Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rude on February 06, 2003, 12:53:29 PM

Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: 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?
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Udie 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 :rolleyes:   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!


:rolleyes:
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Preon1 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.
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: miko2d 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: john9001 on February 06, 2003, 02:56:55 PM
saddam moved all the "stuff" to Syria
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Preon1 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Maverick 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.   ;)
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: miko2d 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Batz 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.
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Angus 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.
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: miko2d 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Kanth 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.
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: miko2d 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe 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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Batz on February 07, 2003, 02:33:47 PM
Miko pictures of trucks at a site isnt a material breech. The US isnt going go in and blow stuff up because there trucks parked there. We couldnt track Scub launchers in Gulf war. It took Brit SAS guys sweeping the desert and disrupting resupply that forced the scubs back.

Those satelites images take time to be  analyzed. If they see  trucks there and go back and check again and the trucks are gone what do you want them to "blow up".

The reason the images Powell presented to the UN are relevant is because they show a pattern of noncompliance. It doesnt really matter if Suddam has wmd or not, its up to him to show he doesnt. He has an obligation to account for the list of things he admitted to having. Or to account for those "things" that there is evidence he does have.

The inspector arent detectives, they are there to verify Iraqi compliance with the UN resolution. Not enforce it or catch Iraq hiding wmd.

Non-cooperation is a material breech and thats what Powell was arguing.

Iraq isnt proving a negative. They admitted to having certain things. The have been caught importing others. Its up to them to account for this "stuff". Its not like someone snatched him off the street and said "prove you dont like coke". We know they bought mobile chemical labs. So where are they.........
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Kanth on February 07, 2003, 02:45:41 PM
disarming is a process not a state.

Perhaps you misunderstood my use of 'disarmament', I mean warhead by warhead not in totality.

I would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

"we have evidence of destruction of such and such items listed that they had"

ANYTHING....but instead it's all lies and manuvering.

Quote
Originally posted by miko2d

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
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: miko2d on February 07, 2003, 03:06:29 PM
AKS\/\/ulfe: 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.

 Proving the negative is impossible. Any negative. That's the basic principle of logic.

 I have nothing against inspectors inspecting the living sh#t out of him. But if they do nbot find anything, it still does not prove/demonstrate he does not have it.

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

 I wish I had time...

 Anyway, it takes a while - weeks - to detect things becasue analysts/software must inspect all images to find a target.
 Once the location is established, you just watch it and near vicinity - and the images are transferred in real time.
 When a spy satellte telescope was used to examine the underbelly of a space Shuttle, it did not take days for specialists to get the relevant pictures.

 True - there are some gaps in satellite coverage - calculated in minutes. When I served in the Soviet Army, we had the schedule of the US satellites overflying our area and stopped certain kinds of activities quite a few times a day for quite a while. That was in the mid-eighties.
 I bet that there are more US satellites out there now and they can see further - hence longer from angle or higher orbit and the orbits of existing ones must have been adgusted to provide better coverage of Iraq/Afghanistan area compared to a random russian outpost.

would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

 Which would mean that he has one less warhead, not that he does not have anymore or did not buld two the same day. No proof of the negative.

 Alternatively, to prove positive, we just have to demonstrate one measly piece of evidence.

 miko
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: AKS\/\/ulfe on February 07, 2003, 03:42:04 PM
He has to prove he doesn't have weapons that he DID have.

Once upon a time he could of pulled the stockpiles of weapons out, and destroyed them in front of inspectors. Instead, he had his boys take them and "destroy them" and tell the inspectors they were "destroyed".

Now if he wants to prove that he no longer has what he had, he HAS to give UN inspectors full unrestricted, no roadkillting access to the entire Iraqi territory and NOT be moving things around while this is occuring.

That's how he can prove he doesn't have what he once did have. And that's not proving a negative, that's proving that once existed no longer does and no matter what definition you throw out there- it is entirely possible to prove that you no longer are in possession of something that you once were in possession of.

And real time implies that the photo is taken, the inspectors already have it and are on their way to the area the photo represents.

It only takes Saddam a matter of minutes to get his mobile units on their way to some other obscure location.... and what ensues is a wild goose chase.
-SW
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Kanth on February 07, 2003, 03:56:29 PM
We don't need to prove (that he still has WMD positive). We only need to prove that he isn't complying with the resolution (1441).

  It is a formula for good faith disarmament of what we already know that he has.

http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

   It never says we need to prove that he has one WMD in order to be in material breach.

  We already know that he does have them, we need him to show us that he's destroying them and complying fully with inspections and he isn't doing that.

Quote
Originally posted by miko2d

would like to see one report from the inspectors saying "we witnessed the destruction of such and such items today"

 Which would mean that he has one less warhead, not that he does not have anymore or did not buld two the same day. No proof of the negative.

 Alternatively, to prove positive, we just have to demonstrate one measly piece of evidence.

 miko
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Kanth on February 07, 2003, 04:03:45 PM
The big blow to Iraq (in Powell's presentation) wasn't that we could see that he had things that he shouldn't, it's about INTENT.

  He's moving them right before the inspectors arrive on the site.

If he would just leave them where they are, declare them and show that he's destroying them, the images of what he has wouldn't have meant anything.

It's showing his intent to hide them from the inspectors that is the problem. He isn't cooperating, he isn't disarming and he's deliberately trying to hide what he has left instead of destroying it. This was just one example of his non-cooperation.

I don't see how I can be any more plain on this subject.
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Angus on February 07, 2003, 04:58:08 PM
I may be asking a silly question, but here goes...
Since Saddam is always ahead of the inspectors (due to their low ground speed or/and Iraqi's knowing the schedule), could the inspectors "Target" not be monitored before their arrival, maybe as soon as the "Target" decision is made?
There's gotta be some way of proving this if it is to be true, otherwise than bombing the crap out of the country.....
Title: Further Inspections?
Post by: Batz on February 07, 2003, 06:22:26 PM
Its not up the the UN inspectors to "catch" Saddam. Although catching him with wmd would be a true "smoking gun".

The Iraqis are supposed make every effort to comply with the resolution. Sneaking stuff around is evidence, not necessarily of wmd, that the Iraqis are hiding things. Couple with their failure to account for other "things" they already admitted to having.

The fact that they are "spying" on the weapons inspectors, hiding things and not fully accounting for others is in the opinion of the Bush administration is enough to conclude that Iraq has no intention in complying with the UN resolution.

Then, as reported yesterday, there was an intercepted Iraqi military communique that authorized Iraqi military to use "chemical weapons". The very weapons they claim not to have.

Iraq needed to put it all the table, they didnt.

Either the UN calls um on it or "others" will, including the US.