Iraq will reject UN resolution

[ibrodsky]

It's widely assumed that Saddam Hussein will agree to cooperate and resume the old cat and mouse game. However, I think there is a better than 50/50 chance that Iraq will reject cooperation.

Saddam Hussein knows what many in the West don't. He knows he has WMD, he knows that inspections and disarmament will make it impossible for him to maintain his iron grip, and he knows that cooperating will only make him look weak.

If he does agree to cooperate, it will only be to buy time. I have no doubt in that case he would use the time bought to recruit Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists to come to Iraq and help create an army of terror.

There is already a report that a member of Iraq's "parliament" has denounced the UN resolution and recommends rejection.

My bet is that on Friday Iraq will announce that it accepts inspectors and disarmament if the West also sends inspectors and demands disarmament of "the Zionist entity." This will be, in effect, to reject the UN resolution.

[L@mplighterM]

What odds are you giving?

I still feel that in the end it’ll end up with inspections and in the typical Arab/Muslim fashion they’ll lie like hell, cover up, deny deny, etc…

Then they'll agree, disagree, agree, disagree,...

Perhaps at some point the US will strike but not now.

[ibrodsky]

Well, I'm not running a bookie operation here... but I think it's at least a 75% chance that they will reject cooperation.

With an Iraqi "lawmaker" saying the UN resolution is unjust, I don't see how Saddam can turn around and say, "OK, we'll cooperate." I'm sure the "lawmaker" is acting on Saddam's orders.

Will Saddam give in to a resolution his puppet parliament has denounced? There would have to be some very loud statements from the very same "parliament" in the next day or two calling for acceptance. I have a hard time imagining that.

We have to remember that Saddam is not reasonable. That is precisely why he must be deposed. He is not acting in the interests of his people; he is acting in his own interests. He has been preparing for years for this, and no doubt believes that since he is still in power and George Bush Sr. isn't, that he will find a way to survive once again.

Like the PA leaders, he will try to ignite the entire region and will do everything he can to recruit Islamists. He may have an agreement already with Al Qaeda that if the US attacks they will launch a series of big terrorist attacks -- perhaps in the UK. Plus, if he fires missiles at Israel he may be able to get Hizbullah to join in.

[L@mplighterM]

I’d like to see Hussein gone, vanished, poof but despite the fact that it almost looks certain it’ll be the case I still don’t think it’ll happen. Friday will pass and Bush may send him a couple of reminders but in the end it’ll be Hussein sitting on the throne in Iraq.

Weapons inspectors will be allowed in and it’ll be the same cat and mouse game.

I don’t think Hussein is more of a threat than any of the Arab/Muslim states in the region.

If Hussein or his counterparts ever succeed in undertaking a major terrorist attack in the US the world will most likely plunge into a depression. The US economy is walking a tightrope at the moment and interest rates are at a dangerous low level. The economy can be stimulated a few more times with a rate cut and that’s it.

If I’m wrong and Iraq turns down inspections I think it’s time to start worrying. In 1991 the inspectors were surprised at the sophistication of his weapons program. This time he may have a nuke or two up his sleeve perhaps even worse.

[takeo]

Again your phantasy that al-quaida and Saddam are one and the same, based on what? Even the CIA ignores any link between the two.
Saddam doesn't care if he looks weak, as long as he can maintain his grip on power. Saddam doesn't need WMD to survive, and he will get rid of them if that's what is required to stay in power. by the way, Saddam doesn't look weak, singlehandedly he succeeded in resisting huge us-ressure and maintaining his regime, this fact alone gives him credibility in much of the Arab world and made him more popular than ever. For the us, alongside oil, as well credibility is a very important factor. as long as Saddam remains in power, he is a constant reminder of the failure of us-policy to get a grip on the middle East.
yes the iraqi regime is selfish and unreasonalbe, as well as their opponents the bush-administration.

Of course there's some indirect connection between iraq and real terrorism. If the US invades iraq, it will contribute to the general feelings in the area and make al-quaida recruitment more easy. the message is: we will oppress your region anyhow, it doesn't matter if you support terrorism or not, islamist or secular, you will be a us-ally or cease to exist.
Al-quaida and real terrorism will rise, you can forget about European help in your struggle, and you can only blame your own leaders for this.
There was a nice possibility for international cooperation against terror, instead the us decided to abuse this opportunity to attack thirth countries who did not participate in 11th september but did not fit in the us-picture of a neo-colonial Middle East. Next time al-quaida strikes the us, you'll be on your own, even the new afghan government has publicly condamned a us-aggression against iraq.

