babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Is Hans Blix saying that Baghdad is lying re:missile distance? (Saddam CBS interview)

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is Hans Blix saying that Baghdad is lying re:missile distance? (Saddam CBS interview)
prowsej
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 798

posted 24 February 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for prowsej   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein denied Iraq's al-Samoud missiles were in violation of United Nations mandates, and indicated that he will resist U.N. demands that they be destroyed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/iraq/main541427.shtml

This missile case seems to be the the litmus test for the weapons inspectors. Why has Hans Blix requested that Iraq destroy the missiles?

  • Is Baghdad just making up excuses when it says that the missiles will be in conformance with additional components required to make them operationl?
  • Even if the missiles will be within specifications once they are complete, is the wording of the agreement that Iraq signed such that having them exceed the distance before completion is still a violation?
  • Are the inspectors being reasonable with their demand that the missiles be destroyed, or are they being needlessly provocative when alterations would have sufficed?

    [ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: prowsej ]


    From: Ottawa ON | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
  • John K
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 3407

    posted 25 February 2003 10:28 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
    Memo to self: be doing something less stressful than being chief weapons inspector when age 74.

    In my view, to avoid- or perhaps only forestall- a U.S. led war, Hans Blix needs to be able to show concrete Iraqi cooperation on disarmament. Blix has determined that the Al Samoud 2 missiles must go as part of this litmus test.

    These missiles may only violate UN resolutions b/c they're not weighed down by guidance systems, but so what? A failure of Iraq to destroy the missiles will be interpreted as an act of defiance or at best non-cooperation with inspections, thereby making war more certain. On the other hand, should Iraq destroy the missiles it would certainly provide ammunition (no pun intended) to those nations who want to continue the inspections regime rather than go to war.


    From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Ron Webb
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2256

    posted 25 February 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    As I understand it, forty of the missiles were tested, and only thirteen went beyond the allowed range -- and those only by 20% on average. If it's also true that the missiles were tested without payloads, then it seems to me that Iraq has a legitimate objection to destroying them. Not that it will do them any good at this point.

    I wonder if/why they aren't allowed to sell the missiles, instead of destroying them? Or even to park them in another country while they argue the point?


    From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
    Gir Draxon
    leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
    Babbler # 3804

    posted 26 February 2003 02:04 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:

    I wonder if/why they aren't allowed to sell the missiles, instead of destroying them? Or even to park them in another country while they argue the point?

    Something tells me that allowing Iraq to sell off weapons to terrorists in other nations is a bad idea....

    Is Hans Blix saying Baghdad is lying? He better be! Iraq has a long history of lying and deceiving, while secretly developing their illegal arms programs. It is long past time that we do something about it.


    From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
    ronb
    rabble-rouser
    Babbler # 2116

    posted 26 February 2003 11:19 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
    quote:
    Iraq has a long history of lying and deceiving, while secretly developing their illegal arms programs.

    This is the catchy refrain I've been hearing from the Fox News crowd ever since Bush started singing it at the UN, and it's really starting to grate on me after a year of non-stop top of the pops. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes Iraq's arms programs less "legal" than Israel's, to choose one of a myriad of possible examples, is that they have absolutely no allies in the Security Council. As for lying and decieving, isn't that a bit disingenuous coming from the most secretive and evasive administration since Nixon - including the Iran-contra gang? And in a larger sense, every western country - not to mention every country with a military, I would imagine - has a classified Top Secret National Interests clandestine military budget, so what's with the feigned outrage that Iraq has one too?

    Don't misunderstand, I am all for transparency in military budgets and universal disarmament and every other similar ideal, it's just bizarre seeing this principle extended only to tin pot dictatorships who are too unsophisticated to hide their secret military activities effectively. Essentially it turns the serious and noble mission of eliminating chemical, biological and nuclear weapons from the face of the earth - outrageously thwarted by the US's recent evisceration of the OPCW BTW - into just another arrow in the very large quiver that powerful countries use to threaten weaker ones.


    From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

    All times are Pacific Time  

       Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
    Hop To:

    Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

    Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca