Blix's Report to the UN Council..

[FiveB247]

So what does everyone think now that Blix has stated no weapons of mass destruction have been found or signs of them? He did make obvious mention of the fact there need to be more inspections, and also the fact of un-accounted items not recovered or discovered as of yet.

Does anyone still want to hear Bush and Powell call for invasion as we now have around 150,000 troops in the area? Seems to me they have already decided unilateraly what the US interests are and what actions need to be taken to attain them.

[Bergalad]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, giving a report which could be crucial to whether war is waged on Iraq, said on Friday that banned Iraqi weapons still were unaccounted for and Baghdad must detail the status of anthrax and VX stocks and long-range missiles.


Blix also told a tense meeting of the U.N. Security Council that two versions of Iraq's al Samoud 2 missile exceed the maximum range of 150 km (93 miles) set by the United Nations.


"The issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles (are) ... perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions," he said.


The UN said in Resolution 1441:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;


Here is the full text of Resolution 1441 http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

So the UN Resolution says that Iraq must declare and reveal all chemical/biological weapons within 30 days of the issuance of the Resolution. Blix says today that Iraq has still failed to do so. The Resolution says failure to declare is a material breach of the Resolution and in turn Iraq would face 'serious consequenses' if it violated the Resolution. These are the facts. Now what should the UN do?



This message was edited by Bergalad on 2-14-03 @ 11:42 AM

[FiveB247]

You are correct in saying that Bergalad, but you seem to be missing the fact that the US does not get to pick what the "serious consequence" is. The US says it should be invasion and war...while the UN is still undecided. That is the difference between the US acting upon its own interests and going along with the UN as a whole. The US is one of the nations on the Security Council, not the final say. But regardless, you just as I, know the US will act upon its own interests and invade sometime in the near future. But as for saying the US is complying along with the UN, that is incorrect (unless the UN agrees on actions for invasion and war).

[LiquidCourage]

What's the UN's idea of "serious consequences"?
More resolutions?

[TheMojoPin]

Again, there are still good chances we can get Saddam out without resorting to a massive invasion on our part. Nobody except actual fools are saying "do nothing"...it's "let's keep the options open"...Saddam is locked now...he cannot act...so let's weigh what we can do...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks, and the best goddamn American ever.
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

Absolutely correct that it is the UN and not the United States who should decide what the consequences should be. 1441 was put into effect early November 2002, and 90 days later we still don't have Iraq complying. Yes, they are starting to do some things, but the Resolution called for complete and total compliance before the end of the first 30 days. So we are left with the UN not enforcing their own Resolution, not bringing about the 'serious consequences' they promised. If their goal was to give more and more time to Iraq, emplace more inspectors or whatever else, that is what the Resolution should have said. Then there would not be an issue. But 1441 said 'serious consequences', and I don't think that a more rigorous inspection program is what was meant by that. I want the UN to enforce it's Resolution, not the US. I absolutely don't want the US to act outside the will of the UN, but right now it doesn't seem like the UN has a will to do anything at all.

[FiveB247]

Bergalad...you act and speak like every other American. We want results immediately or else. The UN wants to continue inspections, which thus far have been complied with by Sadam. There was much funny business in the past of moving of weapons and kicking out of inspectors. None of that has occured now. You and every other American wants war cause you had been led and taught that they are enemies to be destroyed. The UN is working to diplomatically resolve this situation. The US is trying to unilaterally create war and invasion at all costs.

"Beware of the leader who bangs the drum of war inorder to whip the citzenry into a patriotic fervor. For Patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both narrows the mind, and when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with a hate and the mind has closed. The leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citzenry. Rather the citzenry infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar."

That's a quote from Julius Caesar...and growing very true of America and its society.

