View Full Version : Iraq accepts UN Resolution (and averts war?)

13th Nov 2002, 18:09
Not at all surprised to hear that Iraq's final decision is unconditional acceptance of the UN Resolution. As I suspected yesterday's rejection by the Iraqi parliament was completely rhetorical, clearly directed by Saddam for propaganda purposes.

As I have said before, Saddam is not stupid (or mad): he knows that this is his only chance of holding on to power. Iraq will co-operate with the inspectors too, much as the Bush administration hope they won't because of their insatiable appetite for regime change.

Saddam is an evil and ruthless dictator who will kill anyone who gets in his way or threatens his position (including family members). But even he knows that he would have no chance against the threatened American invasion.

I have to say I am relieved not least for the American and British servicemen who were preparing to go in and risk their lives - and especially for those who would not have come back.

I would love to see Saddam removed, but this planned war is not the way to do it. It could easily have escalated into a West v Islam war, and that in turn could easily have escalated into a nuclear WWIII.

13th Nov 2002, 19:54
I'll wait and see the text. I'm too used to their "unconditional" acceptance followed by the "except for" and "if". If you see the following, I already wonder what the 6 pages contain, seems a lot for an unconditional acceptance. And what, exactly, do they mean by "their duties in accordance with international law".

This isn't over yet.

"Aldouri described the six-page letter as "unconditional, no questions asked" and said, "We are waiting for the inspectors to go as scheduled. We are eager to see the inspectors perform their duties in accordance with international law."

13th Nov 2002, 20:31
The Bush administration are already laying the groundwork for action, in case the inspectors findings are in favour of Iraq.

In a recent speech (vice)president Dick Cheney said : "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow "back in his box". "

It all leads you to wonder exactly what game the US is playing.

They challenge the U.N. to step up to the plate and give them the resolution they demand, but claim they don't need. And now they say that the resolution is basically useless, because if the inspectors find nothing it must be because Saddam was succesful in hiding it.

They seem to be very good at comming up with "reasons" for what is supposedly the last resort.

13th Nov 2002, 22:24
The game is simple. It is no game. Saddam is going. He may say he will comply and might? indeed attempt to comply. It is unlikely that his compliance will meet the requirements which are for total hand over of all WMD. This will lead to his removal, either by force or by internal revolt by those who do see that his removal is the final aim. That is it.

13th Nov 2002, 22:40
Iraqi parliament declines the UN resolution. Uday, son of Saddam, says: accept the resolution, Saddam himself accepts the resolution 2 days before the dead line. What a theater! All to show the Sad'em family are a reasonable bunch of camel drivers.... yeah right.

Big Oil is desperate, what the hell to do to start that darn war, if Saddam accepts everything?

Ominous quiet in Israel, what's going on there?



14th Nov 2002, 00:44
It is unlikely that his compliance will meet the requirements which are for total hand over of all WMD.

Ehh come again !!. Either Iraq is in compliance or it is not.
If compliance is not enough, then what is the point of all this so called "diplomacy", with UNSC resolutions and what have you, if not just a big PR exercise.

Saddam might be a snake in the grass, who says one thing but does another. But he is certainly not the only one.

14th Nov 2002, 10:42
Would all those who honestly believe that Saddem Hussein will allow totally unfettered access to all his palaces, military installations, industrial sites and any other sites the weapons inspectors wish to see, totally unsupervised or cotrolled by the Iraqis, please stand up.

That way we can, at least, count the loonies.

14th Nov 2002, 11:20
No, of course he won't allow total unfettered access, because he will play the "Great game". He has to be seen to be a strong leader by his people.

Hans Blixt is going in, and being very very methodical, he has to be. These are very high stakes.

Unfortunately, the US seems determined (Bush) to get this war underway soonest.

Now we have a positive ID of Osamas voice on tape. What a crock. Why not a video tape, showing he's alive and well?

Saddam needs to go, that much is undisputed, and I thik Uday is showing he's the man for the job.


I've been watching an awful lot of Iraqi satellite TV lately, and this guy is featuring larger and larger in the day to day business of Iraq. A potential heir suited to the US interest perhaps? Who knows , stranger things have happened.

The US sent a clear message last night, that they are not prepared to believe the weapons inspectors findings. Well, quelle surprise.


We need to get this understood, this is not about regime change, it's also about gaining control of Iraq. Israel wants this to happen, Oil interests want this to happen. US manufacturing wants it to happen, as we can't rely on Saudi Arabia much longer, and the US consumer, wants his petrol cheap.


Now Bush can make all the noises he wants about Saddam, but he'll be between a rock and a hardplace ,politically, diplomatically and possibly militarily , if he goes in contrary to UN expectations.

So, why does he appear, to be intent on pursuing military action against Iraq, contrary to reason?

When are we going to see the hard evidence of WMD. I seem to remember Bluppet releasing conclusive "proof" of WMD, except the document was produced by a right-wing thinktank, and was based on suppositon, what ifs and "This is probably what he has access to today", with no consideration of the fact the country has been under embargo for a vey long time, and satellite, U-2 and other imagery and intelligence hasn't yet turned up a "smoking gun"

Who knows, maybe Bush will stand up, and admit the real reason?

His backers a.k.a the people who funded his dubious rise to power, want a return on their investment

Now I know certain of you, will stand up, and yell and holler "We have to invade Iraq" . Righty-ho...... but why exactly?

14th Nov 2002, 14:19
Bush reminds me of a little child:
"You can't invade Iraq"
"Can too!"
"No, you can't. There's no good reason"
"Oh yeah? You're not the boss of me!"

The only reason Bush even bothered to mess with the UN is that Congress made him do so. Now that the Republicans have the majority in Congress, Bush is going to get approval for whatever he wants w.r.t. Iraq.

The sad part, for me, is how many Americans accept Bush's line, and even worse, how many see through it to the oil connection, but still approve because "Saddam is a bad guy"

BTW, why do the media refer to Saddam Hussein as Saddam and not Hussein?

