Iraq agrees 'in principle' to destroy missiles

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

DrTeeth

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Messages
4,770
Location
The Q continuum
From Reuters:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Iraq has agreed in principle to destroy its al-Samoud missiles and components but U.N. arms inspectors must clarify the offer with officials in Baghdad, a U.N. official said on Thursday.

"They accept in principle the destruction of the missiles and the facilities but this has to be clarified. UNMOVIC must follow up in Baghdad to see what exactly the letter means," the official told Reuters.


-----
The Al-Samoud missile flew over the maximum permitted range of 150km in 13 of 40 testruns, with a maximum of 183km. Missiles with a range exceeding 150km were prohibited under the ceasefire agreement, making it impossible to reach Isreal and Teheran, and very difficult to reach Kuwait-city. (Times)

-----
So what's the deal here? While having these missiles clearly violates the ceasefire agreement, the strategic situation really hasn't changed because the important parts in the Middle-east this part of the agreement is supposed to protect, are still out of range. On the other hand, leaving these missiles intact would certainly be grist on Bush's mill who nowadays seems to be looking for every traffic-violation as an excuse to go through with his plans.
 
Last edited:
Saddam is playing the international committee for the fool. Less than two days ago, the message was clear - "we will not destroy the missiles." Now, Iraq agrees "in principle".

No matter the violation, all Saddam has to do is toss a little scrap of cooperation the UN's way. So quickly do we forget where the burden of proof lies.
 
he destroys a few missles, hence un and usa off there back then then go back to work. END OF THE WORLD PEOPLE. geeeez
 
nbcrusader:
On German Newspapers they mentioned that only American TV stations said that Saddam won't destroy Rockets - Iraqi officials said "we didn't decide that yet". (Principly yes - but we don't think that the rockets are above the limit - they also asked Blix & Co. to test these weapons themself)
This US TV Station wo sent the report that Saddam won't destroy the Rockets (Csomething) was unable to send German TV the part of the interview where Saddam said this.

Klaus
 
Here's my concern on this issue:
When it appeared that Iraq would refuse to destroy the missiles, the response of the US adminstration was "it proves Iraq isn't co-operating, therefore we're entitled to attack them." (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting directly of course)
When it appeared Iraq would destroy the missiles, the response was "he's just trying to buy time, he's just trying to avert war for a little longer. Therefore we're entitled to attack them."

In other words, regardless of whether Iraq destroyed the missiles or not, the US would attack them. What possible incentive does this give Iraq to comply with the UN? It rather seems like the US is saying "we're going to attack you, we'd just like to you to get rid of your weapons before we do so."
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
I believe they were destroyed today.

Comments?

I think it shows that the UN inspectors are having success and that while this continues there is no justification for war. Hans Blix said "this is a very significant piece of real disarmament" and I think we should respect his opinion as chief weapons inspector and allow him and his inspectors the time to do their work.

War has to be an absolute last resort and the fact that Iraq has begun to destroy some of its weapons due to the arms inspectors presence indicates that we're not at that point yet: we don't need to resort to war.
 
sulawesigirl4:

right, that was the headline news on natinal tv here:

"Iraq stated to destroy the Al-Samud-Rockets under UN control"
2nd news: first conversations of the UN-Inspectors with weapon specialists in Iraq

FizzingWhizzbees:
I'm affraid you are right now they will start ""he's just trying to buy time" and "no time for games like that" again :(

Klaus
 
Klaus said:
I'm affraid you are right now they will start ""he's just trying to buy time" and "no time for games like that" again :(
that might be because Sadam is indeed just trying to buy time


to me the mistake made by the US was to state that they felt that "it proves Iraq isn't co-operating, therefore we're entitled to attack them." instead of just pointing out that Sadam is a man who can not be trusted and should be removed
the mistake is not that they don't trust Sadam period
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I think it shows that the UN inspectors are having success and that while this continues there is no justification for war. Hans Blix said "this is a very significant piece of real disarmament" and I think we should respect his opinion as chief weapons inspector and allow him and his inspectors the time to do their work.

IIRC, last week the USA also said that disarming these rockets would be a "very significant step" (I'm also parafrasing here). Now Saddam is doing this at the end of the week (and indeed, just before the end of the deadline) the USA is using the argument that he's "just buying time." But earlier they did say that it was a significant step, so where did it go wrong? Did they hope Saddam wouldn't disarm?

C ya!

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:


Did they hope Saddam wouldn't disarm?

The bottom line is, they are going to attack no matter what Saddam does.

They'd just rather he played into their hands making it easier for them in terms of public opinion/international credibility.

It's all about saving Iraqi children from their ruthless leader. :rolleyes:
 
gabrielvox said:


The bottom line is, they are going to attack no matter what Saddam does.

They'd just rather he played into their hands making it easier for them in terms of public opinion/international credibility.

It's all about saving Iraqi children from their ruthless leader. :rolleyes:

Yep. and now that Iraq destroyd the last serious weapons they have, it is become more easy to invade Iraq.:uhoh:
 
gabrielvox said:
The bottom line is, they are going to attack no matter what Saddam does.

Ain't that the truth.

Bush is more determined to go to war than I am to eat that last piece of tiramisu in the fridge. And let me tell you, I'm VERY determined in that respect.
 
Back
Top Bottom