US Scolds Naughty Bad Boys France and Russia and the UN

Yeah...and what led up to those bombings? Could it be Iraq not letting weapons inspectors have unfettered access and stonewalling any time it was necessary to prevent the inspectors from finding the weapons and documents while they were being moved? I think so and I call that stopping inspections.

 

CNN different articles:

Clinton accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors.
----

Clinton addresses the nation Wednesday night
"Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness," Clinton said. "Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors."

------

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office.

-----

But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.

----

"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programs," the report said. [My comment..report refers to UN report made on 12/15/1998]

-------------------------------

My comments

I'm sorry..when I mean stopped inspection I was refering to not being allowed to inspect properly. My bad. I guess that CLinton guy was just a loon like Bush.

 

Whew!!! my memory really is bad. I don't remember that AT ALL!

 

If you want, I can site references that wil help your memory along.

 

Thank you kindly. After all, politics is my thing.

 

That would be very kind of you.

 

No. I don't condone the breaking of agreements outside of selfpreservation. I don't condone the invasion of Kuwait. Allowing Iraq to break agreement is saying its okay to invade another country, unprovocted. If its okay to break rules/UN resolutions which is implied by the everybody does it arguement, it shouldn't matter whether or not the US attacks Iraq or not (I don't believe this). How many of these resolutions were broken (I'm not talking minor infractions done on accident) by the side with the surrender?

Usually in enforcement type situations, people that break rules, get harsher penalties. The UN is trying to lesson the penalty for not letting the weapons inspectors inspect and then not letting them back in. Clinton attacked Iraq because the weapons inspectors couldn't do job properly. Well, they still aren't.

[qoute] How do you know that the U.S has no intention of taking over Iraq? Didn't we also say we would leave S.A. as soon as Iraq left Kuwait? And is it possible that setting up a 'US friendly' government modelled after our own just might be to our economic advantage?[/QUOTE]

I have no intention of the US taking over Iraq. I don't know any American that intends to take over Iraq, atleast permamently. I do think some in the US want to disarm and to remove Saddam. On economy, I think this does not play any part in US decision. Life and death is so much more important. If their is an economic benefit, it will probably benefit Iraqis more per capita than it does Americans.

To some up my view. I am for ensuring Iraq actually has inspections done right, like Clinton. War only happens if this isn't done.

I don't get why the weapons inpectors shouldn't be welcomed in Iraq....they were the only thing keeping the US/UK from attacking and will be the only thing that could keep a second attack from happening, most likely. Its a case were the inspectors are blamed for attack when it was Iraq stopping them from inspecting properly that caused the attack.

 

You are picking a point on the Iraq - UN inspection standoff (1998) timeline that is favorable to your position in this dialog. I am interested in seeing your response when links are posted documenting Iraqi failure to cooperate with the inspections.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html

 

I did not pick the point in time (UN inpsection team leaving for the last time). I only refuted the the erroneous fact, as stated by Pole.

BTW, my post above has one such link.

 

You are still being selective on this subject. You are talking about the inspectors leaving, while the others are talking about the broader story which also includes the standoff (noncooperation) between Iraq and the UN inspectors (1998) in which the inspectors' departure was a part of.

Posting links documenting the <b>entire 1998 story</b> seems to be rather pointless because you seem to be intentionally avoiding the broader story.

 

Your powers of observation are keen, but your powers of deduction are weak.

I only posted that a statement by Pole was nonfactual. The statement itself was in a broader story, as you remarked. I have not yet commented on the broader story.

Did you read the entire article to which I posted the link? The articled concerned the inspection team during the 1991-1998 period.

WRT the broader story ...

A not so careful reading of the article would show that Iraq has not cooperated with the disarmament process run by the UN inspection for the entire time, not just 1998. The inspection team found ways to work around Iraq's lack of cooperation, obstruction, and subterfuge. Using this is the reason to stop inspections, to bomb Iraq, to change regimes, etc. is disingenuous.

 

When the inspection teams left Iraq for the last time, it was their opinion that Iraq was 90-95% disarmed. The inspection teams found ways to be successful through out 1991-1998, even though Iraq was actively not cooperating. To say that the US and UK bombed Iraq in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) because the Iraqis were not cooperating is disingenuous since Iraq's behavior was their status quo.

To put a better perspective on Operation Desert Fox, in 1997 U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated that the US would continue embargo until Saddam is removed from power. Previously the stated goal for the embargo was to cripple Iraq until they were disarmed. With disarmament approaching 90-95%, it is curious that the US should make that statement, right?

The statement gives the appearance that the real US embargo goal the whole time was an Iraq regime change. How do image the Iraqis felt about that statement? How would that statement affect the little cooperation that Iraq had given the weapons inspectors?

 

I can differentiate between lack of cooperation prior to Fall 1998 and the official announcement that there would be no cooperation and that the inspection activities would be halted.

<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/31/iraq.un.04/#2">Iraq ends 'all kinds of dealings'</A>

<i>Baghdad announced the decision in a statement following a joint meeting of the Revolutionary Command Council and the regional command of the ruling Baath Party, headed by President Saddam Hussein.

"The joint meeting decided to halt all kinds of dealings with the special commission and its chief and <b>stop all their activities inside Iraq, including the monitoring, starting from today," the statement said. </b>

However, the statement said that the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which has a working agreement with the United Nations, could continue to probe Iraq's suspected nuclear arms program, and monitor weapons sites.
</i>