Quality USA Logic.

[Mong]

"Baghdad tells the UN it will obey the order to destroy its al-Samoud missiles"

In response, the US says that does not prove Iraq is co-operating.

[Woof]

I like the games Saddam plays.
To say one thing, and then at the 11th hour to turn full circle and do the opposite, must really pump Bush's nads.

[Tietäjä]

I think the logic is, Mong, that the Shrimps in the US government disbelieve what Saddam says (whatever he says). I think the Ragheads should try reverse psychology and shout to Bush "****ING NIGWIT WE HAVE TONS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONRY, AND WE'LL AIM THEM ALL TO ISRAEL!". That might make up Bush's mind - refering to the point above, he would have to end up in the conclusion that Iraq actually has no nuclear weaponry, cause in no hell would Saddam tell him the truth.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Mong
"Baghdad tells the UN it will obey the order to destroy its al-Samoud missiles"

In response, the US says that does not prove Iraq is co-operating.

perfectly logical, as there is no proof Iraq has or will destroy the missiles.

Your problem is?

It is maybe you can say one thing and do another? the prove is in the doing and not the saying? is that maybe it??

[Mong]

Quality Blair (para)quote: "We are unsure as to whether Iraq has WMD. It's possible the only way we'll discover this is to invade Iraq*. If we attach, Iraq may use WMD against it's neighbours. However if attacked, Iraq doesn't use any WMD, then this could still mean Iraq is hiding said WMD"

This is akin to witch-hunts of old: "If she drowns, then she's not a witch, or a very good witch who can feign death"

* He said "liberate", I think.

[Neferti]

Originally posted by ELeeming
perfectly logical, as there is no proof Iraq has or will destroy the missiles.

Your problem is?

indeed i am confused by Mong :s

[queball]

lol stupid americans and their "logic"

[Emperorn]

It's not about believing Iraq or not, Bush said days ago that even if Iraq destroys the missiles it will not be proof that the they are co-operating. He demanded "full and total disarmament" or something equally ambivious.

It is perfectly obvious that Bush intends to invade no matter what, so Iraq is in a catch-22 situation. Don't disarm and give Bush the justification he craves, or disarm and lose your ability to defend yourself. As said on BBC, it is in Iraq's best interest to dismantle these missiles as slowly as possible.

[menth0l]

Originally posted by Emperorn

It is perfectly obvious that Bush intends to invade no matter what

Yes.

[Kegluneq]

Of course, proving they have been destroyed could be made much simpler if they simply aimed above mentioned missiles at US troops in the area -->WMD destroyed, threat of war avoided.

(Is there a sarcasm tag?)

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

[Texan]

Originally posted by Kegluneq
Of course, proving they have been destroyed could be made much simpler if they simply aimed above mentioned missiles at US troops in the area -->WMD destroyed, threat of war avoided.

(Is there a sarcasm tag?)

They are not WMD. They are proscribed weapons.

My first thought when I read that Hussein had agreed to destroy the Samoud II weapons was that he would just fire them at his enemies. Voila, proscribed weapons destroyed.

I think this is the sarcasm tag: