So, why is Saddam destroying his missiles but not his anthrax?

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 08:23

I believe I know, but I'm wondering how people will respond.

oedo · March 3, 2003, 08:27

I have no doubt he will.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 08:32

"no doubt" -why so sure?

TheStinger · March 3, 2003, 08:40

Because he hasn't got any and all those chemical plants were just an attempt by Saddam to find a cure for cancer and therby unite the world under his beneficent magnificance.

The missles were part of his attempts to build an asteroid defence system, which he would eventuallt donate to the world in an attempt to promote his humanitarian views.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 08:41

Stefu · March 3, 2003, 08:43

Because then he wouldn't have any anthrax. I mean, duh.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 08:46

"I mean, duh" ...interesting

oedo · March 3, 2003, 08:59

Lancer, of course he will destroy the anthrax. so he will destroy many more weapones, which they will accidentily find in some long forgotten camps somewhere in close future.
wasn´t it the US admin permanently telling Saddam is playing games? now, this is the game he´s playing. the UN seems to like this game since it keeps the peace in ME and it disarms Iraq. no need to hurry.

Stefu · March 3, 2003, 09:12

Well, Saddam - Anthrax = Anthraxless Saddam.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 09:18

He'll do this in the close future? Why? I mean its been, what, 12 years? Something like that. Fourteen resolutions of the irresolute UN, yes? So, why now? Or "in the close future"?

Stefu, you sound like you're in government...

Stuie · March 3, 2003, 09:23

He already destroyed it. Some recently discovered paperwork supporting this fact is being created even as we speak.

oedo · March 3, 2003, 09:29

the UN isn´t irresolute at all here. Blix actually disarms Iraq in the light of the publicity. this hasn´t been tried 12 years before. but it seems to work.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 09:36

So, Blix is disarming Iraq, and to do this he's using "the light of publicity". This "hasn't been tried in 12 years but seems to work".

This 'Blix' of which you speak, he is a Superman?

Just kidding, sorry.

Stuie, I'm sure if he could get away with that he would.

oedo · March 3, 2003, 09:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
This 'Blix' of which you speak, he is a Superman?

if he finally prevents Bush from attacking, definetly.

Jack the Bodiless · March 3, 2003, 10:22

...Anthrax?

How easily the West misinterprets Saddam's innovative method of delivering water to isolated Shia and Kurdish villages via specially-adapted artillery shells.

The Emperor Fabulous · March 3, 2003, 10:55

Saddam doesn't have any chemical or biological weapons, just some vials marked Xarhtna and X-V. Obviously research done on pharmaceutical drugs.

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 11:40

Isn't this getting worn out even for you, Lancer?

Stuie · March 3, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer

Stuie, I'm sure if he could get away with that he would.

Actually, I was serious. The news report just hit Yahoo...

Quote:

Iraq said it would submit a detailed written report to the weapons inspectors in about a week with a proposal for verifying its claims that it unilaterally destroyed anthrax stores and about 1.5 tons of VX, a deadly nerve agent, Ueki said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mi_ea/iraq_845

Sava · March 3, 2003, 13:20

The real question is: When will people stop being distracted by some little dictator in some little country halfway across the world and wake up and realize what Bush is doing to our freedoms and our economy?

Stuie · March 3, 2003, 13:23

Not until John Ashcroft starts wearing his swastika in the open.

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2003, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Isn't this getting worn out even for you, Lancer?

The warmongers are seeing their chances steadily declining and are getting desperate to make up something as a pretext for invasion.

DuncanK · March 3, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
The real question is: When will people stop being distracted by some little dictator in some little country halfway across the world and wake up and realize what Bush is doing to our freedoms and our economy?

Sava,

The thing is that some Americans couldn't stand to be beat by Iraq. It's breaking down to a Vietnam syndrom. We couldn't get of the war as Nixon said it "without dignity." Bush will never pull out at this point unless it looks like America at least ties. The way it looks right now we are really stupid for moving all of our troops over there and not attacking.

Sandman · March 3, 2003, 14:51

Because missiles are more dangerous than anthrax. But anthrax has a scary name.

Q Classic · March 3, 2003, 14:52

besides, anthrax is a copyrighted band name. missiles isn't.

Drake Tungsten · March 3, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

The warmongers are seeing their chances steadily declining and are getting desperate to make up something as a pretext for invasion.

Are you serious? It's almost inevitable that an invasion is going to happen in the next few weeks, so I don't see how the "warmongers are seeing their chances steadily declining". All that's really happening is an increase in the number of folks who'll look like jackasses after the Iraqi people are liberated...

Nubclear · March 3, 2003, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
after the Iraqi people are liberated...

And then, of course, after it plunges into anarchy as various factions, Iran, and Turkey begin raping the country (and the women, too). All while the US quietly takes the largest piece of the oil pie.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 17:25

Anyone wanna take a shot at the question rather than me?

Stuie, that's pretty funny. Did they say anything about why those papers had not been turned in during the last 14 years?

Maybe they could have gotten some room to move against the embargos... Of course he just pulled them outa his ass.

Drake, the "are you serious?" question is pretty good. Thing is, they are serious...amazing isn't it?

Felch · March 3, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
And then, of course, after it plunges into anarchy as various factions, Iran, and Turkey begin raping the country (and the women, too). All while the US quietly takes the largest piece of the oil pie.

Yeah, where's Russia when you need it? They've did a splendid job of raping the **** out of every country (and woman) their army came in contact with during WWII.

Lancer · March 3, 2003, 17:53

The question posed in the thread title... anyone?

lord of the mark · March 3, 2003, 18:03

Well there are two parts to this question
1. Why is he only destroying the missiles, and not both the missiles and something else, like anthrax.
2. Given that he is only destroying the one, why the missiles and not the Anthrax.

1. Hes only destroying one because he only has to destroy one at this point. His goal is to help the French delay any US attack into summer, when he beleives that the US cant attack. His hope is that the US cant afford to keep large forces in the region all summer and will withdraw. Once the US withdraws we will lose all credibility with the Gulf states that have supported us, who will not let us use their bases again. Just in case, he and the Saudis will work together to start overthrowing Gulfie govts, starting with Qatar. So since his goal is delay, hes going to do everything as slowly and as late as he can get away with. The missile thing can go on for several weeks, which gets him to late April. If necessary he can "discover" and destroy something else then.
2. Why missiles rather than Anthrax. He declared the missiles, apparently theyre too big to hide.especially since hes tested them in the open. The inspectors determined that the tests showed a range in violation of limits. His strategy was to deny that they could reach that range with full warheads and guidance (despite the concern that they were large enough for MUCH more powerful propulsion than they were tested with) Blix acting either 1, Out of new found toughness or 2. a realization that destroying the missiles would be more effective at delaying the US and saving Saddam insisted on destruction. The anthrax is much easier to hide, move while hidden, etc, so naturally you dont destroy that yet.