14th Nov 2002, 14:40
Please see below. It is still not evident that Iraq is compliant.

More interestingly, today, on the radio, it was stated that it was considered that the UN resolution covered all aircraft flying in the No-Fly zones, since they were nominally set up under the auspice of a UN resolution. Any AA or SAM activity directed at US or British aircraft operating in the zones would, therefore, will be considered a "material breach" of the present UN resolution.

i.e. We can bomb you, but you can't shoot back!!

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq's response to the United Nations is unclear on whether Baghdad has really accepted the U.N. resolution -- and that could mean a military confrontation is waiting.

Iraq's defiant nine-page letter, delivered Wednesday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, does not use the word "accept" but states that "we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents."

After seeing Baghdad's response, a senior U.S. State Department official said it was still not clear if Iraq had even said "yes" to the U.N. resolution demanding unfettered access for inspectors to search for weapons.

An advanced team of inspectors is due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday.

In the letter, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri wrote that Iraq will allow inspectors back in to show "that Iraq neither had produced nor was in possession of any weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical or biological -- throughout the time of the inspectors' absence from Iraq."

The letter says that in "dealing with the inspectors," the Iraqi government will consider any "improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty."

Iraq has previously used similar language about "sovereignty" to keep U.N. inspectors out of presidential palaces and government ministries -- a decade-old sticking point for inspectors.

The letter also says that if the inspectors carry out their duties "professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the liar's lies will be exposed" and the Security Council will be obligated "to lift the blockade and all other unjust sanctions on Iraq." (Full text of Iraq's letter) (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/14/iraq.letter.ap/index.html)

The U.S. State Department said the Iraqi letter was only the first step toward compliance.

"We'll look at the letter, but that's all it is," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "Iraq has no choice but to comply with the resolution's terms. Iraq's letter is one of the requirements. The next ones are full disclosure and active cooperation with the inspectors."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw pointed out that Baghdad's denial of having weapons sets up the possibility of a new crisis on December 8, the date Iraq is required under the resolution to disclose the full details of its weapons program.........


LA Times - September 30, 2002

One Man, One Big Identity Crisis
Should the media refer to Iraqi president as 'Saddam' or 'Hussein'?

WASHINGTON -- Saddam Hussein has been a familiar name since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. But as the United States again weighs the prospect of war with Iraq, the question of what to call the Iraqi president is becoming a bit of a media quandary.....

Most Arab scholars insist that it is not belittling to refer to Saddam Hussein as Saddam for several reasons: first, that is his given name, whereas Hussein is his father's given name; second, that is how most English-language newspapers in the Arab world refer to him and how Iraqis refer to him when they're not calling him Mr. President; and finally, Saddam seems logical because that is how most Americans now know him.

"Strictly speaking, calling him by Hussein makes no sense," said Michael Fischbach, a historian at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va., who specializes in the Middle East. "It's like Madonna. That's his name."........................

The nation's largest newspapers--including the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post--refer to the Iraqi leader on second reference as Hussein; the more formal New York Times and Wall Street Journal call him Mr. Hussein. By contrast, USA Today is sticking with Saddam, as is Associated Press, which sets style rules for 1,700 U.S. newspapers and 5,000 television and radio outlets in the United States.......

Associated Press recently reminded papers of the Saddam-on-second-reference rule. Although AP style is not binding on member papers, the edicts tend to be respected, if only because changing the name in every story sent by the Associated Press could be a time-consuming--and error-inducing--prospect.

The Los Angeles Times has not revisited the issue since the last war. Nor has the New York Times. "We haven't had reason to reconsider our usage, and we haven't received complaints from readers, authorities or sources," e-mailed New York Times assistant managing editor Allan M. Siegal, the paper's language guardian.

One reason some newspapers adopted the Saddam usage for the last war is that King Hussein of Jordan (he had one name only, like Queen Elizabeth), was still alive, and there was concern about confusing the two. But the king died in 1999, and now, what binds Saddam to U.S. readers and listeners is more habit than anything else.

"Actually his name is Saddam Hussein al-Majd al-Takriti," said Tom Kent, deputy managing editor at Associated Press. "He uses neither al-Majd or al-Takriti, and Hussein is not a last name."

So, at AP anyway, Saddam for the first war, Saddam still.

Hagbard the Amateur
14th Nov 2002, 15:00
Lunkenheimer - I think the reason that most of the informed media refer to him as "Saddam" is because, according to Iraqi custom, peoples names are written surname then forename. In the western world he would be called "Hussein Saddam."
I have noticed on this round of the war in the sand pit that certain media reports have chosen to refer to him as "Hussein." It's a bit like referring to Bush as George in a news item. His son Uday's basic name is written Saddam Uday but you are unlikely to see any of Saddam Hussein's relatives' names printed in full. For the purpose of propagandic semiotics, we only need the one Saddam.

14th Nov 2002, 15:49
The only reason that Iraq accepted the UN resolution is that the USA is geared up to kick ass if he doesn't.

The second that the USA stands down he will go back to resisting, hiding and general mischief. Expect the rhetoric to stay very high untill the weapons inspectors do their work!

Furthermore, current plans call for a US force of 250-300,000 troops to fight the war in Iraq (inaddition to our committements everwhere else). That will require a callup nearly as large as for the first gulf war. As I have said before, I haven't been called. I don't know anyone who has. The CRAF (Civil Reserve Air Fleet) hasn't been activated, etc. They flew thousands of missions during the first gulf war (American alone flew 100 CRAF missions, Northwest flew so many they almost went out of business because they couldn't service their own routes)

At the moment this is all just rhetoric (backed up by will, mind you) But the only reason the Saddam complies is that he feels the threat is real. Well expect that threat to stay real for a long time. Get used to it. Its what it takes to get the job done.

Why is this so difficult for everyone to understand?


14th Nov 2002, 17:30
What, they did? What the hell I’m I going to do with a C-130 full of beer then? And the two bags of pretzels.

