rather: "Are you going to destroy those missiles that go too far according to the UN?"
Hussein: "We have no such missiles, and we're complying with the UN".
Rather: "I'm speaking of the Al Samoud ones here".
Hussein: "They don't go past the limit, and we're cooperating with the UN".

Slate spoke on it today.

 

[Outspoken]

"There actually is something of a grey area there"

no no, its okay you u can just kill half the population. That's okay with us, we were talking about just killing everything.

 

[datan]

Yesterday at 06:10 PM Didymus said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681848#post681848)

may be he *forgot* he had them. after all it s hard work bieng an evil tyrant and you can t expect him to remember every little detail. Give the poor guy a break . I ld like to see how you ld do as an evil dictator

hm...don't we have a new policy of not dissing any president?

 

[Morat]

"There actually is something of a grey area there"

no no, its okay you u can just kill half the population. That's okay with us, we were talking about just killing everything

I'm sorry, did you have a point there? Because you quoted me, then made a statement that had nothing to do with mine.

Did you want to discuss the UN restrictions on Iraqi missile ranges and how they apply to the Samoud missile? Because I'm quite happy to, but it would require you to actually stay on topic.

For the record, Blix's decision on the missiles was most likely based on the missile width, rather than it's actual range.

I'ld be happy to discuss this with you, at length.

 

[Didymus]

datan--SH is not a president --I think so i can diss him.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Oh no, he's a president alright.
You've never heard of him referred to as "President Saddam Hussein"? Or "President of Iraq"?   Or is the tactic of the day picking and choosing, and not having principles?

 

[Didymus]

natsy to night are you ? no i haven t heard him refered to by the title President just by his name.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Oh, well, he's officially President of Iraq, just as Dubya is officially President of the United States.

By the way, what was the first thing you were saying? I can't decipher that.