Blix: Iraq Actively Cooperating to Disarm 12 minutes ago By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS - In a key report before the U.N. Security Council, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Friday said Iraq (news - web sites)'s destruction of its Al Samoud 2 missiles constitutes a "substantial measure of disarmament." His counterpart, nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei, made his strongest statement yet in support of Iraqi cooperation. Blix Says Iraq 'Substantially Disarming' (AP Video) Blix noted that Iraq is now providing inspectors with pro-active cooperation, something he had asked for repeatedly through the winter. "The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament," Blix said. "We are not watching the destruction of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed." But Blix didn't declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. ElBaradei also took a swipe at U.S. intelligence, saying his analysis now definitively showed that suspect aluminum tubes were not destined for equipment that could be used to refine uranium for nuclear weapons use. "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets," ElBaradei said. Blix noted that Iraq is now providing inspectors with proactive cooperation, something he had asked for repeatedly through the winter. But said that even with continued cooperation from Iraq, it will take some time to ensure that Iraq has carried out key remaining disarmament tasks which he intends to present to the Security Council later this month. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months," he said, stressing that even after this is completed, Iraq should be subject to ongoing inspections and monitoring of its facilities. The chief inspector, whose teams are responsible for the hunt for biological, chemical and missile programs, said Iraq had recently provided additional documentation on anthrax and the VX nerve agent. "Many have been found to restate what Iraq has already declared." Blix didn't declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. And in a veiled jab at the United States, he said inspectors had been unable to verify some claims about hidden Iraqi weapons and he asked again for more information about suspect sites. CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet has said all relevant information had been passed along already. ElBaradei told the council that the IAEA found no evidence to support reports that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic," he said. "We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." "In the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation," ElBaradei said. "I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation." He reported again that in the area of nuclear weapons, inspections were moving forward. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." It would be a shame to go to war just because Bush has boxed himself in and can't wait for a few months.
I don't understand why they don't jsut send in "UN soldiers" to forecfully search for weapons. Make it obvious that they aren't starting any war, just that they are going to look for and destroy weapons whether Iraq is cooperating or not. If Iraq decides to be violent, then, they are starting the war, not us.
I don't think the President has boxed himself in, though. He could declare victory, say Saddam is cooperating and that they're doing so almost exlusively because of our willingness to back up the UN resolutions and then parrot the lines about UN inspectors needing to keep a watchful eye over Iraq to make sure of Iraq's continued compliance. Then go on about how the UN can't afford to let its resolutions regarding Iraq fall out of focus again. But I don't think that's going to happen.
Blix had nothing new to report. Saddam is destroying the al-Samoud missles (They found 20, right?) the inspectors inadvertently uncovered and are dropping us bread crumbs regarding the biological/chemical weapons with documentation that is believed to be the same garbage they gave us before? 100 souped-up al-Samoud missiles is believed to be in his possession which had him in violation of prior UN resolutions to begin with. These are missiles he was supposed to show the inspectors voluntarily. Iraq is not free of WMD. Saddam is just doing enough to feed the malign, anti-bush rhetoric. One grenade at a time.
Curious: How does: jibe with Resolution 1441's order that Iraq "Immediately" and "unconditionally" comply? And when did it become the inspectors' task to find Saddam's WMD? "Not free of WMD"? Isn't that kinda an important part of the resolution? And curious: How exactly is Saddam complying by ordering more Samoud missiles to be built to replace those destroyed for the inspectors? glynch - answer 2 questions for me honestly, please. 1) Do you honestly think that the Iraqis are not hiding WMD? 2) Do you think that Saddam is genuinely cooperating now, and that soon all banned weapons will be destroyed/accounted for? Please, simple yes/no answers. I am truly curious.
