View Full Version : Iraq Agrees to Destroy Al Samoud Missiles

02-27-2003, 10:27 PM
Sounds great doesn't it? Until you read the details:


From the article:

"Blix was invited to discuss his 17-page report detailing the work of his staff in Iraq over the past three months. The report was submitted to the United Nations Wednesday and will be sent to council ambassadors on Friday.

In a key section of the report, read to The Associated Press by council diplomats, Blix says Saddam could have made greater efforts "to find remaining proscribed items or credible evidence showing the absence of such items."

Other sections of the report cited positive examples of Iraqi cooperation, but said it was "hard to understand why a number of the measures which are now being taken could not have been initiated earlier. If they had been taken earlier, they might have borne fruit," Blix wrote.

U.S. officials had said they expected Iraq would agree to destroy its missiles, which were found to have a range exceeding the 93-mile limit set by the Security Council at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites).

In a letter to Blix on Thursday, Iraq agreed "in principle" to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, U.N. diplomats and officials said on condition of anonymity.

But it wasn't immediately clear whether Iraq's letter constituted an unconditional acceptance and whether Iraq would meet the Saturday deadline to begin the destruction, as Blix has ordered.

Blix told reporters earlier this week that the missile issue would be a key test of Iraq's cooperation.

While Blix has noted some recent Iraqi cooperation, he lamented in his report: "It is hard to understand why a number of the measures which are now being taken could not have been initiated earlier."

Nonetheless, he noted that inspections resumed only in November after a four-year break and asked: "Is it the right time to close the door?"

The foot dragging will continue in perpetuity. Maybe the UN members should let Saddam slide on the dismantlement of the Al Samoud Missiles since it doesn't justify any action being taken. Heck let Saddam slide on everything he's supposed to comply with in the resolution since there is no justification for enforcing any compliance. In fact let's just forget about the UN resolution since it's not worth enforcing and it's ok if Saddam set's the agenda to comply with what he wants to comply with when he wants to.

02-27-2003, 11:49 PM
I really find it hard to understand how so many people seem not to be able to see through Saddam's games.

It's been mentioned before, that on the Internet, negative points tend to become magnified. I wonder if there is some sort of different yet similar effect at work here, in the U.N., in public opinion--it seems that the more access to information everyone has, the more a large segment seems unable to accurately assimilate the information and see the larger picture--the voices of the confused (or the disingenous) become amplified, too--and we see a similar effect in the U.N., where perhaps due to the structure of the organization, the voices of despotic regimes become amplified as well.

The French, Russians and Germans have clear economic interests in preventing war with Iraq. Many Middle Eastern countries have mixed feelings. Most Iraqi citizens, the opposition groups and exiles clearly want regime change. The peace movement seems far more concerned with applying pressure on the U.S. to not attack than it is with demonstrating for Saddam to disarm. There are also many who take a simplistic view and cannot really put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

At this point anyone who genuinely thinks Saddam has ever truly disarmed, or that he is not merely making a few calculated concessions in order to drag out the process, has very poor judgment IMO. Likewise for those who think it unlikely for Saddam's WMD to eventually find their way into terrorist hands.

The issue isn't whether any of this is completely proven anyway. It's whether it is reasonably likely--because the penalties for terrorists gaining WMD would be so truly horrific. A look at the overall pieces of the puzzle--taken together--makes it plain that Saddam can't be trusted an inch, and that his actions for over more than a decade have been directed towards developing and preserving his WMD.

The smaller the world becomes, the more we will have the chance to develop truly informed opinions about many things. At the same time, the more tools the obfuscators and detractors will enjoy as well, and the more magnified the voices of the uninformed or confused will become.

To the extent that people are well able to sift and meld large amounts of complex information, better decisions will be possible. Yet this same abundance of information is what will overwhelm those who are not good at this very important skill.

02-28-2003, 12:40 AM
The issue isn't Saddam's games. I have heard no American politician, either opposed to or in favor of war, say that Saddam is a good guy, I don't understand what all the noise is about. Everyone recognizes Saddam for what he is. The disagreement is over what to do about it and when to do it.

People who are against the war are not any more uninformed or confused or simplistic or unable to accurately assimilate information than those in favor of it. The President's arguments are illogical. If people are confused, I would suggest that as the reason.

The best obfuscators are government officials. Look at some of the people who have been president over the past fifty years. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were pathological liars. Eisenhower, Reagan, and G.W. Bush were barely capable of constructing a sentence.

No one doubts that Saddam can't be trusted. Many doubt that the country that is able to assemble 200,000 troops surrounding Saddam has a leadership wise enough to be trusted.

02-28-2003, 10:00 AM
Of course the main disagreement is over what to do about it. But there are some who actually believe Saddam is "coming around" due to his dribbling out minor concessions, and more incredibly, there are some who think there is a reasonable possibility that he actually disarmed long ago and has no WMD now. Observe the calls for "proof"': these people appear unable to put the jigsaw puzzle together and to see that, in addition to recent circumstantial evidence, Saddam's actions over the years have all been geared towards preserving his WMD. In other words it is OBVIOUS that Saddam has WMD to anyone who can get a glimpse of the picture the incomplete jigsaw puzzle is building. Everything points in the same direction on this matter.

It also doesn't make sense to rule out the possibility of Saddam's WMD getting into the hands of terrorists--but some people do essentially rule that consideration out.

Regarding trust in the leaderships of governments, varying degrees of trustworthiness must be taken into consideration. I would tend to trust more of what the US government says than what Saddam says--and rightly so, I believe. I think it is essential in weighing such matters to pay attention to degree; not just make comparisons. I notice when debating with Chris Alger he frequently makes blanket comparisons without taking into account the sometimes profound effect of differences in degree.

Certainly some well-informed people who can solve jigsaw puzzles might still think war is not the best solution. But they won't think that because they erroneously believe that Saddam may well not have WMD, or because they think he is cooperating by dribbling out a few concessions which are no more than foot-dragging tactics, or because they erroneously eliminate the potentially disastrous possibility of Saddam's WMD finding their way into terrorists hands.

02-28-2003, 11:51 AM
supposedly these missiles were ok until they were recently tested *without warheads*, and found to exceed 93 mile limit with no warheads.

02-28-2003, 12:57 PM
I think I read something too (several days ago) about how they were specially built so they could be fitted with a second engine if desired...which would nearly double their range...or maybe that was regarding another Iraqi missile...

02-28-2003, 12:59 PM
that could be true. i wouldnt be surprised if both sides were completely full of ****.