View Full Version : Iraq Will Start Dismantlement on Saturday

02-28-2003, 01:14 PM
What are the odds of the new UN Resolution being passed? Bush has himself a major political problem methinks.

02-28-2003, 01:18 PM
looks like its time for a (very convenient) terrorist attack.

02-28-2003, 01:27 PM
And the terror alert level just dropped. It may go up again up soon, very soon. Would that be convienient as well?

02-28-2003, 01:30 PM
(excerpt from USA today))

WASHINGTON -- President Bush (news - web sites) spoke of war against Iraq in imminent terms in an interview Thursday. He said flatly that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) has no intention of disarming and must be forced to do so.

''My attitude about Saddam Hussein is that if he had any intention of disarming, he would have disarmed,'' Bush said. He added later: ''We will disarm him now.''...

...Late Thursday, Iraq agreed ''in principle'' to fulfill the U.N. request but asked for U.N. guidance on how to proceed. Bush had pre-emptively dismissed Saddam's move: ''Whatever you see him say now will be attempts to delay or deceive the world.''(end excerpt)


So yes it's a major political problem, but look for an attack very soon...that's my guess.

Bush isn't backing down and I believe he is making the right choice regardless of world opinion.

Interestingly, IF the war goes quickly and smoothly we may se a change in world opinion to some significant extent...especially if the Iraqi opposition groups, exiles and most Iraqi citizens later express thanks...of course what happens after the war will play a major part.

02-28-2003, 01:38 PM
Yes I agree that the USA will intervene irregardless. He said the missles are the tip of the ice berg (his words), there are over 200,000 troops ready to move according to published reports, and many more military forces that have been made ready. What it all means to me is that the comittment has been made.

Chris Alger
02-28-2003, 03:57 PM
I haven't seen much in the media about the administration's apparent strategy with the "new" resolution. According to the questions raised at Rice's press conference, it has only one new operative clause: the SC "decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441." There's nothing in it about war or military force. Bush will argue that failure to vote for or vetoing this resolution is the same as a post-hoc veto of 1441, which he already claims provides sufficient basis for invasion. If it gets 9 votes, it will be interpreted as a vote for war. If it doesn't, it will be interpreted as evidence that too many Security Council members have given Iraq "contradictory signals," and that the U.S. must act to resolve the "diplomatic chaos." Bob Novak will go berserk on cable TV about the decadent, vascillating Europeans, telling Saddam he has to disarm and then telling him he doesn't.

You probably won't see much in the media comparing this "final opportunity" language with the statement Blix gave to Die Zeit a few days ago: “Even if Iraq would cooperate immediately, actively and unconditionally with us, we would need several months,” (as reported deep down in a CNN story about Bush's desire to liberate Iraq). http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/26/sprj.irq.un/index.html

If a new resolution failed to pass, the real story would the surprising degree of resistence to the U.S. Consider that the U.S. is going to write a check to Turkey this month for $15 billion, including a $6 billion outright gift. $15 billion is five times the annual GDP of Security Council member Guinea. Camaroon has trouble feeding its people on with a GDP of $26 billion (30% unemployment, 48% poverty). These amounts merely hint about how the weaker member countries can benefit from following orders; not what they'll suffer if they don't. The US diplomats presently working over officials in these countries don't have to paint much of a picture. (TIME will report that the perks and threats were secondary to them being overwhelmed by the sheer persuasive force of the President with "a square jaw and moral certainty").

Even if it doesn't pass, the war will come anyway because Bush is already "all-in." Aside from whatever happens with the "new" resolution, another scenario is that Iraq shoots down a plane or fires on some US military target. Any spark like this could be used as a pretext for invasion in order to defend our forces from aggression by the undeterrable maniac.

02-28-2003, 04:55 PM
Supposedly this resolution was introduced at the behest of Blair. I think you will see Blix move to center stage here. A lot of people are attuned to the developments and are aware that the UN process will take time. The fact that Iraq has not (apparently) crossed Blix's line in the sand, will be noted as a plus for the UN process by many who are undecided or luke warm to the Bush policy. Yes Bush is committed to an intervention. I may have some more comments about foreign aid in general in another post.

John Ho
03-01-2003, 06:11 AM
How's about another tape from Bin Laden?

Or a new documentary linking Michael Jackson's face surgeries to Iraqi military surgeons?