PeachMonkey said:
The previous UN inspectors believed they had destroyed Hussein's WMD program.
I don't know how you determined that...
UNSCR 1441 determined:
1) that Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
2) that Iraq has failed - in clear violation of its legal obligations - to disarm; and
3) that, in consequence, Iraq is in material breach of the conditions for the ceasefire laid down by the Council in SCR 687 at the end of the hostilities in 1991, thus reviving the authorisation in SCR 678.
1441 said that they hadn't completed the disarmament.
Paragraph 2 of SCR 678 authorised "Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions to restore international peace and security in the area." The phrase "all necessary means" was understood then (as it is now) as including the use of force.
The authorization [to use force under SCR 678] was suspended for so long as Iraq complied with the conditions of the ceasefire. But the authorisation could be revived if the Council determined that Iraq was acting in material breach of the requirements of SCR 687.
CNN 1/23/1998
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq has no intention of giving U.N. arms inspectors full access to potential weapons sites, chief weapons inspector Richard Butler told the 15-member Security Council on Friday.
The revelation, drawn from Butler's talks in Baghdad earlier this week, means the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) teams have little chance of fulfilling their duty to certify that Iraq has no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
CNN 4/24/1998
As described in the latest report, the criteria is threefold: "full declaration by Iraq, verification by the Commission, and destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision."
Butler argued that while Iraq may claim to have fully declared all of its weapons, its "consistent refusal" to provide UNSCOM with needed information and materials to back up the claims fails to satisfy the second step -- verification. That makes the destruction of all of Iraq's prohibited weapons programs impossible, the report said.
...
In contrast, Butler's UNSCOM report said the group had made "virtually no progress" over the last six months in determining whether Iraq is holding long-range missiles and chemical and biological weapons.
CNN 12/16/1998
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler claims in a report to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has failed to cooperate fully with his team of arms experts.
In the report, delivered to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan late Tuesday, Butler said Baghdad has not lived up to its promise to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has abandoned its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for Iraq's prohibited weapons program," Butler wrote.
CNN 3/14/2003
The United Nations has been waiting for months for Iraq to provide information that could prove what happened to chemical and biological weapons it possessed in the 1990s.
As much as 1,000 tons of VX are unaccounted for. Iraq also cannot account for as much as 2,245 gallons [8,500 liters] of anthrax.
...
Iraqi Air Force documents found by inspectors in 1998 show that Iraq dropped more than 13,000 chemical bombs during the Iraq-Iran War that lasted from 1983-1988. Iraq previously claimed that 19,500 bombs were used, which could mean that 3,500 bombs -- with more than 1,000 tons of VX -- are unaccounted for.
So in 1998, after 7 years we still didn't know what they had and what they didn't have. At that point, the inspectors left the country because of unbelievable Iraqi demands to them.
PeachMonkey said:
Before our recent invasion and occuation, the United Nations was inspecting his program, had not found evidence of a WMD program, and requested more time to complete their investigation. This time was denied them, and the invasion was launched. If Hussein had then proceeded to throw out the inspectors, or continued to prevaricate, then the UN could have acted; if the UN had continued to fail to act, then the US would been justified to act unilaterally. None of these actions were allowed to take place.
Let's see, after 12 years we put forth UNSCR 1441 to give Iraq a final attempt to comply with it's responsibilities required by the UN. 1441 was approved by the UN. It spelled out in detail what Iraq must do to be considered compliant and that serious consequences would be delivered if they didn't. They had several months to comply and didn't. We invaded.
In 2003, we gave them another chance to come clean. We still didn't know what they had and what they didn't. As they had done over the passed 10 years, they balked at their responsibilities. They were again asked to provide a weapons declaration because the previous one was found lacking.
Butler Report,
Dr Blix, 27 January "Regrettable, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number".
IAEA written report, 27 January "The Declaration contains numerous clarifications. It does not include, however, additional information related to the questions and concerns" outstanding since 1998.
Some questions outstanding were:
- Amount of mustard gas unaccounted for is at least 80 tonnes.
- it cannot be excluded that [Iraq] has retained some capability with regard to VX that could still be viable today. There are significant discrepancies in accounting for all key VX precursors.
- It seems highly probable that destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax, stated by Iraq to be at Al Hakam in July/August 1991, did not occur. Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist". (Unresolved Disarmament Issues, 6 March)
The Declaration also contained significant falsehoods, many listed in the Butler Report.
CNN 1/31/2003
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday he has so far seen no evidence of a promised increase in Iraqi cooperation and that he is still considering Baghdad's offer to return for further discussions on disarmament.
...
Blix told the council Monday that Iraq has not fully accounted for its stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has not fully accepted its obligation to disarm under U.N. Resolution 1441.
According to the Chief Weapons Inspector himself, Iraq wasn't forthcoming. The inspectors were trying to do their jobs, but there was no Iraqi cooperation that was required to keep an invasion at bay.
PeachMonkey said:
Iraq had not attacked the United States; had not been proven to have WMDs; inspections were underway again; the sanctions regime punishing Iraq for its previous failure to comply with inspections was, all of its brutal human rights violations aside, depriving Iraq of its ability to develop WMD; the United States did not declare war on Iraq;
They did not attack the US, true. But they had attacked Kuwait and we were part of the UN force that repelled them and have been there since 1991 trying to make them comply with the UN resolutions.
We had proof that they had the weapons prior to 1991. They had not fully declared what was destroyed, so we (the UN and arms inspectors) had to assume the stuff was still there. In some instances the inspectors found weapon capabilities we didn't even know they had (biological). In others, we had proof that they had more than they were declaring (VX gas).
I don't know what you want to say we declared war on them, but both the House and the Senate voted for military action.
CNN 10/10/2002
The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.
CNN 10/11/2002
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
...
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
So let me see. A country attacks another and is repelled. They're told to give up all of their weapons, and prove they have done so, and they refuse. Over a period of 12 years, we hem and haw trying to get them to comply. For 4 years they even refuse inspectors to enter their country. We finally threaten to invade and they give in (as had been done several times in the '90s). The UN gives another resolution that says comply or else, and they choose else. Now we're the bad guys. Gosh, sorry but I don't understand your viewpoint.
WhiteBirch
)) AND Bush was re-elected post-oopsus, that all this pulpit pounding about 'character, honesty and the American way...' really means little to the mob? Does it mean that the PR axium of any press is good press is true? Could this be grounds for a discussion/justification for a return to a ruling class if the voted officials are corruptable/corrupted regardless of party?
