PDA

View Full Version : News: Iraq agrees to weapons inspections



NuTs62
09-17-2002, 01:42 AM
September 17, 2002 Posted: 3:26 AM EDT (0726 GMT)


UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

In the letter, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri wrote: "The Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections."

Sabri hand-delivered the letter in a meeting Monday evening with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League.

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions," the letter said.

"The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Iraq's move appeared to receive a cautious welcome from governments around the world. In Britain, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said the Iraqi regime "had a long history of playing games."

The timing of Iraq's letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft a new, tougher U.N. resolution ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline -- and threatening the use of military force if Saddam does not comply.

Bush outlined the administration's stance in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, and Secretary of State Colin Powell has been meeting with U.N. Security Council members in the hopes of building a consensus to support one or more tougher resolutions. (Full story)

Powell received a copy of the Iraqi letter during a meeting with the Egyptian foreign minister.

A senior State Department official called the letter "another claim on another piece of paper" and a "tactical move" to avoid strong Security Council action.

"We are confident Iraq won't succeed in that regard," this official said. He said that in meetings with a variety of foreign ministers, Powell made clear the United States intends to go forward with a Security Council resolution that finds Iraq in violation of prior Security Council resolutions.

"It's up to the Council to say what compliance means," the official said. "It's not for Iraq to pick which aspect of which resolutions it might comply with."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated that concern, saying the U.N. Security Council needs to draw up a "new, effective U.N. Security Council resolution that will actually deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to the world."

"This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions," McClellan said in a written statement. "It is time for the Security Council to act."

Others in the administration were more dismissive of Iraq's latest pledge, with one senior official saying: "There will be no negotiating. The United Nations will act to lay out the requirements, or we will, but he (Saddam) gets no input." (Full story)

A second senior administration official noted various Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions, including ones that deal with repression within Iraq and the failure to make reparations to Kuwait.

"If [Saddam] thinks this is about letting inspectors in, or playing the same old game of give a little when under pressure, he is about to learn differently," this official said.

Despite the White House's skepticism, U.N. officials hailed the move as a major step in the right direction.

"I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of the inspectors, without conditions, to continue their work," Annan said in announcing the news.

Annan credited the Arab League with playing a "key role" in the negotiations, saying Moussa's "strenuous efforts" helped "convince Iraq to allow the return of the inspectors."

Annan said President Bush's speech last Thursday helped spur the international community in getting Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions.

"A lot has happened in this building since Thursday," Annan said in announcing the news. "I believe the president's speech galvanized the international community, as most of you heard almost every speaker in the General Assembly urge Iraq to accept the return of the inspectors."

Annan sent the letter on to the president of the Security Council for that body to "to decide what they do next."

Annan attached his own letter, saying it was the "indispensable first step" in assuring that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and in bringing about "a comprehensive solution that includes the suspension and eventual ending of sanctions that are causing such hardship for the Iraqi people."

Among the flurry of discussions Monday, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw met with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. Russia is one of the permanent members of the Security Council with the power to veto any resolution, and it has opposed a unilateral U.S. military response.

"We both agreed about the need for inspectors to be readmitted without condition and without restriction, and we also completely agreed about the serious consequences which would be faced by Iraq if they fail to comply," Straw said after the 50-minute meeting with Ivanov.

Straw said there was "wide consensus" following Bush's speech "about the need for resolute action to be taken against Iraq -- hopefully by peaceful means -- to ensure their compliance with the will of the international community."

Before the news of the Iraqi decision, Powell said he was "encouraged" by the progress being made on the diplomatic front. He said he believed that there is "a great deal of pressure being put on Iraq to come into compliance."

"We will see whether or not Iraq understands the seriousness of the position it is in and whether it will respond to this direction from the Security Council," Powell said.

CNN Linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/index.html)

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

:rolleyes: I'm sure you kids will have fun with this one

sbp
09-17-2002, 02:54 AM
No matter how much the Eurowimps and the other pu$$ies were squealing, Hussein knew the ass kicking would be coming and decided to defer. And the ass kicking may still come.

Just think after years of playing around, heavy pressure is done and this breakthrough happens. Let this be a lesson to all, you don't mess around with rotten snakes.

Hussein can't be trusted. Pressure needs to be maintained otherwise the pos will continue to jerk around.