:confused: :confused:

14th Nov 2002, 19:15
Lunkenheimer, nice to hear from an American who can see beyond the Bush administration rhetoric for a change, rather than the usual gung-ho 'Let's go in and kick some foreign ass'.

They won't be cheering so loudly when the body bags start arriving back home in C-130s.

Wino, glad to see I can agree with you on one thing at least, the USA is indeed geared up to 'kick ass'. Shame that Bush cannot seem to shift from the idea that he is going to remove Saddam. The decision was made months ago, but the way things are going he is going to have to un-make it.

"Well expect that threat to stay real for a long time. Get used to it. Its what it takes to get the job done." Was just wondering Wino if you have ever thought about this enough to at least question the White House rhetoric, or do you see it as quintessential that you swallow whole and regurgitate their line as often as possible on the grounds that anything else would be unpatriotic?

Barry, I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think that Saddam is not going to continue to play his games, but as long as he is seen to co-operate with the inspectors the Americans will not be able to go in and 'kick ass', at least not with the approval of the rest of the world. If Bush is really that determined enough to go in regardless, and really stupid enough not to realise that the consequences of that would be catastrophic, then Saddam may not be the only one who needs his head examined.

In the Guardian today there is a very interesting article about the former CIA psychiatrist Dr Jerrold Post, who advises the American government on the mental state of potential foes. He argues that while Saddam "is psychologically in touch with reality, he is often politically out of touch with reality"

Post, who is also a professor of political psychology at the capital's George Washington University, believes Saddam will never give up his chemical and biological weapons, or his nuclear programme, and will lash out with everything he has in his arsenal if he feels he is cornered, launching toxins and germs at invading US-British forces, and at Israel...Threatened with extinction, Post predicts Saddam will probably both set fire to the Iraqi oilfields, as he did in Kuwait 11 years ago, and order the use of chemical and biological weapons against the invading troops and against Israel.

Here is the full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,839391,00.html)

Listening to the 'kick ass' rhetoric reminds me of the brilliant American comedian, the late Bill Hicks. "Who are these people, with such low self esteem - they need a war to feel better about themselves? Could I suggest something else? Maybe.......sit-ups? A fruit cup? 6 to 8 glasses of water a day? :D

14th Nov 2002, 19:30
I don't think Hussein will attack Israel because he knows what's in store for him if he does. But if he does, lucky for the world that the Israelis will take him out before the Americans do.

14th Nov 2002, 22:51
Lucky for the world bubette? I´m pretty sure if Sharon will attack Iraq it´ll be nuclear because he doesn´t have the 250K men needed to do the job. At least Bush & Co have the sense and recources not to use nukes.



Bally Heck
15th Nov 2002, 02:10
It is unlikely that there will be a war. What is happening here is diplomacy and posturing. Was it Eisenhower who said "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" Well that doesn't work today! You still need the big stick though.

That Iraqui pr**k, and his disfunctional family understand nothing except the threat of being displaced from their undeserved, unearned, unconstitutional fiefdom.

He will do anything to save his own arse.

So, the net result of the whole episode will be no WMD in Iraq.

Saddam still in power.

15th Nov 2002, 07:57
Bubbette and KAOS, while it is easily possible to argue its relevance to the issue at hand, I will not have this thread sidetracked into the usual Israel vs the Palestinians flame war.

Please take note.



15th Nov 2002, 10:08

Huh? You lost me here...... where did I mentioned Palestina (ians)??

Israel is a major factor in the US vs Iraq issue, as it has been in 1991, so it's more then relative to the discussion, IMHO.

Seems Israel is a touchy issue for this forum, tell me if I'm wrong?



15th Nov 2002, 10:18
This whole thing is turning into a joke, but it's certainly not a funny one. We have OBL alive and well and saying clearly that there will be more attacks similar to Bali, the UK and US governments know this and yet they still go after Iraq. The priorities are totally wrong. Terroism is the threat here not Hussein. He has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, not one of the detainees at Guantanemo are Iraqi. Iraq is a country that allows christianity to flourish, Tariq Aziz the deputy PM is a christian and indeed there is a Catholic patriarch in Iraq. There is no religious police force in Iraq unlike the Saudis. Did you know recently that 15 schoolgirls were allowed to burn to death in Saudi because the religious police would not let firemen rescue them because they said they were not dressed appropriately?! Women in Iraq have equal rights to men by law, with regards to education, employment and dress.

Now look at Saudi Arabia, look how many of the 9/11 terroists were Saudi citizens, look at where the majority of funding comes from for these terroists, look at the control of arab media, 95% controlled by the Saudis, the vast majority churning out anti-western bile. It is a vile regime in Saudi Arabia yet look at where the attention is. We have Scot Ritter, the former weapons inspector saying that Iraq has zero capability to produce chemical weapons as the whole infrastructure has been destroyed.

But hey, Bush wants his war and he'll do anything to get it. Don't forget how effective a war state is in keeping control of your people. Keeps the annoying questions about the slowing economy and in particular the corporate scandals nicely tucked away. Makes people forget also, his dodgy and shaky election victory Add that to his big oil buddies and you have this disgraceful situation.

Noone pretends Hussein is a benevolent, kind ruler. He's a viscious dictator, but no worse then others whom the US openly courts. US foreign policy has no consistency, forget about democracy and all it's cherished ideals, you can be a vile dictator but if you whistle to America's tune, no problem! You can be a fairly elected democratic leader like in Venezuela, but say and do things the US doesn't like and you can expect a CIA coup to come your way.

So I guess we all just have to wait until we get another 9/11 or Bali or worse to focus on where the real problem is.

15th Nov 2002, 15:18
I hear you flaps; Kaos, I'd love to PM you if you want to continue discussion (but I'm happy to agree to disagree).

I think if you read the text of the Iraq letter, you see that it's so full of conditions as to make their acceptance basically useless (eg "we still have the right to defend our country, and protect our citizens etc)

15th Nov 2002, 15:51
It should be noted that one of the main points of the UN resolution was that Iraq should declare and hand over it's WMD.

