From BBC.com your only reliable news source! Iraq offers arms inspections talks UN arms teams have been barred from Iraq since 1998 Iraq has invited the United Nations chief weapons inspector to visit Baghdad for talks about the resumption of arms inspections after a break of four years. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri made the offer in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. It came amid growing speculation about an attack on Iraq by the United States, which sees President Saddam Hussein's programme of developing weapons of mass destruction as a major threat. Mr Sabri said the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and his experts were welcome to come to Iraq for "technical talks", with a view to resuming weapons inspections. The UN has yet to comment on the invitation. US President George W Bush said on Thursday that he had not changed his view that a change of regime was needed in Iraq. His comments came after former UN weapons inspector Richard Butler had said that Iraq was producing biological and chemical weapons - and might be close to developing a nuclear bomb. Iraqi offer The BBC's Greg Barrow in New York says Iraq's invitation will be interpreted as a possible first step towards the return of UN weapons inspectors. The arms teams have been barred from Iraq since they left in 1998, claiming Iraqi officials were not co-operating. Verification of Iraqi weapons programmes is a key condition for the lifting of UN sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The international community has put pressure on the Iraqi leader to allow the inspectors back in and the US has threatened to use force unless weapons inspections resume. The letter - news of which came on the eve of the 12th anniversary of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - says preliminary talks would aim to establish a solid basis for the next stage of monitoring and inspection activities. But, correspondents say, diplomats at the UN have had their hopes raised and dashed before. Iraqi flexibility tends to wax and wane in tune with the level of threats from nations such as the US, which has once again been reiterating its support for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. Thursday saw Mr Bush rebuff concerns by Jordan's King Abdullah over the danger of going to war with Iraq. Sitting alongside the Jordanian monarch in the White House Oval Office, Mr Bush said King Abdullah would "find out that I haven't changed my mind" about removing the Iraqi president. Mr Bush said the Iraqi Government was "poisonous" and that "the policy of my government, our government, of this administration is regime change". The day also Mr Bush renew the US economic embargo against Iraq, telling Congress that Baghdad "has continued to engage in activities hostile to US interests". Attack 'a mistake' Jordan, one of America's closest Arab allies and a neighbour of Iraq, has sought to dissuade America from taking military action against Iraq. In an interview with Washington Post newspaper, King Abdullah said that attacking Iraq would be a "tremendous mistake". "In all the years I have seen in the international community, everybody is saying this is a bad idea," he said. Instead of declaring war on Saddam Hussein, King Abdullah said he would rather make an all-out effort to get Iraq to agree to let weapons inspectors back in. In Congress, a key Senate committee heard analysts warn that a post-Saddam Iraq could fall into chaos if the US and other nations were not prepared to take an active, expensive role in rebuilding it. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq was told that any new leadership to replace Saddam Hussein was unlikely to come from within the country. "After 30 years of repression, there is no political life in Iraq outside Saddam's leadership and Saddam's family," said Rend Rahim Francke of the Iraq Foundation, a Washington-based pro-democracy group. -------------------------------------------- See war isn't all ways the answer
Maybe an Invasion can be avoided after all. It would be great to not lose life, money or anything else in such a war.
The p*****s *cough* .. I mean Iraq are getting scared and are trying to cool down America. Hussein needs to be put out of power , and put out of power NOW.
I'm all in favor of someone else besides Saddam running Iraq. Though I'm not in favor of an invasion with U.S. troops. At least not at this time. I would think that no one would want to put our soldiers in harm's way if there is another way out of this. I'm in favor seeing where the arms inspectors talks could lead. It couldn't hurt and possibly could help. It those talks don't pan out, and invasion is still possible. I also think that the war on terrorism is what we should concentrate on first, and then look into the possibility of Iraq if there is no other way. Why is it that all the civilians in the govt. want war and the military people in the govt. don't want to invade Iraq?
If Iraq was to allow the inspectors FULL ACCESS to all areas then I feel we should take this step before invading. With that said I do not believe Iraq would allow the inspectors total and full access to any area they wanted to see. I also believe that they have had enough time to "hide" any mass destruction weapons.
I agree with you that the insepctions would have to be real. Just because I'm not in favor of invading Iraq, I don't think we should settle for half measures. I would be thrilled to not have Saddam in charge of Iraq, it's just the morality of striking first, and the costs in lives lost vs. the risk(if there is any) that we face from Iraq. Saddam has previously broken countless UN resolutions that he'd agreed to, is an enemy to his own people, etc.
It is too late for talking. Saddam's word is meaningless, and he needs to be taken out. Only a fool negotiates with a liar.
Umm, before anyone starts attacking Iraq, I'd like to see some proof that this is necessary. Of course Dubya would like to do it and probably his approval ratings would rise. But that doesn't justify starting a war and risking the lives of thousands. And some "we know what we're doing" mumblings and vague accusations aren't going to cut it.
I thought we were going to attack Iraq because he wouldn't let weapons inspectors in. Wasn't the reasoning that he must be developing weapons of mass destruction to use against us? So now, for the sake of argument, lets say he allows full inspections. You people still want to attack?
It is too late. Iraq can never be fully inspected. He has had time to develop, manufacture, and hide WMD. His time is up. Kill Saddam and his Republican Guard and help set up a government we can deal with.
Well that was the 'old' reason. Funny, how when the idea of weapons inspectors being allowed back in Iraq springs up, the Bush Whitehouse NOW says it believes 9/11 Hi-jacker Atta did meet with an Iraqi official in Prague. They claim this even though the CIA AND FBI says there is no indication of proof that the meeting ever took place. I guess the whitehouse, somehow,has more intelligence gathering data than both the FBI and CIA. It's getting ridiculous, now. IMO Bush looks like he just wants to invade no matter what.
Where does this stop? Why don't we just wipe out the whole middle east and redraw the borders to suit us? PS Im not defending Sadam here. I served in operation Desert Shield gladly because it was justified. I am not sure that this is however. I think it reeks of Oil men turned poiliticians using any excuse they can to put in a puppet government that will roll over for US interests.
That may well be a reason why they want to invade. In my opinion it's a sorry reason to ask American soldiers to lay down their life for. The thing that's fishy is the way the Whitehouse changes it's story about why we might invade Iraq in mid-stream. I would love to support groups opposed to Saddam already inside Iraq. If that can't work, I think containment can. The guy is trouble, but not enough to warrant an invasion. I know a lot of people disagree and I respect everyone's opinion in the matter. If this invasion of Iraq did happen, it would be hard for me to face the fact that the U.S. were the aggressors and not defending against someone elses aggression.
I just don't get where Saddam gets to OFFER anything. The agreement is signed sealed and delivered. He should not have a choice. As I said before, he signed a lease on his leadership. He failed to pay the rent, and its time to evict his ass.
Exactly. And it's also a sorry reason for the deaths of innocent civilians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. War isn't fun. You don't start a war simply because you feel like it.