Grimm
09-17-2002, 04:21 AM
Let's nuke Iraq anyway.

ribitch
09-17-2002, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by Grimm
Let's nuke Iraq anyway.

maybe not nuke, but blow a hole in that side of t he earth. We need that prick out of power

Cantacuzene
09-17-2002, 06:04 AM
I knew this would happen.

"Allow inspectors or else we invade!"

"OK, we are allowing inspectors."

"Damn! What do we do now?" "Lets invade anyway!"

If they allow inspectors and we invade anyway I dont think we will get any support from anyone including Great Britain. We can't lie to people. We said weapons inspections were the goal and removal of Saddam was the penalty, now its quite clear that removal of Saddam was the goal and weapons inspections was the (very poor) excuse. We look like jerks. That doesnt bother everybody, but it is something to consider.

WhiskeyPapa
09-17-2002, 06:50 AM
It's just one of Saddam's ploys. He knows it will take a few months to get inspectors ready to go in, and by then the rush to war will have slowed to a stand-still. Then he'll refuse to let them in.

I really believe we need to go forward as if this offer had never been made.

Cantacuzene
09-17-2002, 12:27 PM
He cant "hide" things. Thats not how inspections work. It takes some serious technology to make a nuke, despite what tv will have you believe. You cant just buy that type of stuff on the black market. Every purchase of that sort that Iraq makes is logged and kept and we have all the receipts. Wehn the inspectors go in they says, "we have a receipt for one nuclear control computer, show it to us." Then Saddam shows them whether or not its controlling a reactor or making bombs. They cant buy stuff off the black market, its just not possible to buy nuclear material that way.

Ladogaboy
09-17-2002, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Cantacuzene
They cant buy stuff off the black market, its just not possible to buy nuclear material that way.

I would agree with that pre-Soviet colapse, but now? :hmm:

Also, I thought I remembered hearing that Iraq was moving most of its facilities underground. That might make an inspection quite a bit more difficult.

sbp
09-17-2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I knew this would happen.

"Allow inspectors or else we invade!"

"OK, we are allowing inspectors."

"Damn! What do we do now?" "Lets invade anyway!"

If they allow inspectors and we invade anyway I dont think we will get any support from anyone including Great Britain. We can't lie to people. We said weapons inspections were the goal and removal of Saddam was the penalty, now its quite clear that removal of Saddam was the goal and weapons inspections was the (very poor) excuse. We look like jerks. That doesnt bother everybody, but it is something to consider. Hussein is the problem not the US.


He cant "hide" things.http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/laugh44.gif


Thats not how inspections work. It takes some serious technology to make a nuke, despite what tv will have you believe. You cant just buy that type of stuff on the black market. Every purchase of that sort that Iraq makes is logged and kept and we have all the receipts. Wehn the inspectors go in they says, "we have a receipt for one nuclear control computer, show it to us." Then Saddam shows them whether or not its controlling a reactor or making bombs. They cant buy stuff off the black market, its just not possible to buy nuclear material that way. How do you think Iraqi warplanes are flying that weren't a few years ago due to a lack of parts? Try porous borders with Jordan and smuggling.

When the inspectors were in there before the Iraqi's stonewalled {got shell game?} and harassed them.

CornMonkey
09-17-2002, 01:10 PM
so what exactly defines a "weapon of mass destruction?" i mean, technically, almost all weapons of conventional warfare fit this term.

Cantacuzene
09-17-2002, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by sbp


How do you think Iraqi warplanes are flying that weren't a few years ago due to a lack of parts? Try porous borders with Jordan and smuggling.



warplanes arent contraband. plutonium is.

dbax791
09-17-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by CornMonkey
so what exactly defines a "weapon of mass destruction?" i mean, technically, almost all weapons of conventional warfare fit this term.

Chemical, Biological, Nuclear...weapons that can take out 1000s from a single deploy, often implying civilian targets are included.

oblongmelon
09-17-2002, 08:49 PM
Will there ever be a correct solution to end all this? Probably not. But I can't worry over stuff like this-because there is just TOO much of it. If we get nuked, I will put a big RED X on my house and hope they drop whatever will be dropped directly on me. I can't bear the thought of walking around with flesh hanging off me. ugh. To think of what may happen someday reminds me of that Movie called EMPIRE OF THE SUN..

sleepminded
09-17-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Grimm
Let's nuke Iraq anyway.

yes...lets :D

eSDee
09-18-2002, 12:47 AM
Allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq can also allow us to sneak in Special Forces. I think Sodom is going down anyways, although I know that if he does, the UN might turn on us.

Ladogaboy
09-18-2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by eSDeeLoco
Allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq can also allow us to sneak in Special Forces. I think Sodom is going down anyways, although I know that if he does, the UN might turn on us.

Yeah, and that is funny logic too. I mean, come on, since we put him in power, why can't we just take him out again? :shrug:

sbp
09-18-2002, 04:11 AM
This may be hard to believe and contrary to reflexive blame America first history, but the US didn't put Hussein into power.

http://www.iraqioasis.com/p3.html
http://www.arab.net/iraq/history/iq_coups.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

"the UN might turn on us": A big segment of the UN is made of countries with rotten governments. Add to that the Europeans have economic interests at heart in keeping the thug around.

jase71
09-18-2002, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by sbp
This may be hard to believe and contrary to reflexive blame America first history, but the US didn't put Hussein into power.

http://www.iraqioasis.com/p3.html
http://www.arab.net/iraq/history/iq_coups.html
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

No... we didn't put him in power. But we did more than our fair share to keep him there over the years.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/807688.asp?pne=msn


Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America’s big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the—theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam’s armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.


It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened.


After Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal—American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of “dual use” equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for “video surveillance applications”; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of “bacteria/fungi/protozoa” to the IAEC. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.

So while we may not have put the guy in power, we sure did a lot to make sure he stayed there. We gave him the tools to fight his wars, we gave him the support to defeat his enemies, and backed him the entire time, knowing he was a bloodthirsty dictator who was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The only difference between now and then is that we liked him then, and we don't now. Saddam has never changed.



"the UN might turn on us": A big segment of the UN is made of countries with rotten governments. Add to that the Europeans have economic interests at heart in keeping the thug around.

The US has plenty of economic interests as well... Bob Dole was over to visit him in '88 to sell farming technology, and even recently, Haliburton Oil of Dick Cheney fame was attempting to negotiate contracts regarding oil.


While President Bush rattles sabers and prepares for war against Iraq, news reports tell of cozy and lucrative business dealings between Vice President Cheney and Iraq. While serving as CEO of Haliburton in 1988, Cheney heavily invested in Iraq through the oil drilling company’s subsidiaries. Haliburton was a major factor in helping to boost Iraqi oil imports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000.

http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1415

Of course, there's also the questions no one's asking... what happens when Saddam is gone? Who replaces him? Do we leave American troops in Iraq for years to come to set up a replacement government? If we leave, what do we do if a hardline Islamic government replaces Saddam? It's not farfetched to believe Iran would march in and take control if we left a power vaccuum. Or other Islamic fundamentalists.
We could easily replace a secular dictator with an Islamic dictator.

“I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit—we would still be there.” Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

Ladogaboy
09-18-2002, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by jase71
Of course, there's also the questions no one's asking... what happens when Saddam is gone? Who replaces him? Do we leave American troops in Iraq for years to come to set up a replacement government? If we leave, what do we do if a hardline Islamic government replaces Saddam? It's not farfetched to believe Iran would march in and take control if we left a power vaccuum. Or other Islamic fundamentalists.
We could easily replace a secular dictator with an Islamic dictator.


I'd say that we should just put the Kurds in power. ;)

CornMonkey
09-18-2002, 05:22 PM
i say turn it into G|A's "desert get-a-way."

sbp
09-21-2002, 02:16 PM
9/19: Iraq's Foreign Minister says Iraq doesn't have nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/19/iraq.us/index.html). Anyone here really believe that?

Now Iraq says it won't accept any new U.N. resolution (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/21/iraq.un/index.html)

This offer was just another ploy that naive people out there fell for. Its business as usual as Hussein thumbs his nose at the rest of the world.

sbp
09-21-2002, 03:11 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my friend." An adage to keep in mind.

Many countries propped up Hussein. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries gave big money cause they feared the Iranian Clerics looney revolution spreading. The Europeans continued with business as usual. Yet no one expresses angst about any of them doing what they did.

So the Europeans, Middle East countries, and US all supported Hussein. The US hasn't support him for a long time and wants the tyrant to go. In contrast, the Europeans and Middle Easters patronize him and don't want to do a damn thing besides flap their gums as usual. Who is worst? Certainly not the US. Yet its the US that gets blasted incessantly rather than a cutthroat who has defied the world for years. Is this right? Hell no! :yell: