As the Tribune reported Nov. 9, 2002: "... Minutes after the measure won the support of even last-minute holdouts Russia and Syria, President Bush warned Hussein that it was up to him whether war erupts in the Persian Gulf. `The outcome of the current crisis is already determined,' Bush said in a hastily arranged appearance. `The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how.'" The UN then dispatched weapons inspectors to resume the search suspended in 1998. But rather than open itself to complete scrutiny--a necessary act even if it no longer possessed illicit arms--Iraq's regime feinted and dodged. Colin Powell, during his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, increased U.S. pressure on the UN to enforce its demands: "... This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm, and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives. ... "[T]he information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors, in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work." What were these Security Council resolutions that Iraq had not obeyed? Their legalisms instructing Iraq to disclose and surrender all vestiges of its weapons programs run on for pages, but excerpts from two give their flavor: - Resolution 687, which Iraq had flouted since it was adopted on April 3, 1991, said the Security Council demanded that Iraq "unconditionally" accept the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all related research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It required Iraq to declare the locations, amounts and types of all such items and agree to on-site inspection. It said the Security Council "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire [such] items" and called for "a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. ..." - Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council: "... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "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. ..." Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution. On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches. U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete--and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441. France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes. With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq. On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq's failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq's weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein's intransigence: "My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. "Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. ... "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours," Bush said. "In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. "Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately." Early on March 20 in Iraq--the night of March 19 here--the first missiles struck Baghdad.
The UN then dispatched weapons inspectors to resume the search suspended in 1998. But rather than open itself to complete scrutiny--a necessary act even if it no longer possessed illicit arms--Iraq's regime feinted and dodged.
Colin Powell, during his Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the Security Council, increased U.S. pressure on the UN to enforce its demands: "... This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm, and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives. ...
"[T]he information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors, in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work."
What were these Security Council resolutions that Iraq had not obeyed? Their legalisms instructing Iraq to disclose and surrender all vestiges of its weapons programs run on for pages, but excerpts from two give their flavor:
- Resolution 687, which Iraq had flouted since it was adopted on April 3, 1991, said the Security Council demanded that Iraq "unconditionally" accept the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all related research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It required Iraq to declare the locations, amounts and types of all such items and agree to on-site inspection. It said the Security Council "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire [such] items" and called for "a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. ..."
- Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council:
"... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "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. ..."
Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.
On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches.
U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete--and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441.
France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes.
With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq.
On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq's failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq's weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein's intransigence:
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. ...
"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours," Bush said.
"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.
"Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately."
Early on March 20 in Iraq--the night of March 19 here--the first missiles struck Baghdad.
9/11 did change everything. and the 12/15 Iraqi elections, the aftermath of violence and politics in Iraq, and the Nov '06 elections will determine the short term view of this period of history. It's interesting to note that the Republican politicians are not 100% behind the war, butg even more interesting to see how confused and split the rudderless Democrats are. It's an issue that has split America--and only the elections will show how America comes out on this--Nov '06 and '08. History written in 2050 will give the final reviews.
And your proof is a conservative US paper's quotes from George W. Bush?...
I won't even qualify this. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And who are you to determine when actions lack and what should be done and when? That's the job of the 15 countries in the UN SC, and the overwhelming majority of them disagreed with Bush's and your interpreation *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And who are you to determine when actions lack and what should be done and when?
Last I heard, Iraq was disarmed.
What were these Security Council resolutions that Iraq had not obeyed? Their legalisms instructing Iraq to disclose and surrender all vestiges of its weapons programs run on for pages, but excerpts from two give their flavor:- Resolution 687, which Iraq had flouted since it was adopted on April 3, 1991, said the Security Council demanded that Iraq "unconditionally" accept the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all related research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. It required Iraq to declare the locations, amounts and types of all such items and agree to on-site inspection. It said the Security Council "Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire [such] items" and called for "a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. ..." - Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council: "... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "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. ..." Iraq was to give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council "has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." The resolution's 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.
- Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council: "... Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 ..." and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide "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. ..."
I had promised myself that since my thoughts were too far out of the ET mainstream on this subject, that I would not comment. Unfortunately I again broke that rule in responding to this diary. Hopefully this is my last comment on this subject.
At the UN SC, only Bush and three allies thought that - they failed to convince 11 others. And it's not just these 15: when de Villepin delivered his impassionate plea a month before the war, the ambassadors of the rest of the countries on the tribunes broke out in a spontaneous applause - something unprecedented (and against customs) at UN SC sessions. So get a grip.
While you may disagree with the positions of the US, it is a representative democracy
Please, don't come with this democratier-than-thou crap! Iraq is not America. The world is not America. What the US govermnent does beyond its borders, affecting non-US-citizens, is by default not democratic.
prove it, it was clearly laid out. They didn't
They did. You weren't listening. You stories like "Saddam threw out the inspectors", and preferred 'evidence' like the Niger yellowcakes story. Your government wasn't listening. You preferred to believe your government's claims of 'pack of lies' when your government seized Iraq's documentation of its WMD programme (which your government had to put under wraps because of named US participation in it).
One of the ironies was that much of the West was looking for extensive evidence that didn't exist, didn't exist precisely because Saddam first destroyed his WMD in 1991 in belief that then inspectors will find nothing. So when the Iraqis showed UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC, the sites where they had destroyed WMD and components, the inspectors said that yes we can verify you destroyed WMD here, but not how much - please give documents! Your government ignored the first part of this. The British government ignored the first part of this, and when they presented a last-minute 'compromise' proposal at the UN SC that made five demands to avoid war, the first was ironically a demand that he admit and hand over specific WMD he didn't have. Just before Bush terminated the inspections, the Iraqis were getting Blix to accept their proposals for advanced tests on the WMD sites, that could have say something about amounts too.
BTW, nice you quote just the part of 1441 Iraq fulfilled, in time, and then the caught-red-faced US government hijacked the documents from the UN. That was the 30 days for, your source again spins like hell.
Hopefully this is my last comment on this subject.
Seriously, it would be good if you stopped commenting, and started reading - reading sources other than pro-government investigation reports and papers. For example, you could start studying Professor Glen Rangwala's evaluations of the WMD evidence before the war. You could start reading Dailykos. Or, if you don't like the level of discussion there, much better: start pondering the assembled (and referenced) evidence in the kosopedia. You could also read the transscripts of the pre-war UN sessions (which I watched live, as mentioned at the beginning). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
classic troll behaviour. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
also I don't understand your troll comment. I'm a pretty regular poster, but a poster who doesn't share all of the common views of the site.
just looking at your limited history on the site?,,,,,,seems like an odd comment.
Actually, I criticised you, your judgement. It was you who drew a conclusion from the series of quotes, and since you haven't detailed any argument as to how you think your judgement follows from those facts, only Bush's words were there as 'arguments'. And I was aghast that you will base your judgement solely on the position of the guilty side - what the admin-friendly paper's collection of quotes can certainly not be called is an objective sampling of all the relevant facts.
And the omitted facts make your conclusion unwarranted on several levels. You forget about the explicit declarations that 1441 does not contain an automatism to war. You forget that 1441 entrusted the UN SC (kind of the UN's overseeing board, made up of 15 states not just the USA and France) with making a decision about whether the UN did its job, and what should be done. You forget that war is not only not the only serious consequence the UN SC could have meted out, but there were actual proposals - from France and Germany, again from France, Germany and Russia, separately from Mexico and others -, all of which would have meant a strenghtened and boradened inspections regime, but not war, and hence the USA dismissed them out of hand. You forget that Bush's, the Chicago Tribune's, and your interpretation failed to convince the overwhelming majority of the UN SC members, despite threats and bribes for all who resisted.
