leonarde

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...line2.htm#1995

leonarde

Biological weapons area:
Biological weapons

1. Holdings declared by Iraq *

Anthrax 8 400 litres
Botulinum toxin 19 000 litres
Clostridium (gas gangrene) 3 400 litres
Aflatoxin 2 200 litres
Ricin 10 litres

Above from
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm

Loren Pechtel

Oh, come on now. That's too complex logic!

Mr. Superbad

He'll hold out and stall for as long as the UN lets him, which could be for years, or at least into the summer which will make an attack on him more difficult.

Jane Bovary

He'll hold out and stall for as long as the UN lets him, which could be for years, or at least into the summer which will make an attack on him more difficult.

As Iraq calls for the US to ease up on it's oppressive and ever expanding military presence, and threatens to desist from destroying its missiles, the United Nations process becomes more and more a farce.

The overwhelming message from America is that it doesn't really have any faith in the UN, would prefer not to have to deal with it at all and is temporarily humouring the whole process simply to satiate world opinion and to be seen to be co-operating...in short, it's just going through the motions until the final button is pushed. It's certainly the perception of many that the US is bent on war, and if so, what incentive is there for Iraq to truly co-operate?

If war is a certainty, why would Saddam Hussein want to dissolve all his defences? Seems like a catch 22 to me.

John Hancock

Of course King Geogre is now saying he must abdicate as well as disarm.

Martin Buber

Zar

A disaster, or at least an obstacle, for the United States. Sure you can talk about prevailing winds and all that, but they surely expect to get hit with whatever Saddam's military has, conditions being right. I don't think this changes my point a whole lot. I think it makes less sense to assume the world would not be dismayed if there turned out to be nothing. On the other hand, its obviously a win for U.S. if he has sizeable stockpiles that are used or found, other arguments notwithstanding.

I guess I don't feel like I'm revealing some deep hidden truth. I'm just saying I haven't heard a lot of talk about what happens politically if Saddam actually does not either have or use chem/bio weapons.

Zar

Of course. It would never have been enough to ask for disarmament. That would not be as likely to bring war. Demands for abdication are all but guaranteed to do this. But if I'm not mistaken, policy hawks like Richard Perle think that even regime change and disarmament aren't enough and are "transcended" by issues of American regional domination and American military presence to carry this out.

John Hancock

Certainly the plan has been thirty years in the making original seeded in Harper's (by good old bad Henery Kissinger) in 1974. Than continued dev. as Rapid Deplorement Force, Command Control Center, false intellegence reports at start of first Gulf war to frighten the Saudias into allowing military bases. False go ahead to Hussein into invasion of Kuwait = set up to theocratic rat bait.

Martin Buber

Pomp

Sure. See, for example, the demands the US made of Afghanistan before bombing the shit out if it and then abdicating responsibility for rebuilding post 9-11. When one wants war, but also wants the semblance of diplomacy, one sets conditions that one knows in advance will not be met.