BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM

'elected representatives'?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:02 PM

True, the League of Nations didn't stop Italy attacking a weaker country, but at least it wasn't bullied into actually supporting Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: boglion
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:15 PM

I thought the Question here was should Bush and Blair attack Iraq. No-one seems to have answered this question for the last n postings.

I say NO. War is always evil and can only be justified in the clearest of situations. This is patently not the situation here. Even a "clean" quick victory will produce far more problems than it solves. This war is a mistake of gigantic proportions. Tony Blair will lose his premiership over it and only the arms manufacturers and those who thrive on conflict - such as Bin Laden - will profit from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:24 PM

You know what? I'm beginning to think that the only way that America can reclaim itself from the current regime is for the current regime to just go ahead and show just how totally wrong they are in thinking that the US, with all its might, can solve world problems with one war fater another. There will come a point when the American people will not stand for any more of the killing. If not, then we might as well just blow God's little experiement the heck up right now!

Like, for you who want to go kill off some Iraqis, I'm here to say I'll make it easy for ya' Real easy. You wanta go? Fine! I'll pay the airfare for any Catter to Iraq. No questions asked.

(Oh, Bobert. Look at that long line outside your door...)

Like "echos-ville". Bunch of cowards. Come on, who wants to go. It *can* be arranged!

Well, hope you all get a big case of jollies...

... watching it on you TV's.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:29 PM

NO!

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:04 AM

Apropos women's rights - such a situation is common in many Moslem countries. Jordan, which is widely seen as being on "our" side, has a terrible record in this sphere, with the BBC estimating this week that some 10,000 women a year are murdered by family members on spurious charges of immorality. There are an awful lot of motes and beams in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:22 AM

Hi Wolfgang, thanks for the link to the Guardian article.

Lepus,

In your mail you lift the following from that Guardian Article:

"Hania Mufti, the group's (Human Rights Watch) London director, said the decree was repealed months after it was imposed. 'The decree was introduced at a specific time after the end of the Iran-Iraq war when soldiers coming back from the front found their women had had sexual relations with other men, mainly Egyptian workers. Lots of the Egyptians were killed. The decree was an amnesty for these people and was repealed within months.'"

In my post responding to Kevin's request for sources, I indicated that I was aware of the repeal of this decree on the part of the Revolutionary Command Council (Saddam Hussein). That was why I also quoted as a source the Reuters Report on the UNHCR Conference in Cuba.

If what was reported in the Guardian was true then the repeal would have been in effect from late 1990, or early 1991. Reports exist dating the time of the repeal to 1997, the UNHCR report states that the practice is still in force in Iraq and that was dated 2000.

So I suppose the best thing to do is to pick which ever suits your particular point of view and blithely ignore the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 04:59 AM

I agree with UN Resolution 1441. And I agree with it's enforcement by military means.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 06:54 AM

I just wish my moral compass pointed as unerringly as some of the posters around here.
The fact is, I still don't know.
My gut feeling is "no", but there are few black and white issues, and this one is greyer than many.
I am convinced that Iraq does not present a clear and present danger to the US, or to any of its neighbours in the Middle East. I don't believe that it possesses nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there is any significant link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda.
All evidence presented so far by the US and the UK has failed to shift me in those beliefs.
Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein is clearly a despot who has brought ruination to his country, misery to his people and terror to his legitimate opponents. In that context, regime change would appear to be exactly what the people of Iraq most need. His use of poison gas and/or nerve agents on the Kurds at Halabja in the late 1980s, including the famous attack pictured by Iranian photographers in 1988 which more than 5,000 civilians, died lives in infamy Ð even though the Reagan administration refused to invoke sanctions because Saddam was then a useful ally against Iran.
Unfortunately, he is not alone. Similarly despotic regimes exist elsewhere in the world. Use whatever yardstick you like and you'll find another regime that fits the bill, be it the development of WMDs, the flouting of UN directives, the contempt from opposition, the abuse of human rights, the tendency to interfere with other nationsÉ the list can go on and on.
Which makes me wonder why there is such enthusiasm for intervention in Iraq, whereas other threats, say North Korea, can be dealt with by diplomatic means, and why the Bush administration in particular is so hell-bent on following a long line of doomed attempts to impose its will on Mesopotamia (my grandfather was awarded the MC in Mesopotamia in the Great War, but that's another story entirely).
I think the crucial point here is nothing to do with TWAT (The War Against Terror) and much to do with regime change, which has been a plank of the Bush administration since before the Al Queda attacks of September 11.
You can choose from a list of reasons, some the froth from the fertile imaginations of conspiracy theorists and some undoubtedly true; unfinished business, a desire to gain control of the world's second-largest oilfield, a need to continue the relentless military spending at home; burning $500 billion a year while other industries lose out to the Far East; a need for a satrapy in the region to act as a bulwark against militant and frightening Islam, imperialism or a simple messianic, crusading belief that the American Way is the only way.
Whatever the reason, Bush and his team of Texan oilmen want to change the guy in charge in Iraq.
To effect that, however, they need to convince the world of the justice of their proposal. Whatever one's feelings on George W Bush, the administration as a whole is not stupid, and it has marshalled its brightest and best to produce the evidence. I have yet to be convinced, and the lies and half-truths that have been set before us as "proof" have only served to deepen my suspicions.
I remember during the 1991 conflict when atrocity stories of Kuwaiti babies were thrown from their incubators by Iraqi invaders were published. A colleague and good friend was a journalist in the region who covered the story. He was completely convinced, and his belief in the barbarity of the Iraqis coloured his subsequent reporting considerably.
Later it was learned that there were no babies and no incubators, and that the tearful "nurse" who had revealed the atrocity tale to the media was a relative of a Kuwaiti politician who had been coached by a British public relations company to help "spin" the war.
In this coming war the spin is already becoming apparent. The ineptitude of Downing Street in getting four press and political administrators to surf the net like jackdaws and cobble together a dossier from any available source beggars belief, and worries me more when presented as a piece of crucial evidence Ð a whiff of cordite from the barrel of the gun, as it were.
As can be seen from the threads here on the Mudcat, there are many "facts" and many figures being bandied about, all with their passionate advocates.
The Foreign Office official line is:
The Iraqi regime has admitted hiding its weapons programme in the past. It did all it could to hinder the UN weapons inspectors until they were forced to leave in 1998. Since then, no one has been able to check up on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
But our intelligence has shown that since 1998 Iraq has persisted with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and that it is developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering these weapons to targets beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN. This would allow Iraq to hit countries as far away as Egypt, Greece, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
We know too that Iraq still possesses all its nuclear weapons expertise and that it is actively attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme and obtain the materials to develop nuclear weapons.
Éat the end of 1998, Iraq's persistent obstruction of the work of the UN inspectors finally forced them to leave. The inspectors were still unable to account for:
*up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals (approximately 300 tonnes of which, in the Iraqi CW programme, were unique to the production of VX nerve agent)
*up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agent (including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent)
*over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents
*large quantities of growth media acquired for use in the production of biological weapons - enough to produce over three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits to having manufactured.
Yet Scott Ritter, a former UN inspector and one of the few with first sight of Iraq's programme, states:
From 1991 to 1997, weapons inspections were able to achieve a 90-95% level of verified disarmament concerning Iraq's proscribed weapons programs, according to Rolf Ekeus, the former Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM, the predecessor to Hans Blix's United Nations Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC. This level included all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction production facilities, and the associated manufacturing equipment.
Hans Blix has refuted Powell's claim that Iraq has mobile bio-weapons laboratories, and now France and Germany, with Russian backing, are starting to ask why the UN process cannot continue and something that Blix himself wants.
Iraq, we are told, is an economic and industrial basket-case, ill-equipped to export war and terror anywhere and in desperate need of aid. Saddam himself is a crazed gambler and psychopath, but he wonÕt use his weapons on anyone else, rather he seems them as negotiating chips and a safeguard against an increasingly hostile outside world. And, anyway, it's not our business to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign states.
Then there are the possible consequences of attacking Iraq unilaterally. An Islamic world already mistrustful of the US and the UK would be furious, and would be prey to the sort of jihad-rousing rhetoric that bin Laden delivers so well. Coupled with Americas support for and arming of Israel and its apparent sanctioning of Israeli breaches of UN resolutions, accepted human rights and international morality, that would make the US seem pretty sinister in the eyes of many in the Middle East.
The corrupt, decadent and despotic dynasty currently ruling Saudi Arabia would be very vulnerable to an Islamic revolution (remember bin Laden's causus bellum & that the US had committed heresy by stationing its troops on sacred Saudi soil). Other regimes which now support the US would become more cautions, aware of the dangers at home. The old Cold War domino theory (remember Vietnam also started with a PR-orchestrated untruth) could be put into practice, and where would that lead us?
That sounds reasonable to me, and I haven't even began to imagine the additional cost in human lives, whether exacted by "smart" bombs and high-tech kit, by the bullet of a penny jezail or from malnutrition and cholera. So much so that I'm worried about being branded a cheese-eating surrender-monkey.
So in answer to the question "should" my gut feeling is still "no". "Will" is another matter entirely, and one in which our own Mr Blair is playing a fascinatingly risky roleÉ

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:31 AM

Have to say ,I told you so,
The US has warned France that their trade with the US will take a nose-dive because they refuse to kill Iraq civilans and Germany has also been warned that US bases there will be moved to other eastern European countries.
It`s my ball and you can`t play, what a country, the carpet-bombers have spoken. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:41 AM

Gervase, like you, although having come to a decision, I have plenty of doubts. Being in the minority on this forum certainly gives me pause for thought.

To pick up on one of your points;   After the gulf war, most of the provinces of Iraq rebelled against his regime. As we know, they were then abandoned by the allies, and Saddam murdered and tortured his way back into control.
If, as many think, the Iraqis welcome his overthrow and welcome their liberators, on what grounds can the muslim world feel fury?

Of course, the other dictators and Royal Houses wil be worried if a major Arab nation moves towards democracy, but who will weep for them?.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:06 AM

Keith, as you know, I respect your decision and salute what you're doing.
Although I don't believe we should go to war, I believe we will.
On that basis, Britain's involvement is perhaps understandable.
The Bush administration is clearly bent on implementing "regime change" come what may, and that the UN, France, Germany and a growing tide of opposition isn't going to stop them.
Depending one's stance, either those planning the war are so convinced of their own rectitude and the benefit to the Iraqi people and the wider world that they cannot comprehend the anti's stance or they are deliberately misleading the public to line the pockets of the multinationals and oil companies in which they all have a stake. Whatever, the course is set for war.
As I said earlier, however, the US administration is not stupid. It may be extremely naive in diplomatic terms, overweeningly arrogant militarily and simplistic politically, but it isn't stupid & it knows how to sell.
Thus the American public is already largely in favour of war, thanks to a broadcast media that has been largely supine in the face of the march to arms. The administration cares deeply about what the American public thinks, and with Bush riding at a record level for a president thanks to September 11, what better time to push for regime change. If a link can be hinted at between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 so much the better.
Guaranteed that it will play well in Peoria, Bush has little to lose at home by going to war. Unfortunately the rest of the world has a lot to lose.
This is where I may be making one of the daftest misjudgements of many (and if I am wrong, I too will grovel on this forum), but I believe that Blair's self-appointed mission is to ensure that the rest of the world loses as little as possible.
Faced with the world's only superpower lurching towards war like a drunk to the edge of a station platform, Blair was aghast.
Like the Greeks to the Romans, Britain regards itself - rightly or wrongly and to the infuriation of others - as the faded font of civilisation for the newer, brasher rulers; wilier in the ways of the world and more attuned to the consequences of any action, and well-practised in the black arts of diplomacy, negotiation, realpolitik and the use of the military.
The "special relationship" would appear to be special only on this side of the Atlantic, with America little disposed to help the UK unless it acts directly in the US interest.
Thus Blair could not "call in a favour" and get America to rein back, and if he protested his objections would be swept aside as easily as a gadfly (remember the illegal steel tariffs introduced by the US a year or so back, banged on in the face of protest from the UK after Bush had said there was no firmer friend to the US than Britain?).
Blair knows that the safest world is one where America co-exists with other nations, and where militant Islam is not inflamed by the infidel's arrogance; one where old fashioned rules of fair-play and diplomacy can be invoked to keep things "civilised". If America were simply to crash into Iraq and change the regime unilaterally, the consequences could be disastrous. The "war" part would be over quickly and with little loss of US life, but the knock-on effects could threaten us all.
Blair had already nailed his colours to the mast post-September 11 in the face of global terrorism, which was, is and will remain a real threat to the UK. Afghanistan had seemed simple & Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks, was based there and his operation (Al Queda simply means "the base" in Arabic) was focused there. The Taliban were overthrown and the country went back to the sort of chaotic factionalism that had prevailed for decades. So far so good.
Then George W says he's going to go for Iraq.
It's a tough call for Blair. Reason says the plan is dangerous, but reality says it can't be stopped. What Blair has done is bring some of the derided "Old Europe" into the planning. By linking with Bush, he gets a word in the ear of the planners, urging restraint and advising diplomacy while still appearing bellicose enough to be "on message" in the eyes of the Oval Office.
Without Blair, I am convinced that the Rumsfeld/Wolfovitz axis in the White House would have launched the war already. As it is, thanks to the delay and talking, US forces are still not all in place and the UN inspectors have been given an audience. There probably will not now be an attack until the UN debates a second resolution in the wake of 1441 & which might just allow time for Saddam to grovel and for the UN to show such proof that invasion becomes unthinkable.
Blair knows his position as poodle-in-chief makes him unpopular and he almost seems to squirm visible when it is mentioned, yet this man who has built his career on being liked clings on to the hawks' tails. He is also said to be a man with a strong moral core; a man with no firm ideology but a genuine Panglossian belief that all could be for the best if we could just get on, guys.
Perhaps he really is prepared to stake his reputation and his future on reining in America. If he is, he can't actually tell us so. It would not be diplomatic to say: "I don't want to have to use these soldiers I'm sending. I think American foreign policy is Neanderthal and threatens the security of the world, and this is all I can to civilise it."
We shall see when the guns start firing, because at that moment his strategy, if strategy it is, will have begun to fall apart. I don't think the guns will fire for that long if they do, because 1991 showed that the Iraqi army was little match for modern kit, but the consequences could be very long-lasting.
Is he right to do this, to stand beside Bush above the abyss and attempt to be the restraining influence in the face of an inevitable movement forward?
Again, I don't know. I do know, however, that mass protests around the world at the weekend will not change the American resolve. There is a rumbling anti-war movement within the US, with some big names attached, but they only get attention in the print media, not the more influential TV news. The administration don't give a toss about "Yurp" other than to call them Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys (bless Matt Groenig!)
My hunch is that Blair's is the only approach, but it's brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind. And good luck and godspeed to all those involved - including you, Keith.
For some reason I'm minded of Kipling's words to America in the early days of US expansion:
Take up the White Man's burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
...
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

It's a huge burden, and not one to be hefted lightly or without great care for the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM

gervase,

what's the significance of all the 'O's & 'D's?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:43 AM

