Former UN Weapons Inspectors assessment

Loomer

Scott Ritter, Chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1994-1998, has this to say about the threat (or lack thereof) of Iraq:

"What was Iraq hiding? Documentation primarily - documents that would enable them to reconstitute - at a future date - weapons of mass destruction capability....But all of this is useless...unless Iraq has access to the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars required to rebuild the industrial infrastructure (necessary) to build these weapons. They didn't have it in 1998. They don't have it today. This paranoia about what Iraq is doing now that there aren't weapons inspectors reflects a lack of understanding of the reality in Iraq.

"The economic sanctions have devastated this nation. The economic sanctions, combined with the effects of the Gulf War, have assured that Iraq operate as a Third World nation in terms of industrial output and capacity. They have invested enormous resources in trying to build a 150-kilometer range ballistic missile called the Al Samoud.

"In 1998 they ran some flight tests of prototypes that they had built of this missile. They fizzled. One didn't get off the stand. The other flipped over on the stand and blew up. The other one got up in the air and then went out of control and blew up. They don't have the ability to produce a short-range ballistic missile yet alone a long-range ballistic missile....

"The other thing to realize is: they are allowed to build this missile. It's not against the law. The law says anything under 150 kilometers they can build and yet people are treating this missile as if it's a threat to regional security....It's a tactical battlefield missile, that's it. Yet, (Congressman Tom) Lantos and others treat this as though it's some sort of latent capability and requires a ballistic missile defense system to guard against it. It's ridiculous. Iraq has no meaningful weapons of mass destruction program today."

Why don't we hear this on SKY News??

Why don't we hear this on SKY News??

Maybe because the only details we hear about are anti-iraq. Lets face it, both the US & the UK have a propaganda program in place. Most european news is quite neutral, however i do think the UK & US have some influence over the current situation.

The Saint

Also Sky news is owned by Rupert "Satan" Murdoch. I find Ch 4 news quite good.

festivala

Kind of rich to expect a TV station with 'TARGET IRAQ' splashed all over the screen to be fair and balanced.

Imagine the outcry if a Middle Eastern country stuck 'TARGET USA' over footage of the Sept. 11 bombings.

Meh

Originally posted by Loomer
But all of this is useless...unless Iraq has access to the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars required to rebuild the industrial infrastructure (necessary) to build these weapons. They didn't have it in 1998. They don't have it today.

Isn't Iraq earning billions of dollars selling oil (under the OFP and by smuggling)?

"In 1998 they ran some flight tests of prototypes that they had built of this missile. They fizzled.

And we're supposed to believe that the Iraqi weapons scientists have just been sitting on their hands doing nothing for the 5 years since 1998?

But yes, Sky News does suck.

mike65

What were those aluminium tubes for, a centrafuge or long range missiles?.

What about the thouands of tonnes of precursor materials for chemical and biological waepons which have gone missing since 1998.

Mike.

pickarooney

Originally posted by mike65
What were those aluminium tubes for, a centrafuge or long range missiles?.

Big fúck-off Cuban cigars?

Loomer

In response to meh the program is called Oil for Food not oil for moolah.

And Mike alll the proposed Chemical and Biological agents that Iraq had Degraded years ago and are completely harmless.

And as one guy said in response to Bush's State of the Union address,

"...The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

Is like saying that a man has enough sperm to impregnate several million women. Theoretically true, but if you don’t have sufficient delivery systems, it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that Iraq has any delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological weapons in a way that could endanger large populations.

Meh

Originally posted by Loomer
In response to meh the program is called Oil for Food not oil for moolah.

Even assuming thatevery single cent from the OFP has gone to buy food and medicine, that still leaves Saddam billions of dollars from the smuggled oil.

There is no evidence that Iraq has any delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological weapons in a way that could endanger large populations.

Well, they were actively testing missiles with a range of 150 miles five years ago. Nobody knows what progress they've made in the meantime, because the inspectors had to leave soon afterwards.

Victor

Originally posted by Meh
Isn't Iraq earning billions of dollars selling oil (under the OFP and by smuggling

I'm not sure how much money you can make by smuggling oil in trawlers and coasters (remember it would be sold at less than wholesale prices - maybe €0.20/l).

