The US, The UN and Iraq

Iraq not alone in defying UN resolutions explained in the following link. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020921-99664032.htm

0 Replies

Good link, c.i., thanks . . .

0 Replies

The UN is also being played as a fiddle.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Patient negotiation is way, way better than war, whether we're taking our standards from pacifists and moralists, from Christianity or Islam, or whether we're simply people who value human life and a healthy world.

The cooler heads who've been following the situation all say, without exception, that the past ten or so years show Saddam can be successfully contained. I think it's indisputable. Having the UN as our (the world's) time-out room and moral monitor is the world's way of finally outlawing the use of war as a political solution.

Negotiations, to succeed, require more than unilateral good faith. Iraq has shown precious little "Good Faith" over the past dozen years; only military force has brought about such grudging compliance as Iraq has offered. Presently, despite "on Ground" Inspectors, severe international sanctions, and the very clear threat of concerted military intervention, Iraq fails to honor her obligations, as has been her practice for over a dozen years. "Containment" is a myth, an ideal. Thousands of Unscom inspectors were unable, over several years, to accomplish what scores of Unmovic inspectors are hoped to do in a matter of weeks or months. That in itself is absurd "Pollyanna" thinking.

Despite "Containment" and "Isolation", Iran and North Korea have entered The Nuclear Club. Despite sanctions and stern words, Iraq, though "Contained" in the view of some, remains uncooperative, obstructionist, belligerant, and actively in violation of all legal remedy.

Iraq's habit is demonstrably "Cheat and retreat". Her intransigence and arrogance are the proximate cause of this crisis, and there is clearly no assumption on anyone's part that Iraq has, as required, complied with UN 1441, let alone the provisions of the original Gulf War Ceasefire and subsequent directly referrencing resolutions. I can not consider a 12+ year series of requests, orders, directives, threats, and airstrikes to be a "Rush to war". I see the present tension directly resulting from unresolved issues which were not settled by the '92 ceasefire, and I view any potential military action a resumption of those hostilities brought on by Iraqi non-compliance with, contempt for, and defiance and outright active violation of the terms of the '92 ceasefire. Gulf War II is the wrong concept; this is Gulf War, Part 3.

I hold no desire for war. It is my sincerest hope Saddam and The Ba'ath Party simply "Go Away". One way or another, they will go away. If they don't leave of their own accord, they will be ejected, and quite soon. Iraq has incontravertibly proven she will not be swayed by negotiation. To continue doing the same ineffective things in hope of improved results is foolish. Talking hasn't worked. Inspections haven't worked. Sanctions havent worked. It is time to do something else.

Iraq may be expected over the next few days to offer new "Evidence of Compliance", and to solicit further negotiations on what are essentially non-negotiable points. There are many unresolved issues which contribute to the current situation. Iraq alone is the cause of the unresolved issues. It is time for resolve, if not on Iraq's part, then on the part of a "Coalition of the willing".

timber

0 Replies

Timber

Thanks for associating me and His Excellency President Saddam Hussein in that way. There is not a suitable emoticon or I would use it.

I listened very carefully to Tony Blair today. There is no doubt of the logic that leads us to war. But peace is never in defiance of logic. Blair made a brilliant case. I'm sure he converted a lot of his own back bench doubters, but when its as important as life or death, peace or war and the fate of nations are at stake a little more time to allow further inspections can do harm. The French and German position is the right path, even if not strictly logical.

But of course Bush won't wait. He's thinking if he puts it off any longer the fighting season will be over, and next year is too late to fit in with the presidential primary elections. So if Chirac and Schroeder are only determined to screw up Bush's re-election prospects, then so be it. All's fair in love and war so they say.

0 Replies

Many anti-Bush voices here keep repeating the mantra "let inspections work", seemingly suggesting that a longer period of inspections will yield the desired result in Iraq: disarmament.

As of today we have discovered that Iraq has missiles that are banned. Blix has ordered the immediate destruction of same. Saddam has said he will not do so.

Does anyone think that more inspections over more time will change this? Is there any reason to think that Saddam will willingly destroy anything he is found to have?

Is any proponent of continued inspections doing any thinking other than the wishful variety?

0 Replies

Timber

If containment is a myth, then presumably sanctions and inspections are pure fantasy?

0 Replies

The last few days, I've remembered quite often my time as a probation officer: all our probands got a kind of dead-line.
Some went in jail when doing the tiniest thing wrong, others could do so on and on (well, nearly). All depended a) on the probation officer and b) on the judge(s).

"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully."

0 Replies

Tress, that last remark was uncalled for. I haven't the least doubt that Saddam will wriggle, evade, lie, cheat--and, when able to do so, steal. Nevertheless, it is absurd to contend that he constitutes any proximate threat to the security of the United States or Great Britain. While the inspectors are in country, and the UN spotlight is focused on Iraq, he is even less likely to make any moves against his immediate neighbors, the only ones which it is reasonable to contend are threatened by him. And, once again, the question arises, especially in light of recent posts on this thread, as to why Saddam and why now? Other nations have ignored SC resolutions, and continue to do so. Israel is a big-time violator of SC resolutions, and the major source of all of our woes in the middle east. We do nothing about Israel. We do nothing about North Korea. This is rank hypocricy on the part of the Bush administration--they've picked Saddam out for special attention, putting the alleged "war on terrorism" on hold while they go after their personal boogey man.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

As of today we have discovered that Iraq has missiles that are banned. Blix has ordered the immediate destruction of same. Saddam has said he will not do so.