THE FIRST AND FOREMOST QUESTION IN DETERMINING A NEED FOR A WAR IS WHY? THE ANSWER WAS SIMPLE IN WWII. AS A MATTER OF FACT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED THREE YEARS AHEAD OF PEARL HARBOR. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FRENCH HELPED US GAIN OUR INDEPENDANCE AND HAD A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR AN AMERICAN ALLY. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION WITH IRAQ SHADOWS IN COMPARISON TO THAT OF WWII GERMANY. IF IT CAN BE COMPAIRED AT ALL. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT RHETORIC. IF YOU LISTENED TO COLLIN POWELL'S PRESENTATION TO THE UN VERY CAREFULLY YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD A LOT OF "COULD BE LINKED TO OR HAS THE POTENTIAL OF TYPE STATEMENTS". THIS IS NOT FACT AND CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES DOES HAVE BONA-FIDE EVIDENCE OF WMDS. IF IT DOES THEN WHY IS IT SO HIDDEN FROM EVERYONE? I'M EVEN WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THE THOUGHT THAT IRAQI INSIDERS LIVES ARE AT STEAK AND THUS PREVENTING THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE AT FIRST BUT BECOMES UNBEARABLE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS ARE SO MISINFORMED. IF WE ARE HELL BENT ON A MISSION THATS OUTCOME IS SOLELY TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM THIS "AXIS OF EVIL" THEN WHY THE CLOAK AND DAGGER WHEN IT COMES TIME TO WORK TOGETHER? FURTHERMORE IT SHOULD BE AKNOWLEDGED THAT WE HAVE NEVER LEFT IRAQ. WE HAVE BEEN BOMBING AND SURVEYING THEM FOR OVER A DECADE NOW. IF WE ARE TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE WE SOON SEE THAT WE SHOULD BE OVERFLOWING WITH FACT ON THE ISSUE. AMERICAN AWACS AND U2 SPY PLANES HAVE BEEN FLYING MISSIONS OVER IRAQ EVERY DAY FOR TEN YEARS. THIS IS THE TOP OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL FOOD CHAIN AS FAR AS EAVES DROPPING GOES BUT HAS YET TO PRODUCE DEFINITIVE LOCATIONS AND WEAPONS SIGHTINGS. THUS I FIND THE CASE FOR A WELL ARMED IRAQ TO BE INCREDULOUS. IT IS NOT A STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO SAY THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND IS EQUALLY PRUDENT TO SAY THAT IN THE PROCESS OF, IT IS ALIENATING MANY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. THE GERMANS AND FRENCH FOR EXAMPLE. THIS IS PURE ASSUMPTION ON MY PART AND MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN SUPPORT ME ON THIS BUT AREN'T THE FRANCS AND GERMANS BETTER EDUCATED PER CAPITA IN COMPAIRSON TO THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN? MY POINT IS THAT BUSH AND HIS ENTOURAGE AREN'T INTERESTED IN A THOUGHT OUT SYSTEMATIC APPROACH. THE ANSWER IS WAR AND WAR ONLY. NOT TO MENTION IT NEEDS TO BE STARTED IMMEDIATLY. HOWEVER, I DIGRESS AND WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON AN INTRESTING ARTICLE I HAD READ IN THE WASHINGTON POST THIS PAST WEEK. IT SEEMS THAT THE WAR MONGERS HAVE STARTED UP THE ECONOMIC SANCTION MACHINE AND ARE POINTING IT DIRECTLY AT FRANCE AND GERMANY. I WILL START WITH THE FRENCH. WE ARE THREATNING TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL INCOMING FRENCH BOTTELED WATER AND WINE. IN ADDITION TO THIS JAW DROPPER THE U.S. HAS ALSO THREATENED TO MARK FRENCH WINE BOTTLES WITH A FLORESCENT RING DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS PURIFIED WITH BOVINE BLOOD. ONE FRENCH CRITIC COMMENTED THAT THIS IS "THE EQUIVILENT OF A MR YUK STICKER". AS IF THIS WASN'T ABSURD ENOUGH GIVEN THE SITUATION AND NATURE OF THE DISCREPANCY WE ARE ALSO THREATNING TO WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FROM GERMANY. I HAVE TWO POINTS ON THIS ISSUE. ONE, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AND TWO, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO THREATEN SOMEONE WITH A GOOD TIME? THESE ARE SHALOW, JUVENILE, PATHETIC LAST DITCH EFFORTS THAT SHOW THE ADMINISTRATIONS TRUE COLORS. TO SAY THAT DRITY POLITICS IS NOT NECESSARY WOULD BE A COLLOSAL UNDERSTATEMENT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KNOWN ENEMIES OR RELATIVLY INSIGNIFICANT SMALL COUNTRIES HERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXTREMELY PROGRESSIVE NATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED OUR FRIENDS FOR A LONG TIME. THIS IS HOW WE TREAT THEM WHEN ALL THEY ASK FOR IS SOME THOUGHT DEVOTED TO OTHER OPTIONS? IT IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE EVIDENT THAT AMERICA IS THE NATION THAT IS BACKWARDS THINKING AND MOST LIKE A SADDAM LED DICTATORSHIP. THESE ARE STRONG WORDS INDEED BUT IF THE SHOE FITS..... IN CONCLUSION, WAR SHOULD NOT BE EVIDENT.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:56 AM

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS AND THE PUNCTUATION. I CERTAINLY WASN'T TRYING TO YELL.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:16 AM

The 'professional rapist' in Iraq is according to several international organisations like Human Rights Watch another British propaganda blunder. A wrong translation from an identity card: The man in case was accused of rape which in the translation came out as 'job description'.

Sounds true to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM

Thanks for drawing that to the fore Wolfgang, in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's file it appears as "activity" which as stated by Humans Rights Watch could be taken as "Charge". As you say sounds logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:11 AM

For information - a graph summarising opinion polls on this in 15 European countries, taken in January. (The figures have moved on a bit - for example the graph shows for the UK 15% as unwilling to go to war even with UN support. The most recent poll last week has that as risen to 45%.) From the BBC site.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:24 AM

1846: President Polk says that American blood has been spilled on American soil... Hmmmmmmm? Just where were the Americans? In mexico, that's where. ****The Big Lie****

Result: The US steals New Mexico, Arizona and parts of California from Mexico in 1848;

Fast Forward...

The Battleship Maine sinks in the Havana harbor. Who sunk it? TR says the Spainish. Hmmmmmm?   ****The Big Lie**** (We learn later that there was an explosion in the engine room). And what was a battleship doing in the Havana Harbor, anyway.

Result: The Sainish American War.

Fast Forward:

Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam: US naval ship fired upon by North Vietnamese. **** The Big Lie****. Never happened:

Result: You know..

Fast Forward:

Bagdad, Iraq: US accuses Saddam Hussein of plotting to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction. The ****Big Lie****. After every attempt to provide any evidence of that claim, facts come to light to prove otherwise:

Result: Stay tuned

..... Hey, folks. The government is ***lieing***. You have oilmen in power and this is about oil. Just like Vietnem was about rubber, tin and oil. It's about stealing resources. And land. It has *nothing* to do with any threat of attack!

None!

Now go to war if you will but don't do it in my name and don't friggin' ***lie*** to me about your motives.

Resist insane foriegn policy built on greed and not security...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Thanks, McGrath. It's a pretty important poll. Looks to me like the majority of most of the countries, esp. France, are NOT against military intervention provided we act under the UN mantle. That's exactly what U.S. policy should pursue. Funny that the French government isn't representative of its own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 01:14 PM

"Funny that the French government isn't representative of its own people."

I don't see how you get that, robomatic.

On that poll 85% of the French are against a war unless there is a specific new resolution carried through the Security Council authorising it.

That can only happen if the French Government votes in favour of such a resolution, or at least abstains (and if at least nine countries in the Security Council vote in favour of it, and none of the other countries with vetoes vote against it.)

I've heard no indication that people in France, or for that matter anywhere else (with the possible exception of the USA), want that kind of resolution to go through, or believe that it would be justified on current evidence.

And unless the Security Council passes such a resolution, any country going to war (unless it is under attack by the country it is going to war against, and the situation has not yet been brought before the Security Council), is in clear and flagrant breach of the Charter of the United Nations, which it has committed itself to uphold, and is in breach of international law. A rogue state, in other words.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. (Chapter One, Article 2, Paragraph Four, Charter of the United Nations)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 01:47 PM

The weakness in your argument I believe, McGrath, is there already IS a UN Resolution that calls for war if Iraq does not comply. It's called Resolution 1441.