Originally posted by Meh
And we're supposed to believe that the Iraqi weapons scientists have just been sitting on their hands doing nothing for the 5 years since 1998?

I think the Americans (and Russians) would notice if there was a developed ballistic missile programme - the plumes are quite noticeable, even from space.

Originally posted by mike65
What were those aluminium tubes for, a centrafuge or long range missiles?.

The Iraqis say short range missiles (which they are allowed) - nothing more sophisticated than waht the Irish Army has to be honest.

Meh

Originally posted by Victor
I'm not sure how much money you can make by smuggling oil in trawlers and coasters (remember it would be sold at less than wholesale prices - maybe €0.20/l).

It's not just small boats, the oil goes in large tankers and by land to Turkey, Syria and Jordan as well. Here's one fairly detailed article that estimates smuggling is worth about $1 billion a year to Saddam.

Originally posted by Victor
The Iraqis say short range missiles (which they are allowed) - nothing more sophisticated than waht the Irish Army has to be honest.

I don't think , theres any danger of the Irish army aiming missiles at Ballymena though:p
Also, didn't colin Powell in his briefing yesterday, suggest that Iraq had tested a missile with a non stop range of 600 KMs?
I remember him putting up a diagram showing it had gone round and round , in a sort of grand prix circuit.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by Man
Also, didn't colin Powell in his briefing yesterday, suggest that Iraq had tested a missile with a non stop range of 600 KMs?

It's a 'drone' aircraft (an pilotless L-39 trainer with ground control). While it may have a 600 km range, effective range would be much less (so it can be controlled). Of course a reconnaisance drone would also operate in a racetrack pattern (not a grand prix pattern), all aircraft do when 'on station'.

Sand

Ive been reading Colin Powells presentation - horses mouth and all that - check it out here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html if youre interested.


Heres what some other UN weapons inspectors said.

As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it,'' unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.''

Note what he ( Iraqi officer on wiretap ) says: ``We evacuated everything.'' We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

There are other examples of Iraqis discussing how best to hide "modified vehicles" - those mobile chemical/biological factories perhaps?, "forbidden ammo" and so on - more than mere documentation? The inspectors despite having an Iraqi committee devoted to "monitoring" them and their activities and the apparent rush to clean up sites before their visits managed to get lucky and find 12 empty chemical warheads. 3000 Iraqis on UNSCOMs list of those involved in the Iraqi weapons program have apparently vanished.

Is like saying that a man has enough sperm to impregnate several million women. Theoretically true, but if you don’t have sufficient delivery systems, it simply cannot be done. There is no evidence that Iraq has any delivery systems that can effectively disseminate biological weapons in a way that could endanger large populations.

Mr Powell?

The Iraqi regime has also developed ways to disburse lethal biological agents, widely and discriminately into the water supply, into the air. For example, Iraq had a program to modify aerial fuel tanks for Mirage jets. This video of an Iraqi test flight obtained by UNSCOM some years ago shows an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet aircraft. Note the spray coming from beneath the Mirage; that is 2,000 liters of simulated anthrax that a jet is spraying. _________________Iraq *admitted* to producing four spray tanks. But to this day, it has provided no credible evidence that they were destroyed, evidence that was required by the international community.

Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

I.E. Iraq talks a load of crap, lies through its teeth and only admits when its caught out.

Oh and it seems the Iraqis have far far higher standards than the US milatary for their conventional rockets. Ahum. Despite being an economically devastated country you have to pay top dollar for those conventional rockets eh?:)


And more things former UN weapons inspectors said

Ricard Butler ( a chief weapons inspector at that ) - " [Powell] demonstrated that it is not a question of superficial co-operation with inspectors but it is the continuation by Iraq of its weapons programme"

David Kay - "[Powell] met very well the challenge of talking directly about why we believe this is a threat "



However, you cant really convince those who dont *want* to be convinced. The primary reason why Im glad the US has stated it will go ahead regardless - Germany for example has declared it will not support milatary action *even* if the UN approves it. These are people who dont *want* to be convinced. Why waste time convincing them? France and Russia are kowtowing to their oil interests in Iraq - so what if they have to be friends with Saddam. hes not next door. Theyd be mad to topple a dictatorship that has shown them a good deal whilst having their companies scrambling for contracts with a democratic regime which might actually have the interests of the Iraqis in mind rather than the interests of Saddam. Like I said, they dont *want* to be convinced.

