The US, The UN and Iraq

Once again, TW, i see you rely upon your favorite forensic tactic--the straw man. You don't know me, nor do you know how i percieved or reacted to the events you name. You are ineluctably drawn to cast everything in a partisan light, and you do your work in a very sloppy manner. Milosevic had already been indicted for war crimes committed in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, before the brouhaha in Kosovo. At the time that Saddam was gassing Kurds and Shiites, and hunting them down with fighters and attack helicopters, Reagan and Bush the Elder were in office. If they failed to meet a standard for international action in such cases, so much the worse for their personal reputations, without regard for their partisan politics. Clinton had NATO support, if only grudging at best, and the UN had monitors and peace keepers in the states of the former Yugoslavia for many, many years before the action in Kosovo took place. Currently, Saddam is not attacking his own people (at least not to such an extent that it is noticeable to the media upon whom we rely for our information); he may well be proven to be in material breach of UN resolutions, but the UN has not authorized military action against him in that case, so there is another significant point of divergence in a specious comparison such as the one you offer here; Milosevic had a history of attacking his neighbors, dating back to 1991, and the UN, NATO military forces, members of the print and video media from nations all over the earth had provided evidence of his atrocities in those other states, and the media were providing further evidence of such atrocities being committed in Kosovo. On the other hand, Saddam attacked the Persians, with our knowledge and encouragement; he then attacked Kuwait, was driven out, and has had his air space patrolled by US and British war planes ever since. Nonetheless, the US does not have the willing consent and backing of any significant portion of the international community for a war in Iraq such as was the case with Kosovo. In a debate such as this, you need to provide corollaries which can stand up to examination; in this example, you have not done so.

Your argument is a classic straw man, but only an attempt, because it won't stand up, even with a pole shoved up it's backside. And, of course, we can revert to your sneer at the beginning of your post, in which you assume without any evidence, what the opinions and actions of the others posting to this thread were at the time of the invasion of Kosovo. You also throw in a remark about Milosevic posing no imminent threat to the US. Do you, then, contend that Saddam does pose such a threat? If so, what is your proof of this, or, at the very least, by what logic do you contend that Saddam poses an imminent threat to the United States?

Try, sometime, TW, to approach such questions without the partisan rhetoric, will you? Unless and until i tell your that i was a Clinton supporter, unless and until i tell you that i was "eerily silent" when Kosovo was invaded, your comments amount to nothing more than a partisan sneer--because you don't know what you're talking about.

<Yet you were all (or certainly most) eerily silent when Clinton went after Milosevic.>

That's a bit presumptuous, no? Telling us "all, (or certainly most)" what we were thinking?

There was as I recall a great hue and cry, particularly from the right, that the US had no business being in Bosnia as part of a UN peacekeeping mission despite the evidence of genocidal atrocity, that we had subordinated national sovereignty to the UN, that blue helmets were for fags, blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, no links; they've all expired. You'll just have to take my word for it.

I'll back you up PD, they all said there was no National Interest there- also.

But, who got there man and who didn't?

They said it couldn't be done, it would never work - all a pipe dream!

Would everyone take a break and read what I believe to be a nicely written UNbiased article that has tremendous relevance to the current situation in Iraq.(todays NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/international/middleeast/23SAUD.html

Setanta - My post was no straw man. Call it that if it helps you dodge the point I made, but it doesn't unmake the point.

And I love the you are lecturing me on "partisan rhetoric". That's rich!

If you (or anyone in this discussion) were vocally against our actions in Yugoslavia, fine. I did not claim otherwise. I think that, along with the rest of my statements, was clear and unambiguous.

Since my point was that both the US and the World were largely silent as regards those actions and as compared with the brouhaha going on today, you might consider showing me evidence of large-scale anti-war demonstrations prior to our attack on Belgrade. Show me that I'm wrong, and that there isn't a huge double standard at play here.

Of course, first you'll have to poke your head out of that partisan box you're living in. Try that pole if it helps. :wink:

perception, I find the article to be very good. There is nothing new in it; except, that it is current. It is and has been the fears of Saudi Arabia - it is the domino effect in the Middle East. The SA royalty do not hold power via religious control and they fear they may loose power by religious upheavel. They fear a regional domino effect. They are trying by all means to corral and direct tribal controls regardless of outcomes. The Saudi's, Turks, Egytians and other countries are currently meeting to try and broker a deal for Saddam to go into exile. Their favored way of dampening the Winds of War!

The following is a long read. But then, this is not a simple matter. Iraq was given a "final opportunity" and assured of "serious conequences" by UNR 1441. Iraq's failure to comply with and continued defiance and active obstruction of UNR 1441 constitutes a declaration of war by Iraq on The UN. It is a matter of International Law. If The UN fails to be bound by its own Resolutions, there is no reason to expect other nations to pay any attention to any UN resolution. If The UN fails to prosecute this matter fully and as expeditiously as practicable it surrenders all credibility and reason for being.



The Resolution:

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

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.




timber

Great timber, they deserve to die!

PDiddie - Thank you for making my point.

Conservatives raised concerns for various reasons, among them their concern at ceding authority to the UN. Where were the liberals? Where were the peace marches?

Hey, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that some liberals will accept anything a liberal decides to do, and will beat their chests and decry anything a conservative decides to do. Sometimes it sure looks that way.

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Setanta

In your recent blast at TW it is very hard to tell who is the Sneer-ie
and who is Sneer-or.

No, Bill, "They" don't "Deserve to die". I appreciate the revulsion toward war, and in fact share it. The Iraqi Leadership has chosen to accept what they perceive, for cause, to be inconsequential "Consequences". 16 prior UN Resolutions have been ignored with impunity. When is "Enough"?. Should we wait for untold thousands of dead civilians due either to direct Iraqi action or by failure of Iraqi Technical means to prevent inadvertant release of WMD?



timber

When, without evidence, you posit that someone has taken a position, or supports a point a view, and the purpose of your contention is to create a weak argument you can then knock down, that is a straw man argument. This is precisely what you have done, because you do not know me, nor have a clue as to my reaction to the Kosovo war (or the rest of my opinions, for that matter).



In that you came here to sneer at me specifically based on my opposition to this planned war, and used an unfounded assumption that i supported both Clinton and the war in Kosovo, this is indeed partisan on your part. You cannot supply an example of me haranguing you or anyone else here for your remarks about Democrats or the Clinton adminstration, because i've never done so. I'm objecting to contentions that this planned war is necessary, and have no idea of, nor interest in your political opinions.



I am almost at a loss as to how to repsond to such a claim on your part. Almost--but not quite: "Yet you were all (or certainly most) eerily silent when Clinton went after Milosevic." This is a direct quote from your earlier post--so you did indeed claim otherwise. I find little of what you write here to be either clear or unambiguous.



This is, of course, an outright falsehood. I refer you back to the quote of your earlier post which i just provided. Nowhere in that post did you write or even imply "that both the US and the World [sic] were largely silent as regards those actions and as compared with the brouhaha going on today . . ." and although you may have intended to say as much, you clearly did not. I will assume this is the case, rather than being obliged to suggest that you are now lying to cover your tracks.



Once again, you know nothing of me, nor of the political beliefs i hold, nor of my support of, nor refusal to support, the policies of any administration, other than my repeated assertions here that i do not support this administration nor their war plans. Although your view of others seems to be horribly distorted by your partisan thinking, try to consider for a moment that there could be reasons for opposing war which have nothing to do with one's opinions on the political complexion of a particular administration. I was an admirer of Lyndon Johnson--i still am. And i thought the war in Vietnam was wrong, wrong, wrong. I demonstrated against the war in Vietnam. When i left university, my number in Nixon's selective service lottery was 89, i was ripe for being drafted. But i enlisted, because, although opposed to the war, i have no personal opposition to military service. My mother, my father, my materal grandfather and both my brothers served in the military. My ancestors are legendarily war-like. I am much more opposed to war now than i was in 1968 and 1969, because i've seen it at close range--too close. I did every day of my enlistment, and don't regret it. You know nothing of me, TW, and when you try to characterize my beliefs absent that knowledge, and then to deride them, or characterize them as partisan--you are indeed using the straw man technique. As i noted earlier, you don't do it very well either.

BillW

I believe there was something new in that article---that there just might be a chance that democracy might take hold in Iraq and that it might force change for the good.

I don't know who the engineer was that the author referred to at the end of the article but it was indicated that he might be a Saudi.
He said "We need to change here"

timber, I do know you and fully believe that you "appreciate the revulsion toward war, and in fact share it." I also believe what I wrote, IMHO, is enough to offset everything in the resolution. The leadership of Iraq is at fault - a lot of innocent people will die as the result. There are many, many dialogues ongoing right now from many different countries to peacefully rectify this problem. The USA is showing its lack of leadership in that is displays the actions of the town bully and will only ----- I repeat, only ------ look to WAR and the killing of multitudes, the throwing of an entire region into political turmoil and the complete possibility of starting WWIII. I am sorry, in my book it puts this action, at this point in time, as immoral!

Maybe a couple participants could .... uhhhhh ... "Get a room". Private Messaging saves the thread a considerable abount of irrelevant discussion, and tempers cool a bit better when not exposed to the glare of general view.



timber

perception, In any country in the world - if you get from the leaders, the military, the elitist and talk to the common man - don't discuss politics or religion, you will come away saying, "that was I good man, we saw eye to eye." And, this is true - unfortuately, next week you may face him on the battle field. War is a uniter, there is only we and them then!

But it is quite clear to anyone with a basic comprehension of written English that I did no such thing. (Did you actually read my post, or did you use your Ouija board to divine what I wrote?)


No, I came here to have an intelligent discussion regarding this topic with others. You just keep getting in the way. :wink:


Again for the hard of hearing...


Now, a competent reader would understand from this that I am not addressing anyone specifically.

And if it "sounds" like I'm sneering at you, consider the unfettered contempt you have shown me in this and other discussions. It might have something to do with it. I do my best to be civil in these discussions, but everyone has a limit.

I would ignore any PM from that source, as i am openly contempuous of that poster. I had posted a remark to reply to something written by Perception. TW chose to jump on it, believing there was an opportunity to criticize what i had written. When publicly challenged, i respond publicly. This is not unreasonable.

<Conservatives raised concerns for various reasons, among them their concern at ceding authority to the UN. Where were the liberals? Where were the peace marches?>

All over the globe, as they are now. Here's your proof:

Support and Opposition to Attacks on Yugoslavia

Which ones are the liberals, and which are the conservatives in these pictures?