Hello Frank,

Thanks for responding

You claim that:
"It is conjecture to suggest the UN would have done nothing to bring inspectors in."

I believe that it is a matter of record, held by the UN and no doubt accessable through the UN order of business on their web-site, that no line has been actively pursued by the UN in relation to getting weapons inspection teams back to work in Iraq post 1998 - Until the US brought the subject to their attention. I believe it is also a matter of record that Iraq made no attempt to invite the Inspection teams back until the US insisted that the inspection teams had to go back under the terms of a new resolution. This was resisted initially by France, Germany and Russia. The new resolution was however passed unanimously by the UN Security Council. It may be conjecture as you say - but extremely well founded conjecture.

"1. The weapons inspection was a joint decision by member of the UN. The Bush Administration is now in the position of sabotaging this decision."

The weapons inspection programme was a UN condition and requirement dating back to the end of the "Desert Storm" hostilities. The US is not sabotaging this effort in any way - their take on the situation is that Iraq, having failed to comply with existing UN resolutions (pre-1441) were to be given one last final opportunity UN SC Resolution 1441 - Iraq has failed to comply with the letter and intent of 1441, in that it can be argued that they are in material breach of 1441 and as such should be compelled to disarm. That is an interpretation of Iraqi conduct and events - not sabotage.

"2. The disarmament is taking place gradually. Not all at once but Saddam is considerably weakened by the process and so I would have to disagree that nothing was done. What wasn't done was to follow an arbitrary and narrow decision handed down by the Bush Adminstration and for this I can see why the UN is reluctant to follow it."

Yes disarmament is taking place gradually - Iraqi disarmament should have been completed 90 days after the signing of the cease-fire agreement in 1991 - how gradual do you want it to be. This is something that the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq signed up to in order that they could remain in power - They have failed to do so - the only reason they are doing so now is because parked on their doorstep are US & UK forces who pose a credible military threat to that Regime's existence. The UN Security Council issued 1441, so far the Iraqi's are not complying with either its letter or intent - serious consequences are the result of such non-compliance, according to the wording of the resolution - what does "serious consequences" mean? - that is up to the UN, in making that decision it either acts, or it consigns itself to irrelevance. I say that, because if it does not act, it need never pass another resolution for as long as it exists, knowing full well that it has, by its own actions, allowed Saddam Hussein's Iraq to set the precedent for others to follow with regard to the UN.

"3. In order to address the problem of Iraqi rights abuses we have to consider who are the parties to the abues. At present, the Iraqi people are being abused by sanctions and bombing which is going on right now regardless of the propaganda that we get from the state department that we are not at war yet."

So sanctions and bombing of military targets, tracking and firing upon US & British aircraft in the no-fly zones are the only "human rights" abuses the Iraqi people have to contend with? Somehow I don't think that you have looked at the full picture. Or do you believe that all this talk about Saddam's Regime being the most repressive in the modern world is just so much propaganda - The UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc, are all deluded - they've got it all wrong? I certainly do not think so - Why do the No-fly zones exist Frank? - was it just a whim on the part of Britain and United States - or was it to offer some form of protection to Iraq's Shia and Kurdish citizens from the worse excesses of Saddam's retribution post-Desert Storm.

Somewhere in the UN Charter there is an obligation to ensure that minimum casualties are to be inflicted on civilian populations - It should be remembered that this is an obligation on both sides - The Iraqi trick of hiding air-defence radars and missile launchers close to civilian areas is in contravention of this principle.

Again no mention of concern or curiousity about the 602 Kuwaiti citizens abducted from Kuwait 12 years ago - they don't seem to feature - obviously to those opponents of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, 602 Kuwaiti's don't matter a damn, you've just wiped them off the board in order to conveniently ignore them. Hell's teeth if it had been one American held under similar circumstances, he'd have been released 11 and a half years ago - or Baghdad would have been flattened in order to know why.

The UN sanctions, under which the Iraqi people suffer daily, could have been lifted at any time during the past 11 years simply by Saddam complying with UN Resolutions, he, presumably on behalf of his people, refused to do that - Nothing to do with the US or UK.

"It suits the Bush Adminstration to plan for a post war Iraq that is amenable to allowing certain US firms to rebuild it such as the one Cheney is involved with. Also, the conquerors hold the oil leases. France, China and Russia may not like that."

So America has commercial interests in altering the current situation in Iraq!! - And France, Russia and China haven't??? The major point of difference between the two is that with the former (US) the Iraqi people as a whole stand a chance to gain something priceless - their freedom. With the latter (France, Russia and China) they can only expect continued repression and suffering, because France, Russia and China's interests are best served with Saddam continuing in power.

<<"Indeed, the US has not forced the UN into going to war - nor have they ever tried to.">>

"This is indeed incorrect. They are trying to now. They want UN involvment in supporting Mr. Bush's war."

The US THROUGH the UN are trying to get Saddam Hussein and Iraq to disarm in a manner that is verifiable beyond doubt. Plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less. Subsequent to the passing of UNSC Resolution 1441 - it is the perception of the US & UK that Saddam Hussein is not going to disarm, he is not pro-actively co-operating as is required by the resolution - therefore Saddam and his regime must be replaced in order that Iraq will disarm and renounce the use of WMD. Last time I checked they were still trying to do this, as they always have, THROUGH the offices of the UN.

"The Bush Administration is attempting to block the UN decisions regarding the inspections."

No it is not - What the US is saying to the UN is, "That you, the UN, have given Iraq one last opportunity to comply with the wishes of the international community. Iraq is failing to do what is required, as it has done with all previous UNSC Resolutions - now what are you, the UN going to do about it - are you going to talk or are you going to act."

"The "Desert Fox" has not prevented Saddam from inflicting genocide of Iraqis today. The Kurdish have more to fear from Turkish occupation now then they do Saddam."

No but it did slow him down a bit - gave him pause for thought - evened the playing field by eliminating the possibility of using air-power to drop CB weapons. As to the Kurds having more to fear from the Turks - then maybe you can explain why a recent Arab summit held in Turkey and hosted by the Turkish Government was called expressly to guarantee Iraq's current borders irrespective of whether there is a war or not. They don't fear Saddam because of the protection offered by Operation "Enduring Freedom" and what is available to back that up - Not out of any change of heart on the part of Saddam Hussein.

Yours cordially,

Teribus.