They are still stating that they have none.

The statement has already been made in the USA that, as a result, they are already in substantive breach of the resolution.

They'll probably given them till the deadline of 8th Dec to fess up, if they still deny it after that all bets are off - regardless of the UN inspectors.

15th Nov 2002, 16:37
Front page headlines in “USA Today”.

Iranians may aid U.S. war on Iraq.


Curious don’t you think?


15th Nov 2002, 16:46
Bubbette, no problems mate.... I think we need to give the inspectors a chance to do the job for the credibillity of the UN. The UN inspectors did a helluva job until 1998 under very difficult circumstances and they can finish it now.

There might be WMD's there but only in parts and rudimentary. Not a sight of nuclear weapons IMHO. Hussein is a survivor and not a fundamentalistic suicidal loonatic. He overplayed his hand by taking Kuwait 1991, clearly a mistake, but what has he done eversince? And the scuds on Israel were a laugh and only to get the other Arabic states involved, another mistake. If he wanted to use biological weapons he would have done then, not now.

US/Bush have their own agenda, a personal thingie between the Bush family and Saddam and the oil fields.

One thing I must admit, Bush has accomplished that Saddam knows there's no way back and he MUST cooperate otherwise he will still get his @ss whipped and nobody will save him then. Actually a perfect situation for everybody. All well ends well?

Hopefully the powers to be will not forget Afghanistan in the meantime as they did 10 years ago...



Anthony Carn
15th Nov 2002, 18:50
The Iraqis have probably already hidden any WMD where no inspectors will find them.

Impossible ?

15th Nov 2002, 19:06
Well said OneWorld. Yours is the voice of the truth.

Agree that Bush has realised the value of starting wars abroad in order to increase popularity and divert attention from problems at home. A classic political tactic since time immemorial. When Bush came to power he hoped to opt out of Foreign Policy - mainly because he didn't have one.

The War on Terror has indeed become a bad joke and the decision-makers in Washington have again failed to clearly think through the consequences of such unilateral action against Iraq. This all started on Septembe 11 2001, but Saddam had nothing to do with that and Bed Linen is apparently still at large. A huge embarrassment for the US government and perhaps one more reason why Dubya is so determined to go in and 'kick ass' in Iraq.

15th Nov 2002, 19:38
Exactly Wedge, the war on terror is a far less attractive excercise then a good old fashioned War with troops pouring in and US military big-wigs showing off their home videos each evening of Stealth bombers hitting their targets with "pinpoint accuracy" (eh, General that was actually a school...) to a drooling US media.

The war on terror is a far dirtier and probably unwinable war, an enemy who hides and is impossible to find and has members hidden away in countries all over the world.

They're the enemy, but the west is bloodthirsty and needs a visible and easy target.

There's no choice really is there?

p.s. In case anyone accusues me of being anti-US, stop before you begin. I love the US and especially the ideals in which it was founded. The US constitution, the bill of rights - the finest documents ever written. You can love the country and disagree with the government, they're not un-breakably joined.

15th Nov 2002, 20:10
You are right. "The war on terror" is unwinable, as terror is not an individual or an organization or a country, but a method.
And it is used by others than the "unlawfull combattants" I might add.

But as everything these days needs a title (and theme music), I guess it was chosen for how it looks in the papers and on TV.

15th Nov 2002, 21:46
found this pic on the web and couldn't resist posting it in this thread

Bush spotting Saddam (http://sabailand.bizland.com/Bush.jpg)



15th Nov 2002, 23:59
According to an article written in yesterdays 'The Australian' paper, A Mr Roger Hill, who was the last inspector out of Baghdad in 1998, the new team don't stand a chance of finding anything worthwhile, it was hard enough the last time but with four years intervening the evidence will be well hidden and once the teams arrive the Iraqis will be just as obstructive and uncooperative as before, Hill thinks.

Still, the UN have to be seen to be going through the motions.

16th Nov 2002, 00:35
Oneworld22, the final paragraph of your last posting is one the best things I have ever seen in my time as a PPruner, and captured my own thoughts exactly. Kudos to you!

What straits do we find ourselves in when the absence of evidence of a thing (ie, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a bloodthirsty tyrant) can be accepted as proof of that thing's existence?

Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly an evil and twisted man, but he is NOT the "clear and present danger" that confronts us.

The real danger, if we but had the vision to see it, is the long-term consequences of our own inaction, apathy and timidity.

By all means let us in the West mobilise our resources to the utmost towards a common aim. But let's aim at the right target........terrorism.

By which I mean the IRA and the right-wing deathsquads in Central and South America every bit as much I mean Al Qaeda, Hamas and the like in the Middle East and Sendero Luminoso in Peru.

There is our true moral purpose, there is our true crusade.

Anything, and I mean anything, less is a politically expedient sham.

What say you?

BTW, Bally Heck....No, it was Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt!

16th Nov 2002, 12:31
Blue Eagle, this time it's different, Saddam knows what will happen if the inspectors get oppostiton. This was not the fact in 1998. He's a man who will use any weakness from the other party. Now he knows he'll get blasted when he obstructs the inspectors and there will be no patience from the (western) world next time.



16th Nov 2002, 17:16
Really Caslance, no proof of any remaining WMD capability? You have one of the shortest memories in history, or a unwillingness to accept facts. Just to remind you, read the information on the following site.

Iraq Watch - Weapons Archive (http://www.iraqwatch.org/updatearchive/weapon-arch-index.htm)

Iraq Watch - Home Page http://www.iraqwatch.org

16th Nov 2002, 18:18
The "War on Terror " I am sure is continuing strongly and firmly undercover. You can not confront terrorist groups in the same way as a Nation, especially when they operate as Al Quaeda would appear to do so.

Although many will see the threat of War against Iraq as political posturing , it is far from that.
We are at real threat of his Weapons of Mass Destruction, maybe not now but certainly within a relatively short time frame.

I have said before in other threads on JB , I have seen and been described events of Chemical warfare during Military service which Saddamm Hussein inflicted upon his own people, he will have no difficulty in inflicting these same agents upon ourselves.

Saddam also needs money , he would I have no doubt sell his WMD to rogue terrorist groups such as Al Quaeda.

There is never a simple answer or a simple solution in such matters.
However whether or not you agree with the Bush or Blair administrations response to these tyrants ,at least they still have the will if required to attempt to sort this evil out.

16th Nov 2002, 23:22

Rather "selected" evil. 2 Million victims of Pol Pot never stopped the US from NOT intervening, although they were at the root of the problem. May be a different agenda here?

N-Korea openly admitted they have nuclear weapons, so when can we expect an invasion from the US/UK? Strangely this seems to not to be an issue in the US.

Why Sadam never used these WMD during Desert Storm? More reason to use them then than now, wouldn't you say?

Al Qaida get their nasty stuff from the former Russian Reps as does Saddam, why would B-Laden buy it from his enemy?

Further Bush is mentioning: `Iraq's hostility toward America, support of terror` which hostility?



17th Nov 2002, 00:34
nobody has yet confirmed what caused gulfwar syndrome.
one of the possibilities is a chemical/nerve agent released by Sadamm hussein.

I have been privey to information not available to the masses which proves beyond doubt the capabilities of Sadamm regime to inflict mass destruction upon the west.

We should be very concerned .

17th Nov 2002, 00:37
KAOS, well the attempt to assassinate his dad for a start. Revenge isn't a trait limited to Saddam. They USA has also, to their own satisfaction, traced the funding for terrorists attacks in the USA such as the previous attacks on the Trade Towers, back to Saddam.

Reference your other Aunt Sally's.

The fact you can't solve all the problems at the same time doesn't make a case for not solving any of them.

Iraq is on the list because the USA perceive them to be a risk to the USA. Cambodia was not. I would have thought you'd be happy that they're not assuming the role of the world's policeman.

North Korea, if anything, proves the point that such problems should be nipped in the bud. The North Koreans made solemn binding promises which were total lies. They continued to acquire the ability to produce WMD until they have them. The world, and particularly their neighbours, now have to live with the problem of containment or build their own. I perceive the world will, shortly, contain a nuclear capable Japan.

You're now making the case that everyone should sit back, believe Saddam, and let Iraq do the same thing?

17th Nov 2002, 00:55
Your post reminds me of a two year old Kaos.

Rather "selected" evil. 2 Million victims of Pol Pot never stopped the US from NOT intervening, although they were at the root of the problem. May be a different agenda here?

Look at the history, the US public wouldn't settle for any more US deaths in 1975 after Viet Nam.

N-Korea openly admitted they have nuclear weapons, so when can we expect an invasion from the US/UK? Strangely this seems to not to be an issue in the US.

Typical Euro-whine "what about them?"

A little different here. If Iraq had a couple of billion nuclear armed people on it's northern border,(China), a well armed fiesty neighbor backed by the US on it's southern border (South Korea), and a short way across the water was the 2nd or third largest economy in the world (Japan),with a deadly experience with nuclear weapons, then it's treatment might be different. If the US could make Iraq freeze in the dark like the North Koreans will this winter, it might have more leverage than just the threat of war.

Why Sadam never used these WMD during Desert Storm? More reason to use them then than now, wouldn't you say?

1. He may not have had them and may not now.
2. There may have been a side deal: The US takes Kuwait, you live another day, you use them, then you and Iraq are glass.
3. He may have them, there aren't any side deals, may use them and die (along with many)
4. He may not use them and retire to a villa in Libya.

Al Qaida get their nasty stuff from the former Russian Reps as does Saddam, why would B-Laden buy it from his enemy?

I somewhat agree here. Saddam and Big daddy Affaz Assad in Syria have been vicious agaisnt the radical Islam wackos. Personally, I'd make a deal with him to forgoe any nuke research under pain of elimination, then let him have Saudia Arabia for a decade or two of "cleansing". It is clear where this religious psychosis is rooted and financed.

17th Nov 2002, 01:15
Now there Flower, since you appear to spend some time in the privy, you might be able to tell us exactly how Saddam can inflict "mass destruction on the West"?.

It is all very well that he might have chemical or biological weapons, but he also need the means to deliver them.

As you know, it takes a bit more than just stuffing it into the nose cone of a scud, for it to have any serious effect.

DC Meatloaf
17th Nov 2002, 06:56

He need only provide them to someone willing to use them.

17th Nov 2002, 11:55
Techman ,
I am unable to provide you with that information.

However it takes very little imagination to figure it out.

17th Nov 2002, 12:52
Well, if we're all going to start flaunting information we're "privy" to...

The Government, in their infinite wisdom, trained me to recognise NBC agents, and to instruct in defence against them.

I have trained at establishments, where people make it their business to know exactly, what the potential aggressor may have in their armoury.

The thing is this. Countries you never suspected, have far far more vile petri dishes than Iraq.

The oft-quoted report, and the "proof" offered up on the Iraqwatch website, is just a supposition document. An analysis if you will, of what Iraq possibly might have.

Saddam didn't use what he had in 91, because we told him , we would nuke him.... end of.

So a lot of this stuff, just rotted in the desert, as reported by the UN weapons inspectors.

There is active research going on in Iraq now, into Biological WMD's. Nukes? Thought unlikely by the experten. Radioactive materiel shipments, are far easier to trace, and are better known, then a lot of you suspect.

One of the favourite anecdotes of the instruction team, when I was at the secret laboratory, was an incident in 91.

Bunch of troops on standto, when all of a sudden, one of them goes down, foaming at the mouth, pupils dilated, the whole 9 yards. Everyone in the immediate vicinity get the S10's on, and the NBC alarms are sounded. The oppos of the victim, get his respirator on, then start administering atrophine, to no percieved effect. Now big panic, as to what the hell has been used, that is resistant to the antidote? Casualty is evacuated, and examined, where it is found, he's had an epileptic fit -lol (Sorry)
So now they've got to get the ANTI-atrophine into him, to conteract the effects of the anti-nerve agent. Well, i guess you had to be there.....

