h a l f b a k e r yGo ahead. Stick a fork in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Hans Blix-krieg
You can't hide the ball under a cup if we attack all of the cups at once... | |
My understanding of the recent UN weapons inspections in Iraq is somewhat lacking. But a lack of gumption has never stopped me before...
When a handful of inspectors thoroughly investigate a particular site it is thought (by certain members of the UN) that the Iraqis have sufficient time and
warning to move any 'violating articles' to another site. It is believed ( by the same UN members) that this will continue and it is therefore futile to continue weapons inspections.
I propose that this problem is tackled with (mathematical !) brute force. An army of many thousands of inspectors shall be used to infiltrate Iraqi installations, all synchronised to strike at the same time. In the fashion of the 3rd Reich, they shall burst through barriers by speed and achieve their objectives before their enemy know what hit them.
They will arrive in fast tanks and squadrons of motorcycles. They will tear up the gulf in speedboats. They will emerge from rivers clad in wetsuits. They will be parachuted in. The element of surprise will be their crowbar for opening this whole can of worms.
Hans Blix will become like a modern day Elliot Ness:
<kicks down door> "Nobody move! This is a raid!"
Nothing will escape the new and improved Special Ops Inspectors!
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
(suggest category? - and maybe change name to Hans Blitz) |
|
| |
Weapons of Mass Inspection. |
|
| |
Oh, no, Jinbish, I think you should keep it "Blix." It's better that way. |
|
| |
At the risk of being labeled someone's lap-dog, I nevertheless feel compelled to point out that, as I understand it, the inspectors' job is not to find where the weapons are hidden, but to assess the veracity of the claims Iraq makes in meeting its obligation to prove that the weapons and development programs that previously were known to exist have since been dismantled. They're currently trying to verify the claims Iraq has made, but again as I understand it, Iraq's claims still have not addressed many weapons and development programs at all. |
|
| |
Forgive me if I've misunderstood the situation. If I have, I'm happy to be corrected. |
|
| |
That would get their attention. Then the ugly inspectors can slip past the guards unnoticed. |
|
| |
This would sate my need for exciting news footage, whilst not requiring an actual war. Hmmm; I dig it. |
|
| |
Dictionary.com says, in part, for gumption: |
|
| |
1. Boldness of enterprise; initiative or aggressiveness.
2. Guts; spunk. |
|
| |
You do not lack these qualities, [Jinbish]. |
|
| |
beaux, that is my understanding as well. |
|
| |
Jin, I suggest to you that this is exactly what the US wants to do. They have 100,000 "inspectors" gathered in northern Kuwait ready to go as we speak. |
|
| |
You had my croissant at the title. I'm a little surprised someone didn't do it earlier. |
|
| |
The trick is that there's only so many qualified people for the job. Of course, Iraq doesn't have to know that, nor does it have to know which ones are actual inspectors and which just carry clipboards around and wear white suits. |
|
| |
My only real concern with this whole process is that, after the gulf war, how much documentation really exists, and how much do the Iraqis who are now in charge of things really know? There's a mass chaos factor that I'm not certain the allies are taking into account. |
|
| |
the thing that irks me is that, if the u.s. knows that iraq has wmd's ("we have evidence") and they know where they are, why not just go in with some stealth-y type special ops forces or bombers etc, etc, and just nail those sites? why is a 100,000+ invasion force necessary? |
|
| |
the u.s./u.k. coalition has pretty much been contiuously bombarding sites in the so-called "no-fly zones" that they claim contained weapons, anti-aircraft guns, scuds, etc, so there is already precedent for this. the same thing can be said for saddam: if he's such a bad-ass, the u.s. should just use their infinitely superior technology (u2 planes, satellite photo/video, etc) to locate him and put him out of our misery once and for all. |
|
| |
Half a croissant for the name, another for anti-war. good idea. |
|
| |