Powell is not an idiot. Hes not a hawk. Hes known not to be keen for invading countries willy nilly. He was known to be doubting the causes for invading Iraq. Hes now making the case for taking Iraq to task. Do you think maybe he was convinced by the evidence?

bonkey

I notice that when the US is often criticised for past events in Vietnam, WW2, Korea, Cuba, the Middle East etc. ad nauseum and so on and so forth, one of the most common excuses is "that was in the past - such practices are no longer carried out".

Anyone criticising American is basically told that this criticism is no longer valid, because, well, things change.

Apparently, this is only allowed to apply as a defence for the US. Iraq lied on its VX gas production? Of course it did...back when it thought it had a chance. This, however, is no evidence that it is lying today. Just as with the US, it is possible that things change.

So perhaps we should stop looking at the past, and start looking at the present. Stop assuming that lies are being told, and look at what would appear to be the two presented sides of the issue.

What remains today is 1.5 tons which are - according to Powell - unaccounted for. Yet the Iraqi's insist that while this was produced (1990?), it decayed so quickly that it was never even put into storage. This resulted in differing paperwork - one which said that the stuff was produced, and one which said that the stuff was never stored. These sets of paperwork have already been validated (I believe by previous inspections from UNSCOM) as being genuine.

So - who do we believe? The US, who insist that these 1.5 tonnes are still an issue? Hans Blix, who the US insist supports this claim? The Iraqi's, who insist that this stuff is no longer in existence? The UNSCOM inspectors who previously verified the pertinent paperwork?

Personally, I refuse to live in a world where any nation can condemn another to invasion simply on their (the invader's) word that a crime has been comitted.

Similarly, Powell insists that Iraq has these mobile chemical processing plants. Lets ignore the power and water requirements for just a second and assume that these things are really that mobile. It is a well-known fact that the US has spy-satellites with relatively high resolution. It may not be enough to identify individuals (although it is rumoured to be that good or close to it), but it is certainly good enough to identify vehicles off the beaten track. So why haven't they been found?

The only satellite evidence presented was claimed to be an illicit chemical store. First of all, the question remains why this took so long to be presented. Secondly, the Iraqi's have already stated that this was an old bunker, with insufficient ventilation to make it suitable for the task, and have offered access to the inspectors if they wish it.

Powell claimed the palaces are being used for storage, despite the Iraqi's allowing access to any area of any palace that has been requested.

Powell criticised Iraqi support of Al Qaeda, citing the presence of a known operative in Northern Iraq where the Iraqi's have no effective control thanks to the no-fly zone maintained by the very people issuing the complaint.

Powell criticised the existence of a 2000 / 3000 page report being found in the privat eresidence of a scientist - proof (he claimed) of them withholding and hiding documents. He failed to mention that the scientist in question was the author of the report, and that the report had been released as part of the previous weapons inspections.

(As an interesting aside, it is somewhat amusing that Hans Blix was failry condemning of the incompleteness and innacuracy of the Iraqi weapons report, and yet in his own report apparently managed to give two significantly differing page counts for this discovered report. If he and his team can't be accurate about something which happened under the strictest supervision in the very recent past, isnt it somewhat disingenuous to criticise the Iraqi records for their imperfection over thousands of pages, with information spanning a decade and more?)

Ultimately, there were some interesting points raised, but the simple fact remains that very little, if anything, that Powell raised is verifiable as a credible, new issue. The vast majority of them were basically saying "look - Iraq wasnt fully co-operative a decade ago, so they must be lying now".

The Iraqi's, in their various rebuttals, were able to cite back to their weapons declaration and the work of previous UN inspections to supply most of their explanations.

What is interesting is the areas where Iraqi explanation was weak. These are the areas where there is most to be learned.

Ultimately, both sides are involved in propaganda. The US does not seem to be content with proving one of its allegations, it wants to prove them all and this may ultimatley be its downfall.

Some of its allegations are almost undoubtedly true, but if even one is not then all Iraq will need to do is prove that one point in order to collapse much of the support the US has.

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
It is a well-known fact that the US has spy-satellites with relatively high resolution. It may not be enough to identify individuals (although it is rumoured to be that good or close to it), but it is certainly good enough to identify vehicles off the beaten track. So why haven't they been found?

Good points bonkey, but does anyone really think the US really wants the weapons inspectors to find all those WMD that it's so sure Iraq possesses?

Because if they're revealed, the inspectors (I presume) get to destroy them, removing the case for war.

Even if I believed all of Powell's evidence, which I don't (such as the footage of that spray-plane, taken 'some years ago'. When's that, then?), it still wouldn't justify anything except an intensified and extended inspection regime. But I guess there's no reasoning with people who have decided on war and just won't be convinced otherwise.

Loomer

Sand, you've caught me out.

I don't want to be convinced that 100,000s of Iraqi civilians should face death, starvation, homelessness, disease & malnutration.

All I have been convinced of is that America is not willing to take the time required for the Inspectors to do there job. Every instance of Powell's speech is at face value, speculation. This is not me not wanting to be convinced, (although I think Powell surrendered a lot of credibility by refering a link between Iraq and al-qaeda) it is the view of many people from either side of the fence, experts on International Law included.

Do you know what pisses me off about the whole situation and I'm sure a lot more people like me.

Americas flagrant application of double standard. Palestenian people were treated abominally in Jenin last year. The Israeli government continues its illegal encroachment onto Palestenian land (would you believe they have UN Sanctions forbidding them - no, your probably not convinced). The USA does nothing but coo sweet nothings down the phone. Ha! They even pleaded with Sharon to back off a bit so as they could go into Iraq.

This may wash with a lot of people but not with me. Just because America's third biggest lobby group is the Jewish lobby America is to **** scared to take a tough stance over Israel. Bull****

It Stinks. Instead they go after a Third World country which was made that way by sanctions. In the pursuit of that good ol' Texas Teed.

I know the Wall Street Journal isn't a very reputable paper, but I found it interesting when they ran a story a month ago about Dick "ex-Halliburton Oil" Cheney meeting with a group of big oil company executives in the White House to discuss the future of Iraqi oil after the Invasion. Not surprisingly, The White House and executives refused comment.

So you see Sand, for the bull**** rhetoric and evidence I've seen. Myself and a lot of other people are far from convinced about a lot of things.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The primary reason why Im glad the US has stated it will go ahead regardless - Germany for example has declared it will not support milatary action *even* if the UN approves it. These are people who dont *want* to be convinced.

Convinced of what? Convinced that Saddam is a bad guy? Convinced that he is in material breach of 1441? Convinced that the only resolution to the situation is to forcibly remove the man from power by means of an invasion?

Germany does not have a veto. It cannot prevent the UN from passing a mandate for war. It has one vote on the security council out of 15.

So exactly why is this a reason for the US to go ahead without UN sanction? I thought the US was the great upholder of freedom and democracy. I never knew that meant "freedom to believe what the US wants us to believe, and to democratically decide to do what the US wants us to do"???

Germany, at best, can vote against a UN mandate for war. This is its right - if the purpose of the UN was simply to vote in agreement with the US, then it truly would be a pointless and useless organisation.

The real issue for the US is not that Germany might not support action, but that enough nations might not support action, or that one of the other 3 permanent members (US and UK excluded for obvious reasons) might veto action.

The first - a majority decision against action - is clearly not something which the US should have to abide by. After all, no nation should be forced to abide by a democratic decision, made in an open and democratic forum, in abidance with rules that said nation has signed up to. Well - this should probably apply to every nation, but only when the US agrees.

The second - a veto - has clearly even less claim to being something which the US should have to abide by. No democratic decision here...no, no. Just one nation exercising its undemocratic right to enforce its opposition to something on all other members. OK, this is again in abidance with the rules which the US signed up to, but that doesnt mean anything....because the US should not be required to abide by anyone else's veto.

jc

Loomer

All our talk and posturing will count for nothing if we do not make some collective statement against this reprehensible attempt to further the Bush regimes hegemony in imperialistic desires in the guise of peacekeeping.

Any one who has spoken out you know the time and place:

Saturday Feburary 15th, 2:00PM Parnell Square.

This is very likely/conveniently the day that America will strike Iraq.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
Good points bonkey, but does anyone really think the US really wants the weapons inspectors to find all those WMD that it's so sure Iraq possesses?

Because if they're revealed, the inspectors (presume) get to destroy them, removing the case for war.

Absolutely. Why do you think the US are pushing acceptance of a "accept now, get proof later" stance. If people had the proof, they could probably avoid the war.

After all, why else would they present evidence of duplicity to back up Powell's statements which had not previously been given to weapons inspectors??? Here we have the US insisting that it has evidence, that this evidence has not previously been given to the weapons inspectors (for unspecified reasons), and yet insisting that there is no purpose in the weapons inspections continuing.

Why? Surely their continuation would only prove or disprove the US evidence. If it proves it, then material breach of 1441 is undeniable, and the US will have a clear path to do what it wants (barring a Chinese veto).

The only reasons for witholding it till now, and opposing further weapons inspections at the same time as presenting the evidence are :

1) You do not have faith in the validity of your evidence
2) You have faith in your evidence, but dont want it to actually be used at this point in time.

I'm open to other options, but neither of these are particularly flattering.

jc

Sand

Anyone criticising American is basically told that this criticism is no longer valid, because, well, things change. Apparently, this is only allowed to apply as a defence for the US.

Well not really. The American administrations change - so youve got different political views and fads every few years. Now with Iraq Saddams been on a bit of a roll at the polls for the last ...oooh ...few decades or so. So whilst it might not be fair to say that because say Clinton is a lying so and so who sleeps around that Bush is a lying so and so who sleeps around - whereas it is fair to say Saddam is a lying so whose absolutely ruthless in his determination to hold power ...whether it 1988, or 2003.

Secondly, the Iraqi's have already stated that this was an old bunker, with insufficient ventilation to make it suitable for the task, and have offered access to the inspectors if they wish it.

Before or after 25 trucks show up out of the blue at the bunker?:)

Ultimately, there were some interesting points raised, but the simple fact remains that very little, if anything, that Powell raised is verifiable as a credible, new issue. The vast majority of them were basically saying "look - Iraq wasnt fully co-operative a decade ago, so they must be lying now".

Well theres a track record of lying and deception and attempts to de-rail the weapons inspections teams in their work - and the UN weapons inspection teams are saying "look Iraq isnt fully co-operative (i.e lying, clearing out dodgy sites before visits, and seemingly hiding suspicious stuff from the teams) *NOW*"

Because if they're revealed, the inspectors (I presume) get to destroy them, removing the case for war.

I dont think the teams have the capability on the ground to do that - only two people are going to close down the production facilities and destroy any manufactured weapons ...Saddam or an outside force ( not neccessarily the US ). If theyre found what happens next would depend on how far they are from being usable. If Saddam is to regain his freedom of action he *needs* WMD - he cant win a conventional victory so if he has WMD he can probably bluff surrounding arab states to stop allowing allied forces to base themselves there.

Sand, you've caught me out...........................Palestenian people were treated abominally in Jenin last year. The Israeli government continues its illegal encroachment onto Palestenian land (would you believe they have UN Sanctions forbidding them - no, your probably not convinced). The USA does nothing but coo sweet nothings down the phone. Ha! They even pleaded with Sharon to back off a bit so as they could go into Iraq.................

So youre opposed to the US on the Iraqi issue because of the Israelis and the Palestinians? Like I said - why does the US even bother trying to convince some people who are not even on the same page?:)

So exactly why is this a reason for the US to go ahead without UN sanction?

Its an example of the attitude on the security council - even if the US dragged out photos of Saddam riding a nuke waving his stetson, along with a signed confession from Saddam the Germans still wouldnt support any attempt to punish him for breaching UN resolutions. So you can waste your time dragging all that out - unlikley - and the Germans will still be uninterested. Thats their right, but like I said Im glad the US is going to do what shouldve been done a long time ago with or without the aid of the UN. Its the same for say France - but in a different way as theyre angling for a deal on oil - theyve got a good deal of Saddam now so its in their interests to keep him in power. Russians the same. These people dont want to be convinced - they dont care tbh - all they want is the oil.

The first - a majority decision against action - is clearly not something which the US should have to abide by. After all, no nation should be forced to abide by a democratic decision, made in an open and democratic forum, in abidance with rules that said nation has signed up to. Well - this should probably apply to every nation, but only when the US agrees.

Maybe the UN will pass a resolution about it? Its all they seem to do when nations ignore democratic decisions. Lets be honest - the UN cant do much if its ignored. If it could it would have solved the Palestinian conflict, disarmed Iraq and brought about a peaceful revolution there, cured AIDS and brought peace and goodwill to all men. Would the world really miss a council of self interested, cynical, hypocritical and ineffectual diplomats granting themselves a veneer of morality? Look at the present disagreement - do you think that if Russia and France reckoned they could get a better oil deal after Saddam was gone , or if China wasnt maybe worried about a US friendly Iraq supplying its oil that they wouldnt be all in there with a spoon? Why exactly would the US, or indeed any nation, have any moral imperitive to follow the lead of such an organisation?

All our talk and posturing will count for nothing if we do not make some collective statement against this reprehensible attempt to further the Bush regimes hegemony in imperialistic desires in the guise of peacekeeping

Well need to something bold and imaginitive. Something fresh to get us out of this rut.

I know. Lets have a protest.

I'm open to other options, but neither of these are particularly flattering.

3) WMD found. UN says to destory them. Saddam says "No". Next step? US will have to any dirty work anyway so why would they wish to alert Saddam that theyve an idea where hes storing them or likely to be storing them so that their eventual job is all the harder?

mike65

Originally posted by Loomer
Saturday Feburary 15th, 2:00PM Parnell Square.

This is very likely/conveniently the day that America will strike Iraq.

Was'nt this date chosen because many belive it will be the start date?

Mike.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I dont think the teams have the capability on the ground to do that - only two people are going to close down the production facilities and destroy any manufactured weapons ...Saddam or an outside force ( not neccessarily the US ).

I don't know how you could arrive at this conclusion, unless your priorities were
(1) a war, and
(2) disarmament, maybe.
And in that order.

Far more Iraq WMD were destroyed by the previous inspectors, UNSCOM, than in the Gulf War. If the inspectors do discover stores of WMD, your two options both involve the inspectors being withdrawn (or killed or taken hostage) and the weapons lost to scrutiny. Think about that - all this effort, supposedly to find out whether iraq has WMD, then when they're found, Saddam gets to hide them again.

Unless the inspectors can be the 'outside force' that destroys the weapons. If they don't have the authority and capability to do that now, then what should happen when they find WMD is that they should dig in and keep tabs on them, and wait for the new resolution authorising destruction of the WMD that would be swiftly forthcoming from the Security Council.

Maybe the UN will pass a resolution about it? Its all they seem to do when nations ignore democratic decisions. Lets be honest - the UN cant do much if its ignored. If it could it would have solved the Palestinian conflict, disarmed Iraq and brought about a peaceful revolution there, cured AIDS and brought peace and goodwill to all men ... Why exactly would the US, or indeed any nation, have any moral imperitive to follow the lead of such an organisation?

Is this hypocrisy or just ignorance? You say that the US or anyone else shouldn't be expected to pay attention to the UN because it can't solve the world's problems because it 's ignored?? At which point it becomes glaringly obvious that the UN can only make progress if member countries stop ignoring it and start cooperating.

And this is not just a moral imperative, it's a practical one too. Presumably you'd like to see countries do their own thing and not pay a whit of attention to this ineffectual and useless international organisation.

Well, after a brief period of chaos and catastrophe, you will inevitably find that at least some and probably most of the countries in the world will conclude that some sort of institutionalised cooperation is in order. They'll club together in some sort of association of nations, draw up agreements and charters, and set about trying to persuade other countries to join.

