Now reported that Iraq will accept U.N. resolution calling for disarmament and return of weapons inspectors.
If i had to bet, i would say that there still will be war within next 3-6 months with Iraq.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
If i had to bet, i would say that there still will be war within next 3-6 months with Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Because Iraq balks on the agreement?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Because Iraq balks on the agreement?
[/QUOTE]
Because Bush and co. want a war. New hitler!
The most interesting part of this is the "and we don't have any weapons so the inspectors are welcome". This must be appealing to those who were screaming a year ago, "Ossama didn't do it, show us the proof!". The willingness of some to believe almost anything is unbelievable.
He must figure that everything is so well hidden that the inspectors can have at it. Within the UN resolution is a provision that Iraqi citizens can be taken out of the countries with their families to be interviewed. I think old Hans Blix should assemble a list of 100 scientists based on the knowledge of inspectors, and give it to the Iraqis immediately upon arrival. Either Iraq produces the scientists, and many of them get out of the country and start singing, or Iraq refuses and things decay from there.
UTD
I think there will be issues in the future, they could be Iraq backing off, or inspectors actually being spies or engaged in other stuff, maybe apetite for war for some. Any or all of these can happen and have happened before.
My gut feeling is that war will happen. I hope I am wrong and it does not need to get to that level.
Part of the agreement is Iraq turning over a list of sites where (chemical) weapons are stored and produced, should be interesting on what type of list they decide to turn over to the UN.
I hope it's over by the Superbowl
no matter what usa would fight a war with iraq!!!
un inspectors and other stuff is just trash talk!
bush wants another war how simple is that to understand 
Up to now the only thing that has gotten Saddam to move is facing the threat of war with the U.S. If the U.S. had backed down or does backdown I suspect that Saddam would once again balk.
It will be one quick war (I say would last no more than 5 days), just like the Italians (and the French tomorrow), you will hear Iraqis say “We Surrender”.
Arabs have never been a Warrior people.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Because Iraq balks on the agreement?
[/QUOTE]
NO! Because US has that in her mind and this will lead to strengthen their economy by massive demand of the weapon industry.
Try out new technology, experiment with bio-chem weapons, make space for new dummy leaders.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Arabs have never been a Warrior people.
[/QUOTE]
challo that atleast sorts that misconception of ppl :)
sounds like Iraq is already playing games…
Iraqi letter hints at trouble down the road
Defiant reply blasts U.S., does not use word ‘accept’
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) – Iraq’s response to the United Nations is unclear on whether Baghdad has really accepted the U.N. resolution – and that could mean a military confrontation is waiting.
Iraq’s defiant nine-page letter, delivered Wednesday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, does not use the word “accept” but states that “we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents.”
After seeing Baghdad’s response, a senior U.S. State Department official said it was still not clear if Iraq had even said “yes” to the U.N. resolution demanding unfettered access for inspectors to search for weapons.
An advanced team of inspectors is due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday.
Iraq has previously used similar language about “sovereignty” to keep U.N. inspectors out of presidential palaces and government ministries – a decade-old sticking point for inspectors.
I told you attacks are near US just needs a tiny mistake in this letter and they gonna fix their tommahawk canon on Sadam’s Palace.
U.S. doesn't need any mistakes, they can attack whenever they want as Saddam is a threat to U.S. intrests. That said they are clearly giving Saddam a chance to show that he is a lily to the world and not a snake (no disrespect to snakes). Snakes can only pretend to be lillies for so long. (worst metaphor ever?)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
U.S. doesn't need any mistakes, they can attack whenever they want as Saddam is a threat to U.S. intrests. That said they are clearly giving Saddam a chance to show that he is a lily to the world and not a snake (no disrespect to snakes). Snakes can only pretend to be lillies for so long. (worst metaphor ever?)
[/QUOTE]
Not when respecting UN Resolutions, but I'm afraid respect is a word that doesn't exist in their dictionary.
If there was no respect then why did the U.S. even go through the motions with the U.N.? U.S. tough talk hasn't gotten Iraq to agree to the resolution or has it? although their agreement at this point is questionable.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
If there was no respect then why did the U.S. even go through the motions with the U.N.? U.S. tough talk hasn't gotten Iraq to agree to the resolution or has it? although their agreement at this point is questionable.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the pre-phase of it? A resolution changed 100 times and then be shameless and to state that US agrees with UN, rather to point out that this was done under heavy pressure by US, is just ridiculous.
If that is your definition of "respect" then we will find more than one Iraq in future.
Re: Iraq accepts UN Demands
Iraq’s pseudo-“parliament” voted against it, but Uday apparently was in favour of accepting it. Although it has been accepted, a few conditions attached by Kofi Annan.
Annan warns Bush against impatience, Oliver Burkeman
The Guardian, 15 November 2002 [Excerpts only]
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has issued his sternest warning yet to George Bush over his plans for an attack on Iraq, urging him not to look for “a flimsy, hasty excuse to go to war” and observing that Washington “does seem to have a lower threshold” for launching military action than other major powers.
His strongly worded remarks came late on Wednesday, within hours of Iraq’s acceptance of the UN resolution on inspections conveyed in a vitriolic letter from Baghdad’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri. With the weapons inspectors due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday, Mr Annan warned that Washington’s impatience could sow dissent on the UN security council.
He said that whatever reason formed the basis of a decision to go to war, “the circumstances must be seen as reasonable and credible and not contrived or stretched”. He told reporters at a meeting with President Bush in Washington: “If we do that, there will be general acceptance and people will understand.”
He urged Mr Bush to be “a bit patient”, adding that he hoped everyone involved would be careful. “Anything seen as a flimsy, hasty excuse to go to war will create difficulties in the [security] council,” he said.