An odd comment for blix to make. He is unable to find them but knows they are there?
That's exactly correct, Craven. I know France has nukes but I am unable to find them. My inability to find French nukes is not proof they do not exist. We know that Iraq has WMD but nobody has found the holes they are buried in. My speculation is that Blix is more precisely referring to the WMDs that Iraq has claimed to possess after the Gulf War but cannot account for now. What exactly happenned to them? Iraq makes no accounting for them. I doubt Saddam gave them away as stocking stuffers at Christmas. He's got them cached away somewhere.
Tantor
0 Replies
Tantor
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 02:16 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Sorry, Tantor, if I harassed you!
But I don't read thousands of US papers, just a couple of British and one Us-American online.
That wasn't mentioned in them.
It's buried deep down in the story, on the second page inside the paper near the fold. The WaPo makes you screw around with registration to search their archives so the heck with it. It's too much work.
Tantor
0 Replies
Tantor
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 02:25 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Craven
Germany didn't say so either: our governemnt just said, we won't send soldiers actively into such a war.
It would be nice to have a show of Allied support but German troops are more likely to be a hindrance than a help. The German military is twenty years behind the times, using 1980s technology. There is too much danger of a friendly fire accident if the Germans fight with us because they do not have modern equipment and communications. If the Germans want to go to Iraq with us, the safest role for them would be to stay behind the lines and out of the way. I suspect the fact that the Germans don't have much to contribute in the way of combat capability is a major reason why they prefer to sit the war out. It's kind of like the skinny kid who can't play football who tells everyone he refuses to play in the big game Friday night.
Tantor
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 02:27 am
Thanks for your insider view of our constitution, public opinion and your detailled knowledge of our armed forces.
I appreciate that very much.
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 03:38 am
There seem few outside the United States with much reticence to point out any and all things American which they perceive to be defective. If Tantor's statements are accurate, I'm surprised they are not being more graciously received.
0 Replies
au1929
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 08:49 am
The only thing I keep reading is that we can not find the smoking gun. Just to say we know that Saddam has WMD's are to prove it are something else entirely. Let's remember the specific reason given for an attack on Iraq was that they would not allow inspections. Since they now are what is the justification for a preemptive strike. Bush and Rumsfelds hidden or not so hidden desire.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 10:39 am
The following link explains Germany's current military stance.
Never ask an alligator to kindly link you to a quote -- their teeth are sharp.
0 Replies
Tantor
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 01:04 pm
Thanks, Cicerone. That's a good quote. May I add that the reason that Germany penny pinches its military is that America guarantees its security. That's why America has a military full of warfighters and Germany has a military full of peacekeepers.
Tantor
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 01:20 pm
If we were in Germany's 'shoe,' wouldn't we be doing the same thing they are? We have 'big' brother to take care of our defense needs. c.i.
0 Replies
Tantor
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 01:26 pm
au1929 wrote:
Let's remember the specific reason given for an attack on Iraq was that they would not allow inspections. Since they now are what is the justification for a preemptive strike. Bush and Rumsfelds hidden or not so hidden desire.
Inspections are not what I remember to be the reason for going to war with Iraq, but rather Saddam's imminent acquisition of nukes. The idea that our whole purpose is to inspect Iraq, not disarm it of its WMDs, is akin to saying that the whole purpose of a company is to make sales calls, not sales. The inspections derive from the end purpose of eliminating Saddam's WMD. Inspections themselves are not the goal.
Tantor
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 02:09 pm
Tantor, I'm one of those folks that sees the "inspections" as the goal - if they continue for another twenty to twenty-five years - with the hope that Saddam will be history by then. c.i.
0 Replies
au1929
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 05:01 pm
Tantor
Quote:
Inspections are not what I remember to be the reason for going to war with Iraq, but rather Saddam's imminent acquisition of nukes.
If you back up a few steps you will remember that the beef supposedly we had with them was they refused to give the inspectors unfettered access. The inspectors were, and I am not quite sure which, expelled or left because they were not able to have that freedom. Bush, after much urging went to the UN and threatened to attack Iraq if they did not allow inspections. Low and behold Iraq called his bluff and allowed the resumption of inspections.
And now here Bush stands between a rock and a hard place and poised to attack.
I should note that the underlying reason for the inspections were to assure that Saddam did not possess WMD's.
0 Replies
Tantor
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 05:50 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Tantor, I'm one of those folks that sees the "inspections" as the goal - if they continue for another twenty to twenty-five years - with the hope that Saddam will be history by then. c.i.
So then, CI, if Saddam succeeds in launching WMD from various remote military bases and kills a hundred thousand people but allows the inspectors to continue their rounds unmolested, you will consider your inspection policy to be a success?
Curious,
Tantor
0 Replies
gravy
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 05:53 pm
Although perhaps unintentional, it seems that the US-admininistration's policy of "speak loudly about your imminently wielding stick" seems to have produced some results, such as au1929's mention of the reentry of inspector.
The goal is disarmament (not disarmament by annihilation), no?
0 Replies
dyslexia
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 06:50 pm
gravy, apparently not.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 07:23 pm
Your assumptions about Saddam's launching of WMD doesn't have the spector of reality. Who, when, and where is he going to use it? If he uses it against Israel, he'll be history for sure. c.i.
0 Replies
roger
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 08:06 pm
I believe you are correct, c.i., yet his ego could put him into the position of thinking he has to launch missiles against Israel. Now, he has done this before, and he has used chemical munitions before, though not against Israel. I'm not sure it is important whether the next such attack used chemical or biological munitions or not. What may be vital is what Israel believes when/if their radars start picking up launches. That small a country can't afford to trade very many population centers for favorable public relations.
I sense everyone is tired of hearing this argument. I am. It is still worth consideration.
0 Replies
Dartagnan
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 09:06 pm
Seems to me that Iraq didn't become our national obsession until the effort to track down Osama Bin Laden ran out of gas. Saddam is more easily located, so he became the new bogey-man. Lest we forget, Bush was making macho claims, within days of 9/11/01, that OBL was just about within our grasp. "We're gonna get him," I believe the words were.
But we didn't, so it's all about Saddam now. The same tough-guy rhetoric from our Chief. It's so reassuring...
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Sat 11 Jan, 2003 10:48 pm
Now that GW is going after Saddam, I'd like to put on a little wager that Saddam is going to outlast GW junior. c.i.
c.i.