I think saddam will finally accept the resolution because he has no other choice, but to sell it to his people he will go trough the parliamentory process.

[Mediocrates]

Who says they'll strike at the US? The last time I checked Bali wasn't near the US.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I’d like to see Hussein gone, vanished, poof but despite the fact that it almost looks certain it’ll be the case I still don’t think it’ll happen. Friday will pass and Bush may send him a couple of reminders but in the end it’ll be Hussein sitting on the throne in Iraq.



I think you are quite wrong. I took my daughter to hear Bush speak just a week ago. He is very determined, and even the day before the elections this was his major theme. And the audience was most vocal and enthosiastic when he brought up the subject.

Saddam's days are numbered. Count on it.

[takeo]

a historic moment, would-be world-fuhrer bush has decided that Saddam must go!
Now let's forget about wMD, un-resolutions and all that other ****, now we're talking real!

[L@mplighterM]

I know that you went to see/hear Bush speak I read it on an earlier post but I didn’t know about your daughter.

I certainly hope you’re right and yes Bush is determined to see Hussein go. I imagine that he’s praying that Hussein will reject the resolution.

I think that you’ll see Hussein accepting the resolution mid week at least that’s my gut feeling. I hope that I’m wrong!

[kauffner]

My guess is that Iraq will either reject the UN resolution outright or accept it in a conditional way. Saddam has been adament about not allowing UN inspectors into the presidential sites, as this resolution would require.

The condemnation by the Iraqi parliament is just Saddam giving himself a pep talk. The best indication of Saddam's intentions is the lack of any reports of high-level negotiations.

If Saddam was planning to welcome the inspectors, he'd be talking to the US, British, or French (or at least to Blix). There have no reports in the news of anything along those lines. Saddam doesn't seem to talking to anyone except possibly the Arab League, which is a waste of time since they are unable to do much of anything for him. The League apparently instructed Syria to vote for the resolution, so it is not even willing to use what little influence it has on Saddam's behalf.

[kauffner]

Despite what I wrote earlier, there is now a definite indication that Saddam intends to blink: his son Uday has written a letter urging acceptance of the UN resolution. In addition, the members of the Iraqi parliament all emphasied in their speeches that they were merely recommending and that the final decision would be up to Saddam.

So it looks like there will be a cat-and-mouse game for at least the next few weeks. I find it hard to believe that Saddam will comply fully, at least not for very long, so in my view a US invasion is inevitable.

[takeo]

As I said earlier, i think that the parliamentory fase that we're seeing right now is just a way to sell the resolution to the iraqi people. A downright acceptance would be a change of former policy and to some iraqi uncomprehensible (but not to those familiar with international politics, as most iraqi), so this is a way to handle the acceptance.
But of course Saddam knows that he has no choice, and i'm almost sure that he will accept, altough accompanied by a message that it is an unjust resolution but that iraqi will comply to international demands, on the contrary to Israel.
I think iraqi's will comply fully, in order to prevend any us-attempt to find excuses to invade Iraq.
IF iraq complies fully, it would be a serious problem for Bush and co.

[Mediocrates]

IF iraq complies fully, it would be a serious problem for Bush and co.




Good Morning, Winston Smith.

[whereamigod]

They'll find a way to cause a war, remember Operation Desert Fox? Bush wants war, and he'll have it. But this time it will be different. We have a leader who can barely speak his own native tongue (its's nuclear.....lets say it together.......n..u..c..l..e..a..r)
This is not the alst we'll see of Saddam, I promise you that. He has no weapons of mass destruction. What does he have? Tons and tons of chem and bio. weapons. How do we know? We gave them to him? If he sees his regime challenged, guess what? Boom! How many soldiers are we willing to let dies for a pointless war that accomplishes nothing except an influx of oil? Are our boys really only worth a couple of barrells of oil? I'm sure ibrodsky and L@amplighter will tell you how Saddam is a supporter of terrorism and how hes mounting a pile of weapons of mass destruction. Yeah right and Arafat is a billionaire who chooses to live in danger everyday in a hellhole living everyday in a bombed out compund.

[whereamigod]

Unlike Israel, Iraq is not a threat to the world.

[christian]

Originally posted by takeo

IF iraq complies fully, it would be a serious problem for Bush and co.

Of course, it will be a serious problem for Bush. Many undertable contracts are prepared before the start of war. Weapon industries likes to reap billions. There are no excuse for military spending. Oil industries can't profit from peace.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by whereamigod
Unlike Israel, Iraq is not a threat to the world.

You don’t seem like a peaceful Muslim to me! If you're a representative of your brethren I hope NATO/US melts Iraq as a beginning.

[Mediocrates]

Christian et. al. ~

Specifically WHAT problems though? I'd like you to explain that.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by kauffner
Despite what I wrote earlier, there is now a definite indication that Saddam intends to blink: his son Uday has written a letter urging acceptance of the UN resolution. In addition, the members of the Iraqi parliament all emphasied in their speeches that they were merely recommending and that the final decision would be up to Saddam.

So it looks like there will be a cat-and-mouse for at least the next few weeks. I find it hard to believe that Saddam will comply fully, at least not for very long, so in my view a US invasion is inevitable.

My guess is that Saddam will say he accepts but with conditions to guarantee "fairness." This will include having Arab countries participate on the inspection team.

May I remind people of the Taliban... they wanted to negotiate with the US regarding turning bin Laden over. President Bush said no negotiations -- either turn him over or face the consequences. President Bush understands that these types of games are exactly that -- they are designed to create divisions and sway the gullible, and ultimately evade.

Saddam will score a minor PR victory if he "accepts" with conditions. But I don't believe for a second that it will save him. President Bush has said over and over that he must disarm and there is *nothing* to negotiate.

The error many people make is in assuming the US went the UN route because the US accepts the authority of the UN in such matters. The only reason for going to the UN was to obtain, for the record, a resolution agreed to by other countries that Iraq has violated terms of surrender from the Gulf War and has been warned that if it does not comply fully and immediately -- with no ands, ifs, or buts -- then it will face severe consequences.

I have complete faith in President Bush's ability (and will) to explain one last time that "no negotiations" means "no negotiations." Threats from bin Laden will only harden US resolve to act decisively against Iraq.

[kauffner]

Originally posted by takeo
Again your phantasy that al-quaida and Saddam are one and the same, based on what? Even the CIA ignores any link between the two.

Bush has been hammering away at this theme for weeks. If the Atta-Al Ani meeting in Prague was a fiction, surely Saddam would have allowed Al Ani to be interrogated by now.

Saddam is not some indigent criminal defendent who can't afford a lawyer. He has it in his power to prove himself innocent if he really is. He doesn't really even try. When Aziz was asked about the Prague meeting, his response was, "Even if it happened, consuls meet many people in the course of their work." (I'm paraphasing.) As a defense against a very serious charge, this is pathetic.


If the US invades iraq, it will contribute to the general feelings in the area and make al-quaida recruitment more easy.

This fantasy is completely out of touch with the real world and how Arabs actually think. The true religion of the Middle East is not Islam. It is "don't back a loser." If you had been alive in 1944, you would be explaining to Eisenhower that a Normandy landing would be futile and would only make it easier for the Nazis to recruit new members.


There was a nice possibility for international cooperation against terror, instead the us decided to abuse this opportunity to attack thirth countries who did not participate in 11th september but did not fit in the us-picture of a neo-colonial Middle East.

For a few hours after 9/11, there appeared to be international unity. NATO held a meeting on Sept. 12, article four was invoked. The next day, newspapers were reporting that NATO was not actually going to provide significant asistance after all. Since then, the U.S. has been doing all the heavy lifting.

[elke]

Originally posted by whereamigod
Unlike Israel, Iraq is not a threat to the world.

In what way, exactly, is Israel a threat to the world in your opinion? :confused: :rolleyes:

[kauffner]

Originally posted by takeo
As I said earlier, i think that the parliamentory fase that we're seeing right now is just a way to sell the resolution to the iraqi people.

Public opinion plays no role in the Iraqi political system. You say what Saddam tells you to say or you get shot. The parliament vote is part of a good cop/bad cop routine. Now that it has taken such an extreme position, anything Saddam does will look moderate by comparison.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by whereamigod
They'll find a way to cause a war, remember Operation Desert Fox? Bush wants war, and he'll have it. But this time it will be different. We have a leader who can barely speak his own native tongue (its's nuclear.....lets say it together.......n..u..c..l..e..a..r)

The American people see through this left-wing drivel. President Bush isn't slick, but he is showing outstanding leadership. When Iraq conquered Kuwait and Al Qaeda flew airplanes into the WTC, people like you blamed the U.S. When the U.S. acted to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and go after Al Qaeda and their sponsors, people like you blamed the U.S.

There most certainly will be war. Why? Because we know Saddam Hussein is evil and we know there are Arab and Muslim states supporting international terrorism.


This is not the alst we'll see of Saddam, I promise you that. He has no weapons of mass destruction. What does he have? Tons and tons of chem and bio. weapons. How do we know? We gave them to him?

No, you are just parrotting the usual lies. Biological and chemical weapons are by definition weapons of mass destruction. They are designed to kill everyone over a large area without regard for whether they are combatants or civilians.

The U.S. never gave Iraq (or anyone) chemical or biological weapons. This is the sort of lie accepted as good coin by people who believe nonsense such as the claim that Jews stayed home the day of the WTC attack because they "knew."

The U.S. and other western nations sell chemicals that can be used to create chemical weapons because these chemicals also have legitimate uses. The U.S. and other western nations sell biological agents because they are as necessary in developing treatments and vaccines as they are necessary to creating weapons.


If he sees his regime challenged, guess what? Boom! How many soldiers are we willing to let dies for a pointless war that accomplishes nothing except an influx of oil? Are our boys really only worth a couple of barrells of oil?

Your concern about "our boys" is touching. It's also reminiscent of Tokyo Rose and people who dressed up their sympathy with Nazi Germany as an isolationist form of patriotism.

The U.S. is not interested in stealing Iraq's oil. Show us evidence that the U.S. is stealing Kuwaiti oil. If the U.S. wanted to steal Iraqi oil we would already be doing so. In case you don't remember, we dealt them a crushing defeat about ten years ago.


I'm sure ibrodsky and L@amplighter will tell you how Saddam is a supporter of terrorism and how hes mounting a pile of weapons of mass destruction. Yeah right and Arafat is a billionaire who chooses to live in danger everyday in a hellhole living everyday in a bombed out compund.

Oh no, paying the families of terrorists $25,000 isn't support. And Arafat is not hoarding Palestinian money.

Many, many others have reported on and acknowledged these facts. Your attempt to paint them as extremist charges doesn't wash.

[ibrodsky]

Iraq Boosts Suicide Bomber Payment

By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH
Associated Press Writer

NABLUS, West Bank (AP) — Saddam Hussein has increased money for the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000, drawing sharp criticism from Washington. But Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory — not greed.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

[ibrodsky]

Well, I was wrong: Iraq did accept the UN resolution and did not present any conditions.

This simply means that either 1) Saddam Hussein believes he can hide weapons, or 2) Saddam would rather disarm and stay in power.

The US should take this opportunity to strike at other terrorists and terror-sponsoring regimes -- keeping in mind that Iraq could violate the resolution at any time.

[takeo]

Originally posted by kauffner
Bush has been hammering away at this theme for weeks. If the Atta-Al Ani meeting in Prague was a fiction, surely Saddam would have allowed Al Ani to be interrogated by now.

Saddam is not some indigent criminal defendent who can't afford a lawyer. He has it in his power to prove himself innocent if he really is. He doesn't really even try. When Aziz was asked about the Prague meeting, his response was, "Even if it happened, consuls meet many people in the course of their work." (I'm paraphasing.) As a defense against a very serious charge, this is pathetic.

[B]

Even the (very pro-us) czech autorities deny any meeting between Atta and the iraqi's. So there's no reason for a serious defense, as the prooves for the allegations are extremely weak.



This fantasy is completely out of touch with the real world and how Arabs actually think. The true religion of the Middle East is not Islam. It is "don't back a loser." If you had been alive in 1944, you would be explaining to Eisenhower that a Normandy landing would be futile and would only make it easier for the Nazis to recruit new members.

