After the UN ordered that all Al-Sammoud 2 missiles be destroyed due to their illegal range, Iraq has yet to make an official statement. According to deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, the order is not "justified." Yet another Iraqi transgression. Anyone that believes Iraq is complying, or that the UN will work in disarming Iraq, should look no further than here.
to me this makes no sense at all. I mean if you don't have any chemical or biological weapons, why would I care if the UN ordered me to destroy these warheads. I would just do it. Since I don't have anything to put into the warheads, they are just weak ass missiles.
This is word of warning on why Saddam should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Even if he is a rational player, he's not a very good one. As usual, he is overplaying his hand.
Gotta disagree with you. He's actually very shrewd at playing his hand. And this stance is not at all surprising. He'll just continue to drag this out and drag this out figuring the anti-war sentiment will eventually force the Bush admnistration to back off. Another example of why the inspections are pretty much useless. This guy actually has a large percentage of public sentiment world wide on his side. Absolutley amazing. He's playing games and he may actually be winning. He's successfully divided his "enemy" to the point where he's going to win the battle of public opinion unless he does something stupid.
Lets put it this way: 1. Iraq believes that the US will attack, regardless of what happens in the diplomacy, weapons inspections, etc. 2. Since they believe that the US will attack, why would they want to get rid of the weapons with which they could defend themselves? Bush needs to make it clear that if Iraq disarms, there will be no war with Iraq. The present policy is a self-fulfilling policy. If you have no carrot, the stick will be applied.
Remember MAD? Mutual Assured Destruction? The ability to bomb the soviet union into radioactive rubble was the stated "defensive" strategy of the US for 30 years.
This obviously isn't nuclear war with the soviet union. Iraq doesn't have any missiles that can hit the US. But these missiles are approaching the range needed to hit Israel, which is why no missile is allowed to travel beyond 93 miles. So don't try to say that these missiles are defensive. They are strictly an offensive waepon to carry a deadly payload into Israel.
What transgression? Iraq is required to begin destroying the missiles sometime in March. They don't have to give anybody a ************** in the meantime.
Come on, man. If you want to look at things objectively, whats offensive is 200,000 enemy troops on your border. Having a missile that might be able to take out one of their tents can be classified as defensive.
Having those missiles is one reason why the 200,000 enemy troops are standing on your border. Well, that and oil if you believe the wacko faction on these boards.
UN says no to missle compromise http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...14&e=1&u=/ap/20030224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_706 woah hans blix coming out of his shell?
Actually, I think he will drag this out as long as he can and then eventually destroy the two missiles and claim that it is proof he is cooperating with UN inspectors...
And you don't see this as a defensive weapon how? Here is an example. Country 'A' has a long-range missile and says that if Country 'B' attacks it will launch it's long-range missile at Country 'C'. Country 'B' does not attack Country 'A' so as to keep Country 'C' safe from attack. Does this make sense?
i think he means that you wouldn't use a nuke to stop troops invading LA. Active defense rather than a paper defense.
i would too but i didn't say anything for fear of getting my response binned. a little "2 for 1" action is always a good thing.