He has had 12 years...take him out. Gee, I wonder why he is even cooperating at all now, could it be the 300,000 soldiers poised to take him down? The UN as an active body is irrelevent. We can't sit back and let a man that has proven to use WMD, on his own people, stay in power. Time to pay the piper Saddam. The world will recover when he is out of power and we bring in UN troops to help manage the cleanup. DD
glynch - answer 2 questions for me honestly, please. 1) Do you honestly think that the Iraqis are not hiding WMD? 2) Do you think that Saddam is genuinely cooperating now, and that soon all banned weapons will be destroyed/accounted for? Treeman I don't think he is cooperating 100%. He probably has a few weapons. HOWEVER, HE IS NOT A serious THREAT TO THE US OR HIS NEIGHBORS. Only in the US and Israel do you find a majority of people who don't agree with this. This is war not some sort of stupid deal where you are dealing with any insignificant violation warrants war. Anwer my questions: 1) how is it legal under international law to go to war if the UN does not approve it. 2) Isn't it true that UN Res 1441 does not authorize war? 3) I suppose like the rest of the America uber alles crowd you don't believe in international law?
Glynch, this won't just take a few months. Come on. Saddam has been using stall tactics for the past 12 years why would that suddenly change now? Its like carrot in front of the horse...he is just showing us a little so he can keep pulling people along forever. This process would keep going until the rest of the world just gave up on him and said forget it. The only reason why he is even doing anything now is because we are on his ass to disarm.
Glynch, what would Saddam be doing right now if we just completely pulled out after the Gulf War and did not patrol his country like we are now? The only reason why he isn't a threat is because we are doing this and we are watching him like a little child. Don't say he isn't a threat. The guy was in a long war with Iran, tried to take over Kuwait, and launched missiles at Israel.
1)Since when did it become necessary to go to the UN to have them approve everything we do? 2) Isn't it true that 1441 says Saddam must disarm and show us his weapons and that we shouldn't have to be looking for them? Serious consequences can be interpreted many ways, but how much more serious can you get relative to what we are doing now? We already patrol his nation's skies and have embargos on it. What else can we do next if he doesn't cooperate? Pass more resolutions? To me the next logical step is war and regime change since he won't cooperate with what the rest of the world wants him to do. 3) Glynch, its pretty clear that economic deals and not the sanctity of are what is really at stake. Russia pretty much admits that if they knew their oil contracts would be maintained under a new regime in Iraq then they would have no problem with regime change and war. France and Saddam are best buds. China fears the US extending more power into the region and possibly taking away their potential oil source with Saddam and Iraq. One last thing...I am not saying you are wrong, but could you please link me to something that states that all wars must be approved by the UN?
Did we start the war? No, Saddam did. Actually, Iran did by inciting rebellions and trying to start an Islamic revolution in Iraq.
Exactly. We supported Iraq because the alternative was almost too horrible to comprehend. Imagine the entire Middle East and all of it's oil wealth under the control of theocracies like the one in Tehran.
glynch: Exactly what are you basing this on? It certainly isn't past history (need I remind you of the 4 neighbors he has attacked? the repeated threats to us?), or any of his public speeches/announcements. So, what? This sentence did not make any sense, but I think you're insinuating that I'm not taking this seriously enough. Need I remind you that I'm in the military? I have not been sent there (yet), but I personally know people who have. Don't you dare accuse me of not taking this seriously. If anyone is not taking this situation seriously enough, it is those people who have thus far failed to understand the threat and the stakes involved. The consequences of inaction. See, that's the funny thing about this whole affair - the UN *has* already approved it. Read resolution 687 (you'll have to look back about 15 or 16 resolutions); the UN explicitly authorized the use of force in the event of noncompliance with the original resolutions. International law is squarely in our favor on this one. What in the hell do you think that "serious consequences" means? More sanctions? An embargo? A fu*king spanking for Saddam Hussein??? Every Tom, Dick, and Harry knows what that phrase was intended to mean. Even the French. At any rate, earlier resolutions do (not 'did' - they still apply) explicitly authorize force. Your question is irrelevant. International law is great in theory. But when it is designed either by European elites for their own purposes or by despots to spite us, I don't think they have any validity at all. But that is irrelevant in this case, as international law is to our advantage.
