My Proposal To Avoid War: An AIRTIGHT Inspections Process
Steven Litvintchouk
That is not so.
What I want is two things: the TOTAL (and I mean 100%) disarmament of
Iraq's WMD, even if Saddam has hidden them very carefully; and making
sure that no new WMD can ever be built after the disarmament process is
completed.
For Iraq, there is to be ZERO TOLERANCE of WMD. Iraq is not to possess
ONE OUNCE of bio-weapon culture, not now, not ever. No matter how
carefully Saddam has tried to hide WMD, all of it is to be found and
destroyed. That is what I want.
Can this be done without war? YES.
Here are my ideas on how to disarm Iraq's WMD without war:
1. Saddam and his key henchmen are to leave Iraq immediately and go
into permanent exile. Saddam will never give up his dream of building
WMD so he has to go.
2. The no-fly zones are to be extended to cover the entire country.
Nothing is going to be allowed to fly without UN permission--not
civilian, not military.
3. Iraq is to be occupied by some 100,000 UN troops. Fully armed.
They will immediately enforce a "no-drive zone" across the country.
Until the mobile bio-weapons labs and other mobile military facilities
are found, nothing is going to be allowed to move on Iraq roads without
UN permission.
4. Iraq's borders are to be sealed tight. Nothing gets in or out
without UN permission. This will ensure that no WMD can be smuggled out
of the country to terrorists, until all of it has been found and
destroyed.
5. A consortium of agents from the world's intelligence agencies are to
go into Baghdad and other major cities, and ransack all Iraqi government
offices and remove all secret and top-secret documents and computer
files. These will be analyzed to learn where Saddam has hidden the
WMD. These intelligence agents will also interrogate Iraqi military and
civilian personnel to learn more about the WMD. If any Iraqis attempt
to interfere, they will be arrested.
6. UN troops will go to each identified secret site and demand
admittance. If they are refused, they will open fire. They will be
supported by U.S. aircraft. The site will be destroyed. It is to be
understood that even if that site is located in a civilian area, it will
still be attacked and destroyed.
Even if that site is under a mosque, it will be attacked and destroyed
together with the mosque. Collateral damage will be expected. But
it's less collateral damage than would have occurred in war.
7. Since no aircraft or trucks will be permitted to move, UN relief
agencies will take over the task of feeding the Iraqi civilian
population.
8. The Iraqi people are to choose a new government with UN assistance.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
Chris Williamson
This is about as likely as Saddam Hussein going on television saying
he has WMD and needs to get rid of them. Certainly this would
be satisfactory. But as the French ambassador to the UN said
the other day, he would veto anything that the Brits and Americans
proposed.
It's war that's all that's left, thanks to the French and Russians.
--
"The term 'liberal' is an Old French word meaning 'a completely free
man,' which was to say, a nobleman."
- Mark Kurlansky, A Basque History of the World
Robert Rice
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E73C3B7...@earthlink.net...
> I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
>
> That is not so.
>
> What I want is two things: the TOTAL (and I mean 100%) disarmament of
> Iraq's WMD, even if Saddam has hidden them very carefully; and making
> sure that no new WMD can ever be built after the disarmament process is
> completed.
>
> For Iraq, there is to be ZERO TOLERANCE of WMD. Iraq is not to possess
> ONE OUNCE of bio-weapon culture, not now, not ever. No matter how
> carefully Saddam has tried to hide WMD, all of it is to be found and
> destroyed. That is what I want.
>
> Can this be done without war? YES.
>
> Here are my ideas on how to disarm Iraq's WMD without war:
>
> 1. Saddam and his key henchmen are to leave Iraq immediately and go
> into permanent exile. Saddam will never give up his dream of building
> WMD so he has to go.
>
> 2. The no-fly zones are to be extended to cover the entire country.
> Nothing is going to be allowed to fly without UN permission--not
> civilian, not military.
>
> 3. Iraq is to be occupied by some 100,000 UN troops. Fully armed.
> They will immediately enforce a "no-drive zone" across the country.
I don't think that would work.
Good luck on that front, but just maybe Saddam could be persuaded to step
down without a fight.
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
Good for you Steven. Now you're thinking more clearly.
"Shock and awe" would be a war crime in this case, and you know it.
Robert Rice
was destroyed a number of years ago already.
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E73C3B7...@earthlink.net...
Chris Williamson
> Though they probably won't find too much usable subtances. Seems most of it
> was destroyed a number of years ago already.
When you say "seems," what makes you think WMD was destroyed?
As Blix said, this is not marmalade their destroying.
Robert Rice
"Chris Williamson" <cdw...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3E73C85A...@erols.com...
> Robert Rice wrote:
>
> > Though they probably won't find too much usable subtances. Seems most of
it
> > was destroyed a number of years ago already.
>
> When you say "seems," what makes you think WMD was destroyed?
>
> As Blix said, this is not marmalade their destroying.
>
I was thinking of this article actually.
"Black propaganda of this kind has a long history...."
- - - - Forwarded from www.zmag.org - - - -
Blair's Lies
by John Pilger
Daily Mirror
March 14, 2003
The Blair Government has known, almost from the day it came to
office in 1997, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were almost
certainly destroyed following the Gulf War.
Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current
threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what
may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation.
Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi
general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine,
Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who
last month revealed that Blair's "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was
lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis).
General Kamel was the West's "star witness" in its case against
Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the
Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected,
he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons
programme.
These secrets have been repeatedly cited by George W Bush and his
officials as "evidence" that Iraq still has large quantities of
deadly weapons of mass destruction, and that only war can disarm
it. Bush, his officials and leading American commentators, have
frequently lauded General Kamel as the most reliable source of
information on Iraq's weapons. The Blair government has echoed
this.
In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the
United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now
disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush
and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons.
For example, General Kamel says categorically: "I ordered
destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear -- were destroyed." All that remains, he
says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches.
Newsweek says that the CIA and Britain's MI6 were told this; and
Blair and Bush must have been told the truth. In other words, it is
likely that Iraq has been substantially disarmed for at least eight
years.
With General Kamel now out of the way (he was killed when he
returned to Iraq in 1996), his "evidence" was selectively made
public by Washington and London. In his dramatic presentation to
the UN Security Council on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin
Powell said that the truth about Iraq's nerve gas weapons "only
came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of
the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son in law".
What Powell neglected to mention was that his star witness had told
them all the weapons had been destroyed.
General Kamel's sensational admission has been corroborated by the
former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter who says that when
he left Iraq in 1998, disarmament was "90 to 95 per cent".
A United Nations verifying panel set up by the Security Council,
confirmed that "the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes
has been eliminated". This has seldom been reported.
Of course, none of these facts will deter the American and British
security agencies from inventing and planting "evidence" of
"Saddam's secret weapons" once Anglo-American forces take over
Baghdad.
When America and Britain crush Iraq, a new phase of their black
propaganda will emerge -- for which the British public ought to be
prepared. This new range of deceptions will be designed to justify
attacking a sovereign state and killing innocent people: a crime
under international law, with or without a second UN resolution.
Black propaganda of this kind has a long history. My own experience
of it was the American invasion of Vietnam. In 1964, the US State
Department published a White Paper with pages of "conclusive proof"
of North Vietnam's preparations to invade the south. This "proof"
stemmed from the "discovery" of a stockpile of weapons found
floating in a junk off the coast of South Vietnam. The White Paper,
which provided a quasi-legal justification for the American
invasion, was known as a "master illusion". The whole episode was
fake, a set-up.
Master illusion was the CIA's term for master lie. In 1982, I
interviewed Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA officer who documented the
planting of the fake evidence. He told me: "The CIA loaded up a
junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons... They
floated this junk off the coast of Central Vietnam. Then they shot
it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken place. They then
brought in the American press and the international press and said,
'Here's the evidence that the North Vietnamese are invading South
Vietnam.' Based on this 'evidence', the US Marines went in, and the
American air force began regular bombing of North Vietnam."
As a result of this fakery, which included the elaborate fiction
that an American destroyer had been attacked by a North Vietnamese
gunboat, the United States dispatched its greatest ever land army
to Vietnam, and dropped the greatest tonnage of bombs in the
history of warfare, and forced millions of people to abandon their
homes, and used chemical weapons that profoundly damaged the
environment and human genes, leaving a once beautiful land
petrified.
At least two million people were killed, and many more were maimed
and otherwise ruined. Now replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq" in this
story of lies; and you have the essentials of the same
justification for another great criminal act.
Watch how the propaganda unfolds once the bombing is over and the
Americans are running Baghdad and their spin machine. There will be
the "discovery of Saddam's secret arsenal," probably in the
basement of one his palaces. This will be accompanied by the
"discovery" of gruesome evidence of Saddam's oppression. This will
not come as news to the many dedicated anti-war campaigners, who
for years tried to stop the American and British governments from
supplying Saddam with the tools of his oppression.
They include many Iraqis exiled in Britain, such as Khalid Sahi,
who was tortured by the regime and opposes an attack "will bring
nothing but more bloodshed, more misery"; and the anti-war Labour
MP Jeremy Corbyn, who has protested about the Iraqi dictator for
more than twenty years and demanded that the British government
prosecute British companies that sustained the Iraqi torturers.
Two years ago, Peter Hain, then a Foreign Office minister, blocked
a parliamentary request to publish the full list of British
companies that had illegally traded with Saddam Hussein.
The reason why became clear last week when the Guardian newspaper
disclosed that the Blair government had secretly paid out more than
-L-33 million in taxpayers' money to British companies claiming
non-payment on the weapons they sold Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.
The total loss to the taxpayer on sales to Iraq now exceeds
-L-1billion. Add this to the -L-3.5billion that Gordon Brown has
"put aside" for an attack on Iraq. Add this to the -L-1billion that
the bombing of Iraq has already cost -- the rarely reported bombing
by British and American aircraft in the so-called "no fly zones",
which now cover most of Iraqi airspace and were set up, according
to Blair, to "protect Iraq's minorities". Who believes this now?
This week, the Ministry of Defence said: "We never target civilians
[in the no-fly zones]... there's no evidence of civilian casualties."
The lie of this statement would be breathtaking were it not
routine.
In northern Kurdish Iraq, I interviewed members of one family who
had lost their grandfather, their father and four brothers and
sisters when a "coalition" aircraft (British or American)
dive-bombed them and the sheep they were tending. It was open
desert, a moonscape with not a sign of other life, let alone a
military installation. Amid the carcasses of blasted sheep were
pieces of clothing and a single shoe.
The attack was investigated and verified by the chief United
Nations representative in Iraq at the time, Hans Von Sponeck, who
drove there especially from Baghdad. His findings are listed among
dozens of similar attacks -- on shepherds, farmers, fishermen -- in a
document prepared by the United Nations Security Section.
At a windswept cemetery near the town of Mosul, I caught sight of
the shepherd's widow as she grieved for her husband and four
children. "I want to see the pilot who did this," she shouted.
Last week, "coalition" aircraft killed another six people in the
southern city of Basra. Nothing unusual there. When I was last in
Basra, an American missile killed six children when it "mistakenly"
hit Al Jumohria, a very poor section of Basra's residential area.
I walked down the street where the missile had struck in the early
hours; it had followed the line of houses, destroying one after the
other. I met the father of two sisters, aged eight and 10, who were
photographed by a local weddings photographer, Nabil al-Jerani,
shortly after the attack. Their bodies were unlike the other four
children, who were blown to bits, their limbs and flesh in the
overhead wires.
These two little girls were left intact. In Nabil's photographs,
they are in their nightdresses, one with a bow in her hair, their
bodies perfectly engraved in the rubble of their homes, where they
had been bombed to death, murdered, in their beds.
Look closely at their images on these pages; they are the faces of
a stricken nation of whom 42 per cent are children. When Blair
speaks about the "moral case" for sending hundreds of missiles
against this nation of so many children, as well as new types of
cluster bombs and bunker bombs and microwave bombs, and shells
tipped with pure uranium, a form of nuclear weapon, the images of
the two sisters provide an eloquent commentary on the Prime
Minister's Christian "morality".
And when pictures of exhausted Iraqis greeting their "liberation"
are flashed around the world, remember the faces that will be
missing in the crowds -- not only those of the children bombed and
disposed of as "collateral damage", but more than a million faces
declared expendable by the American-driven and British-backed
economic embargo.
Remember the vaccines, cancer-treatment equipment, pain-killers,
plasma bags, food treatment equipment and much else denied over
fourteen years: $5.4 billion worth as of last July, to be precise,
blocked by the US government, backed by the Blair government.
Remember the words of President Clinton's then representative at
the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, when she was asked if the
price of 500,000 Iraqi children was a price worth paying for the
embargo. "We think the price is worth it," she said.
And when you next hear Bush or Blair or Straw or Hoon talk about
"the tyrant who gassed his own people", remember those American
officials and British ministers who competed with each other to
excuse and effectively reward Saddam Hussein for gassing 5,000
Kurds in the town of Halabja.
Barely one month after the atrocity in 1988, Tony Newton, Margaret
Thatcher's Trade Secretary, flew to Baghdad to offer Saddam
-L-340million of taxpapers' money in export credits. Three months
later, the smiling Newton was back, this time to celebrate with
Saddam the joyous news that Iraq was now Britain's third-largest
market for machine tools, from which a range of Iraqi weapons was
forged -- some of them used against British troops in the Gulf War.
Newton was followed by Assistant US Secretary of State John Kelly
who flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam that "you are a source for
moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden
her relationship with Iraq".
When the "liberation" of Baghdad is on the front page, remember the
warmongering newspapers whose editorials defended Saddam Hussein
throughout the 1980s by promoting the lie that his use of chemical
weapons against Iran was purely defensive.
limbaugh_fart_detector
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
>
[i wonder why]
limbaugh_fart_detector
Here's my one plank plan to avoid war.
1. Have AWOL Bush lead the first wave of soldiers.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:21:51 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
emmanuel
I guess everybody could buy that, except for Saddam's exile. He would
certainly refuse. Better wait. Without weapons and with 100000 UN forces in
Iraq, Saddam would not be a credible dictator anymore. If he's not feared,
the Iraqis would probably get rid of him by themselves. If not, a few
months of inspection would allow the ICC to be operational. He certainly
derverves a chair there, and it would be much easier to get him with
thousands of UN forces already in Baghdad. A police operation compared to
what is about to happen.
Robert Rice
He came out in December I believe and denounced WMD and made a proclamation
that Iraq is commited to NOT making any WMD whatsoever.
Maybe someone could find a cite for that.
Steven Litvintchouk
Limbaugh, Fart, Detector wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:21:51 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
> >
>
> [i wonder why]
Because it occurred to me that we have never discussed how the
inspections process could be beefed up to address the main problem--how
to find WMD even if Saddam has hidden it carefully.
The only two choices we've been presented with so far, are the current
"don't ask, don't tell" inspections that are so weak that Iraq WANTS
them to continue (proving they're not hindering Saddam in any way); or
war.
A really airtight inspections process would have Saddam screaming every
day. A really airtight inspections process would have to be rammed down
Saddam's throat. France doesn't want to do that because they fear a
real confrontation with Saddam.
basilod
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E73C3B7...@earthlink.net...
> I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
>
> That is not so.
>
> What I want is two things: the TOTAL (and I mean 100%) disarmament of
> Iraq's WMD, even if Saddam has hidden them very carefully; and making
> sure that no new WMD can ever be built after the disarmament process is
> completed.
Of course, while we demand that Saddam destroys his toy missiles with 100
miles range, we bring to the Middle East the real WMDs: Tomahawks with 1000
miles range and 1000 pounds of deadly load each (each one stealing $600,000
from Social Security fund). We also bring to the Middle East the
newly-tested superbombs and the bombers able to deliver them to any point in
the Middle East. In case the other Middle East countries refuse to
cooperate, we will keep ballistic missiles with the range of over 5,000
miles, which can strike Iraq even from the Continental USA. This looks like
a scenario for a WWF wrestling match between a professional 500-pound
guerilla and a lean amateur with the professional demanding that the amateur
fights with his hands and feet tied.
> For Iraq, there is to be ZERO TOLERANCE of WMD. Iraq is not to possess
> ONE OUNCE of bio-weapon culture, not now, not ever. No matter how
> carefully Saddam has tried to hide WMD, all of it is to be found and
> destroyed. That is what I want.
>
> Can this be done without war? YES.
>
> Here are my ideas on how to disarm Iraq's WMD without war:
>
> 1. Saddam and his key henchmen are to leave Iraq immediately and go
> into permanent exile. Saddam will never give up his dream of building
> WMD so he has to go.
Mr. Wolfowitz, is it OK to exile Saddam to the same Azor island to which
Bush, Blair and Aznar have already departed? Let them fight there between
themselves and let us spare the innocent civilians. Very soon we will
dispatch OBL there too.
> 2. The no-fly zones are to be extended to cover the entire country.
> Nothing is going to be allowed to fly without UN permission--not
> civilian, not military.
They have already been extended to cover the entire country - the entire USA
on 9/11. Do you want a repeat of that?
> 3. Iraq is to be occupied by some 100,000 UN troops. Fully armed.
> They will immediately enforce a "no-drive zone" across the country.
> Until the mobile bio-weapons labs and other mobile military facilities
> are found, nothing is going to be allowed to move on Iraq roads without
> UN permission.
Do you mean the computer simulations distributed by Powell in the UN?
> 4. Iraq's borders are to be sealed tight. Nothing gets in or out
> without UN permission. This will ensure that no WMD can be smuggled out
> of the country to terrorists, until all of it has been found and
> destroyed.
>
> 5. A consortium of agents from the world's intelligence agencies are to
> go into Baghdad and other major cities, and ransack all Iraqi government
> offices and remove all secret and top-secret documents and computer
> files. These will be analyzed to learn where Saddam has hidden the
> WMD. These intelligence agents will also interrogate Iraqi military and
> civilian personnel to learn more about the WMD. If any Iraqis attempt
> to interfere, they will be arrested.
I can help you out. Most WMDs are being kept elsewhere: The United States
stockpile of unitary lethal chemical warfare munitions consists of various
rockets, projectiles, mines, and bulk items containing blister agents
(mustard H, HD, HT) and nerve agents (VX, GB). About 60% of this stockpile
is in bulk storage containers; 40% is stored in munitions, many of which are
now obsolete. The stockpile is stored at eight sites throughout the
Continental US (Edgewood Chemical Activity, MD - 1,625 tons; Anniston
Chemical Activity, AL - 2,254 tons; Blue Grass Chemical Activity, KY - 523
tons; Newport Chemical Depot, IN - 1,269 tons; Pine Bluff Chemical Activity,
AR - 3,850 tons; Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO - 2,611 tons; Deseret Chemical
Activity, UT - 13,515 tons; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR- 3,717 tons) and
at one site outside of the Continental US on Johnston Atoll - 2,031 tons.
>
> 6. UN troops will go to each identified secret site and demand
> admittance. If they are refused, they will open fire. They will be
> supported by U.S. aircraft. The site will be destroyed. It is to be
> understood that even if that site is located in a civilian area, it will
> still be attacked and destroyed.
> Even if that site is under a mosque, it will be attacked and destroyed
> together with the mosque. Collateral damage will be expected. But
> it's less collateral damage than would have occurred in war.
Do you know of a safe way to destroy the sites listed after your #5?
Alternatively, do you know of a way to convert all of those chemical agents
into medications and or fertilizers and pesticides (rather than homicides)?
> 7. Since no aircraft or trucks will be permitted to move, UN relief
> agencies will take over the task of feeding the Iraqi civilian
> population.
Are we already done feeding the hungry and the homeless in America? Have you
been in Manhattan lately?
> 8. The Iraqi people are to choose a new government with UN assistance.
No problem, we will choose one for them: after all, Iraqis (and most of the
Middle East for that matter) have never had experience of living in a
democracy before. Didn't we choose a perfect one for ourselves in 1999?
Simon Jester
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
> I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
>
> That is not so.
>
> What I want is two things: the TOTAL (and I mean 100%) disarmament of
> Iraq's WMD, even if Saddam has hidden them very carefully; and making
> sure that no new WMD can ever be built after the disarmament process is
> completed.
>
> For Iraq, there is to be ZERO TOLERANCE of WMD. Iraq is not to possess
> ONE OUNCE of bio-weapon culture, not now, not ever. No matter how
> carefully Saddam has tried to hide WMD, all of it is to be found and
> destroyed. That is what I want.
>
> Can this be done without war? YES.
>
> Here are my ideas on how to disarm Iraq's WMD without war:
>
> 1. Saddam and his key henchmen are to leave Iraq immediately and go
> into permanent exile. Saddam will never give up his dream of building
> WMD so he has to go.
