THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Quote:

Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

0 Replies

Wow Setanta! Being the object of attack, I didn't think such a defense would fly. Thank you for your consideration. I could never have done such an articulate job of defending myself anyway.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

I seem to recall that a more accurate statement would be Saddam expelled US members of the inspection team and that there were CIA operatives among the US inspectors.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Quote:
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

Yes, but he let them back in again - and then Bush basically ordered them out again.

Sorry about the heat you're facing here, by the way - welcome to the A2K war zone ;-)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Let me get this straight. The inspectors were kicked out in the mid 90's by Saddam, so "we" kicked out the inspectors in 2001, so we can plan the aggressive preemptive strike on Iraq. What am I missing here?

I'd say you are missing Iraq's obligation to cooperate with the UN inspectors, as well as many other conditions, as a condition of their original cease-fire agreement. Failure to do so resulted in a Re-emptive strike. A decade long dog and pony show wasn't what the terms of the original ceasefire had called for.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Quote:
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

Yes, but he let them back in again - and then Bush basically ordered them out again.

Sorry about the heat you're facing here, by the way - welcome to the A2K war zone ;-)

He let them back in after we started preparing for war. His obligation under the original cease fire, was to have never interfered with them in the first place. A person on probation does not get to pick and choose when to cooperate with the conditions of probation. Conditions of a ceasefire are the same in this respect. Does anyone here really believe that Saddam complied with all of the conditions he agreed to?

Ps Thank you for the welcome. The majority of A2Kers I've met have debated in a civil fashion and I've learned much. My opinions are frequently pretty far from the norm and considering the importance of the issues; I can forgive some hostility.

0 Replies

Oh, so anybody that doesn't comply with UN resolutions better watch out! Get real, man.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Quote:
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02

I seem to recall that a more accurate statement would be Saddam expelled US members of the inspection team and that there were CIA operatives among the US inspectors.

It was not Saddam's prerogative, to decide whether or not CIA operatives should be present. Intelligence gathering was quite appropriate. Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire in this and many other instances.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Oh, so anybody that doesn't comply with UN resolutions better watch out! Get real, man.

You are broadening my response unnecessarily. I merely substantiated the distinction I thought you were looking for. Saddam most certainly should have watched out. And, I am quite real, man.

0 Replies

Quote:

It was not Saddam's prerogative

by that same reasoning I would venture the thought that it was also not the US governments perogative to decide what constitutes a violation of a UN resolution or would should be the consequences of said violation. Since you state that Saddam was in violation of a UN security council resolution I offer that only the UN security council retained such authority as to define a violation thereof.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
It was not Saddam's prerogative

by that same reasoning I would venture the thought that it was also not the US governments perogative to decide what constitutes a violation of a UN resolution or would should be the consequences of said violation. Since you state that Saddam was in violation of a UN security council resolution I offer that only the UN security council retained such authority as to define a violation thereof.

I can certainly appreciate your point here but I suspect you are forgetting it was with the US that the ceasefire was drawn up. I am of the opinion that since it was the US that demanded the terms of the UN resolutions be followed; the US is well within their rights to decide whether or not said conditions have been met.

0 Replies

Bill

That completely destroys the POINT of the UN!

0 Replies

Thanks for that post Setanta. It was spot on.

But now to disagree with Bill a bit:

When Saddam kicked out inspectors for being spies he was correct and the US has admitted as much.

They WERE spies and I think (I do not remember if this was well documented) they passed on information that was used to bomb Iraq.

The inspection teams were so compromised by western intelligence agencies that this latest round of inspections featured a strong effort by the UN to avoid the inflitration of their team by western intelligence agencies based on the previous teams and how western intelligence agencies compromised the missions of inspections.

I'd not shed a tear for Saddam having spooks let in in inspections but he did have a point. He did not agree to let inspectors in to spot targets for the US military, they were there to look for forbidden weapons and I believe the western intelligence agencies share some blame for the inspection's failures because they compromised the mission through their desire for dual purpose inspectors.

They were cheating and using the inspections to gather intelligence about conventional Iraqi military installations. Something that the inspections had no mandate to do.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Bill

That completely destroys the POINT of the UN!

It is probably subject matter for another thread, but I believe the UN is failing, in the area of the Security Council, across the board. I agree with Dennis Miller's comical assessment that watching the UN makes you want to prescribe Ritalin to a glazer.
The UN provides many useful services, but is entirely too tolerant of outlaw regimes for my taste. As a member of the UN we at no point surrendered our sovereign rights to defend ourselves against what we perceive as threats. Saddam, on the other hand did surrender these sovereign rights, in his ceasefire agreement with the US.

0 Replies

Quote:

but I suspect you are forgetting it was with the US that the ceasefire was drawn up

4/05/1991
The U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution setting forth the terms for a permanent cease-fire in the international war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression. The resolution was adopted on a 12-to-1 vote, with only Cuba opposed, and Yemen and Ecuador abstaining. The cease- fire will go into effect only when the Iraqi government accepts all of the terms of the resolution.