Wolfgang: that's hilarious! (I suppose it wasn't to the man charged with rape though).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:52 PM

No it doesn't. Whatever the pundits and the politicians say, it doesn't. The resolution contains nothing that can fairly be interpreted as authority for anyone to go to war.

Here is the passage that is being used to assert that it does. In Section 13, at the end of the resolution, it says that the Security Council "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."

The only body with authority to decide whether, in the light of the inspectors' report and any other evidence, Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 1441, is the Security Council.

And if it does decide that Iraqis have so failed, the only body with the authority to determine what the "serious consequences" should consist of would be the Security Council. An instant war is by no means the only thing that term could mean. It could just as well mean an expanded and more rigorous inspection, or a continuation of sanctions, and that doesn't exhaust the listvof possibilities.

Anyway - here is the whole resolution. A bit wordy, but nothing whatsoever authorising any country to go to war:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

          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 non-compliance 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 United Nations 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM

Wow!! Nothing like backing up a statement with facts! More people should try that. But then, facts are so damned inconvenient, aren't they?   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 07:21 PM

The problem is Kevin, no matter what facts, or decisions are produced there are those who will not acept any decision inconvenient to thier own prejudices.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:56 PM

That's always a problem. But that is the reason all those agreements were reached, and they are meant to bind us.

Our countries have promised to abide by the United Nations Charter, and this war is going to be a clear breach of that Charter, unless it's backed by at least nine members of the Security Council, with no vetoes.

Attempts to bully countries into voting the way they don't believe is right, on the grounds that, if the UN doesn't back the war, Bush is going to go to war anyway, so it's better if it's made legal - that seems to me, to use a word that has been thrown around rather loosely recently, a kind of appeasement. It's saying might is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:27 PM

Carol, if you say to me "you're not really in a position to have an opinion on this matter". You are more or less telling me, "you have no right to have and express an opinion on this matter".

I can see a distinction between those two different statements. Perhaps you cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:34 PM

The thing that is missing from the above is the addendum "..in the opinion of some." But, obviously, not in the considered opinion of those elected representatives charged with the responsibility of the legislature and governance of the country.

The legislators are not generally constitutional scholars. They are politicians. There is a very big difference. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to make sure that when the legislature passes laws that are unconstitutional, there is a means of redress. Unfortunately, with some of the changes that will be made under the Patriot Act, there will be people who will not have access to the courts, and there will be no way for the Supreme Court to make any kind of ruling on the constitutionality of those laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:48 AM

"Wow!! Nothing like backing up a statement with facts! More people should try that. But then, facts are so damned inconvenient, aren't they?   

Don Firth"

The above was posted in response to MGOH's post on UNSC Resolution 1441. OK so let's take a look at it:

The preamble lists the previous resolutions passed by the UNSC with regard to Iraq subsequent to their invasion of Kuwait up to the date of the signing of resolution 1441. Iraq's total compliance with the resolutions passed formed the basis of the "CEASE FIRE" agreement that brought "Desert Storm" hostilities to an end. The preamble also clearly states that Iraq has not complied.

Therefore the fact, Don, is that Iraq has broken the terms of that cease fire agreement.

So much for the preamble, now let's look at the detail of UNSC Resolution 1441.

          "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);"

Basically outlines the status: "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions,"

         " 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;"

"..to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council;" are the operative words, i.e. it is Iraq's responsibility to disarm and to do so fully in such a way that it can be verified by the UN's enhanced inspection regime - Note this does not mean that the enhanced inspection regime has to go into Iraq to play hide-and-seek.

          "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;"

UNSC Resolution 1441: NON-COMPLIANCE No. 1
Their declaration delivered to the UNSC on 7th December, 2002 was not "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration" according to Dr. Hans Blix of UNMOVIC. Again this point emphasises that the inspectors are not there to engage in the detective work required to unearth WMD.

          "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;"

Consequences clearly defined and stated - Non-compliance No. 1 above is a Material Breach by UNSC's own definition. MATERIAL BREACH No. 1
NON-COMPLIANCE No. 2 - Iraq is required to cooperate fully - Failure of Iraq to cooperate fully was reported to the UNSC by Dr. Hans Blix on 5th February, 2003. Under the definition given above this constitutes MATERIAL BREACH No. 2.

          "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;"

This paragraph clearly sets a time frame to establish the commencement of inspections and to update the UNSC of status and degree of Iraqi cooperation, the date of that report was 5th February, 2003.

NON-COMPLIANCE No. 3 - On 5th February, 2003 both Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei both reported only partial cooperation on the part of the Iraqi authorities, and, non-cooperation with regard to the interviews as detailed in UNSC Resolution 1441 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 3.


          "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 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;"

NON-COMPLIANCE No. 3 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 3.

      "– 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;"

At the time of making his report to the UNSC (5.02.03) Dr. Hans Blix reported that Iraq was in non-compliance with this requirement.
NON-COMPLIANCE No. 4 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 4

          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;

Again this gives a time frame - Iraq did confirm within the seven days stipulated - again Iraq failed to honour the undertakings it agreed to in that:

- It has fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme.

- It has not cooperated fully, unconditionally and actively as directed to do from the outset.

Readers Note: That is not opinion, those are facts as reported to the UNSC by the heads of the inspection teams.

          "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;"

This is a mechanism by which verification can be cross-checked. It does not, and should not, be used to encourage a sophisticated game of "hide-and-seek". Everything above clearly defines that it is Iraq that must disarm in a manner that can be verified without doubt in the opinion of the UNSC.

          "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;"

Dr. Hans Blix has done so.

          "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;"

UNSC has done so and decided to give Iraq a final, final chance.

