Planetarion Forums - New British Demands for Saddam to avoid war

s|k · 12 Mar 2003, 20:15

List of Demands
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES

LONDON, March 12 — Following is an unofficial list of six British demands for Saddam Hussein, according to British officials:

Mr. Hussein must admit on Iraqi television that he possesses weapons of mass destruction and will now disarm fully.

He will account for and destroy stocks of anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons.

Mr. Hussein will permit 30 scientists and their families to fly to Cyprus for interrogation by United Nations weapons inspectors.

He will admit to possession of an unmanned drone aircraft discovered by inspectors.

He will promise to destroy mobile production facilities for biological weapons.

Mr. Hussein will pledge to complete the destruction of all unlawful missiles.

(wishful thinking or a made so he would intentionally fail?)

Starbucks · 12 Mar 2003, 20:26

go back to the public debating forum

Sub · 12 Mar 2003, 20:27

I'm sure admitting he has WMDs will stop the US dead in it's tracks.

s|k · 12 Mar 2003, 20:30

I think they'll fail on the first one. He'll never admit to his own people that he's been lying, it would undermine his authority.

Bunga · 12 Mar 2003, 22:12

I agree, he won't ever agree to the first one. Admitting that plane is concievable, but unlikely. And allowing the scientists out will be a tough choice for him.

acropolis · 12 Mar 2003, 22:23

so mistar rumsfeld did a speech yesterday saying that we would be just fine invading iraq without the help of britain or australia.

not that there is any indication we would have to, but apparently getting rid of all our allies is all part of the overall bush strategy.

i wonder how far we are now from some country actually saying that they will help iraq defend itself in the event of a US invasion that goes against UN mandate.

Texan · 12 Mar 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
so mistar rumsfeld did a speech yesterday saying that we would be just fine invading iraq without the help of britain or australia.

not that there is any indication we would have to, but apparently getting rid of all our allies is all part of the overall bush strategy.

i wonder how far we are now from some country actually saying that they will help iraq defend itself in the event of a US invasion that goes against UN mandate.

12 years?

acropolis · 12 Mar 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
12 years?

sadly that's my guess too.

if they all think the US is so wrong about this invasion, why don't they put their money where their mouth is.

bunch of whining pussies.

Kumnaa · 12 Mar 2003, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
sadly that's my guess too.

if they all think the US is so wrong about this invasion, why don't they put their money where their mouth is.

bunch of whining pussies.

the terrorists are planning revenge for us

Pyr0 MK III · 12 Mar 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
the terrorists are planning revenge for us

pld reply

Texan · 12 Mar 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Kumnaa
the terrorists are planning revenge for us

They are planning revenge no matter what you do. They hate you.

Proteus · 12 Mar 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
They are planning revenge no matter what you do. They hate you.

And that's why we like carpet bombing

Texan · 12 Mar 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
I hope this is sarcasm?

Hope is what keeps us alive from day to day. Hope all you want.

G_frog · 13 Mar 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
sadly that's my guess too.

if they all think the US is so wrong about this invasion, why don't they put their money where their mouth is.

bunch of whining pussies.

posting damn silly rhetoric doesn't strengthen your position or earn sympathy.

Military intervention in the middle east against the US would be subject to stronger versions of the same objections as are held against the actions of the US. (i.e. it would probably be illegal, it would kill an awful lot of people, and it would be unlikely to make things much better in Iraq.)

Woof · 13 Mar 2003, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by s|k
Mr. Hussein must admit on Iraqi television that he possesses weapons of mass destruction and will now disarm fully.

Why don't they just ask him to wear a pink dress on Iraqi television.
What they're asking him to do, is aimed at nothing more than public humiliation.

It's completly unreasonable to expect him to respond to these demands, and is just another piece of propaganda.
Labour spin will be quoting these six demands at some point, saying he had yet another chance to avoid war.

Ste · 13 Mar 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by s|k

Mr. Hussein must admit on Iraqi television that he possesses weapons of mass destruction and will now disarm fully.

This is just designed to humiliate him,

Quote:

He will promise to destroy mobile production facilities for biological weapons.

He denies these existing. UN inspectors have not found any evidence they exist. AND the US/UK government has provided no evidence that they exist.

How is he gonna get past that?

It's obviously designed to fail.

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 11:57

i already think we should deliver those patriot-missles to iran instead of turkey, just incase bush doesnt want to stop with iraq

sh@dow · 13 Mar 2003, 12:07

theres a few reasons why no other country would help iraq, 2 being - they'd get crushed easily, they prolly dont want saddam about any more then we do but are too pussy to join the war

13 Mar 2003, 12:43

Blair is Bush´s lapdog, and as we notice he cant stop licking his owners face waiting for some positive respons in the way of a treat or a pet on the head.

They should just stay out of the middle east, stop playing world police,and take the israeli´s back with them to the states so the palestinian´s can have their homeland back.

[offtopic]
Those who was world leaders after ww2 should have found another way to show their pitty for the israeli then giving away something that wasnt theirs.
[/offtopic]

13 Mar 2003, 14:16

loooooooooooooooooooooooooool

The USA has rejected the british plan.
Guess now we know what Bush thinks of the brits (they can come along , but have to keep their mouth shut).

Starbucks · 13 Mar 2003, 14:29

I hope George Bush likes The Netherlands, because at the rate he is going, hes gonna spend a LOT of time there

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by m.ar.d
loooooooooooooooooooooooooool

The USA has rejected the british plan.
Guess now we know what Bush thinks of the brits (they can come along , but have to keep their mouth shut).

Really? Where did you see this, because I can't find it.

According to CNN, it's France who have rejected the plan.

France rejects list of "benchmarks" for Iraq

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbucks
I hope George Bush likes The Netherlands, because at the rate he is going, hes gonna spend a LOT of time there

i guess he will bomb them aswell.

(anyway, what is all this about? how many wars have been legitimated by the uno in the last 60 years? 2? 3?)

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 14:37

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
i guess he will bomb them aswell.

(anyway, what is all this about? how many wars have been legitimated by the uno in the last 60 years? 2? 3?)

I was thinking the same thing. If some African country invades some other African country, no-one cares. But just because its American doing the invading, suddenly its everyone's business. Why can other countries make foreign policy decisions on their own, but America has to ask permission first?

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Mar 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
I was thinking the same thing. If some African country invades some other African country, no-one cares. But just because its American doing the invading, suddenly its everyone's business. Why can other countries make foreign policy decisions on their own, but America has to ask permission first?

Just ask them thar aggressive african nations with UN Sanctions.

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Just ask them thar aggressive african nations with UN Sanctions.

Did anyone talk about sanctioning India and Pakistan when they were looking all nasty and warlike?

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 14:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
I was thinking the same thing. If some African country invades some other African country, no-one cares. But just because its American doing the invading, suddenly its everyone's business. Why can other countries make foreign policy decisions on their own, but America has to ask permission first?

there was a lot of unity within the uno since the end of cold war. the uno could have really archived something and make the world a better place etc., but unfortunatly bush doesnt want to accept any international organization. thats the problem with the whole thing. on the other hand i dont think the world will fall apart if bush does it alone (i still hope he will have to go in ALONE). the war itself will blow up half of the planet, but ive been telling that for month now

.
that british plan is crap though, because saddam would never ever accept it, it can only lead to war.

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
that british plan is crap though, because saddam would never ever accept it, it can only lead to war.

Thats the plan!

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Did anyone talk about sanctioning India and Pakistan when they were looking all nasty and warlike?

there is a resolution against india since the first war (in 50s-60s?) because india illegaly occupied kashmir, noone gives a **** about it.

Kumnaa · 13 Mar 2003, 14:46

I wish Blair would just leave it. Hes just digging himself into a bigger and bigger hole

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 14:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Thats the plan!

then why should anyone who doesnt want that war support it?

(oh, and i read the same things as m.ar.d did, im searching for a source in english now)

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
then why should anyone who doesnt want that war support it?

(oh, and i read the same things as m.ar.d did, im searching for a source in english now)

They shouldn't. It's obviously something that Blair can look back on in a year's time and say "we gave him a chance", but which he knows Saddam will never accept, because it would involve so much loss of face.

xtrasyn · 13 Mar 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by s|k
List of Demands
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES

LONDON, March 12 — Following is an unofficial list of six British demands for Saddam Hussein, according to British officials:

Mr. Hussein must admit on Iraqi television that he possesses weapons of mass destruction and will now disarm fully.

He will account for and destroy stocks of anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons.

Mr. Hussein will permit 30 scientists and their families to fly to Cyprus for interrogation by United Nations weapons inspectors.

He will admit to possession of an unmanned drone aircraft discovered by inspectors.

He will promise to destroy mobile production facilities for biological weapons.

Mr. Hussein will pledge to complete the destruction of all unlawful missiles.

Mr. Hussein will vow to be working for Satan and his little goblins, will wear a pink suit every friday with a purple flapjack and a sign saying "I LIKE TO SUCK BUSH ****" and will admit to various accounts of trying to steal candy from young kids through occult means, and other serious attempts at evil witchcraft.

(wishful thinking or a made so he would intentionally fail?)

13 Mar 2003, 16:18

- Bush spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Blair and the leaders of Mexico, Chile and Pakistan, all members of the Security Council, the White House said. The Bush administration suggested for the first time that voting against the U.S.-backed Security Council resolution could damage a country's relationship with the United States.

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...477253,00.html

so if you dont vote like bush wants he will punish you.
Bullying the small countries tsss tsss tsss

It gives a whole new meaning to the Coaltion of the willing

acropolis · 13 Mar 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog
posting damn silly rhetoric doesn't strengthen your position or earn sympathy.

Military intervention in the middle east against the US would be subject to stronger versions of the same objections as are held against the actions of the US. (i.e. it would probably be illegal, it would kill an awful lot of people, and it would be unlikely to make things much better in Iraq.)

my post in no way related to 'my position,' so of course it didn't strengthen my position.

if the US action is illegal, then how can trying to stop it be illegal?

it just seems that most countries don't care about iraq one way or the other, and are only claiming that they think america is wrong so they don't have to help pay for the invasion. in terms of casualties, the highest counts are going to be if the invasion isn't overwhelmingly powerful. then it will take longer, need more bombing, etc. if someone's interest was minimizing casualties, they would naturally give as much aid to the invasion as possible.

those are just the obvious facts, and don't relate to whether we should invade or not at all, so i don't see how they can be construed to be rhetoric for my position.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Mar 2003, 16:22

Don't forget that, as the discussions go on, the weather in Iraq gets hotter and hotter, and drier and drier.

Ste · 14 Mar 2003, 10:47

Quote:

"4 An explanation of the unmanned drone aircraft found by the inspectors, together with the numbers and location of any others.

Iraq is unlikely to make a big issue of the drone, apart from claiming it is relatively harmless. Iraqi officials showed what they said was the aircraft to journalists yesterday. It appeared to be made of balsa wood and held together with tape."

LOL What a great drone plane. That could cause a lot of damage!!!

menth0l · 14 Mar 2003, 13:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Texan
They are planning revenge no matter what you do. They hate you.

Yeah cause like, they hate freedom right?

14 Mar 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ste
LOL What a great drone plane. That could cause a lot of damage!!!

yes,it could.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 14 Mar 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Insane Badger
yes,it could.

you could have someones eye out with it if you're not careful.