British List of Demands on Iraq

New York Times ^ | 3/12/03 | New York Times

[tellw]

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.

[hawkaw]

I agree. Your demands are "reasonable" compare to this British stuff.

I can't believe what I am reading from the British. And it was even confirmed by Jack Straw. Getting a mad killer to go on TV and announce something is like something I would expect to see in a SNL skit. I just can't get over that. Sounds like a greenpeace activist wrote this and not someone who knows what a mad dictator will likely do.

hawk

[hchutch]

If we don't try to assist people who take risks on our behalf, eventually, people will no longer be willing to take risks on our behalf.

The concept is no different than backing Bill Frist when he's trying to break the Dem filibuster against Miguel Estrada. Different arena, but the same thing applies. Loyalty is a two-way street.

Bush knows what he's doing. We gotta trust him.

[Nubbin]

Please pass the tin foil?

[Nubbin]

Please pass the tin foil?

[Scott from the Left Coast]

We must hold out hope Bush is going to come out and set down his own ultimatum, outside of the U.N., tomorrow night. It is our only hope.

[over3Owithabrain]

Next speech really is a biggie. I cannot abide another tough talk witn no action move.
Like Bush said, time to show the cards, himself included.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

If we don't try to assist people who take risks on our behalf

Blair took risks only to the point where a minor cabinet officer spoke out against him. Then he cut and ran. He took "risks" only so long as it remained comfortable for him. Then he blindsides the U.S. in a heartbeat. He has done more damage to us, in this way, then all of our opponents, including France -- for his cold feet may be the biggest encouragement possible for our internal opponents (the American Left) and raises the possibility that Bush himself may blink at this critical juncture.

Blair's act is lower than Chirac's in that way.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I hope this gets approved.....he'll never agree

Of course he would. He'd "agree" right away. Then, of course, the UN would send their team of experts headed by Blix to report back to the UN on how well he's complying with his agreement. Blix would say "he could do more but we are making progress" and give him a "B" and so on.

And then the US would try to drum up support for another resolution, finding Hussein in non-compliance of that one. Since that would trigger war, the French Axis would resist it with all their might.

It would never end. We've stuck our neck (and our troops) out for Britain for as long as we can be expected to. Enough is enough.

[Mark Hamilton]

Both the military and diplomatic efforts of the past six months have been a study in buffonary. Unlike his fathers steady and clear course in the buildup to the gulf war, Bush has listened to divided council and in doing so he has ended in the same UN inspection trap that bedeviled Bill Clinton.

What trust can we have in someone who, six months ago, had his administration officials touting the glory of "gulf war light" and rapid deployment as the American response, and then switch to a long, ponderious, buildup of forces ?

What trust can we have in an administration that laid down the principles of "pre-emption" and go it alone, to degenerate into chasing the UN for permission ?

This administration is riven with divided council Powell vs Cheny and Rumsfled, Rumsfeld vs. the old military, Rice trying to hold it together into some kind of whole.

And Bush, an untutored mind with good moral instincts, is compromised by trying to tack between advisors.

To be honest, I don't trust Bush any longer. This whole fiasco calls into question his assessment of WMD, the expected Iraqie damage, and the cost of rebuilding. And our economy continues its slide.

If someone does'nt have his act together, should he be trusted ? When does one say "no more" ?

[cyncooper]

Clinton to Get Advanced Word of Iraq Attack

All this says is what any Freeper worth their salt already knew about ex-presidents being given a heads up.

Misleading title (typical Newsmax)--makes it sound like clinton, IF he's given the word--is being treated special. NOT.

[cyncooper]

And Bush, an untutored mind

Rolling my eyes.

[glennaro]

You are correct, my friend. The United States must not allow this proposal to go forward because Saddam will "accept" all its conditions (see below) and thus enable -- and embolden further -- those on the Security Council who wish to protect him at any cost and who will accept the following as "proof" of his acceptance of the U.N.'s demands:

He will admit (yet again) that he has destroyed and continues to destroy weapons that are prohibited by the U.N. In fact, he'll remind the world that he has authorized "legislation" to do this very thing!

He will repeat that he has destroyed all of his biological and chemical weapons.

He will permit his scientists -- but not their families, citing "security concerns" and the fact that the U.N. has no standing to require this -- to travel outside of Iraq, but only if accompanied at all times by Iraqi "security personnel" for their "protection."

He will repeat that he has destroyed all weapons and aircraft (including drones) prohibited by the U.N.

He will repeat that he has destroyed all mobile production facilities for biological weapons.

And he will pledge to complete the destruction of his al Samud missiles.

When Saddam says these things he will gain further (and considerable) time and support from the U.N. Security Council: People hear what they wish to hear. This cannot be allowed.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It is important for everyone to understand that the U.N. has only the goal of negotiation. It's sets up negotiating processes that have no end, because an ending, in the U.N.'s eyes, is failure. It is an agency designed to negotiate, to advance pacifism, not to provide for collective security.

[Colin Ashley]

OK. I'm a Brit so I'm a lot closer to what is going on over here than you Yanks (love ya). To those that are bashing Blair... he has shown tremendous courage! His political life is on the line at the moment because his own party disagrees with him, yet today he again reaffirmed his commitment to the cause.

As useless as the UN is, it will make a MASSIVE difference to the perceived legitimacy of this campaign if we get the 9 votes. I'm confident that these new demands will finally get the 9 votes we need. He also reminded the world that France have promised to veto... but it doesn't matter... 9 votes will legitimise the campaign and France will be humiliatingly sidelined (no less than they deserve!).

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I did'nt know what to think of Tony Blair when he was hanging around with clinton but his true colors have shown and he is a man of both courage and conviction.I think the same of Jack Straw and about 20 percent of the British people.THE REST ARE NO BETTER THAN THE FRENCH!

[Colin Ashley]

Couldn't agree more!

[cyncooper]

It is important for everyone to understand that the U.N. has only the goal of negotiation.

It is important for you to understand that we already understand that here in this discussion. I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.

[cyncooper]

I have been so impressed with Blair and lately Jack Straw. Some of us can see that certain political realities exist and we know our own president has sworn to protect America and won't let us down. Some think that by trying to help Blair as much as he can it is a mistake. I disagree.

[ThePythonicCow]

Yeah - I think you're right. Looks like Blair is playing the same game as Powell, in reverse.

By that I mean this. Powell stood out as the diplomacy loving globalist in the more hawkish Bush cabinet. The Peaceniks attached some of their hopes to him, and were undercut some when he flipped to the "games over" side.

Looks like Blair has been standing out as the friend of Bush. Now he is undercutting us by flipping to the "unending diplomacy" side.

The week after Blair first came over to this side of the pond, post 9/11, and got rave reviews as a friend of Bush and America, I saw him back in Great Britian, on CSPAN, speaking to a Labor group. He was spouting per big government liberalism. I've been unsure of him since.

Thanks for coming this far with us, Tony. Sorry you couldn't be there for the grand finale. Now, let's roll.

[ThePythonicCow]

Bush has now been blind-sided by Blair.

Yup. Just as Powell has perhaps learned a lesson on United Nations Treachery (a redundancy) so perhaps Bush has learned a lesson on Blair's integrity (an oxymoron).

Bush will give others a real long rope, but he's not one you want to piss off.