The 1-2 Punch

[TheBear]

The combination of military build-up, opening the door to inspections, is making Saddam relent.....maybe.

Saddam knows that we cannot maintain a huge military build-up forever. He also knows that as long as major US forces are breathing down his neck, he will act more compliant with UN weapons inspectors. He started destroying his arsenol of over 100 Al Samoud 2 missles on Sat. They were to be hauled out to the desert and destroyed at once, but Saddam decided to use bulldozers, and slow that process down. At this rate, he just bought himself about 2 weeks time. Shrewd move. Nice stall and delay tactic.

I am still hoping and praying that Saddam will truly and unconditionally relent. But, this news of late tells me that it's not likely any time soon. If the UN declares that a type of missle is in violation of resolutions, and if Saddam truly wanted to relent, the missles would have been trucked to the desert and destroyed. Saddam wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I am torn here. For experiment reasons, I would like to see the US and British forces withdraw......just to see if, or how long, Saddam maintains this level of 'compliance'.

 

[David Gould]

Saddam is a very clever man.

He wants to keep weapons but he also wants to keep his job.

He knows the US and UK do not have the backing of the UN for war, and are unlikely to get it with the appearance of cooperation.

He will do the minimum he can to keep the UN divided.

Now, I do not think this is about weapons of mass destruction but that is the issue the US chose to make its move over.

I think that was an error.

I think that the US should force a vote on the French/German proposal and veto it if necessary.

Then they should put their own proposal.

Whatever the result, they should use their spin doctors to put as good a light on it as possible.

Then they attack.

War over in a week.

People unhappy, countries arguing.

In a year's time, all is forgotten - especially if Iraq is being rebuilt and is more free.

 

 

[TheBear]

I agree with most of what you said.

 

[Lacmeh]

I wonder about the reasoning. Just because the French/German proposal gets vetoed away by the Us does this mean automatical approval of the US proposition?
What makes you sure, that the US proposition gets accepted? You can´t spin a no to a yes. Only with outright lieing.

It would be out of the people´s mind really quick, yes. But not out of their memory or the memory of national administrations. Gulf War 1 is over for 12 years and Turkey is still remembering and making demands based on this. What is important in this context is, that no other Muslim nation participates. In the Muslim world it will be viewed partly as religious issue. Bush´s speeches undermine this perception pretty well.
Iraq being free? I can´t believe that. Kurds will get no recognition from the world community, because of Turkey, which will **** them off. Shiites and Sunnites will be at odds with each other over religious issues.
On top of that there is no exile government or prominent persons, who could take over.

 

[Nelzador]

Saddam is giving into demands just around the same time that the U.S. starts its threats, which deepens the gap in the UN.

What people seem to be forgetting is what exactly has the UN requested about these missiles? If they have told Iraq to destroy the missiles, then that's what Iraq will do and it will have complied, but have the UN told Iraq to destroy all corresponding designs for the missiles?

So Saddam could well comply with the order knowing he still has technical drawings for these and other missiles. I just don't see how destroying them offers anything rock solid to us. It just seems to be a weak move. If you're going to disarm the man, then you have to go the whole way from machine to man, so that everything is removed and/or destroyed

 

[Gunny]

Matthew 24:3-14.

MT 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

MT 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

MT 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

MT 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

MT 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

MT 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

MT 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

MT 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

MT 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

MT 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

MT 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

MT 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

KJV

 

[Lacmeh]

People tend to forget, that those missiles were approved before.
For example, Iraq may use missiles with 800 km range and 300 kg usable max weight. Of course, if the missile is armed with 300 kg explosives the range will be 800 km. If it is armed with less, the range will increase. Technically it´s no breach of treaty, because the missile carries less than 300 kg. It´s all a matter of perception and spin...

 

[TheBear]

So, the UN is in the game of spin now? Now the UN weapons inspectors are being called into question?

Are you saying that the only one you can really trust in this whole ordeal is Saddam?

 

[Lacmeh]

It all depends on what is taken into account (full load, half load, wind directions...)
Peopel wanting to justify a war will calculate with other factors than people wanting to prevent a war.

Even with enough justification, a "after Hussein" scenario is still missing.

 

[strathyboy]

Today at 02:33 PM TheBear said this in Post #8 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686950#post686950)

So, the UN is in the game of spin now? Now the UN weapons inspectors are being called into question?

Are you saying that the only one you can really trust in this whole ordeal is Saddam?

I think there are few who would use Hussein and trust in the same sentence.

In any case, given the allegations of western spies in UNSCOM, there could be a basis for questioning the motives of weapons inspectors.

 

[David Gould]

Yesterday at 10:34 PM Lacmeh said this in Post #4

I wonder about the reasoning. Just because the French/German proposal gets vetoed away by the Us does this mean automatical approval of the US proposition?
What makes you sure, that the US proposition gets accepted? You can´t spin a no to a yes. Only with outright lieing.

It would be out of the people´s mind really quick, yes. But not out of their memory or the memory of national administrations. Gulf War 1 is over for 12 years and Turkey is still remembering and making demands based on this. What is important in this context is, that no other Muslim nation participates. In the Muslim world it will be viewed partly as religious issue. Bush´s speeches undermine this perception pretty well.
Iraq being free? I can´t believe that. Kurds will get no recognition from the world community, because of Turkey, which will **** them off. Shiites and Sunnites will be at odds with each other over religious issues.
On top of that there is no exile government or prominent persons, who could take over.

The reason that the US needs to make sure the French and German proposal is defeated is that if it passes it makes it impossible for the US to even put their proposal until lots more time has been given to the inspectors.

You can spin a defeat, I believe. Think of it like this: imagine that the US get 6 votes in favour, France, Germany and Syria vote against and the rest abstain.

6 votes to 3 is technically a defeat for the US proposal. But it is an overwhelming majority of those who bothered to vote, isn't it? If I couldn't spin that then I would consider myself a pretty poor writer!

No other Muslim nation participating? Am I imagining those troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

As to freedom, they will be more free than they are now. How could they not be?

The kurds may not get international recognition. But they have an autonomous region now that can only get freer with Saddam gone. At least they will no longer have the threat of being gassed ....

There is no-one who can take over? There is a full parliament in exile. With the backing of the US and/or the UN they would do fine.




 

 

[David Gould]

I should add that China, Russia and Chile are likely to abstain, and there may well be others who do.

The US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria will vote for at this stage.

France, Germany and Syria are the ones who are likely to vote against.

That leaves 5 other nations. As abstaining is the easiest option, some of them are likely to.

 

[TheBear]

Today at 11:22 AM strathyboy said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=687143#post687143)

I think there are few who would use Hussein and trust in the same sentence.

In any case, given the allegations of western spies in UNSCOM, there could be a basis for questioning the motives of weapons inspectors.

That very well may be true. And if it is, what does that say about the UN?

I've wondered what kind of security and background checks, psychological profile assesments, and other tests/marks the UN weapons inspectors are subject to, prior to taking the position. I suspect that none of the above prerequisites are done to any serious degree, and that some have been bought off from the start, and are giving Saddam a heads-up on a site inspection.....It's just a hunch. I could be wrong.

 

[strathyboy]

Today at 03:08 AM TheBear said this in Post #13 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=688635#post688635)

I've wondered what kind of security and background checks, psychological profile assesments, and other tests/marks the UN weapons inspectors are subject to, prior to taking the position. I suspect that none of the above prerequisites are done to any serious degree, and that some have been bought off from the start, and are giving Saddam a heads-up on a site inspection.....It's just a hunch. I could be wrong.

It's possible. I was referring more to the weapons inspectors giving information to the Americans. If America's going to invade regardless, then why not get some intelligence info on Iraqi defenses.

But you could be right too. I have no doubt the Iraqis would pay dearly to get a heads up on those inspections.

 

[TheBear]

I still pray that Saddam Hussein, fully and without reservation, relents. It's not too late, but time is getting short. He is the one man who could literally, make all the difference in the world.


There would be a massive sigh of relief in the world, if Saddam just would say, "I give!", and mean it.

The ball is in his court. I am not saying war is the only option, but to date, I have not seen any realistic alernatives.

I came up with an alternative. It probably won't fly.

The US & UK buy all of Saddam's WMD's. After we destroy our new arsenal, we divide the tab among the other nations. (double-charge those who dis'd us, in this whole ordeal. )

 

[webboffin]

France and Germany funny they have started wars on their on terms in the past now they want to be halo polishers.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 04:27 PM webboffin said this in Post #16

France and Germany funny they have started wars on their on terms in the past now they want to be halo polishers.

Perhaps they have learned from past mistakes?

While I do not think France's motives have too much to do with altruism, I respect the German position.

After the 2nd World War they, like Japan, had a constitution with pacifist provisions imposed on them. Instead of fighting against that, the German people have in the main adopted that as their cultural norm, and I commend them for doing so.

 

[webboffin]

Germany with it horrid Nazi past - I don't think I would still trust them yet if that is a word I should use. So maybe for the better.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 04:48 PM webboffin said this in Post #18

Germany with it horrid Nazi past - I don't think I would still trust them yet if that is a word I should use. So maybe for the better.

I trust Germany because of the way it has dealt with its horrid Nazi past.

I don't agree with them on the Iraq issue, but I trust them.

 

[webboffin]

Yes I suppose you are right.