Furthermore, you forget to measure the UN's success in practical terms. You make it as if Saddam violating UN orders means failure, end of story. Whereas even if Saddam drags his feet, if he could be later forced into accepting demands, then the UN was effective, massively effective. This is how they dismantled the WMD programme: bit by bit, starting from Saddam's complete denial, then forcing him all the way down until he had to hand over even remaining documents. Saddam even didn't dare to touch the UN's seals on equipment and yellowcake during the four years of the UN's absence. You forget that starting an illegal war that kills 100,000 people (or even 10,000, or even 1,000) is a much bigger crime than delaying the success of inspectors.
Furthermore, you forget the US's role in the story as constant abuser and saboteur of the inspections process, an even more significant forcer of superseded resolutions than Saddam. You forget the parts about regional disarmament as condition in the post-Gulf-War resolutions. You forget the twisted story of the no-fly zones, which weren't approved by the UN (they were initially a US-British-French trilateral unilateralism, the French dropped out when Clinton started making decisions alone). You forget Desert Fox and what preceded it (from entry into palaces through undercover agents and provocations to thinly veiled excuses). You forget that Bush started the air war in August 2002 with a campaign to bomb air defenses unprovoked. You forget public declarations from Cheney down that the inspections are worthless, before they started (which were a rather clear message as to what Saddam has to prepare for). You forget the information withheld from UNSCOM and IAEA, despite 1441 spelling it out as a duty. You forget the bugged telephones at the UN and at UNSCOM. You forget that 1441 upholds 1284, which spells out a programme and timeframe for inspections, whose implementation was denied to Blix et al in a rush to war - the time for decision would have come after.
So I criticised your judgement, which seems as strange as when you declared that the Oil For Food program gave more into Saddam's pocket than on humanitarian goals. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
an 'ad hom' is an attack or insult towards the person's character, NOT his beliefs or even behaviour.
the mass madia is full of the arguments you consistently bring to the table here. i am glad for your presence , as it encourages retorts and rebuttals of the quality made below to you and your talking points.
i'm sure you're a nice, reasonable guy, but like many with your viewpoints, you offer nothing new or alternative in your posts.
i wish you well, as usually you are serious, polite and have done some considerable homework.
however, i am continually reminded by your predictable positioning and explanations that i haven't learned anything new from your posts, and it does irritate me somehow that someone of your obvious intelligence should come here and repeat stuff that parrots those who are placing our entire planet in peril right now; i come here for new and radical offerings to the important debates of today this forum offers.
so it's not personal, but when you accused him of an 'ad hom' it just eerily reminds me of how easily even a good thinker can become defensive and act like a victim, so to blow smoke.
as for you being a troll, that's not what i said.
i do find that conversational tactic deeply troll-like however!
behaviour/person = reflective but not equal
your character cannot be inferred by internet posts, but your behaviour as a writer can be seen and commented on.
a troll is an attention-seeking liar.
when challenged, their behaviour often consists of blowing smoke or playing victim.
ever notice?
if you come here to seriously and humourously debate with everyone, even though as you mention you are often the only one coming from where you do, then that's great, and all the better to have opposing viewpoints.
if you come here to undermine, sow doubt, and try to disempower original thinking by crying foul when there wasn't one, then you're a troll.
just saying...
thanks for reading ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim)
How do you explain the existence of plans to replace him that have been in the planning stage by the neo-con think tanks since at least 1993?
Also how do you explain the refusal of the deal that was brokered in the middle east to have Saddam "retire" to another Arab state and thus avoid the need to forcefully remove him. The US has been willing to see dictators leave without punishment in other cases. Haiti and Liberia are recent examples. They even get to keep a good chunk of their wealth.
As has been stated many times 9/11 was used as a convenient tactic to get support for the war. It was not a goal of the war. What we are discussing here is what the actual objectives were. Overthrow of Saddam is a plausible one, except for the fact that he was willing to leave. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
2) I don't find your Saddam resignation story credible. There are as many denials as statements that it is true. Some of the statements that it's true say Udey would replace him--what a gift that would have been.
9/11 changed nothing except the arrogance of the US.