Flower, I don't know what information you say you have been privy to, but the information I have, is "undoubtedly some war stocks held in reserve"
These are munitions, that can be air delivered, by spray plane or 500lb bomb. The analysis of how many missiles he can fire with the petri dish on the nose, is "not a lot", and confined to battlefield theatre.

Please don't imply that Saddam has the ability to fire a missile at the continental US or the UK, he doesn't.

As regards spreading anthrax or smallpox by another delivery system?

Saddam is a lot less capable, then some others.

Lizad, agree by and large with your summary. People(Bush) seem to be willing to forget, that trying to find a link between OBL and Saddam, is like trying to prove that Sharon and Arafat were frat brothers. It's not going to happen. Iraq has a loathing of all things fundamentalist, as does Syria. I have no doubt, Iraqi intelligence spoke to reps from Al-Quaeda,after all, if you have wackos knocking about , you want to know what's going on. How many Middle Eastern countries Intelligence services have met these people? I wonder how much of the intelligence gathered there, ended up on the desk at Langley?

At the back of all this, we have to determine, just how willing Saddam is, to die a martyrs death in the name of Islam. Not very, he's no fanatic.

Let's do it this way. Seize the oil fields and hold them. Turn that area into a safe haven for Iraqi refugees. With control of the oil fields, we turn Saddams money supply off, leading to submission and exile. Don't kill him, we don't need another Martyr. A villa in Libya, seems appropriate.

Bush gets what he has been told to get by the evil twins (Rice/Ernst Stavros Rumsfeld) and no need for thousands of people to die.

Just a thought, but delivered with the worlds worst cracked toothache.....

17th Nov 2002, 13:01
You are wrong DC, being willing is not enough.

Flower, we are not talking about imagination or fantasies but facts. So how would Saddam inflict "mass destruction on the West"?.

17th Nov 2002, 13:01
Oh, and this just in......


Ca someone please educate me, as to why the hell we're invading Iraq, while the REAL enemy gets to launch attacks with seeming impunity?

17th Nov 2002, 22:49
there's not a shred of proof that Iraq has financed the terrorist attack on the WTC. If so, pls show me, other than Bush's punches in the air. The so called meeting between Atta and an Iraqi secret agent in Prague has been proved as non existent. Also CIA has acknowledged that ther was no connection between the WTC attack and Saddam.

Knowing your skills to produce proof from the internet sureley it must be possbile for you to base this on solid facts?

Being the most powerful nation in the world, the US IS posing themselves as the policemen of this world.

N-Korea has little economical value, therfore not interesting to invade. It won't use the nukes, but just use it as blackmail to extort gazillian dollars and economical aid from US and Japan. That's why Bush is using a different tone and Koizumi is frantically negotiating. Or do you think US didn't know about the nukes?

I'm not worried about Iraq, but VERY worried about for attacks from Al Qaeda cells all over the world, like Bali. And there's a big one coming on in the very near future, there's just too much activity! Recently a terrorist attack in the London Metro with cyanide has just been thwarted by the Scotland Yard.


your style reminds me of a 13 year old nerd that watch too many movies. nerds always yap about eurowhine and your laughable plots are even more ridicoulus than those of Die Hard III.

Like N-Korea has China, Iraq has Israel, a nuclear force, which can wipe Iraq from the world in 30 minutes (and Saddam knows that). They destroyed Iraqs sole nuclear plant over a decade ago.
An army is defenseless against nukes and so the S-Korean army, no matter how fiesty they are.
Japan may be a (almost bankrupt) economical giant but it's a giant with clay feet.

WDM: Just to remind you, Saddam HAD them, technology delivered by the US as mentioned in an earlier thread, he used it against Iran and the Kurds 10 years ago.
Your 3 other plots: see my Die Hard III remark above, Ludlum could learn something from you.

Nxt time pls concentrate more on facts rather then my age...



18th Nov 2002, 02:06
Captain KAOS,

I repeat, the Bush administration has to it's own satisfaction established that Saddam was responsible for the funding and planning of the previous attacks on the USA. Whether they can prove it to your satisfaction would seem immaterial.

The intelligence that started them investigating the connection was uncovered and published by Laurie Mylroie in her book "Study of Revenge - Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America". Mylroie is currently with the Foreign Policy Research Institute of Philadelphia, formerly of Harvard University and the U.S. Naval War College, and also the publisher of the electronic journal "Iraq News". A summary can be found here (http://www.aei.org/bs/bs12062.htm) and here (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm).

The opinions of senior CIA, diplomatic and political appointees can be found here (http://www.aei.org/shop1/shops/1/4127-2.htm).

As reported in the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (Vol 3, No 10), the Bush administration began quietly investigating the claims made by Mylroie. The most incriminating evidence produced in her book concerned the identity of Ramzi Yousef, a Pakistani convicted of masterminding the 1993 attack. Yousef fled the US after the attack using a passport in the name of Abdul Basit Karim, a Pakistani resident of Kuwait. According to Mylroie, Iraqi intelligence altered files at Kuwait's interior ministry after the 1990 invasion in order to provide Yousef with a false identity.

In October 2001, former CIA director James Woolsey reportedly flew to London to determine whether Yousef's fingerprints matched those of Abdul Basit, who lived in Britain during the 1980s. The fact that he arrived on board a US government plane serving to confirm that his investigation has been sanctioned by the Bush administration.

18th Nov 2002, 04:50
Feel free to attempt to link my post to a 13 year old Television watcher if you think it fits.

Your behavior regarding the North Korean nuclear problem, to paraphrase your whine "but look at them, it's the same as Iraq", is closer to the thought process of a two year old than some imagined TV habit of mine. I stick by my assessment of your post. it is an impotent, childish whine typical of the Left and heard in the USA too, so I would be wrong to call it a "eurowhine".

A few more facts regarding N Korea. They haven't invaded anyone in 50 years or gassed anyone either. They have had a strange recreational program for their commandos over the years, but nothing like large scale wars.

