PDA

View Full Version : US claims on Iraq called into question


medea
Feb 15, 2003, 04:32 PM
Colin Powell's long dossier of Iraq's alleged non-compliance came under withering attack from the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday. They said they found several elements of his evidence either false or unconvincing.

Colin Powell's long dossier of Iraq's alleged non-compliance came under withering attack from the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday. They said they found several elements of his evidence either false or unconvincing.
Hans Blix picked on two satellite images of a chemical warfare site, which the US secretary of state told the security council, in his 90-minute presentation last week, proved Iraq was engaged in deception.
Mr Powell had shown two photographs of the site at Al Musayyib, taken in May and July last year. The site was used to trans-ship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field, he said.
On the first occasion there was what Mr Powell described as a "decontamination vehicle associated with biological and chemical weapons activity". Two months later the vehicle had gone and the site had been bulldozed and graded, he said.
But Mr Blix made it clear he found the pictures unconvincing. "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection," he said.
He accepted that governments had many sources of information that were not available to the inspectors, but he added drily: "Inspectors must base their reports only on evidence which they can themselves examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise."
The thinly veiled attack on Mr Powell's case for war by the chief arms inspectors adds to the problems the US and Britain are facing in making their argument on the world stage. Last week a similar British dossier was discredited when it became clear that it had been compiled from old academic papers which it had passed off as partly drawn from "intelligence".
Mr Powell last week made much of an engine testing stand for which he also showed the security council satellite pictures. It was "clearly intended for long-range missiles that can fly 1,200 kilometres", he claimed, adding: "These are missiles that Iraq wants in order to project power, to threaten, and to deliver chemical, biological and - if we let him - nuclear warheads."
Iraq last week rebutted the US charges, arguing that the testing stand had a longer exhaust facility than earlier ones only because it was set up horizontally rather than vertically.
In his report yesterday, Mr Blix came down closer to the Iraqi position. "So far, the test stand has not been associated with proscribed activity," he said. In other words, there was no evidence it had been used in ways deemed illegal under UN resolutions.
Mr Blix also cast doubt on Mr Powell's claims that Iraqi officials had been tapping the inspectors' telephones and hastily moving material from sites shortly before the inspectors arrived. "In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming," Mr Blix said.
Speaking after Mr Blix, Mohamed El Baradei, the chief nuclear inspector and director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), also questioned Mr Powell's claims. He referred to documents removed from an Iraqi scientist's home. Mr Powell had said the 2,000 pages had been found thanks to intelligence supplied to the inspectors.
Mr El Baradei said the documents referred to uranium enrichment using lasers. "Nothing contained in the documents alters the conclusions previously drawn by the IAEA concerning the extent of Iraq's laser enrichment programme," he said.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-14-2003-35565.asp

LethalWolfe
Feb 15, 2003, 04:48 PM
So basicly Powell is saying its Black. Blix is saying it might not be black, but it's not white either.

This is what I find so maddening about this process is that it's a simple yes or no question, "Has Iraq fully complied w/the UN resolution that states they have to comply w/all the previous UN resolutions?"

What I get from Blix is that Iraq is compling... kind of. Blix doesn't want to say "yes" because he knows that would be a lie. He doesn't want to say "no" because he doesn't want an invasion of Iraq. So he's saying yes and no and trying to buy more time for an flawed inspection process that doesn't work.

Ugh.


Lethal

alset
Feb 15, 2003, 04:50 PM
Well, I suppose this comes as no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention.

What a frightening time to be draft age.

Dan

alex_ant
Feb 15, 2003, 07:26 PM
"We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act."

-- George W. Bush speaking at West Point, June 2002

uhlawboi80
Feb 15, 2003, 07:27 PM
can we say JOB SECURITY?:p
Hans Blix is really not doing his job in my opinion. Not that he isnt doing the inspections, but he is (like lethal said) supposed to say yes compliance or no compliance. To me, in this situation, a NOT YES is a no.

Im not really pro war, and id like to see a solution that didnt have the US spear heading an Iraq invasion. BUT, the UN passed a resolution and i am gonna have to say that if they ***** out this time around, people will not take their resolutions seriously in the future.

they are, in short, simply allowing Blix's symantic gymnastics to allow their power to be under cut.

alex_ant
Feb 15, 2003, 07:27 PM
"In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!"

-- Adolf Hitler, June 1940

uhlawboi80
Feb 15, 2003, 07:56 PM
i actually used that hitler quote the other day in one of my law classes where we were discussing the war powers.

though putting the two similar comments next to each other kinda foils hitler and bush...

alex_ant
Feb 15, 2003, 08:03 PM
Sorry... I didn't mean to insult Hitler like that :D (joke! joke! c'mon!)

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 15, 2003, 08:07 PM
bottom line they had tons of stuff still not accounted for, thats a breach, that have missiles flying further then they are supposed to, thats a breach, they have thousands of nuclear related documents hidden in a scientist home,thats a breach. Maybe iam missing something and blix is in someones pocket or a fool. If a zebra has stripes then just say it has stripes insteads being so wishy washy.

etoiles
Feb 16, 2003, 12:01 AM
...the world is not just black and white.

macfan
Feb 16, 2003, 01:22 AM
Colin Powell's long dossier of Iraq's alleged non-compliance came under withering attack from the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday. They said they found several elements of his evidence either false or unconvincing.

Hardly. The inspectors also presented their own evidence in which they said that Saddam is not complying. No one except for maybe Iraq is saying that Saddam is in compliance. Some people don't want to do anything about that non compliance, and some people want to make sure that Saddam complies. The UN resolutions state that there will be serious consequences if Iraq doesn't comply, but some on the UN Security Council do not wish there to be serious consequences. It really isn't that complicated.

Dr. Blix would be seen as a fool and a liar if he said Saddam was complying with the UN. He doesn't say that because he isn't that great of a fool or a liar.

No one has questioned the accuracy of the British dossier, only its source and timing. No one has questioned that Saddam hasn't been complying. The disclosure that was presented back in December did not include the previously discovered chemical and biological weapons present more evidence of non compliance. About the missiles, the UN experts have concluded that Iraq is building missiles whose range exceeds the allowable limits. It doesn't matter if there test was horizontal or vertical, and it doesn't matter what the Iraqis say about Powell's photo.

There are but two positions the UN can take.
1. Saddam is not in compliance, but it doesn't matter because the resolutions of the UN, indeed the UN itself is a pointless debating society.

2. Saddam is not in complicance, and the UN will take action to assure his complicance because the UN is an important body for international peace.

Those are the choices. The UN will do well to consider which path to take.

LethalWolfe
Feb 16, 2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by etoiles
...the world is not just black and white.

Yer right. But we're not talking about the world in general. We are talking about a very specific set of circumstances involving Iraq and its compling with UN resolutions. And that IS a black or white, yes or no situation. Either they have or they haven't. Given the language of the resolutions there is no middle ground.


Lethal

Stelliform
Feb 16, 2003, 03:30 PM
....

Rower_CPU
Feb 16, 2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Basically this is pointing out how ineffectual the UN is becoming. It is one thing to push for the resolutions. (Bush's responsibility) And once they are accepted then they must be carried out. (U.N.'s responsibility) Since apparently the UN wants to make resolutions they never intend to follow, how potent is this organization?

So is it up to the US to take it upon itself to police the entire world? Since our administration, in its infinite wisdom, seems to know where all the bad guys are and exactly what they're doing, but was unable to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

Why not push for reform within the UN before turning the US into an even more hated country?

etoiles
Feb 16, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Yer right. But we're not talking about the world in general. We are talking about a very specific set of circumstances involving Iraq and its compling with UN resolutions. And that IS a black or white, yes or no situation. Either they have or they haven't. Given the language of the resolutions there is no middle ground.


Lethal

My point is, how close is Saddam to comply ? 80% ? 90% ? 95% ? The UN never stated that Iraq would be bombed into the ground if Saddam did not comply 100%. This is not just a yes/no question, there is a lot of factors to consider, there is a lot of room for interpretation. War will have terrible consequences, we know that for sure. What we need to find out, is how big a threat Saddam is compared to all the new dangers/terror and general misery a war implies...a terrible equation. The UN does not think that Saddam represents a threat big enough to justify war (at this point). The UN certainly seems a lot less biased than the US government.

I am not saying that Saddam is a victim or that the presence of the US military did not help the weapons inspectors getting back to work, but I am totally opposed to the US deciding on its own to attack a country. I am all for a 'global democracy' with its 'global police force', not some 'global ruler' with his private 'global army'. Democracy can seem a bit slow at times and full of compromises, but it is the most stable system in the long run...

LethalWolfe
Feb 16, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by etoiles


My point is, how close is Saddam to comply ? 80% ? 90% ? 95% ? The UN never stated that Iraq would be bombed into the ground if Saddam did not comply 100%. This is not just a yes/no question, there is a lot of factors to consider, there is a lot of room for interpretation. War will have terrible consequences, we know that for sure. What we need to find out, is how big a threat Saddam is compared to all the new dangers/terror and general misery a war implies...a terrible equation. The UN does not think that Saddam represents a threat big enough to justify war (at this point). The UN certainly seems a lot less biased than the US government.



Actually, it really is a yes or no question. Has Iraq complied w/UN resolution 1441? Partial compliance is not compliance. Maybe complying is not compliance. Possible compliance is not compliance. There is no grey area in the resolution. Iraq is either compling or they are not. Iraq has either handed over all the requested material and documents or it hasn't. Iraq has either allowed the weapons inspectors free reign and been completly honest, helpful, and forth coming or they haven't. It is all or nothing. The resolution makes no allowance for "kinda", "sorta", or "mabye."

Germany, Russia, China, and France don't care if he's a threat or not because they have billions of dollars of weapons and/or oil contracts w/Saddam and they don't want to see their gravy train derailed.


Lethal

medea
Feb 16, 2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Germany, Russia, China, and France don't care if he's a threat or not because they have billions of dollars of weapons and/or oil contracts w/Saddam and they don't want to see their gravy train derailed.
Lethal

Well that is your opinion and you really can't back it up, It's obvious that peace is everyones main interest here, why must we be so eager to go to war when there are other solutions available and we have yet to exhaust them, war should always be a last resort, instead it seems like we are pushing for a war no matter what.

LethalWolfe
Feb 16, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by medea


Well that is your opinion and you really can't back it up, It's obvious that peace is everyones main interest here, why must we be so eager to go to war when there are other solutions available and we have yet to exhaust them, war should always be a last resort, instead it seems like we are pushing for a war no matter what.

While it is my opinion that money is the main reason those countries are calling for more inspections it is a fact that those countries have nice financial ties w/Saddam.

And war is not what I want. What I want is Iraq to comply w/the resolutions. If tomorrow Iraq handed everything over to the UN w/a big red bow on it I would be extatic<sp?>. If someone can suggest a non-firing solution that has not been tried in the past 12 years and has even a remote chance of making Saddam comply w/the numerous UN resolutions he's ignoring I would love to hear it. Hell, I'm sure the UN would love to hear it too 'cause the only things they've come up with (inspections and sanctions) haven't worked.


Lethal

chrisfx811
Feb 16, 2003, 11:06 PM
if the u.n. is so opposed to the aims of the current administartion, why did they choose to ask us for a huge loan for further financing; as well as expecting a 30 year deferrment interest free, no less!?!? the u.n. is a joke without us, plain and simple. they have no teeth without us behind them. the stupid little blue helmets are nothing more than target practice, if we expect anything to get accomplished we need to do it ourselves. and while we're at it, let's take some damn oil too. we have been financing the bulk of military interventions for the past 50 years, as well as contributing the most funding to the majority of global programs, so it's about time we get some compensation.
and quite frankly, i don't see why it is important if france or germany thinks iraq is not a threat to the u.s.. they are not us, and can never be us.

timbloom
Feb 17, 2003, 12:41 AM
Saddam should be ousted, but who is to take his place?! Anyone in Iraq want to run the county who just had it's "unanimously voted" dictator kicked out?! How about we just train another future terrorist! That sounds like the perfect idea!