It seems to me that the above does not reference the cease-fire as being drawn up by the US but rather by the UN security council.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Thanks for that post Setanta. It was spot on.

But now to disagree with Bill a bit:

When Saddam kicked out inspectors for being spies he was correct and the US has admitted as much.

They WERE spies and I think (I do not remember if this was well documented) they passed on information that was used to bomb Iraq.

The inspection teams were so compromised by western intelligence agencies that this latest round of inspections featured a strong effort by the UN to avoid the inflitration of their team by western intelligence agencies based on the previous teams and how western intelligence agencies compromised the missions of inspections.

I'd not shed a tear for Saddam having spooks let in in inspections but he did have a point. He did not agree to let inspectors in to spot targets for the US military, they were there to look for forbidden weapons and I believe the western intelligence agencies share some blame for the inspection's failures because they compromised the mission through their desire for dual purpose inspectors.

They were cheating and using the inspections to gather intelligence about conventional Iraqi military installations. Something that the inspections had no mandate to do.

Craven, as you know I have mad respect for your abilities to debate and feel somewhat ill equipped to tangle with you. But here goes anyway:
The first wave of inspectors were constantly complaining about Saddam's evasive behavior. They were not granted the access they were entitled to. Saddam was in no position to make demands of any kind and, in fact, was legally obligated to cooperate 100%. I'll concede that western intelligence may be somewhat responsible for the breakdown in the first wave of inspections. However, these acts in no way alleviated Saddam's obligation to adhere to each and every condition of the cease fire. The fact remains; he did not meet the conditions of this ceasefire.

0 Replies

I agree. The conditions were not such that he had the option of stipulating the conditions of the inspections.

Even if the US refused to stop using the inspections for purposes they had no mandate for Saddam was obligated to comply.

I think the use of inspections for purposes they were not mandated for were counterproductive and fault those who chose to use them that way for undermining them.

But I agree that Saddam's obligation was such that despite having a valid complaint he had no right to kick the inspectors out.

But the shiftiness was on both sides. Saddam was not willing to bend over as much as he had agreed to bend over but at the same time the US was perfectly willing to take as much liberty under the cease fire as we could.

Some of the liberties taken were such that the cease fire was being violated in spirit by the US.

We never stopped fighting. And he was being required to give us access for one reason while we were using it for another.

I'd have done no differently. I would have enacted the no-fly zones and done exactly what the US had done.

But the sneakiness was not one-sided. Saddam was shifty but so were we. And we kicked his butt the whole time.

His beligerence was understandable, if not adviseable.

Thing is, our actions compromised the WMD mission. This is because we had no desire to limit our actiosn to the WMD issue.

The WMD inspection failures are something we share responsibility for because of our refusal to limit the scope of our operations to the WMD issue.

Saddam had no right to balk, but he had damn good reason to.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
but I suspect you are forgetting it was with the US that the ceasefire was drawn up

4/05/1991
The U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution setting forth the terms for a permanent cease-fire in the international war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression. The resolution was adopted on a 12-to-1 vote, with only Cuba opposed, and Yemen and Ecuador abstaining. The cease- fire will go into effect only when the Iraqi government accepts all of the terms of the resolution.

It seems to me that the above does not reference the cease-fire as being drawn up by the US but rather by the UN security council.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 21:892:

Quote:

"On the advice of General Colin Powell, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Bush decided not to press on to Baghdad or to destroy all Iraq's Republican Guard units." Likewise:"...the Iraqi government conceded defeat by announcing its willingness to abide by all 12 UN resolutions."

We could probably debate forever the legal right of the US to enforce the conditions of the ceasefire. I've heard excellent arguments for both sides. I do not claim to be an authority on international law and am not equipped to provide undeniable proof of our legal right in this matter. It is merely my opinion based on what I've read. We arrived at this tangent from a debate over whether or not Saddam violated the conditions of his ceasefire, and I believe I've provided adequate proof that he did. Unlike the debate over who has the authority to enforce the conditions, the conditions themselves are easily verified. Can there be any doubt as to whether or not these conditions were violated?

0 Replies

Bill, Arguing the UN Resolutions is not why the US attacked Iraq on the last go-around. They claimed it was because of WMDs and it's eminent danger to the American People. That's what they told the American People and the world. This administration then changed it to, "it's for the Iraqi People" when no WMDs were found. In the mean time, the US and UK are responsible for killing over 15,000 Iraqis - most of whom were innocent men, women and children. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Saddam and any WMD's (if they had any) were contained. Saddam was not a threat to anybody outside of Iraq. So you're saying, because Saddam failed to live by UN Resolutions, we had the right to kill all those innocent people?

0 Replies

from the UN cease-fire resolution:

Quote:

The Security Council: The destruction of all these weapons of mass destruction will be monitored by U.N. inspection teams and will review the sanctions periodically to determine whether they should be modified or lifted.

this is the wording accepted by the US and gives the security council sole authority for determination of compliance, ergo the US is in violation of the UN resolution it is signatory to by usurping said authority without UN sanction.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know