The Iraq Thread

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I stated that Denoir was wrong in my last post, but left out why in the interest of keeping that post short. Anyhow, here are a few reports that suggest that Denoir may be a bit optimistic:

http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/part02.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/crs/98-129.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960417/70596_01.htm

happy reading, and to all you US forum members, don't panic or anything, because remember: Iraq isn't a threat, and Saddam is really a pretty cool guy once you get to know him

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,02:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,01:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's quite possible that a part of the documentation of the destruction got lost during the gulf war. <span id='postcolor'>

What information do you have that suggests Iraq completed disarmament prior to 1991? Because UNSCOM seemed to disagree (that and the fact they dismantled a good supply of WMDs during their 8 year time in-country), and until you can prove them wrong, I'm going to have to go with the boys in the powder-blue helmets on this one.´<span id='postcolor'>

The boys in the powder blue helmets are not saying that Iraq still has it, just that they have not seen any evidence of it. And as I said, they have yet not caught Iraq in any serious lies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but following the theory that Saddam is a two-bit punk dictator with no greater concern than his own survival, would it not be advantageous to call up the UN and say "Hey, I give. Send the inspectors to [insert base name here], where they can supervise the destruction of my remaining chemical weapons capability". The US cannot deny something that happens right under the noses of the entire UNMOVIC search team.<span id='postcolor'>

Not if he does not have anything to show.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your claim that "a large amount of his original stockpiles are unnacounted for" is incorrect. What is unaccounted for is a fraction of what he used to have. <span id='postcolor'>

Although you are wrong, the point is immaterial. Complete disarmament means complete disarmament, and, if anything, a smaller amount of remaining weapons would make the cooperation process that much easier.

<span id='postcolor'>

Missing: 8500 liters of anthrax

Produced between 1988-1991: 25,000 liters

Missing: 3.9 tons VX gas

Produced between: 1980-1991: 3,859 tons

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course it isn't a reason to go to war with him, or against anybody. If it was, I'd be in custody for punching my English teacher in his fat little face a couple times (okay, several times). But it doesnt matter, because he has already supplied ample reasons on his own. 8 years of cat and mouse with UNSCOM, and now his noncompliance with 1441, which means that he is already subject to (UN sanctioned) "serious consequences".<span id='postcolor'>

What noncomplience? As far as I can see he is cooperating and giving everything the UN asks for. There are still some things to be worked out, but that can be solved. Don't take my word for it, ask Hans Blix, Kofi Anan, EU or Russia. It seems to me that it is only Bush and Blair who think that Iraq is in material breach of 1441.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The boys in the powder blue helmets are not saying that Iraq still has it, just that they have not seen any evidence of it. And as I said, they have yet not caught Iraq in any serious lies.

<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, the UN has stated several times that Iraq still maintains an arsenal of WMDs. They may couch it in beauracratese, but they have indeed said it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not if he does not have anything to show.

<span id='postcolor'>

All evidence seems to point to him having a rather large amount of things to show. Specifically the VX and other assorted WMDs you mention below:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Missing: 8500 liters of anthrax

Produced between 1988-1991: 25,000 liters

Missing: 3.9 tons VX gas

Produced between: 1980-1991: 3,859 tons

<span id='postcolor'>

Leaving out the fact that multiple UN reports have directly stated that inspectors belive that Iraqi declared production of several biological and chemical agents was several million liters short of what would be termed 'accurate' by the impartial, always fair, and lily-white UN.

not to mention, it doesnt matter if one liter remains, Iraq is still in breach of both 1441 and 687. And seeing as how they have considerably more than one liter remaining, I don't think your argument has a leg to stand on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What noncomplience? As far as I can see he is cooperating and giving everything the UN asks for. There are still some things to be worked out, but that can be solved. Don't take my word for it, ask Hans Blix, Kofi Anan, EU or Russia. It seems to me that it is only Bush and Blair who think that Iraq is in material breach of 1441.<span id='postcolor'>

It's very simple. UN 1441 states that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of UN 687. It also states that the UN will afford Iraq one last chance to provide a full, accurate, and final disclosure of its WMD capability within 30 days, in addition to disarmament of said capability. Considering that the report submitted by Iraq has been shown to be innacurate, you already have one material breach. Now, the resolution further states that any Iraqi interference with inspectors would be considered further material breach, and seeing as how Hans Blix himself has stated that Iraq has not cooperated fully: there is your second material breach. And considering that the resolution requires immediate and full disarmament, and was adopted approaching 5 months ago, I personnally would consider Iraq in breach of the entire resolutions requirement and intent, in addition to some of the more minor caveats.

A full copy of 1441, for your reading enjoyment: http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/iraqres.pdf

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The boys in the powder blue helmets are not saying that Iraq still has it, just that they have not seen any evidence of it. And as I said, they have yet not caught Iraq in any serious lies.

<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, the UN has stated several times that Iraq still maintains an arsenal of WMDs. They may couch it in beauracratese, but they have indeed said it.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hans Blix @ Feb. 12, 2003,16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions which should have been declared and destroyed. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's very simple. UN 1441 states that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of UN 687. It also states that the UN will afford Iraq one last chance to provide a full, accurate, and final disclosure of its WMD capability within 30 days, in addition to disarmament of said capability. Considering that the report submitted by Iraq has been shown to be innacurate, you already have one material breach. Now, the resolution further states that any Iraqi interference with inspectors would be considered further material breach, and seeing as how Hans Blix himself has stated that Iraq has not cooperated fully: there is your second material breach. And considering that the resolution requires immediate and full disarmament, and was adopted approaching 5 months ago, I personnally would consider Iraq in breach of the entire resolutions requirement and intent, in addition to some of the more minor caveats.<span id='postcolor'>

The question is not if there is a breach of 1441. The question is if there is a material berach - i.e something important enough for "serious consequences". The Boys in Blue say no. They say that with the current level of cooperation and with expected increased cooperation they can finish their work.

Nothing in the declaration specifies what may constitute a "further material breach" of the resolution. Whether that could be a missing document, discovery of a key component for illicit weapons, or a short delay in access to a site is open to interpretation.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It also states that the UN will afford Iraq one last chance to provide a full, accurate, and final disclosure of its WMD capability within 30 days, in addition to disarmament of said capability. Considering that the report submitted by Iraq has been shown to be innacurate, you already have one material breach.<span id='postcolor'>

One more comment on that. The only one that claims that it is inaccurate is the US. Blix said that it left unanswered questions but also said that everything that they inspected apart from a few empty chemical warheads has checked out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hans Blix @ Feb. 14, 2003,16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more comment on that. The only one that claims that it is inaccurate is the US. Blix said that it left unanswered questions but also said that everything that they inspected apart from a few empty chemical warheads has checked out.

<span id='postcolor'>

Considering that the resolution specifically states that things like innacuracies and questions remaining unanswered are contraventions of said resolution, I'd still view it as a breach.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Hans Blix @ Feb. 14, 2003,16:30)

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations

<span id='postcolor'>

That is encouraging, but Iraq still has a long way to go. Once again I'd like to point to the fact that there is no logical reason why Iraq would withhold information on their still unnacounted for weapons stocks, other than that they believe they will be able to fool the inspectors and get off the hook while maintaining the weapons they acquired at considerable expense.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question is not if there is a breach of 1441. The question is if there is a material berach - i.e something important enough for "serious consequences". The Boys in Blue say no. They say that with the current level of cooperation and with expected increased cooperation they can finish their work.

Nothing in the declaration specifies what may constitute a "further material breach" of the resolution. Whether that could be a missing document, discovery of a key component for illicit weapons, or a short delay in access to a site is open to interpretation.

<span id='postcolor'>

The whole point of 1441 is that this is Iraq's final chance, and that any breach constitutes a serious breach, in order to prevent Iraq's usual word-games, avoidance and manipulation. Still, I'll play ball. We've already established that extending the inspections is as much a political move to delay a war as it is a serious attempt to disarm Iraq (in fact Denoir, you pretty much sealed the deal on that one ). So, essentially, the UN is using the organization that is supposed to determine whether we should initiate a war for the purpose of preventing said war. If that isn't one of the most blatant cases of the tail wagging the dog that I've ever seen, well then- I'm more liberal than Bn880   . You might've noticed that I've pointed a great deal of sarcasm at the UN over the past few posts; it has a point(honest! ). Although some of you may see prevention of war at all costs as pursuing the morally correct course, by endorsing the politicization of this process for the purpose of delaying war is essentially committing hypocrisy on a grand scale. You require the US and Britain to pursue their war through the proper channels in the UN, while simultaneously applauding the use of those same channels to indefinitely stall the pursuit of that war, right or wrong.

Now, whether that in itself signals the loss of relevance of the UN or only a massive hit to its credibility, I don't know. But to simultaneously laud the rule of law while perverting the law to your ends is hypocritical, in addition to being counter-productive to our efforts to put together a significant global community dedicated to the greater good.

[Akira 0]

Since it has been brought up that Eastern Europe is going along with the US solely for financial aid...I found this article to be interesting. Now France is throwing its weight around:

France Threatens "New Europe" With No EU Admission

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe that will get France out of the EU? Or maybe they just overstepped their bounds and wont say it again.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or maybe they just overstepped their bounds and wont say it again.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, you're right.  Chirac does not always speak for France.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 19 2003,05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe that will get France out of the EU? <span id='postcolor'>

There can never be a EU without France!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,03:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question is not if there is a breach of 1441. The question is if there is a material berach - i.e something important enough for "serious consequences". The Boys in Blue say no. They say that with the current level of cooperation and with expected increased cooperation they can finish their work.

Nothing in the declaration specifies what may constitute a "further material breach" of the resolution. Whether that could be a missing document, discovery of a key component for illicit weapons, or a short delay in access to a site is open to interpretation.

<span id='postcolor'>

The whole point of 1441 is that this is Iraq's final chance, and that any breach constitutes a serious breach, in order to prevent Iraq's usual word-games, avoidance and manipulation.<span id='postcolor'>

No it's not. The 1441 is a weak resolution. It is a compromise that means nothing. It doesn't define what "further material breach" is and it doesn't define what "serious consequences" mean.

It could wery well be interpreted as "If Saddam does not shave off his moustache then we will draft a resolution to demand of him that he grows a beard"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Although some of you may see prevention of war at all costs as pursuing the morally correct course, by endorsing the politicization of this process for the purpose of delaying war is essentially committing hypocrisy on a grand scale. You require the US and Britain to pursue their war through the proper channels in the UN, while simultaneously applauding the use of those same channels to indefinitely stall the pursuit of that war, right or wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

There is a very good reason why the Security Council must be in agreement for starting a war. These mechanisms were put in place to prevent wars. I can't see what is wrong for using them to prevent a war that is globally disliked.

You have to make a choice there - do you trust the boys in blue to do their job or do you think it is a waste of time? I was sceptical to the inspections at first but after reading some of their reports I am pretty convinced that they are doing a good job. The point of this whole Iraq endevour is not about forcing Iraq to cooperate but to verify and monitor that it doesn't have weapons of mass destrution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, whether that in itself signals the loss of relevance of the UN or only a massive hit to its credibility, I don't know. But to simultaneously laud the rule of law while perverting the law to your ends is hypocritical, in addition to being counter-productive to our efforts to put together a significant global community dedicated to the greater good.

<span id='postcolor'>

The only loss of credibility that is imminent is if the UN members stop following the UN rules. If it was up to me I would put the same sanctions that were used against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait against those that start an illegal war against Iraq. There would be no difference between those two wars in terms of international law. The problem of the UN is that it is rather impotent when it comes to controling its more powerful members.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One more comment on that. The only one that claims that it is inaccurate is the US. Blix said that it left unanswered questions but also said that everything that they inspected apart from a few empty chemical warheads has checked out.

<span id='postcolor'>

Considering that the resolution specifically states that things like innacuracies and questions remaining unanswered are contraventions of said resolution, I'd still view it as a breach.<span id='postcolor'>

Breach yes, but a minor one that be worked out and is currently being worked out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hans Blix @ Feb. 14 @ 2003,16:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations

<span id='postcolor'>

That is encouraging, but Iraq still has a long way to go. Once again I'd like to point to the fact that there is no logical reason why Iraq would withhold information on their still unnacounted for weapons stocks, other than that they believe they will be able to fool the inspectors and get off the hook while maintaining the weapons they acquired at considerable expense.<span id='postcolor'>

There are many perfectly understandable reasons, that I've been pointing out in my previous posts. Also there is no proof that they are trying to fool inspectors. The only thing we know is that so far Iraq's story of them having now WMDs is checking out. They have also activly taken a roll of trying to prove that they don't have them.

So, Tex. You've had a change of heart? It sounds to me like you are starting to convert to Bushism.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since it has been brought up that Eastern Europe is going along with the US solely for financial aid...I found this article to be interesting. Now France is throwing its weight around:

France Threatens "New Europe" With No EU Admission<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with France wholeheartedly. The eastern European countries really fucked up there. Instead of consulting the EU they went on their own which can only be damaging for them in the long run. If they want to join the EU then they have to learn to cooperate. If every European country runs of with its own political agenda then the EU can't work. The current EU countries have realized that and in the end even Germany and England agreed to the same policy. IMO the candidate countries that didn't consult the EU on this should be temporarily suspended from further EU negotiations until the whole Iraq situation is resolved.

One point in the defence of the eastern European countries: After the EU agreement it beacame publicly known that ten eastern European countries were blackmailed into giving US support. Bush wrote a letter to each of these countries making it clear that if they didn't support the US position they would never be accepted into NATO and that the US would terminate both economical help and many trade agreements with them. (Swedish article)

So they were unfortunate to get in the crossfire between USA and the EU. I think however that Chiracs statements were in place. He did not say that these countries had to take France's position, just that they should have kept their mouths shut.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No it's not. The 1441 is a weak resolution. It is a compromise that means nothing. It doesn't define what "further material breach" is and it doesn't define what "serious consequences" mean.

It could wery well be interpreted as "If Saddam does not shave off his moustache then we will draft a resolution to demand of him that he grows a beard"

<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously you missed this part: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below.<span id='postcolor'>

'Serious consequences' is diplo-speak for military action. The only thing between a further material breach of 1441 by Iraq and an invasion would be a UN resolution sanctioning military force. I think that if/when it has been demonstrated that Iraq has no intention of complying with 1441, that resolution will not be too difficult to achieve.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a very good reason why the Security Council must be in agreement for starting a war. These mechanisms were put in place to prevent wars. I can't see what is wrong for using them to prevent a war that is globally disliked.

<span id='postcolor'>

These mechanisms were put into place to avoid unjust/illegal wars, not to impede the progress of a war that has been shown to be justified through the UN's own process. Being the committed socialist that you are, you have a tremendous respect for the rule of law and of governing entities, however there seems to be a cut-off as soon as we hit an issue that you personnally are opposed to. You need to understand that what you are doing is applying a double-standard to these investigations. On one hand, you demand that the US and Britain go through the proper channels to justify their war on Iraq. Simultaneously, you applaud efforts of other countries to turn these supposedly objective channels into political quagmires designed for the express purpose of delaying this process indefinitely. If you truly didn't believe that the US had made a legitimate case against Iraq, then why not let that case stand or fall on its own merits, instead of relying on these political delaying tactics that diminish the credibility of the United Nations you claim to defending?

Look, I've shown you how Iraq is in material breach of 1441, and if the UN is still a relevant organization, than it is obligated to stand behind its own documents. That is objective fact. To then say that those documents are irrelevant is to say that the UN is also irrelevant; therefore, ignoring it and proceeding with a war on Iraq wouldn't be nearly as serious as you claim it to be.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only loss of credibility that is imminent is if the UN members stop following the UN rules. If it was up to me I would put the same sanctions that were used against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait against those that start an illegal war against Iraq. There would be no difference between those two wars in terms of international law. The problem of the UN is that it is rather impotent when it comes to controling its more powerful members.

<span id='postcolor'>

Credibility is not so much the issue as relevancy and significance insofar as the political realities of today are concerned. The UN's willingness and ability to enforce its own resolutions is the core of the UN's legitimacy. Without that reminder that the UN will come down on you for your transgressions, there is nothing to stop members from ignoring it.

That starts with Iraq. Iraq is already in material breach of the resolution, and I predict that they will dig themselves deeper over the next few months. If the UN does nothing to enforce 1441, then what could possibly lead you to believe that they would be able to enforce resolution 14xx, which will impose severe trade sanctions on the world's largest economy? I hate to be cynical, but that is just silly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Breach yes, but a minor one that be worked out and is currently being worked out.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not according to 1441 itself, specifically the part I quoted above. Now, technically, Iraq has already earned the 'severe consequences' set forth in 1441, but let's let them dig a little deeper. What happens, Denoir, if the inspectors find that they really can't do their jobs, and that they are being strung out just like UNSCOM was last time? Will war then be justified? Or will that breach be something that we can work out, say over the next 8 years? You can wrangle over the meaning of 'severe consequences' all day, but I assure you one thing. Not even the biggest peacenik on the Security Council could have told you with a straight face that what he meant by 'severe consequences' was that these inspectors would be hanging around for a while longer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many perfectly understandable reasons, that I've been pointing out in my previous posts. Also there is no proof that they are trying to fool inspectors. The only thing we know is that so far Iraq's story of them having now WMDs is checking out. They have also activly taken a roll of trying to prove that they don't have them.

<span id='postcolor'>

And I've shown you why your explanations don't fit with the assumed pattern you're assigning Saddam Hussein. I know, because I thought the guy was just a two-bit punk for a long time also. However, his pattern of behavior has recently begun to deviate into entirely less rational areas, and it has made me question my previous opinions.

As for them fully cooperating, I would reckon that they would be able to produce at least some evidence that at least gives a reasonable explanation as to what happened to their remaining stockpiles of WMDs, that we have already established were not accounted for by UNSCOM when they left in 1998. Also, I'd like to point out that UNSCOM also made some fairly convincing arguments that iraqi declarations of produced chemical agents during the 1980's were on the conservative side, suggesting that Iraq may have a few more million liters of say, VX than they stated they did pre-Gulf War. But even if you leave that out of it, they still have several million liters of one the most lethal nerve agents available in the world unnacounted for. Somehow I don't think they just dissapeared into thin air.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, Tex. You've had a change of heart? It sounds to me like you are starting to convert to Bushism.<span id='postcolor'>

Oooh, that cut me deep

I've put alot of time into researching this issue, and my stance has gradually changed from skepticism to approval with caveats. I want to see the UN approve a war before it happens. And I want to see a coherent end-game plan that sufficiently provides for the powder keg that is the Kurdish situation. But failing that, removing Saddam Hussein from power will at least be a step in the right direction. And that counts whether he is a maniacal despot bent on using his stockpiles of WMD, or just a silly little dictator who was dumb enough to just lose track of several million liters of VX.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 19 2003,08:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look, I've shown you how Iraq is in material breach of 1441, and if the UN is still a relevant organization, than it is obligated to stand behind its own documents. That is objective fact. To then say that those documents are irrelevant is to say that the UN is also irrelevant; therefore, ignoring it and proceeding with a war on Iraq wouldn't be nearly as serious as you claim it to be.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, now you are starting to sound like FSPilot. Did you hear a word of what I said? There is no universal agreement that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. As a matter of fact 11 of the 15 UN Security Council members don't think there has been a material breach. Hans Blix has himself said that he doesn't consider Iraq being in a material breach.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously you missed this part: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

No I didn't. As I said earlier Blix has said himself that everything so far has checked out. There have been no proven lies or omitted facts in the Iraqi report. Do you wish me to quote Blix again?

And please stop quoting segments from the resolution. You are taking them completely out of context. The threat of serious consquences is not connected to just any breach of the 1441.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by reCommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

<span id='postcolor'>

1441 Resolution

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've put alot of time into researching this issue, and my stance has gradually changed from skepticism to approval with caveats. I want to see the UN approve a war before it happens. And I want to see a coherent end-game plan that sufficiently provides for the powder keg that is the Kurdish situation. But failing that, removing Saddam Hussein from power will at least be a step in the right direction.

<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps you should listen to yourself a bit better. Read your old post about the situation of ethinic minorities in Iraq. Saddam balances the power in Iraq. Without him the Shi'a could get the idea of joining Iran and the Kurds would want a state of their own. Removing Saddam creates potentially many more problems then keeping him in power.

You want to do something about human right abuses or terrorism? Go and get Saudi Arabia - it will give you much better results then going after Saddam.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier Blix has said himself that everything so far has checked out. There have been no proven lies or omitted facts in the Iraqi report. Do you wish me to quote Blix again?<span id='postcolor'>

"Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector said in his crucial report that teams had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he accused Baghdad of omissions in its arms declaration of deadly chemical agents and stocks of anthrax and said Iraq had tested a long-range missile in violation of Security Council resolutions.

However, unlike his critical report on Jan. 27, Blix refrained from sweeping conclusions, thereby emboldening those who want inspections to be expanded."

(Full story)

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 19 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said earlier Blix has said himself that everything so far has checked out. There have been no proven lies or omitted facts in the Iraqi report. Do you wish me to quote Blix again?<span id='postcolor'>

"Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector said in his crucial report that teams had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But he accused Baghdad of omissions in its arms declaration of deadly chemical agents and stocks of anthrax and said Iraq had tested a long-range missile in violation of Security Council resolutions.

However, unlike his critical report on Jan. 27, Blix refrained from sweeping conclusions, thereby emboldening those who want inspections to be expanded."

(Full story)<span id='postcolor'>

This is a bullshit article. Read the transcript for yourself if you didn't watch the presentation.

He never accused Iraq of omitting facts, never. All he said was that there are still things that havn't been cleared up.

I can give you a direct quote that Blix gave for a Swedish newspaper where he says that he doesn't think that Iraq has intentionaly left out things in the report.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,10:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read the transcript for yourself<span id='postcolor'>

I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions.

This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

There are other quotes from the transcript that are in line with Reuters report.

[Guest]

Yes, my point exactly! He says that there are still some unresolved issues that were not addressed in the first report. He does not say that they are hiding it on purpose. On the contrary, he says that he can understand "that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed".

This is not the question about Iraq lying and hiding things. This are all normal issues that Iraq will have to deal with in its cooperation with the inspectors.

[Guest]

Let me clarify my position a bit. I'm not saying Saddam is cooperating fully and I'm not saying that there are no issues to be solved. I'm certainly not saying that Saddam can be trusgted.

I'm also against all forms of weapons of mass destruction no matter if it's Sweden, USA. or Iraq who has them.  I don't think however that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and the world.

I also don't think it's justifiable to start a war to get rid of those weapons.  The UN thinks otherwise.  I disagree, but I respect their decision and I think they do have the legal rights to demand Iraq to disarm.

The point of resolution 1441 and the previous resolutions is the disarmament of Iraq.  The only reason to go to war is if that task proves impossible.  The U.N. inspectors currently think that it is possible to monitor to verify Iraq's disarmament.  Until the inspectors don't say that they can't perform their work to two Iraq's lack of corporation there is no possible justification for a war.  The point of this is getting rid of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The inspectors are the one that have the best information on the case and are the only ones in position to make a judgement if Iraq is disarming or not. If they conclude that their work is impossible and after all other options have been tried - then I would accept a UN led military action in Iraq. I would not be happy about it, but I would acknowledge that it was if not justified then at least legal.

War is a failure per se. If there is a possibilty of solving things without a war, that possibility should be taken. Today only a handful of nations with USA in the front think that the current inspections have failed. The rest of the world disagrees and the inspectors themselves disagree.

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think however that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and the world.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you NOT think that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours and the world.

Iraq has twice invaded it's neighbours. Once occupying Kuwait, and once attacking Iran in the Iraq-Iran war.

It has also used Weapons of Mass destruction, against it's own people. Fired SCUD missiles into both Saudi Arabia and Isreal.

And allegations by Saddam's Head Bodyguard who recently defected states that not only are there lots of weapons sites that weren't disclosed to the UN, but that Iraq also had several terrorist training camps deep in the desert that were used up until the Gulf War.

Therefore, he also associates with terrorists.

If that isn't a threat to the world, or at least the neighbouring countries, then I don't know what is.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Feb. 19 2003,10:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think however that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and the world.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you NOT think that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours and the world.

Iraq has twice invaded it's neighbours. Once occupying Kuwait, and once attacking Iran in the Iraq-Iran war.

It has also used Weapons of Mass destruction, against it's own people. Fired SCUD missiles into both Saudi Arabia and Isreal.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is not even a shadow of its former self. Saddam doesn't even control his territory much less has the capacity of hurting anybody outside Iraq. His current only project is staying in power - that's hard enough as it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And allegations by Saddam's Head Bodyguard who recently defected states that not only are there lots of weapons sites that weren't disclosed to the UN, but that Iraq also had several terrorist training camps deep in the desert that were used up until the Gulf War.

Therefore, he also associates with terrorists.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If that isn't a threat to the world, or at least the neighbouring countries, then I don't know what is.<span id='postcolor'>

Um.. USA and Bush? If I remember correctly he is the one who has in a two year period started one war and about to start another. And before you start saying that you were the ones that were attacked first I'll just point out that it wasn't Afganistan who attacked you. You started the war against Afganistan since they refused to extradite certain persons.

Bush is the main danger to peace and stability in the world.

[Major Fubar 0]

A firend sent me this as an email today:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some questions you won't find in trivial pursuit...

1) Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945?

2) Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons?

3) Which country was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history?

4) Which country's illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism?

5) Which country rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law?

6) Which country was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s?

7) Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001?

8) Which country renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001?

9) Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001?

10) Aside from Somalia, which is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

11) Which is the only Western country which allows the death penalty to be applied to children?

12) Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines?

13) Which is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998?

14) Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism?

15) Which country refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions?

Answer to all 15 questions: The United States of America.<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting reading...can anyone verify if these are true fatcs?

[der bastler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 19 2003,08: 04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 19 2003,04:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since it has been brought up that Eastern Europe is going along with the US solely for financial aid...I found this article to be interesting. Now France is throwing its weight around:

France Threatens "New Europe" With No EU Admission<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with France wholeheartedly. The eastern European countries really fucked up there. Instead of consulting the EU they went on their own which can only be damaging for them in the long run.<span id='postcolor'>Whom should they've consulted at the time of their decision? Germany? France? Spain? UK? There wasn't one EU foreign policy, there were several european states foreign policies...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they want to join the EU then they have to learn to cooperate. If every European country runs of with its own political agenda then the EU can't work.<span id='postcolor'>As we could see several weeks ago regarding the "unilateralist leanings" of Germany, France, UK and Spain...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The current EU countries have realized that and in the end even Germany and England agreed to the same policy. IMO the candidate countries that didn't consult the EU on this should be temporarily suspended from further EU negotiations until the whole Iraq situation is resolved.<span id='postcolor'>Well, the eastern european states had to take a position on their own because Europe did not have one at that time. They had to chose between a not-unified, arguing EU and a strong, money-paying United States. Punishing them for taking an own position like many other "real" european states?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So they were unfortunate to get in the crossfire between USA and the EU. I think however that Chiracs statements were in place. He did not say that these countries had to take France's position, just that they should have kept their mouths shut.<span id='postcolor'>Why? Don't these countries have the right to act independently like other big european states? Do they have to ask the "Big European Brothers" first? Are they regarded as "low-grade" or "substandard"? Or does only France have the right to chose a position? Seems a little bit arrogant to me...

[der bastler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Feb. 19 2003,12: 01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Interesting reading...can anyone verify if these are true fatcs?<span id='postcolor'>Let's go...

1.) countries that were bombed by US and CIA since WW2:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (list-e.html @ www.shofar.de)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

China 1945-46

Korea and China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Kongo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodge 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenade 1983

Lebanon 1983,1984

Lybia 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Panama 1989

Irak 1991-99

Kuweit 1991

Somalia 1993

Bosnien 1994, 1995

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Afghanistan 2002<span id='postcolor'>

source2

source3

2.) Does "used" mean used as bomb on foreign country? Can't remember any other state (USSR? No. UK? No. France? No. China? No. Israel? No. India? No. Pakistan? No. Korea? Not yet.)...

Who wants to continue?