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. ..."
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.
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.