Chuck K
18th Nov 2002, 10:49
Too many Brits assume all Americans are gung-ho Arab hating hawks, or think those who aren't are rare exceptions. Many of us are worried about the President's line, even if we've served in the military and even Republicans.

Wedge, you asked Wino "Was just wondering if you have ever thought about this enough to at least question the White House rhetoric, or do you see it as quintessential that you swallow whole and regurgitate their line as often as possible on the grounds that anything else would be unpatriotic?"
Wino doesn't need White House rhetoric, and he isn't reurgitating the Bush line out of patriotism - not patriotism to America anyway.
If you do a 'Search' for Wino's other utterances on Middle East problems, you'll see why he loves the idea of force being used against the Arab world, and see where his loyalties lie.

It's up to you, but I've found it's generally a waste of time trying to argue with people who think they're superior and 'explain' things instead of arguing their opinion.
Wino's Why is this so difficult for everyone to understand? should give you a heads-up. :rolleyes:

18th Nov 2002, 11:07
All these books are just suppositions from writers. How bad is it when a country can't even rely on it's own central intelligent agency and have to base their strategy on books??

CIA statements about Iraq terrorist connection (http://www.embargos.de/irak/post1109/english/terror_acts_waned.htm)

"The CIA said Iraq may execute terrorist attacks if it feels cornered, but the president continues to seek permission to attack" (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/10/Worldandnation/CIA_letter_on_Iraq_fa.shtml)

But then, you prefectly stated yourself: "the Bush administration has to it's own satisfaction established that Saddam was responsible for the funding and planning of the previous attacks on the USA"...

North Korea's Pyongyang Radio said Sunday the country "has come to have nuclear and other strong military weapons to deal with increased nuclear threats by the U.S. imperialists," according to the Yonhap news agency which monitors North Korean broadcasts. Seems a lot more hostile than Iraq and NKorea is a lot closer to the US than Iraq. So from a 2 year old it's perfectly clear that NKorea is more dangerous than Iraq.

NKoreas WMD (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/)

It might be the case that being placed in the axis of evil and being a possible subject to a pre-emptive strike (like Iraq) NKorea is prepared to defense itself? May be Bush is more careful because he knows NKorea has nukes?



18th Nov 2002, 14:18
Gentlemen, please remind yourselves of the fact that we deal in post-content here.
Presumptions about the mental age of fellow combatants stray into the murky area of personal attack.
This invariably leads to degeneration of the debate at hand and ultimately the application of the padlock.

The subject of this thread is timely and important.

To remain viable, a thread like this needs the kind of rational debate that happily forms the bulk of this particular thread, not the scoring of cheap emotional points. However few and far between they thankfuly are on this thread, I would hate to see them take it over.
The choice is yours.
In the mean time, you have my gratitude for an interesting and instructive read!



18th Nov 2002, 15:08
Captain KAOS,

After the perceived intelligence failure of 9/11 the CIA's credibility was, and is, sadly in question.

It is true that much of the evidence is conjecture and hearsay. Some would say that was the consequence of the departure of the inspection teams. If you look at the reports they submitted prior to their expulsion you will find much evidence. And that, surely, is the point of the new inspection team? To see if the claims are correct or not?

The initial team members are now in Iraq. Time will tell.

18th Nov 2002, 17:06
ORAC: "It is true that much of the evidence is conjecture and hearsay. "

I seem to remember you taking me to task not long ago for making an almost identical assertion!! A change of heart, perchance? Or yet another website with an agenda and a lose acquaintance with objectivity? :D

Why not simply come clean and admit that President Bush is determined to attack Iraq come what may and is unlikely to let any considerations stand in the way?

His reasons and motives are largely irrelevant since his mind is clearly made up , although I must admit that if Saddam Hussein had tried to have my father assassinated, I'd be rather eager to settle the score.

Then again, I'm not the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the most powerful nation on the planet so I can afford to let my heart rule my head without an awful lot of people getting killed, can't I?

How you doin' anyway, ORAC?

18th Nov 2002, 17:31

Nice to hear from you again!

Much does not mean all. Circumstantial evidence is acceptable even in a court of law. Much evidence is reported as hearsay because we only have access to the reports, those producing them have access to the original statements.

Regardless, as I am sure you will acknowledge, I have always said it is the perception of the Bush administration that matters, they have the big battalions.

It may well be true that Bush's intentions were always to attack Iraq and he was only, reluctantly, persuaded to give the UN a final try. But perhaps he considers the evidence gives him just cause?

The UN inspectors are now in Iraq. They state that they will not accept no for an answer and will brook no delay. If they find they have the required access and find nothing I cannot see an attack happening. But then, I cannot see them getting the required access or finding nothing.

Time will tell.

Personally, I am still in the land of the great satan, but home for warm beer and the Queen's speech for Xmas. :)

18th Nov 2002, 19:31
CBS' 60 Minutes show last night had Bob Woodward doing a sort of promo interview for his latest book 'Bush at War'. Haven't read the book yet, but there were some tantalizing snippets from a interview Woodward recorded with GWB. Some insight into his mindset perhaps ?

The show's text (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/17/60minutes/main529657.shtml) should be available for a few days.

18th Nov 2002, 21:28
One point worth noting, the consitution of the new weapons inspection team is vastly different from the first one. The new team about to commence inspections is made up of at least forty nationalities.

As a political commentator down here in Australia pointed out this morning, several of those inspectors come from countries that are either overtly or covertly in sympathay with Iraq and the suitability of their selection for a fact finding team has to be called into question. It is quite possible they have been instructed by their respective governments to 'turn a blind eye'.

We shall see.

18th Nov 2002, 22:14
Blue Eagle
I don't know the composition of the inpsection team. Do I take it from what you say that there are no Americans, no Brits, and no members representing other governments which are overtly or covertly antipathetic towards Iraq? :confused:

19th Nov 2002, 05:46
So Chuck, or whoever you are with a new handle,
Why exactly do I "love the Idea of force being used against the Arab world?" Maybe you said it already and Flaps made you take it down. Dunno what you posted originally, I was out flying, send me a private email if you must.

