This seems perfectly reasonable. In my own opinion, the demand to destroy
al-Samoud II missiles is outrageous (it's a clear attempt to prevent Iraq
from having weapons which could reach Israel) but if Iraq has decided to
comply, the question I was asking myself (and which Iraq has now answered) is
why Iraq would destroy these missiles if the US is going to invade anyhow. At
least keep the missiles so you have some shred of defense. The US demanded
disarmament for two reasons: one, so that if Iraq balked at any point the US
would be able to have a pretext for war which the US would wage pretext or
not, and secondly, if Iraq did comply with disarmament, than when the US
decided to invade, Iraq would have been stripped of its defenses. It appears
Iraq has seen this and has decided to defend their national right to defense.
Andrew
Moderator of People's Revolution
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplesrevolution
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraq Links Missile Destruction to Peace
.c The Associated Press
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A top Iraqi official indicated Sunday that Baghdad could
cut off its destruction of banned Al Samoud 2 missiles if the United States
signals it will attack.
``If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not
going to a legal way, then why should we continue?'' President Saddam
Hussein's scientific adviser, Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, said at a news
conference.
Iraq complied with an order from U.N. weapons inspectors and began to destroy
its Al Samoud 2 missile program on Saturday. It destroyed four missiles
Saturday and six more on Sunday.
``As you can see, there is proactive cooperation from the Iraqi side,''
al-Saadi said. ``Practically all the areas of concern to UNMOVIC (the U.N.
inspection team) and the subjects of remaining disarmament questions have
been addressed.''
``We hope that it will be to the satisfaction of UNMOVIC,'' he added.
Al-Saadi said Iraq had not permitted photographs or video images of the
destruction - despite the potential impact on world opinion - because it
didn't want the Iraqi people to see what would be a bitter image.
``It is too harsh. It is unacceptable. That's why we have released no
pictures,'' he said somberly.
Al-Saadi also argued that the inspections are cheaper than a possible war.
``UNMOVIC costs $80 million a year. A war would cost upwards of $80 billion -
plus bloodshed on both sides,'' he said. He pointed out that UNMOVIC is
financed by Iraq's oil-for-food program.
``Disarmament - peaceful - at no cost to the American taxpayer. A war - $80
billion - to achieve disarmament.''
03/02/03 11:52 EST
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