          "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;"

The repeated warnings by Council have been largely ignored by Iraq as, experience has shown, there is every possibility (if the UN runs true to form), there will be many, many more final, final warnings issued so that the threat of facing serious consequences will vanish entirely.

          "14.    Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Yes, Right. This is UN jargon for "We will do nothing in the hope that the situation gets forgotten and we can resume or well funded and ordered lives back in sleepy hollow". Unfortunately for the UN the member state responsible for bringing this outstanding matter to their attention, is one of, if not, the most powerful state in the world, and that state perceives a clear and growing threat should this matter remain unresolved - They will not be able to put this to bed quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:57 AM

A correction to my post reviewing UNSC Resolution 1441

At point 9. where my original post states:

"Again this gives a time frame - Iraq did confirm within the seven days stipulated - again Iraq failed to honour the undertakings it agreed to in that:

- It has fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme."

It should of course read:

- It has NOT fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme."

Further most of the conditions outlined in paragraph 7 of the resolution that I have not commented on specifically are meaningless without full and active cooperation on the part of the Iraqi Authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 05:47 AM

Further correction:

With regard to UNSC Resolution 1441, there are five instances of Iraqi non-compliance, that, at the time of the Weapons Inspectors report of 5.02.03 constitute Material Breaches, they are:

1. The Iraqi Declaration

2. Lack of Iraqi cooperation

3. Iraqi obstruction with regard to interviews

4. Failure to supply UNMOVIC and IAEA with lists of personnel engaged on work (previously or at present) related to WMD programmes and programmes where dual use materials and equipment are used.

5. Unrestricted use of aircraft.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 06:04 AM

The only body with authority to decide whether Iraq's behaviour is such that "serious consequences" are required, in the light of the report beging made by Mr Blix is the Security Council, not you or me or Mr Blair or Mr Bush.

And if it does so decide, the Security Council is the only body with authority to determine what those "serious consequences" should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:04 AM

Kevin, as far as I am aware I did not mention Mr. Bush or Mr Blair in regard to the process of determining Iraqi non-compliance, what constitutes a material breach of resolution 1441, or, with regard to what the term "serious consequences" in effect means. All those as you correctly state should be the sole preserve of the UNSC, as advised by Dr's Blix and AlBaradei, and I did refer to both those gentlemen in my post.

You went to the effort of detailing the precise contents of UNSC Resolution 1441 in order that there could be no misunderstanding of what was being discussed - for that, on my part I am most grateful.

The basis of my comments with regard to Resolution 1441 are that terms, conditions, stipulations, call them what you will, came into force in their entirety the day thet Iraq agreed to them. Not "We (Iraq) will comply in part if they (UNMOVIC/IAEA) bring up such and such a point on such and such a date". Then "We will concede on such and such a matter if the UN takes such and such a stance over this issue." - That is not the way that the process was meant to be implimented. Under the terms of Resolution 1441 there are demonstrably five instances of Iraqi non-compliance that could be viewed as Material Breaches. It remains to be seen what the UNSC intend to do about them after this final, final opportunity.

Initially neither France, Russia or China wanted UNSC Resolution 1441 - In fact they argued vehemently against it.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was a greatly modified version of the USA & Britains original draft resolution - blocked by France, Russia and China. Now lo and behold look what Germany and France (backed by Russia) have come up with - The Mirage Proposal - The original US & UK draft that they blocked. Pity it wasn't adopted back in September of last year - it might have ensured Iraqi co-operation from the start.

Fact - Iraq must disarm and renounce its policy on WMD, and prove to the world that it has done so.

Fact - The only way that this can be done is for the Iraqi's to do this themselves.

Fact - If they refuse to do so they must be compelled to do so. The word of the current Iraqi regime cannot be relied upon. Sanctions do not work. The only stumbling block to this situation being resolved is the current Iraqi regime, therefore if Iraq must be compelled to disarm - That regime must go.

Back the US & UK stance and the "serious consequences" will ensure that the matter will be resolved.

Back the French and German stance and the "serious consequences" will ammount to a "severe talking to" as a result of which nothing is resolved and the UN is shown to be precisely the paper tiger its predecessor the League of Nations was - i.e. totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the UK & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:48 AM

The reason I mentioned Blair and Bush as well as you and me, Teribus, is that it appears that they believe that their views on this matter are what matters, and that, if the Security Council does not back them up, they will go to war regardless.

Such evidence as I have seen seems to indicate that, on the basis of what has happened so far, the inspection team believe that considerable progress has been made, and that more time is needed to discover whether the Iraq claims that they have got rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction are true or false.

If "serious consequences" should be required, on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities have been less actively cooperative in the inspection process than is required of them, and that there are still reasons to doubt their claims, then the proposals put forward by the French, Germans and Belgians are on the table.

These amount to a great deal more than "a severe talking to". Admittedly they do not include a massive series of air attacks on Iraq and an all out invasion. However they do envisage a greatly increased level of surveillance of Iraq, with a greatly enlarged inspection force, backed up by expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground.

This way of proceeding seems to me something that should not be dismissed out of hand. It is far more consistent with the United Nations Charter than the alternative presented by the US and the UK Governments of immediate and massive war.

The obligation of those who think that war is justified is to persuade the Security Council that war is a more satisfactory way of proceeding, and that the Franco-German plan has no prospects of assuring that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, if indeed it has any at present. If they cannot succeed in doing this, such a war will be in breach of our solemn commitments, and of international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 08:47 AM

Excellent thought Kevin - and how are we to get all thouse thousands of NEW weapons inspectors into Iraq ?? By Force ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 08:57 AM

The entire "resolution" is a joke anyway! Remember back a few months ago when Bush was warming up his fuff-n-puff foriegn policy? Then came the massive letter writing campaign and mobilization of the anti-war m0ovement. Opps. Minor miscalclation...

So then Bush huddled with his advisors and they came to the conclusion that the US and world had a longer check list in mind before military options would be used. But duriug this entire process Bush had his usual 4 to 5 temper tantrums a week and continued threatening to *whack* this guy or that guy.

The resolution was written more to appease a threatening madman than trying to disarm Saddam, who until Bush decided was going to take over bin Laden's role od bogieman de-jour, was no particular threat at that point in time.

Well, all the resolution did was create a little time for Bush to re-think his position and for the world to try to push diplomacy into the mix. It was deemed to fail from the very beginning since Bush is Hell bent on war and the Commander of Chief of the worlds most powerful military can huff-n-puff his way into any war he wants.

Congress threw up their arms and their "constitutional" responsibilities on the deal because they looked around the room an discovered that their composition was heavily weighted with Repub hawks. Who expected anything different. That's Congress for ya.

So, now it's down to quibbeling over the language of the resolution. Forget it. We need to be looking at the bigger picture and allow the magican to fool us with the slight of hand in focusing on details of the document. It comes down to war or peace. You can only have one! Not both.

Diplomacy of DU's tank killers that also poison our environment. You can't have both.

Security or the creation of an entire generation of terrorists. You can't have both.

Resist war today!

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:20 AM

It should of course be recognised that left eniterly to the auspices of the United Nations absolutely nothing would ever have been done.

The only reason that there are weapons inspections teams currently present in Iraq today is due entirely to the efforts of the current American Administration.

Kevin contends that:

"...it appears that they (Bush and Blair) believe that their views on this matter are what matters, and that, if the Security Council does not back them up, they will go to war regardless."

President Bush's concerns do matter and the views of the USA and the UK matter as much as the views of the other members of the UNSC matter.

"...on the basis of what has happened so far, the inspection team believe that considerable progress has been made, and that more time is needed to discover whether the Iraq claims that they have got rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction are true or false."

UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections teams are only in Iraq today because the current US Administration forced the issue - no other reason. The progress that you speak of has been made inspite of grudging co-operation, given in fits and starts, by an Iraqi regime that is being constantly reminded of what consequences might be by the presence of a credible threat.

"If "serious consequences" should be required, on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities have been less actively cooperative in the inspection process than is required of them, and that there are still reasons to doubt their claims, then the proposals put forward by the French, Germans and Belgians are on the table."

You conveniently ignore the requirement that full co-operation was required from Day 1 - it was never meant to be gradual. I also take it that you refer to the French and German proposal that has been backed by the Russians and latterly the Chinese - the French, German and Belgian reference relates to planning involving increased Patriot missile defence for Turkey in the event of a war in Iraq.

"These ("serious consequences") amount to a great deal more than "a severe talking to". Admittedly they do not include a massive series of air attacks on Iraq and an all out invasion. However they do envisage a greatly increased level of surveillance of Iraq, with a greatly enlarged inspection force, backed up by expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground."

So serious consequences comes down to increased surveillence, more inspectors, expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground. All of which still mounts to nothing if the Iraqi's are not co-operating. Where do the additional inspectors come from? The type of experienced specialists required are not exactly thick on the ground. Dr. Hans Blix is having trouble sourcing an additional 12 inspectors, France of course can supply an additional 250 at the drop of a hat - Reality, this is merely a sound byte for the assembled press corps. The Iraqi's have already refused to have "UN troops on the ground" so how would the UN go about compelling the Iraqi's to reconsider?

"This way of proceeding seems to me something that should not be dismissed out of hand. It is far more consistent with the United Nations Charter than the alternative presented by the US and the UK Governments of immediate and massive war."

The French the Russians and the Chinese dismissed this proposal out of hand last September when it was proposed by the USA & UK - So what is so great about it now? The greatest difference of course is that back last September, had it been adopted, it could have worked. Now being introduced as the "serious consequences" it is impractical and ineffectual - If that was presented to Saddam Hussein as the "flesh and bones" of "serious consequences", he would laugh out loud, or if he was feeling really conciliatory merely shrug.

"The obligation of those who think that war is justified is to persuade the Security Council that war is a more satisfactory way of proceeding, and that the Franco-German plan has no prospects of assuring that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, if indeed it has any at present. If they cannot succeed in doing this, such a war will be in breach of our solemn commitments, and of international law."

Well, ultimately, even following the Franco-German Plan, "serious consequences" will come down to military intervention. The French and the Germans, unless they are only looking at the situation through rose-coloured glasses (which is, in all probability true, as neither they, nor, the UN wanted to do anything about this anyway) must recognise this as a possibility. A UN coalition led by France, Germany and Russia - I couldn't think of a better recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:38 AM

Hey there folks,

In the midst of a fairly well conducted, civilised debate on issue and fact - The comedy break, in the form of a groundless, totally inane, hysterical rant, was brought to you by Bobert, whose needle seems to be stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:47 AM

Stuck needles? I think yours, Teribus, is stuck in that "Teribus gets his facts wrong, and is almost immediately shot down by McGrath" groove. Personally attacking Bobert isn't "well conducted, civilised debate."

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:08 AM

Hey Lepus - What me personally attack Bobert - Hell no ize jes' funnin y'know - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Oh and re: "Teribus gets his facts wrong, and is almost immediately shot down by McGrath" - Shot down - Hell he hasn't even come close to syngeing my tail feathers - not one thing so far in the discourse on Resolution 1441 that I have stated as being fact has been challenged, let alone refuted. But, there again, you are always welcome to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:16 AM

Wow, another personal attack on Bobert. You're on a well conducted, civilised roll, dude.

And if you can't see that not only has McGrath shot you down, but he's skinned, gutted, and roasted you, well, you're delusional, and nothing I can say will convince you. But don't waste your time with me... Watching your arguments fail is good, reliable entertainment. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:19 AM

"How are we to get all those thousands of NEW weapons inspectors into Iraq ?? By Force ???"

What I assume the countries pushing that envisage is that, if Iraq does not volunteer to allow this, there should be a binding resolution which would require him to accept this. Should Iraq fail to accept it, the case for the UK/US alternative would be strengthened. It would only take a few days to get clarification on this - in fact I strongly suspect that before publishing the proposal the governments concerned will have done their homework, and have reason to believe that their proposals would be accepted by Iraq.