[B]

actually, as the serbs the Arabs have the tendency to back the looser, when did Saddam really became popular in the Arab world? Once he lost the gulf-war! And if palestinians aren't loosers and underdogs then nobody is.
Everyone knew that he was going to invade and that this invasion was usefull, the Russians and occupied Europeans were waiting on it for months. very few people in the world are convinced of the need to attack Iraq...



"
For a few hours after 9/11, there appeared to be international unity. NATO held a meeting on Sept. 12, article four was invoked. The next day, newspapers were reporting that NATO was not actually going to provide significant asistance after all. Since then, the U.S. has been doing all the heavy lifting.

Europeans(especially france), the unsc, pakistan, even Iran, everyone contributed in the war against the taliban, with information, military assistance, etc.
i don't see this happening if Bush invades iraq, on the contrary.

[takeo]

Originally posted by elke
In what way, exactly, is Israel a threat to the world in your opinion? :confused: :rolleyes:

Well, i think indirectly, because the middle-eastern conflict, escalated by the israeli government, can exploit into a regional war and perhaps even worse.

[takeo]

kauffner
Public opinion plays no role in the Iraqi political system. You say what Saddam tells you to say or you get shot. The parliament vote is part of a good cop/bad cop routine. Now that it has taken such an extreme position, anything Saddam does will look moderate by comparison.


maybe you are right about this.

ibrodsky
The American people see through this left-wing drivel. President Bush isn't slick, but he is showing outstanding leadership. When Iraq conquered Kuwait and Al Qaeda flew airplanes into the WTC, people like you blamed the U.S. When the U.S. acted to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and go after Al Qaeda and their sponsors, people like you blamed the U.S.

There most certainly will be war. Why? Because we know Saddam Hussein is evil and we know there are Arab and Muslim states supporting international terrorism.

People like me didn't blame the us for chasing al-quaida, nor for liberating Kouweit.
Most certainly? So even if iraq complies fully? So you admit whole this un-resolution was just a comedy? it's not about WMD after all? Iraq should be invaded, world-peace should be at stake, 1000's of people must die because it gives money to the families of suicide-bombers????



Your concern about "our boys" is touching. It's also reminiscent of Tokyo Rose and people who dressed up their sympathy with Nazi Germany as an isolationist form of patriotism.

no, it reminds me more of people who were resisting to send boys to the totally useless and bloody war in Vietnam...

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by takeo
Well, i think indirectly, because the middle-eastern conflict, escalated by the israeli government, can exploit into a regional war and perhaps even worse.

Gosh, and I thought Islamists were escalating the conflict. I must have been mislead the whole time. :rolleyes:

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
Well, i think indirectly, because the middle-eastern conflict, escalated by the israeli government, can exploit into a regional war and perhaps even worse.

maybe if should might who knows, pick 3 dozen other places on earth

[takeo]

explode

Islamists and the israeli government are both part of the cycle of violence, both encourage the violence and escalation.

Few other conflicts in the world are as dangerous as this one for worldwide escalation, perhaps China-Taiwan, India-pakistan (not worldwide escalation, but both have wmd) or georgia (if the us interfears on behalf of Georgia or other former Soviet republics, which seems less likely since obl's public declaration on Chechnia) that's it.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
Well, i think indirectly, because the middle-eastern conflict, escalated by the israeli government, can exploit into a regional war and perhaps even worse.


*LOL*

[kauffner]

It was certainly very undemocratic of Saddam to accept the UN resolution in defiance of a unanimous decision of the Iraqi Parliament. As Taranto writes, "What does he think he is, a dictator?" I can only imagine the outraged feelings of the Iraqi people by this latest Saddamite betrayal.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by kauffner
"What does he think he is, a dictator?"

LOL!

:D

[kauffner]

Originally posted by takeo
Even the (very pro-us) czech autorities deny any meeting between Atta and the iraqi's. So there's no reason for a serious defense, as the prooves for the allegations are extremely weak.

The Czech prime minister and interior minister have both stated publically that the meeting did in fact occur. A spokesman for President Havel implied that it did not. There is politically rivalry between Havel and prime minister which may explain their differing views on this point. But even Havel has not denied that a meeting took place.


actually, as the serbs the Arabs have the tendency to back the looser

This is a joke, right? If the Serbs loved a loser, Milosevic would be a big hero right about now.


when did Saddam really became popular in the Arab world? Once he lost the gulf-war!

The Shiites and Kurds revolted at end of the Gulf War. But I suppose each Iraqi expresses his love for Saddam in a different way.


Everyone knew that [Eisenhower] was going to invade and that this invasion was usefull, the Russians and occupied Europeans were waiting on it for months.

When historic events are happening, things are never so clear as they are in hindsight. Many French were still loyal to Vichy in 1944. Left-wing conspiracy theorists claimed that the U.S build up was intended to put down an English revolution.


very few people in the world are convinced of the need to attack Iraq...

The vote in the Security Council was 15-0. Even Fisk admits this is a mandate for war.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
Well, i think indirectly, because the middle-eastern conflict, escalated by the israeli government, can exploit into a regional war and perhaps even worse.

What about the ME conflict escalated by the terrorists, which is a heck of a lot more likely. What do you expect Israel to do? That is, other than capitulate to terror.

In another thread, I asked Whereamigod what s/he would do if s/he was IDF, and you know what s/he said?... "nothing much different". It's a fascinating answer, since this is the same person who has made snide and disparaging remarks about IDF and its actions only a post or two before then. However, it seems to be the common phenomenon, something called "yakking": it means complaints rather than constructive criticism - no viable solutions are offered, just the "yak, yak, yak". ;)

[takeo]

"The Czech prime minister and interior minister have both stated publically that the meeting did in fact occur. A spokesman for President Havel implied that it did not. There is politically rivalry between Havel and prime minister which may explain their differing views on this point. But even Havel has not denied that a meeting took place."

The Prague link was only mentioned in the first months after 11/9, after that even the US recognised that it was false, if no why wouldn't they have used it to attack iraq immidiately, instead of focussing on WMD?




This is a joke, right? If the Serbs loved a loser, Milosevic would be a big hero right about now.

Milosevic is still quite popular and it even increased the last year, and according to polls 90% opposed his incarcelation in the Hague...



The Shiites and Kurds revolted at end of the Gulf War. But I suppose each Iraqi expresses his love for Saddam in a different way.

I mean in the Arab world, Kurds and shiites always opposed Saddam.


When historic events are happening, things are never so clear as they are in hindsight. Many French were still loyal to Vichy in 1944. Left-wing conspiracy theorists claimed that the U.S build up was intended to put down an English revolution.

Come on, most French were extremely happy to see the Americans, maybe the first and last time in history!
A conspiracy theory which might be correct is that Western forces waited so long to exhaust the Soviet Union forces...



The vote in the Security Council was 15-0. Even Fisk admits this is a mandate for war.

every country in the SC, except GB and the us, voted for the SCR because it could prevent war, and most publicly said so as well;
they forced the us to accept changes so that it could not be abused to invade iraq without a legitimate reason.




What about the ME conflict escalated by the terrorists, which is a heck of a lot more likely. What do you expect Israel to do? That is, other than capitulate to terror.

In another thread, I asked Whereamigod what s/he would do if s/he was IDF, and you know what s/he said?... "nothing much different". It's a fascinating answer, since this is the same person who has made snide and disparaging remarks about IDF and its actions only a post or two before then. However, it seems to be the common phenomenon, something called "yakking": it means complaints rather than constructive criticism - no viable solutions are offered, just the "yak, yak, yak".



the Mideast conflict is escalated by israel's refusal to withdraw, already for decades, and by sharon's decision to quit all negociations and isolate and destroy the moderates in the palestinian camp. Of course palestinian extremists had their share in the escalation as well.
The idf indeed has little choice, the politicians commanding them have a lot of choice however! they could, as a start, negociate with the moderate palestinians, in order to jointly attack the real terrorists AND to find a final solution for the problem;

[Mediocrates]

That shows an amazing naivete. It's entirely possible that Syria facing yet more isolation, both economic and political and looking the the billions and billions of dollars of debt they've accrued with the west and the Russians to fund their own 9 billion/year ($US equiv.) defence budget simply rolled over.