What I was referring to in "Why is this so hard to understand?" is despite all the left wing bashing of Bush especially from the left coast of America, is that we are NOT prepping to fight a war right now. We might in the future, and we are certainly reserving the right to, but we have not activated the necesary reserves to fight a war in Iraq anytime in the next six months.

Yes retaliation will continue in the no fly zones as they have for the last decade. To fight a war will require the reserves and national guard. But to call up reserves you have to train em to get em combat ready. It took six months of call ups and training before the 100 days of bombing that lead to the 100 hour ground war in Iraq. We maintained a much larger active duty force back then. Now a higher percentage of the forces will be reserves, and you can't call em up and send em strait to Iraq. So it will most likely take even longer from call up to first shot.

That is what you seam to be unable to grasp. So how hard is it to understand that reserves can't be deployed overnight? The reserves haven't been called up yet, ergo no war in Iraq this week, contrary to what the 90 or so naked girls protested today in LA or where ever in California.

As to North Korea. The no fly zones, the troops protecting Kuwait and Saudia Arabia and everything else chew up a lot of aircraft and manpower in an already stretched out Military. It is better to finish Iraq quickly and THEN take care of North Korea. Otherwise we would be fighting atleast 2 wars side by side and that is about the limits of our ability these days, which would just encourage other tin pot dictators to get adventurous. Its really a basic premise, one war at a time.

The fact that no one can put this together is hard for me to grasp. The Axis of terror has been laid out. I am sure that one after the other they shall all be dealt with. One at a time is far smarter, dont you think?

As to the inspectors in Iraq. Does anyone believe that the inspectors would be there were it not for the threat of war? So far the THREAT of war has had a tangible benefit in restoring the weapons inspections to disarm IRAQ as was agreed to in the cease fire. While I have repeatedly disagreed with the whole concept of inspections and disarmament for Iraq (I think we should have just left em alone after the liberation of kuwait, and inspections are just repeating the same mistakes as the end of world war I, the same mistakes that have been repeated war after war all the way back to several Rome vs. Carthage wars) we have no choice but to carry out the inspections. To do otherwise would undermine policy across the board.

So all the saber rattling has been beneficial. Unless you feel there should be no inspections of Iraq whatsover, and that they shouldn't be forced to comply with the cease fire that they signed.
So Chuck is it your opinion that there shouldn't be disarmament of Iraq? That they should be allowed to develope whatever weapons of Mass destruction they wish? Otherwise, Bush has done more in a year, than Clinton did in 8 on the subject. And so far without a large cruise missle attack, which was Clinton's answer for everything.


Chuck K
19th Nov 2002, 06:53
Chill fella. I've browsed for a long time but only got round to registering to answer a question someone was asking about police flying on Rotorheads.
Your question -- Why exactly do I "love the Idea of force being used against the Arab world?" I can't answer that without going into a topic the Mod banned from this thread four days ago.
"Maybe you said it already and Flaps made you take it down. Dunno what you posted originally, I was out flying, send me a private email if you must." Nope. You're quite something Wino. Wrong, but quite something. Now why would I want to email you?
Never been called 'left wing' before, but no problem. Usually Republican on most things, but moderate. But I got your comment about the 'left coast' and Ca. From back East, but been here since I was a kid. I don't think you'd like it much here Wino. People are more relaxed here, and most times exchange opinions without getting angry.

I'm not going to argue with you Wino. Cleverer men than me have tried and given up.
"The Axis of terror has been laid out. I am sure that one after the other they shall all be dealt with.
Just thank God he's only a pilot. :rolleyes:

Editted for typos. (Or because the Mod told me to if you want to continue your conspiracy theories.)
Time for bed. Have a good day Wino.

19th Nov 2002, 11:06
"The fact that no one can put this together is hard for me to grasp. The Axis of terror has been laid out. I am sure that one after the other they shall all be dealt with. One at a time is far smarter, dont you think?"

Geez Wino, sounds so simple, guess you share Bush' view of the world?

Bush Vision (http://sabailand.bizland.com/Bush.jpg)



19th Nov 2002, 11:29
Nomdeplume - if I can find the email address of the Australian correspondent that I quoted in my post I will put it up here and you can take your point up with him, I was only the messenger!:)

19th Nov 2002, 18:57
UNMOVIC (www.un.org/Depts/unmovic)

The inspection team will consist of almost 300 people from 48 countries, including the United States, France, Russia, Australia, China, Germany, Romania and the United Kingdom. Approximately 100 team members will rotate among the roster of active inspectors. A single inspector will serve about four to six months.

Want a job?

UNMOVIC continues to be interested in identifying qualified candidates for expert posts for its Headquarters in New York as well as for participation in the next basic training course for its roster of Inspectors.

Specifically, UNMOVIC is looking for experts with the following experience:


Degree in engineering; experience in missile design, manufacturing and testing, familiarity with machine tools related to missile manufacturing, or experience with liquid or solid propellant manufacturing and testing.

Biological weapons

Degree in biochemistry or bacteriology with experience in molecular pharmacology or in microbiological research, molecular genetics and bio-safety. Experience in the identification of toxic substances in various samples is desirable. Knowledge of means of delivery and dispersal is also welcome.

Chemical weapons

Degree in chemistry or chemical engineering. Experience in the synthesis of CW agents and familiarity with their analysis or experience in chemical toxicology and hazards assessment or in production process evaluation. Experience in use of detection devices is desirable. Knowledge of means of delivery and dispersal is also welcome.

Interested candidates are welcome to send their curriculum vitae/ resume to UNMOVIC:

Fax: 1-212-963-3922

Or by e-mail: [email protected]

20th Nov 2002, 00:46
Thanks Orac.......

But, been there, seen that and now on notice to go

Personally, I can't wait.... What with Iraqi Sea furies and rumours of undiscovered Hawker Hinds etc.... :D