Simon Sez:
No smartass comments THIS time. Steve's trying to find a reasonable
alternative to invasion. It behooves me to try and be equally reasonable in
return
( The rest snipped. )
This first condition is the real stumbling block to the rest of your ideas.
( All of which make good sense, BTW I would only suggest that we keep at
least part of our forces in Kuwait where they are ) Again and again,
througout his career, Saddam has taken a yachting trip down De-Nile when
confronted with odds that everyone else around him sees as overwhelming
So, my question is: What can the U.S. do to help make Saddam see reality
and go into exile grudgingly if not willingly? One thing that comes quickly
to my mind is that the UN MUST present him with a united front on this
issue. In this regard, Bush's apparent willingness to go to war without UN
backing actually gives us a good leverage point. If we agree to temporarily
shelve these plans in return for the UN presenting Saddam with a demand that
he step down, I think there's agood chance of garnering full support. Even
the Arab league was able to agree on that point.
Other than that, I don't know. What are your thoughts?
G.I. Joe
Might be difficult because Chirac has him self in a corner and might not
go along with any ultimatium that would be needed to show Saddam the hand
writing on the wall. So I doubt it will get anything under a UN banner
unless it gives Saddam 12 years to make up his mind.
I think it has a good chance outside of the UN with the Arab league. Would
you insist on elections or reforms or ??
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Arne Langsetmo
> Limbaugh, Fart, Detector wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:21:51 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
> > <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I have been accused of wanting war no matter what.
> >
> > [i wonder why]
>
> Because it occurred to me that we have never discussed how the
> inspections process could be beefed up to address the main problem--how
> to find WMD even if Saddam has hidden it carefully.
>
> The only two choices we've been presented with so far, are the current
> "don't ask, don't tell" inspections that are so weak that Iraq WANTS
> them to continue (proving they're not hindering Saddam in any way); or
> war.
The current "don't ask, don't tell" inspections have found some
quasi-illegal missiles, a few empty warheads that may well have
been overlooked or forgotten, and a site where it is clear
that Iraq _did_ dispose of the pre-Gulf-War-I CBW.
What they haven't found is the elaborate WoMD that U.S.
and U.K. "intelligence" has cooked up (or been duped by
INC defectors into believing). Matter of fact, when Blix
_checked out_ the supposed (and neatly diagrammmed for
photo-ops) "mobile bioweapons labs", they turned out to
be innocuous. When Blix looked for a SCUD facility on
the basis of "intelligence" from presumably the U.K. or
U.S., they found a load of chickenshit and nothing more.
When they have insepcted various facilities that were
proffered as "evidence" in the reports last year of
new Iraqi weapons programs, these places have turned out
to be duds. When ElBaradei looked at the documents
showing an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium, it turned
out to be a forgery.
So far, the big "deceiver", on inspection by the U.N.,
has turned out to be Dubya, and not Saddam.
The inspections are working. That they haven't found
the fanciful accusations of the U.S., stoked by the
fertile (and pecuniarily inspired Oraqi defectors)
is simply evidence that the U.S. accusations are at
best far overbo0wn, and at worst, deliberately and
slanderously manufactured.
Hard to fault Saddam for that, though.
> A really airtight inspections process would have Saddam screaming every
> day. . . . .
If there was something to hide. Assuming your conclusion doesn't
become you.
> . . . A really airtight inspections process would have to be rammed down
> Saddam's throat. France doesn't want to do that because they fear a
> real confrontation with Saddam.
Nope. They think that there ought to be evidence of WoMD
before we pronounce Saddam guilty, much less administer the
death penalty.
Cheers.
-- Arne Langsetmo
King Pineapple
message news:3E73C3B7...@earthlink.net...
> 1. Saddam and his key henchmen are to leave Iraq immediately and go
> into permanent exile. Saddam will never give up his dream of building
> WMD so he has to go.
He NEVER will leave Iraq, so this is a non-starter. He's smart, but not THAT
smart.
And where would he go, anyway? He knows he's not safe anywhere else...
Apres?
"Individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together"
Major Frank Burns
Peter J. Thomas
Here's mine. An amendment to the resolution forbidding all nations involved in
military action or with veto power from any involvement in reconstruction or oil
industry for a period of 25 years. Then all the powers will come together to an
agreement of what to do.