Problems only arise with countries which are powerful enough or wilful enough to ignore world opinion and undermine international organisations. The solution is obviously to try to limit these countries' power. For which you'll need some sort of powerful international organisation, or at least some far-sighted political thinking in the countries themselves. This will always be a feature of international politics, at least until all the rogue states in the world cop themselves on.

Sand

Like I said it depends on how close those WMDs are to being usable - if theyre miles away Saddam might as well destroy them himself and save the US some time. If hes close to being able to deploy them he can play for some time and assuming he wins the race tell the UN to go feck itself once he has them - which is no doubt why hes trying so hard to get them.

And this is not just a moral imperative, it's a practical one too.

Its just an organisation where powerful nations decide on slices of the pie. None of the UN security council members are making a moral or non-self interested view so theres no moral imperitive in following their actions. Given the ludicrous/hilarious authorities they have on human rights theres even less reason to listen to their lectures. Basically the UN is just another alliance of nations - such as kept the world at "peace" in the century between the naplonic wars and ww1 as they divided up the world between them. Oh, and they have a sideline in aid work.

Theyre routinely ignored - and even lack the conviction to punish those who break their own resolutions so why should anyone care what they do or say? Why should the US in this case?

An example - say the US attacks Iraq anyway and topples Saddam and installs a provisional government before holding elections. What exactly is the UN going to do?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
whereas it is fair to say Saddam is a lying so whose absolutely ruthless in his determination to hold power ...whether it 1988, or 2003.

Not really.

The whole western image of Saddam as a ruthless madman who does anything to hold on to power only emerged after the first Gulf War. Before that he was an unsung western hero, valiantly keeping Iraq safe from the tyranny of Iran with the somewhat-covert assistance of the West.

Since the Gulf War, he's a paranoid maniacal power-crazed lying butcher who is worse than Hitler, wants to destroy the US, and will do anything to stay in power.

And yet here you are arguing that Saddam is the way he was a decade ago because people dont change.

Before or after 25 trucks show up out of the blue at the bunker?:)

It may come as a surprise, but trucks can be used for stuff other than illegal WMD work

Indeed - it could have been (gasp, horror) conventional military operations....which are completely legitimate, and which Iraq retains the right to keep hidden from the UN.

Incidentally - that was the biggest failing of the first Gulf War. If Saddam had WMDs today, the best place for him to hide them would be slap-bang in the middle of his troop deployments, because its the one place the weapons inspectors will never get to see.

Well theres a track record of lying and deception and attempts to de-rail the weapons inspections teams in their work

Yeah - like those pesky intelligence agents which riddled the inspectors manpower.

Maybe the UN will pass a resolution about it? Its all they seem to do when nations ignore democratic decisions. Lets be honest - the UN cant do much if its ignored. If it could it would have solved the Palestinian conflict, disarmed Iraq and brought about a peaceful revolution there, cured AIDS and brought peace and goodwill to all men.

Yup - except that the UN Security Council (at the least) would never have come into existence without the major powers being given veto rights, and it is their exercising of these veto rights which has prevented most of the realistic things you refer to.

I think you'll find that most of the lack of "interference" in the Palestinian issue, for example, comes from the US vetoing any involvement.

Which makes it somewhat ironic that you argue that the US is correct in not standing by the UN because of US-imposed veto's against action.

Yes - I'm well aware that they're not the only culprit...you just picked a bad example in Israel/Palestine.

My point is that if the world's foremost power is not willing to work with the UN, its a bit facetious to then criticise the UN as being ineffectual.

do you think that if Russia and France reckoned they could get a better oil deal after Saddam was gone , or if China wasnt maybe worried about a US friendly Iraq supplying its oil that they wouldnt be all in there with a spoon?

If its all about the oil, then neither the US nor any of the other players are being in any way moralistic. The US wants to control it and the others dont want the US to control it. Personally, I think that this casts them all in an equally damning light.

Its so convenient to say that "its all about X" for some of the nations, then rubbish the exact same idea when it is applied to others - for no reason other than that it supports a particular stance. And yet it gets trotted out time and time again...

