Iraq and weapons inspectors

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Nov 12, 2002.

  1. So let me get this straight. Either Iraq lets in weapon inspectors, or we take Saddam and company out.

    If I were Iraq I would let in the weapons inspectors. Let them inspect. Buy some time. Develop more weapons in secrecy. Iraq can delay this situation for quite some time without military conflict.

    I mean, if you were Iraq at this point, and you knew you weren't going to give in, wouldn't you stall and buy time?
  2. Despite the feeling that the whole thing's a done deal, there is one interesting point, imo:

    If inspectors go in, and find nothing, then the US goes to war (because that means the nuclear weapons are hidden, and we know they have nuclear weapons because the US government says they do, and they want to use them against the US, for an unknown but certain reason, again because the US says they do)

    If inspectors are not allowed in, then the US goes to war, according to plan.

    but what if the inspectors are allowed in, and do find nukes, and are allowed to confiscate/defuse them? then what? does the US go to war anyway, using the justification that the inspectors didn't find them all? ie, what if Iraq complies? or maybe he will not be allowed to comply, as that would interefere with the plan?
  3. Saddam has weapons, and that is why he doesn't want anyone in his country.

    It is a lose-lose situation for him; the only thing he can do is try to stall for as long as possible. There's no way in hell he'll admit to having the weapons, or that he'll "surrender" voluntarily to a regime change.

    Starting a huge war/regime change may be the only option, but there is the risk of Saddam deciding that since he'll lose, everyone else must lose as much as possible, and that is what nobody wants.
  4. That's the whole problem; the only solution is regime change, and unless you can wipe out the regime (in which case, the people of Iraq will most likely be happy Saddam is gone and support a new regime) nothing will ever change.

    Ousting Saddam means you have to locate all of his weapons of mass destruction and destroy them; if you don't, he'll no doubt use them once he realizes he's about to die...
  5. John Q Public

    John Q Public Guest

    Do you mean to say that if they allow the inspections to go ahead then that's proof that they are not cooperating? And if the inspectors don't find anything, then that means that they have hidden all of their stuff?

    They sure are a tricky bunch over there.

    I suppose that if the inspectors do find stuff and blow it up, that means that they let us find it, and that they have even more stuff hidden?
  6. Exactly - they've boxed him into a corner, with the impossible position of proving a negative. If he resists, he's gone. If he doesn't resist, he's gone anyway, because rumsfeld says he's got to go, and his cooperating is just a sham, anyway.

    but it will be interesting to see what justification they use if it's the latter...
  7. Rumsy must be hoping he says no to weapons inspectors.
  8. This situation is going to get a lot uglier.

    WW III
  9. WW III? uh.....not!!!

    You have a unanimous vote in the UN, you have Israel next door that can on its own take out most of its neighbors.

    Show me the history of Muslim countries banding together in a conflict against against the NATO powers. Hell they can't even get along with each other, and they cheat on each other via OPEC constantly.

    You don't know what the hell are you talking about. Go back to your poly sci class and pay attention to what the teacher says instead of spouting off your typical uninformed nonsensical opinions.
  10. I think you draw invalid conclusions. This isn't just about nuclear weapons, it is about all WOMD and the fact that Saddam is already in breach of some 16 UN resolutions to that end. If the inspectors find nothing then either Saddam has already destroyed all his WOMD (unlikely) or has hidden them so well that the UN weapons inspectors can't find them. The administration knows the WOMD are there because of the satellite photos. The administration doesn't go on live TV to show the world where the WOMD are hidden because they don't want to help Saddam hide his weapons. The UN will have the latest intelligence on where to start looking so it shouldn't take long to either find them or for Iraq to interfere in the inspector's ability to find them.

    Saddam could stay in power indefinitely if he would tell the inspectors where all his WOMD are hidden and allow the inspectors to destroy them. Thus the ironic statement that there could be regime change while Saddam stays in power. Have you noticed all the leaks regarding the war plans to the press? They are part of a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign to put pressure on Saddam to comply lest the 250K soldiers march on Bagdad. As one military expert stated, the military only reveals as much as it wants the enemy to hear. Do you really think we publish our attack plans in advance in the New York Times?

    However, Saddam has set one of his sons to play hide and seek with the WOMD from the inspectors (just like last time) so it's unlikely that he intends to show us what he's got.
    #10     Nov 12, 2002