However in the existing climate I would expect that the UK or the US would be only too likely to veto such a resolution. I'd call that an unreasonable veto.

The real question is, why is there such a desperate hurry? And the answer to that is that once a war machine has been put into action it is awkward to stop it or pause it. That is generally given as the dynamic that caused the Great War in 1914.

Well, waiting a few months would be inconvenient, and it would be expensive. But so would a war. And there is no reason to think that a wait would strengthen Saddam's military position - if anything the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wotcha
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:22 AM

My mathematics is a bit off but the 600+ Kuwaitis who were kidnapped or otherwise unaccounted for after Saddam's troops retreated might have something to say about this impending conflict: interesting that no Mudcatter has bothered to mention that an ongoing UN Resolution requires full accounting of these people.

If an equivalent number of Americans had been kidnapped (600,000), we wouldn't have waited 12 years to do something about it. Saddam's regime never made any effort to deal with this issue over the years: too bad that his people have to suffer, but that is the price to pay for being the aggressor.

Nobody wants war, since in Ben Franklin's words "there was never such a thing as a good war or a bad peace ..." Saddam knows what he has to do to avert it ... he has no legitimacy and must go, even if we have to go in and get him out. To do otherwise is a grave abdication to a tyrant.

Cheers,

Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 12:31 PM

Written in sorrow, Feb 14, 2003

WAR

War is for neanderthals
who brandish bloody clubs;
and roaring insane battle calls
smash kinder hearts to pulp.

War's roots lie deep in avarice
in hatred and in lies
and suck the bile of ignorance
that their deathly fruit survive.

O hither come the blokes of war
See how they foam and rage!
They're howling just outside my door
"Join the tyrants of this age!"

And though the wisest of the wise
teach war is obsolete;
Still we march toward that vile dawn
on shameless, guilty feet.


:-(   daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

No resolution of UNSC will change the rightness/wrongness of invading Iraq. That would be true even if the UNSC were perfectly omniscient and perfectly impartial. But the UN is a talking shop filled with placemen seeking their own countries' political advantage and far from perfect. It is almost irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

While agreeing with what you are saying daylia, I think it's a bit unfair on neanderthals. There is absolutely no indication that they were particularly bloodthirsty or anything like that.

The neanderthals were displaced by the ancestors of human beings (Cro-Magnons), when they arrived in Europe. It seems pretty likely that they were victims of the first recorded genocide. And it was our people who did it.

No resolution of UNSC will change the rightness/wrongness of invading Iraq. True enough.

But that's like saying no verdict brought out by a court will change the fact that someone has or has not done a crime. and thta is true too - courts get it wrong sometimes. But replacing the decision of the court by the opinion of the strongest bully on the block is not an improvement. Without a resolution authorising an attack on Iraq that attack will literally be a criminal act, a kind of international lynching.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

Oh such sad lyrics, Daylia, and sadder because it's true. People are so consumed with arguing over how many angels will fir on the end of a pin, that they absolutely *refuse* to open their eyes to reality that very little has been done by the US to find peaceful solutions to complex problems.

Teribus is a prime example. T writes volumes about details and details of details but nothing about, absoltely nothing about the real possibilities for mankind with another tact. He accuses me of being a stuck record but doesn't see that the Bush administration has been telling the same *big lie* over and over and over for a year now. And when the polls say that folks don't believe the *big lie* they tweek it a tad or replace it with another *big lie*.

Well, the discussion needs to be moved from the center of the magnifying glass to the big picture.

And in the "big" picture, mankind (especially Bush and Co. who seem to be the only ones that really don't get it) *exhausts* diplomacy. All we're getting now is "Well, we tried it..." and then its back to the incesant pounding on the drum. Well, no, we haven't tried it.

You give me the White House and 20% of the anticipated costs of invading Iraq and I'd get the Middle East calmed down and on track. No, that wouldn't mean we'd be able to steal anyone's resources or kill anyone but that shouldn't be the cornerstone of a foriegn policy.

And, no, I'm sure the soft and hard money to get re-elected would dry up but who cares because I'd be working on real campaign finance reform and publicly finacned elections and TV debates like we used to have in the 50's and the corporations would be there for making products and not public policy...

So go ahead, Teribus, and tell me that "We've tried that." for the 10,000th time. What ever floats your boat... Don't make you right...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 03:00 PM

Everone here is exactly the same John, they resent the US government and I mean Bush and the warmongers feeding him this lying propagenda.
Apart from a small minority on the Mudcat we all seem to be against this war.
I was talking yesterday to a friend just returned from Las Vegas and he told me that the vast majority there were all for the war, he said it was that silly"lets kick ass" sentiment being expressed all over Las Vegas, so any other US towns of a like nature?,. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:23 PM

I posted this on another thread, but I will also post it here

Unfortunately, there are not very many politicians, Republicans or Democrats, who seem have the guts to stand strongly for peace against the powerful forces that wish to lead us into war. I'm proud to say that my congressional representative (Washington State, 7th Congressional District), Jim McDemott, is one who is willing to speak out and to keep speaking out.

I'm not sure that THIS will accomplish anything, but he's certainly on the right track, and he doesn't give up easily. It's people like him who maintain my often waning faith that there may be hope for our political system in spite of all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:37 PM

Here is a link to a page with a video link (BBC) to various speeches today in the Security Council (click on "Iraq's weapons: Full UN report and reaction"). It seems pretty up and down to me, there can't be a UN backed war now, until at the very least the inspectors have had some more time.

That's on the basis of the speech by Blix and his colleague, and the French and Russian response, for a start. (Especially the French one. Brilliant.)

I think if Bush wants a war he might well have to go on his own. Except of course. he won't do that. He'll send the poor sods in the services. I wouldn't bet on Blair being able to deliver the UK.