The US wants oil, Europe wants peace.
The US wants security, Europe wants oil.

What about the other two combinations - everyone is in it for the oil, or no-one is in it for the oil. Both of these actually are more self-consistent when you analyse them closely.

The simple fact is that the oil argument, whichever way its presented does not make sense. If Saddam is a tyrannical madman who wants to destroy the west, then oil contracts are not worth anything. If he's not all that bad, and doesnt really want to destroy the West, and therefore the deals and contracts are actually worth something, then what the hell is the US invading for?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
If its all about the oil, then neither the US nor any of the other players are being in any way moralistic. The US wants to control it and the others dont want the US to control it. Personally, I think that this casts them all in an equally damning light.
jc

If it is all about the oil, then,thats one of the most agreeable statements I've read here today.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
If its all about the oil, then neither the US nor any of the other players are being in any way moralistic. The US wants to control it and the others dont want the US to control it. Personally, I think that this casts them all in an equally damning light.

This exposes the falacy of the "if you are not with us, you are against us" doctrine (save in specific cases). There is a third way, Iraq can control the oil.

And all too often, Europe is to the front of advocating "third way"s.

Loomer

Originally posted by Man
If it is all about the oil, then,thats one of the most agreeable statements I've read here today.
mm

Or one could also say:

If its all about the sources, then thats one of the most agreeable [sound]bites I've swallowed all day

bonkey

Cool - I think that this could be the first time someone has accused me of soundbiting on these boards

jc

There is a third way, Iraq can control the oil.

strange, considering it is their resource, after all.... I daresay Britain would be pissed if America tried taking control of their gas resources...

Originally posted by klaz
strange, considering it is their resource, after all.... I daresay Britain would be pissed if America tried taking control of their gas resources...

which gases would you be talking about there now...??
Vx, syron..mustard......
mm

Loomer

Originally posted by Man
which gases would you be talking about there now...??
Vx, syron..mustard......
mm

Syron??? Isn't that the thing on top of a fyor enjin?

Victor

Originally posted by Man
syron..

Sarin.

Originally posted by Victor
Sarin.

It's my culchie accent:D
mm

Sand

And yet here you are arguing that Saddam is the way he was a decade ago because people dont change.

Saddam didnt change - as you said, only his *image* changed - and then his image as defender of the west was extremely patchy at best. Previous administrations allied themselves to him. This administration has set itself to toppling him. The man himself didnt suddenly turn "bad" after 91.

Indeed - it could have been (gasp, horror) conventional military operations....which are completely legitimate, and which Iraq retains the right to keep hidden from the UN.

It may, but it also has an obligation to completely satisfy weapons inspections - by implication conventional milatary secrets may be slightly impacted by being 100% sure that WMD werent in that bunker or similar installations, that it was merely as you say conventional weaponry.

Yup - except that the UN Security Council (at the least) would never have come into existence without the major powers being given veto rights, and it is their exercising of these veto rights which has prevented most of the realistic things you refer to.

Exactly - the UN was never meant to have any real power - how could it - its not an independant organisation, its just a front operation for major powers ( stressing the term when referring to France and Britain tbh ) to carve up the post war world. Its a talking shop, a flag of convenience.

My point is that if the world's foremost power is not willing to work with the UN, its a bit facetious to then criticise the UN as being ineffectual.

If the UN was a viable organisation the lack of co-operation from *one* member shouldnt be enough to render it ineffectual. If it is then at best the UN is an advisory board for US foreign policy whilst the final decisions are made in the White house. At worst....

Its so convenient to say that "its all about X" for some of the nations, then rubbish the exact same idea when it is applied to others - for no reason other than that it supports a particular stance. And yet it gets trotted out time and time again...

The US could go the french/russian route and just relax the sanctions, make friends with Saddam and buy the oil far more cheaply than fighting a war which will inflame anti - american sentiment, cost them a hell of a lot of money and, potentially, lives whilst getting potentially bogged down in Iraqi nation building. The fact that they arent suggests theres more to their position than oil. Theres nothing to suggest the french/russian position is about anything other than a good oil deal, with the germans tagging along on the back of populist sentiment.