Author Topic: Further Inspections? (Read 574 times)

Rude · « **on:** February 06, 2003, 12:53:29 PM »

For those of you who feel that further inspections are the proper course, would you please explain to me what that extra effort will yield?

Udie · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:05:10 PM »

they would yield saddam more time. Just heard on the radio that saddam is allowing the inspectors to talk to a scientist in private

First off I wonder if it's really a scientist or a iraqi agent, 2nd if he is a scientist, I wonder where his family is.

So far I'd say that saddam has been true to form. Don't budge and inch until you ABSOLUTELY must then give a 1/2 inch. Then gripe, complain and stall. Just like he's done FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS

Yeah maaaaan it's all about oil. Stupid amereeeka, death to them!

Preon1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:16:16 PM »

The answer USED to be:

"Because inspections keep Sadam in check. So long as his appearance of compliance is required, he's not a threat to the world."

This of course becomes meaningless once you connect Sadam to terrorism. With this connection made, it's not hard to imagine iraqi WMDs being smuggled out of the country in the hands of extremist groups.

miko2d · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:50:39 PM »

Why doesn't Powell tell the inspectors where to find those weapons? We just need one piece to have all the excuse for invading.

miko

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:53:14 PM »

For the most part, they are mobile Miko... you can't tell them to go "here" when they'll just move it "there".
-SW

john9001 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:56:55 PM »

saddam moved all the "stuff" to Syria

Preon1 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2003, 04:02:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Why doesn't Powell tell the inspectors where to find those weapons? We just need one piece to have all the excuse for invading.

miko

The point of the SecState's presentation was that the Iraqis are doing something to know where the UN inspectors go. Even if we told them where to look, the sites would be cleaned by the time they spun up, left, and got there

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:12:42 PM »

They need to inspect with the proper equipment. You know, JDAM's, Tomahawks, LG2000lbers,Dumbbombs and the like.

miko2d · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:33:12 PM »

Preon1: The point of the SecState's presentation was that the Iraqis are doing something to know where the UN inspectors go. Even if we told them where to look, the sites would be cleaned by the time they spun up, left, and got there

And we can watch their movements in real time and direct inspectors to intercept them anywhere. Those inspectors can move pretty fast if they are told only their immediate action can prevent war starting withing a few hours. I would not want to be an inspector caught in Iraq when US bombs start falling...
Or we show them on TV, for that matter. Along with the inspectors in their cars taking a nap or whatever.

I am not saying the Powell's pictures and data are bogus - I have no idea this time.

I know for sure that the pictures of 250,000+ iraqi troops on the Saudi Arabia border in 1990 were bogus, that the stories of the infant abuse by Iraqi in 1990 - and by germans in 1914 - were bogus, that the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin was bogus and the US administration lied to US senators/congressmen to get the bills they wanted on multiple occasions.

No wonder some people, especially abroad, are hesitant to trust US government without a proof they can get their hands on.

miko

Batz · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:43:37 PM »

They dont watch their movement in "real time". The images have to be interpreted by annalyst then sent out to the inspectors. The inspectors themselves are being "spied on" and they cant necessarily "materialize" at a given site. They have to get organized and then drive to the site. The Iraqis can delay the inspectors with "its far to dangerous to go out there alone...."we will arrange an escort". This is samething Blix complained about when he talked about helicopter flights in the southern no fly zone. The Iraqis delayed them by claiming they would need to fly one of their [Iraqi] helicopters as an escort and to do this they needed permission of the US and UK to enter the area. After some delay the Iraqis agreed to go with the inspectors in a UN helicopter.

Thats why they want the u2s flights.

Angus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:47:57 PM »

Something that has puzzled me is the Iraqi's shooting down the unmanned recce planes. I mean, are they open to inspection or not? Are the recce planes not a part of the inspection? Well, I think they damn well should be, and shooting them down should be completely punishable.
Just my 2 cents.

miko2d · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:50:08 PM »

Once we found where a few trailer-loads of a secret laboratory are set up, US could certainly track their further movement through satellite surveilance, planes, etc. - in real time or near real-time. I bet russians and others would allow us direct feed from their satellites for that.

If the inspectors are delayed, then US planes could strike that particular site and the inspectors could examine the debris at their leisure.
You would be surprised how competent and resourcefull the americans can be when they want to do something...

miko

Kanth · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2003, 01:50:13 PM »

The inspectors already found chemical warheads which Iraq isn't allowed to have without powell directing them.

However, the inspectors don't need to find anything, they just need to not have any proof of disarmament and so far I haven't seen any list of things that have been destroyed by Iraq to confirm compliance and no reports of Iraq destroying anything in front of the inspectors for proof either.

Getting the information that powell presented declassified over a period of days was a big deal. Doing real time locating of warheads would only serve to give other countries more information about our capabilities and methods for surveilance.

The information I would like to see is the proof from Iraq that they have been disarming and destroying things that they should not have. So far there has been NONE.

The burden here is on IRAQ not on the U.S. or the U.N.

The only reason I can see for Powell making the presentation that he did was because of public outcry for smoking gun, even though it wasn't needed in this case for the U.N. to take the next step.

A deadline should have been passed into the resolution and it wasn't. That fact alone is making this a huge political deal, no one can tell WHEN to do anything and some (countries) would rather just keep waiting and hoping, which will never end.

France could Veto a movement in, but will they put up a resolution with a final go date? nope cause it's easier to say no to someone else trying to do something than it is to plan and be responsible for a final solution. Doing exactly that is what GB and US are willing to do and take the heat for to ensure that massive amounts of lives aren't lost. The cost maybe high for them politically but it's far far less than the lives that could be lost to this madman.

miko2d · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:03:03 PM »

Angus: Something that has puzzled me is the Iraqi's shooting down the unmanned recce planes. I mean, are they open to inspection or not? Are the recce planes not a part of the inspection?

I guess they got nervous when they learned how our "recce planes" can take targets with Hellfire missiles - like recently in Yemen...
That reminds me of the Ruby Rige "accident" where the federal agents sent a robot to deliver a message to Weaver. The dieal did not work out because the "negotiator" robot still had a shotgun mounted - allegedely unloaded.
Of course later they admitted their error and paid him few million dollars for his loss of a dog, son and wife.
Hussein probably does not want to take that chance.

Kanth: they just need to not have any proof of disarmament...
The burden here is on IRAQ...

Unfortunately proving the negative is theoretically impossible, whether he has it or not.

miko

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2003, 02:23:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Unfortunately proving the negative is theoretically impossible, whether he has it or not.

miko

No it isn't. "You UN guys can go where ever you want whenever you want however you want, and I won't interfere," says Saddam.

End game, we either find 'em or we don't.

The whole delaying of inspections, moving supplies around, and the fact he has mobile labs setup kind of proves his guilt.

As far as the whole "real time" spying deal goes... I think you watch too many movies Miko.
-SW