|
It All Comes Down to This Friday
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
Hans Blix is due to present his second report to the UN Security council this Friday, and I fear that anything less than a glowing report on Iraqi co-operation will give the US all the justification they feel they need to march into Baghdad. Based on my knowlegde of Islamic holidays and the lunar cycle (apparently important when planning for war) I predict the attacks to begin either from March 1st - 3rd, or any time after March 8th (apart from Mar 21st which is Nau Roy in Iraq). But my best guess is from 1st - 3rd March, and I will be willing to take bets on that.
So mark my words. There's a lot of pressure on Hans Blix, and he's going to have to phrase everything precisely and ensure that he doesn't give the Americans any more ammunition than they need. Keep in the back of your mind the North Korean situation in all this as well. They seem very sensitive at the moment, and from what they've been saying it seems like a great many things could set them off. They've said that the build up of any more troops will be a declaration of war, that the imposition of any sanctions will be a declaration of war and that a referral of their case to the security council (which has just happened - passed by 31 votes to 0) could really piss them off (at least according to the Russians) and make them dig their feet in further, driving the potential for a diplomatic solution much more difficult.
Seems to me like we're bombing the harmless state and not even addressing the maniacal one. I don't like the way this is headed, but I have a feeling that this Friday is going to be crucial to the development of all these issues. C'mon Hans mate, don't let us down. :-/ |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
I certainly wouldn't like to be in Hans' shoes right now. Probably the world's most important guy for a moment. Nobody can say anything bout the outcome as his last report has been surprisingly and unexpectedly negative. Also, not to sound like paranoid conspiracy-theory freak, but no single man on earth is unbuyable.
Whatever the outcome, a severe damage has already been "achieved". Nato is likely to totally blow up any time soon and the American-European relations haven't been so hostile since probably WW2. America has already lost a lot of its image and will lose even more, both when attacking or withdrawing: No matter what happens in the near future, an American strike will be condemened and any death in this war will add to the picture of American aggression and imperialism. On the other hand is the US don't attack and Saddam still hasn't left/disarmed he will go out as the the underdog who beat the almighty superpower. A huge amoung of credibility of the US, or the fear of a possible attack (with regards to Kim Il Jong) will be gone. More blackmailing and provocations will be possible. Until the US really explodes. It's sad, but as I once said that point of no return has already been reached, I'd rather see the US go in and make it quickly and forcefully (then ofcourse establshing a new government and look after it) than continue this "diplomacy"-show for months and eventually leave it. |
|
|
| Az |
No matter what happens, neither resolution 1441 or the UN charter gives America or the UK to attack Iraq, a second resolution needs to be passed, depending on what Hans Blix's findings are......
I just hope that the Americans see sense and realise North Korea is a far more pressing problem..... |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Az
No matter what happens, neither resolution 1441 or the UN charter gives America or the UK to attack Iraq, a second resolution needs to be passed, depending on what Hans Blix's findings are......
I just hope that the Americans see sense and realise North Korea is a far more pressing problem..... |
Abd the UK ( well , Tony Blair ) needs to look at it also ! ! ! damm .. why is Blair acting like that ! |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
kay just watched it
looks like a rather positive briefing. At least no direct justification for war can be derived from it. |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
Abd the UK ( well , Tony Blair ) needs to look at it also ! ! ! damm .. why is Blair acting like that ! |
i know, he's under a lot of pressure from everyone at the moment, and I can't say I trust him totally any more :(
on a side note......
Hans Blix:  Colin Powell: 
:stongue: |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| Hm....Simply put Az is right...:eyespop: |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Hm....Simply put Az is right...:eyespop: |
I'm always right, just sometimes you disagree with me ;) |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
imo, they should not attack. so far the most damning evidence they have come up with is 16 empty warheads, that could carry chemicals, and a missile that could fly 20km farther than it should be able to. which is still not even far enough to reach israel, and certainly not the US.
the US just wants to dominate all the worlds oil, simple as that. I've known for 10 years, that oil will be up to $500 a barrel in my lifetime, and if the US can dominate that, it can literally control the world. next will be iran, jordan, and syria. they need to control that region, simply NEED to, if they want worldwide dominance.
this war has nothign to do with iraqs weapons of mass destruction, if it did, then the US would go after pakistan, india, china, north korea.
it has nothing to with human rights violations, else they would be stopping those violations in east timor, chechnya, and singapore.
and it has nothing to do with violation of UN security council resolution, else they would go after israel, the most frequent and flagrant violator of un resolutions. israel won't even let inspectors into the country, even though the UN has ordered it!
and finally, it's not about terrorism, no matter how hard they try, the bush administration cannot link iraq and al-qaeda. |
|
|
| deejay2002 |
| awwww man...can't we all get along please?!?! NO MORE WAR!!! |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Just having a thought, if the UN resolution is breached, what business does the US have with that anyway? It should be the UN and not the US that insures the resolutions are not breached, no? |
|
|
| Izzy |
i liked how blix ended his speech, in the last paragraph he said
| quote: |
If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament — under resolution 687 (1991) — could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002) , the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.
|
if you read it carefully, to me that sounds like he is saying that "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" has not been achieved in the three months since 1441. therefore it is time to in act the "serious consequences" that 1441 calls for when such cooperation is not achieved.
those "serious consequences" should be decided upon by the UN (since it is a UN resolution that is being defied as drug_tito says). however i do not see how serious consequences could be translated into "lets keep doing what we are doing now" as france and germany are proposing (keeping the inspectors going for longer). something "serious" needs to be done, it may not have to be war (although i think thats the best solution) but things have to change and iraq has to live up to the consequences. |
|
|
|
|