As far as media are reporting here, the date was set by Blix on Saturday, March, 1.
Regarding the report about the CBS-interview, I've read that some Iraqui, Amer el Saadi, told reporters that there the demolation was decided yet.

0 Replies

tw

No it all depends on will not time.

If Saddam wills it the inspection and disarmament process could be over in a matter of weeks according to Blix.

The time imperative is on Bush. He's got to have this war before its too late. Otherwise Saddam will have made a monkey out of two generations of Bushes, something too horrible to contemplate.

0 Replies

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/UNSCOM/687/s-1995-0494.htm

Quote:

S/1995/494
20 June 1995

NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the Security Council a report submitted by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991).

Annex
Ninth report of the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), on the activities of the Special Commission

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present report is the ninth on the activities of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), submitted to the Council by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission. It is the eighth such report provided in accordance with paragraph 3 of Security Council resolution 699 (1991). It covers the period from 10 December 1994 to 16 June 1995, and is further to reports contained in documents S/23165, S/23268, S/24108 and Corr.1, S/24984, S/25977, S/26910, S/1994/750 and S/1994/1422 and Add.1.

2. The work of the Special Commission in the reporting period has covered the whole range of activities envisaged by section C of Security Council resolution 687 (1991). However, the focus has been to ensure that the Commission is henceforth in a position to monitor Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to use, retain, possess, develop, construct or otherwise acquire those weapon capabilities banned to it under resolution 687 (1991). For the Commission's monitoring to proceed from a comprehensive and accurate base requires that the Commission be able to account, as far as possible, for the disposal or current location of Iraq's capabilities, both past and present, which could be used for banned weapons purposes. Consequently, a large part of the developments to be covered in the present report has already been addressed in the report submitted on 10 April 1995 under Security Council resolution 715 (1991) (S/1995/284).

The above cited report is over 7 years old. It reads as though it could have been written yesterday. What, and where, is the "Progress" the opponents of military intervention speak of? Nothing has changed ... the concerns of this old report are the same as the concerns driving the current crisis.

timber

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Timber

If containment is a myth, then presumably sanctions and inspections are pure fantasy?

They have not proven effective; were they so, the current condition would not exost, would it?

timber

0 Replies

Who cares, Timber? Why is it now crucial to get Saddam, when this has been going on for more than ten years? Why has our justifiable operation to put an end to international terrorism been shoved aside for this war? This whole scenario reeks of vendetta. Saddam was in violation during the end of the term of the elder Bush, he's been in violation during the first year and a half of the term of the Shrub. The question asked here again and again by those with whom you disagree is why Saddam, why now? No answer ever seems to be forthcoming, nor any explanation of why, suddently, in late 2002, this becomes an issue for an administration which had previously ignored the problem.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If Saddam wills it the inspection and disarmament process could be over in a matter of weeks according to Blix.

That's pretty miuch been the case for a dozen years; Saddam has no desire to comply, as has been consistently demonstrated. He has manipulated the system and the process to his benefit, it is time to bring the charade to an end.

timber

0 Replies

Iraq has sent arms inspectors six letters in the past few days and "there are some elements which are positive which need to be explored further," Hans Blix said today.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-UN-Iraq-Blix.html

0 Replies

If it is now time to end the charade, it was time in 1991, 1992, and 1993. To avoid the frenetic Clinton-bashing which might arise, i'll simply concede any contention on the part of conservatives here that he dropped the ball. In which case, it was time in 2001, and the first ten months of 2002. But it was not until November of 2002 that this administration suddenly got religion in this matter. Once again, how is this justified when we are ostensibly fighting a war against terrorism?

0 Replies

Why not Saddam, and why not now, Setanta? When Saddam? As to diverting attention from "The War on Terrorism", I don't think that is the case; substantial anti-terrorist progress has been made, diplomatically, financially, and militarily. Arrests, siezures, and disruption of terrorist plans are daily headline fodder. Iraq is one of the problems facing the world. It is being dealt with now, and soon will not be a problem, and attention may be given to other problems. Addressing the Iraq problem is addressing one problem. There are other problems. They will be and are being addressed. Not dealing with Iraq now leaves Iraq undealt with.

This has been quoted and posted countless times. It is my answer to your query, and has been my answer to all such queries from the onset of this thread, some 3000+ posts ago.

timber

0 Replies

Quote:

Tress, that last remark was uncalled for.

It was not meant as an insult; it was simply intended to convey my belief that--given that inspections do not appear to be working--the notion that more inspections will achieve results is wishful thinking. Surely I am entitled to a smackerel of editorializing in my comments? Very Happy

Quote:

Nevertheless, it is absurd to contend that he constitutes any proximate threat to the security of the United States or Great Britain.

I disagree, though that is not the chief reason I believe we must force him from power, by military force if necessary.

Quote:

While the inspectors are in country, and the UN spotlight is focused on Iraq, he is even less likely to make any moves against his immediate neighbors, the only ones which it is reasonable to contend are threatened by him.

Would you have us babysit him into perpetuity?

Quote:

And, once again, the question arises, especially in light of recent posts on this thread, as to why Saddam and why now?

I believe my previous answer to that was, "why not?" I'll grant you we should have dealt with him sooner, but having failed that, I do not believe adding to the delay solves the problem.

0 Replies

Well, my response has consistently been that this reeks of vendetta, and i remain unconvinced that this is a part of any systematic approach on the part of this administration to deal with "threats" around the world. Kim Jong Il is a much greater threat, and precious little is done about him other than speechifying and posturing.

Once again, this reeks of vendetta.

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know