Iraq Comes Clean (hands over WMD)!! Hummm.

2/7/03 | Life of Brian

[Life of Brian]

Suppose it happened. I'm talking about Iraq and Saddam laying out at the inspectors feet all of their WMD or at least enough to satisfy the inspectors. What then? Headlines read: "IRAQ DISARMS!" Is it unlikely to happen? Perhaps, but wouldn't it be somehow ironically anti-climactic? Everything is verified. Everything is in order. Now what? Do the UN resolutions address how to respond in such an event? I would be interested to know how Freepers feel about this or how "the world community" handles an Iraq that 'comes clean'.

[Life of Brian]

i've always thought the smartest thing for saddam to do from the point of his self preservation is to start s*l*o*w*l*y disarming and cooperating. deadlines or not, it would make the coalition against him weaker.

And so yesterday and today we see Hans 'ignorance is' Blix saying he is pleased with the latest cooperation. What is next? Iraq leads inspectors to a few pounds of nerve gas and calls it good?

[SoCal Pubbie]

"Britain and America are drawing up plans to give Saddam Hussein as little as 48 hours to flee Baghdad or face war, if UN weapons inspectors report this week that the Iraqi dictator is still refusing to disarm fully.

The proposals will form the framework of a long-awaited second resolution, which could be put before the Security Council by next weekend.

The deadline would be just long enough for Arab neighbours to make a last effort to persuade Saddam to leave the country, according to US officials, or for a coup to take place. The shortest timeframe to emerge from private diplomatic discussions has been two days.

The phrasing of the new, deliberately concise UN resolution would deny Saddam a fresh chance to say that he will comply with Security Council demands. Britain will put forward the resolution because Washington "does not want to be seen to need it", according to a senior Security Council diplomat.

Foreign Office officials confirmed that Saudi Arabia has offered to take Saddam if he goes into exile. Last month Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said he would be "delighted" if Saddam fled Iraq.

"To avoid a war, I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership and their families could be provided haven in some other country," he said.

To be passed, the new resolution would require the support of nine of the 15 Security Council members, assuming there was no veto from France, China or Russia. British and American officials last night made clear that they do not expect a unanimous vote in its favour but are confident that a veto can be avoided.

"The resolution being discussed would declare that Saddam is in material breach of UN resolutions, which authorises the use of all necessary means to disarm him," one senior Security Council diplomat said."

Wake up and smell the coffee, GS. The only way that we do not actually invade is if Saddam steps down. And not some phoney "have his son take over" scenario.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Let's see the book you site was published in November of 2002. That's three months ago, and I don't have time to date the quotes but I'm sure they are at least six months old or more. Care to give us anything a little more recent that Bush has said about Iraq? Like maybe the "the end game is going to be over in weeks, not months" statement? Or is that a fakeout too?

[The Great Satan]

Like maybe the "the end game is going to be over in weeks, not months" statement? Or is that a fakeout too?

Of course it is. This is brinksmanship, nothing more.