I say we don't try to declare war unless we have this figured out. Look at our track record of countries that we have aided the ousting and replacement of leaders, it is horrible. WE gave the taliban & osama their guns and training to fight the soviets, now we are fighting them. fix this first.

Try to not just setup a framework for democracy then run home. If our soldiers died fighting for a cause, it better be a lasting one this time, one that is well thought out, well planned for.

We need to establish trade with these people, give THEM somthing to fight for. Somthing that is worth losing their lives for. That is the problem with Iraq, anyone with an opposition gets killed, hence nobody opposes.

But WE have to be the ones brave enough to fight?! WE have to take on the stance of the Agressor?! They should fight for their freedom with us as backup. So they can have somthing they they worked for, and earned. Hopefully they will cherish it more since it wasn't handed to them. Saddam is somebody that needs to get out of power, and a more stable government for the people needs to be established.

Sometimes I really wonder how we did it for ourselves.

etoiles
Feb 17, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Actually, it really is a yes or no question. Has Iraq complied w/UN resolution 1441? Partial compliance is not compliance. Maybe complying is not compliance. Possible compliance is not compliance. There is no grey area in the resolution. Iraq is either compling or they are not. Iraq has either handed over all the requested material and documents or it hasn't. Iraq has either allowed the weapons inspectors free reign and been completly honest, helpful, and forth coming or they haven't. It is all or nothing. The resolution makes no allowance for "kinda", "sorta", or "mabye."

Germany, Russia, China, and France don't care if he's a threat or not because they have billions of dollars of weapons and/or oil contracts w/Saddam and they don't want to see their gravy train derailed.


Lethal

resoltution 1441 also states:

"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"

International peace and security in the area should be our number one priority. I highly doubt that war NOW will bring us that.
It is also interesting to point at this paragraph:

"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"

So the US is not in compliance with resolution 1441...what ? Ah, I see, classified information, they cannot share too much of that. But I thought it was all black and white...

But you are right about France, Russia and China, they do have oil contracts with Iraq (which are not illegal, by the way). I am sure there must be some weapon contracts, too. But arms dealers were never really known for their morals, no matter where they are from.

etoiles
Feb 17, 2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
if the u.n. is so opposed to the aims of the current administartion, why did they choose to ask us for a huge loan for further financing; as well as expecting a 30 year deferrment interest free, no less!?!? the u.n. is a joke without us, plain and simple. they have no teeth without us behind them. the stupid little blue helmets are nothing more than target practice, if we expect anything to get accomplished we need to do it ourselves. and while we're at it, let's take some damn oil too. we have been financing the bulk of military interventions for the past 50 years, as well as contributing the most funding to the majority of global programs, so it's about time we get some compensation.
and quite frankly, i don't see why it is important if france or germany thinks iraq is not a threat to the u.s.. they are not us, and can never be us.

Just like the US would be nothing without its big corporations. But you are still glad there is some laws that protect the weak individual, right ? Following your logic, large corporations should get 'some compensation' because they pay more taxes and generate more revenue than anyone else... move that model to a global, political level, and you get the idea. It is what we call democracy, never mind the scale.

And regarding the blue helmets, well peace keeping is a bit more delicate and complicated than the 'bomb those bastards' approach. The US was never really good at peace keeping...

Sedulous
Feb 17, 2003, 04:40 AM
This thread has a lot of interesting thoughts. I have to admit that I'm in the oust Saddam camp but I wouldn't say that I'm right. Giving him the boot might directly be the right thing to do but the fallout from that should also be weighed.

I'm actually amazed how Saddam "might" have a nuclear program while North Korea is like "we have nukes and really want to use them". See clipping from CNN below:

SEOUL, South Korea -- In another verbal barrage aimed at Washington, North Korea says it will win any nuclear conflict with the United States thanks to Pyongyang's "army-first" political system.

"Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously," a North Korean state radio broadcast said, as reported by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

DannyZR2
Feb 17, 2003, 04:44 AM
:cool: look... i posted here....:cool:

AhmedFaisal
Feb 17, 2003, 06:15 AM
I very vividly remember the lie that started the Vietnam war with all its atrocities, I also remember the lie about the murdered babies the world was fed in order to go to war against Iraq when they invaded Kuweit. I also remember El Salvador and other such regimes, like Batista's Kuba. Interestingly, whenever these kind of things that tarnished the USA's name went down, Republicans were running the show, be it as a government or behind the scenes. And many of those scumbags that were involved back then are in this government at this moment. I am a great fan of the United States, I have many friends and relatives there. This (unelected) government however I'd rather see in jail where they belong.

Let me say that I believe we need to find ways to get rid of Saddam, but so do we need to get rid of this government. Americans, do what is best for your country and the world in the next elections and kick them out of office.
My 2 cents,

Ahmed

DannyZR2
Feb 17, 2003, 08:27 AM
anyone buy plastic and ducktape yet????

LethalWolfe
Feb 17, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by etoiles
resoltution 1441 also states:

"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"

International peace and security in the area should be our number one priority. I highly doubt that war NOW will bring us that.
It is also interesting to point at this paragraph:

"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"

So the US is not in compliance with resolution 1441...what ? Ah, I see, classified information, they cannot share too much of that. But I thought it was all black and white...

But you are right about France, Russia and China, they do have oil contracts with Iraq (which are not illegal, by the way). I am sure there must be some weapon contracts, too. But arms dealers were never really known for their morals, no matter where they are from.


So International peace and security can be maintained by leaving Saddam alone so he can manufacture WMDs and conventional weapons that are in violation of UN resolutions?

In Powell's speech week (2 weeks ago?) he showed suspected locations, and trucks used as possible moble labs. He also said that w/o the Iraqi's complete cooperation it would be d@mn near impossible to find everything because Saddam has hidden it so well. If the US had a smoking gun (which Powell even said they didn't) the world would have seen it by now.

Again, I don't want war either, but it's coming down to that. People keep saying not to go to war now, or give the inspectors more time. How much more should be given? A month? A year? 5 years? Another 12 years? If you don't want war I think you should try pleading w/Saddam to disarm. That sounds like th win-win approach to me. No war and Saddam follows the resolutions and disarms.

I'm still waiting for someone to start kicking out viable alternate solutions to this problem.


AhmedFaisal
Do you remember that Kennedy and LBJ were Democrats?

And I really doubt that the reason the multi-national coalition went to war with Iraq was because of the babies...:rolleyes:


Lethal

chrisfx811
Feb 17, 2003, 12:03 PM
exactly, where are the effective alternatives? the current form of inspections are useless. do you people realize the only reason these inspectors are even back in iraq is because the u.s. threatened to use force. why are there some middle eastern countries pleading with saddam to step down, even going so far as to call it "the heroic thing to do". they are trying to placate his ego, and at the same time begging him to relinquish power. this is the only thing that will solve this. why do we not see the french or the germans backing this effort? because their arms and oil deals are with saddam's regime, and would be meaningless if a new gov't were established. it would take them months if not years to secretly establish these deals again, without the rest of the free world finding out.
i suppose next the u.n. will try to tell us we are wrong in trying to ferret out the hundreds of suspected terrorist cells and persons related to them that are already here in the u.s.? when the u.n. is comprised of more democratic, free societies i will have more respect for their insight into matters of the american people. until then i refuse to give 2 $h!t$ what representatives from dictatorships have regarding our freedoms and the desires to protect them.

wdlove
Feb 22, 2003, 06:49 PM
Hans Blix has given Iraq a deadline of March 1st to destroy its Samoud Missiles. A diplomatic showdown to indicate whether Iraq faces war!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/22/international/middleeast/22IRAQ.html?th