One must ask what concessions their baby dictator gained in turning a blind eye? And don't forget that in Syria's case they can afford to do pretty much whatever they want w/o fear of any internal reprecussions - there is no arab street in Syria.

http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul97/bodansky.htm

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001130/2000113008.html

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:C_6IBpl-OTQC:www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/syr_aag.pdf+syrian+debt&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/03/26/News/News.4575.html

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-C_131


And so on - you can continue on yourself. In fact if I were deeply cynical which of course I'm not :p I'd say that Syria's very presence on the SC is a deal with the devil for its creditors to keep a close watch on their money and extract certain concessions generally.

[Batman]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Well, I was wrong: Iraq did accept the UN resolution and did not present any conditions.

This simply means that either 1) Saddam Hussein believes he can hide weapons, or 2) Saddam would rather disarm and stay in power.

The US should take this opportunity to strike at other terrorists and terror-sponsoring regimes -- keeping in mind that Iraq could violate the resolution at any time.

I think the Iraquis have an alternate plan, either 1) you mention or another surprise thru the terror network. I think the way the entire Iraqui officials in the government voted against the UN resolution but Sadaam voted for it was to make him look like he makes the decisions - he wears the pants...(not Bush) however, it also is meant to buy time and deceive for whatever their alternate game is...

[kauffner]

Originally posted by takeo
The Prague link was only mentioned in the first months after 11/9, after that even the US recognised that it was false, if no why wouldn't they have used it to attack iraq immidiately, instead of focussing on WMD?

The Arab world is still not convinced Bin Laden was involved in 9-11, despite the fact that we now have several videotapes of him confessing. Internationally, the WMD route seems to be a better bet.

For me, the most convincing reason to believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 is the evidence collected by Laurie Mylroie which suggests that Saddam was behind the 1993 World Trade Center attack. The 2001 attack appears to be a follow up to that attack. Even if it is not, the 1993 bombing is a sufficient reason to overthrow Saddam by itself.

http://www.tnr.com/092401/woolsey092401.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mylroie052902.asp


Milosevic is still quite popular and it even increased the last year, and according to polls 90% opposed his incarcelation in the Hague...

That's not quite the same as being popular. You can count me with that 90 percent. I think he should have been tried in a Serbian court.


I mean in the Arab world, Kurds and shiites always opposed Saddam.

Iraqi Shiites are certainly Arabs. Palestinians turned out for Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, not he was driven out.


every country in the SC, except GB and the us, voted for the SCR because it could prevent war, and most publicly said so as well; they forced the us to accept changes so that it could not be abused to invade iraq without a legitimate reason.

They can say what they like, but the UN resolution is not ambiguous. It declares Iraq to be "in material breach" of the earlier ceasefire resolution. That's a legal basis for war.

If his nonacceptance acceptance letter is any indication, Saddam is beside himself with rage over the resolution. What about all those protesters in Florence? Someone needs to explain to them what a pacific document the Security Council passed.

I was worried that Saddam might be up to something clever. But after reading his letter, I must concluded that the man has clearly come unhinged. Now he wants revenge against, "those who bite on their fingers." More to the point, he admits that he plans to "safeguard what they must safeguard," despite the "bad contents" of the resolution. In other words, he is only pretending to accept the resolution, and not doing a very good job of that.

When the deadline for Iraq to declare its contraband material comes on December 8, he will issue a declaration full of lies. Then the US representative can go before the council like Stevenson during the Cuban missile crisis and present the evidence. After that, there will be no doubt that Iraq is in "further material breach," as the resolution puts it.

Saddam has spent the last year stewing in jealousy while Osama got all the credit for 9-11. It's only a matter of time before he goes all North Korean and confesses everything. :p (BTW, it's lights out time for North Korea. KEDO has announced that they are cutting off oil supplies.)


the Mideast conflict is escalated by israel's refusal to withdraw, already for decades, and by sharon's decision to quit all negociations and isolate and destroy the moderates in the palestinian camp.

So the Middle East was all sweetness and light before 1967? Israel occupied the West Bank because the area was being used to launch attacks, so you are reversing cause and effect.

Once Saddam is overthrown, there will be an opening for peace, as there was in 1992. As long as Iraq is giving the Palestinians $25,000 per "martyr," they are going to take the money and skip the peace negotiations.

[takeo]

here's another link:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=1821&page=2&pp=15&highlight=iraq