[Bergalad]

I didn't say in this thread we should go to war. In my post I put two things: part of the text of Resolution 1441 and Hans Blix's report today. The UN said Iraq had to comply, and the person in charge of the UN inspections says Iraq isn't. Simple. Those two things are proven facts, there can be no arguing them. So, what is the UN to do? That is what I want to have answered. I just said that I don't want the US to go to war, what I want is compliance with 1441 by Iraq, and since they haven't, I want the UN to do something other than wring their hands and look confused. I would love it if Iraq suddenly gave up and said 'Fine! Here's everything we have', but they aren't going to do that. The UN has been working on this for over 12 years now, and Iraq still doesn't want to comply. I am more concerned about the UN than Iraq actually, since they are unable to do much of anything it seems. If we are to have a world legislative body, then it should have some teeth to it, or else hello League of Nations. And yes, the US has gone against the will of the UN at times, but those were all non-binding issues (that could still be important yes I know), but never that I know of have we gone against any Resolutions of the Security Council. If the UN can't or won't enforce it's own decrees, then why decree anything? It is the UN who has lost the credibility here, not the United States.

[FiveB247]

You are playing a game of cat and mouse with your logic. The UN lacks power and enforcement to nations not complying with its actions. The US is the largest, most powerful of these. We set the example of "do as we say, not as we do" to the rest of the world. If we simply acted, respected and followed international laws, instead of holding others to them and ignore them ourselves, the UN would be an institution with power. But like I've said previously, the US acts unilateraly when necessary and multilateraly when the scenerio or settings are there (which isn't often).

Your logic of blaming the UN is can be related to this analogy...."blaming the voters for a politician who is corrupt, unjust and acts on his own behalf; rather then blame the politician directly".
The US is that politician and the nations of the world are the people. People in this nation are quick to blame, point the finger and justify "enemies of the state" and leave it at such measures. Nothing is as black and white as you make it seem, and the American public is too lazy and dis-interested to bother looking into the grey areas.

[LiquidCourage]

What?!?

Iraq has been a COMPLETE pain in the ass about inspections.
For example, the way the Iraqi scientists weren't allowed to be interviewed without an Iraqi state official present.

[FiveB247]

Once again...you are comparing items the US wanted ..to those of the UN. They are not applicable to the UN. Iraq has not explained about where some items are and whether some have been destroyed or not. That is what applies to resolution 1441. Not the guidlines, concerns, issues and applications the US wishes to know specifically.

[Bergalad]

If anyone else on here thinks I am off on what I am saying, please let me know. I am presenting the facts, FACTS, as they are being reported. I don't see how it's possible to deny that Iraq is in breach of 1441. Even the UN says they are in violation. I am asking the UN to uphold their rules. This problem has absolutely nothing to do with what the US has done in the past; it has everything to do with UN credibility now.

Five (or anyone else with courage), please specifically answer these questions:

1. Does the UN Resolution 1441 require Iraq to comply completely within 30 days of it's initiation?

2. Has Iraq fully complied as required by 1441? If so, how? If not, why?

3. What do you think the UN meant by 'serious consequences'?

I would be interested in hearing what you think. Specifically, without all the extra flourishes.

[LionHeart]

I hear that French and German tanks have 6 gears. 5 go in reverse and 1 goes forward in case they get attacked from behind.



-LionHeart

[Heavy]

So what does everyone think now that Blix has stated no weapons of mass destruction have been found or signs of them?


I think the same thing I thought when powell made his speech. Theyre hiding the shit

<img src="http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/onaarmy.gif">
<A HREF="http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net">Join The O&A Army!!</A> Please, help us save Black Earl.
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

[FiveB247]

Ok..first...there's a huge difference between the UN facts and what the US says is fact. If the US knows of such weapons being hidden, WMD programs in development and such...why haven't they shared this with the UN in order for the UN to check such items? Where is the agenda of the US to not share such info if they know it to be fact as you and they claim? You can't simply question the agitator without understanding the perspective of the aggressor (and to do so is biased and not the entire truth/fact).

Secondly, the notion of "serious consequences" is up for the entire Security Council to decide...not the US saying we want war. The Council uses war actions as a last resort. You seem to assume that since US feels the inspections aren't sufficient or even if Iraq breaks them....it's up to the US to step in and put things in place with invasion and war? The UN is a diplomatic, multilateral institution. Not a testing group for the US to try and bargain for their solidarity, then act unilaterally when the US pleases. There is an important fact that Colin Powell spoke in front of the UN council, they usually choose to work around the UN, and go along with some of their laws and policies when they choose....but mostly act upon their own interests when they feel necessary. And that is the same notion they give all the other member nations, hypocrisy and to just do as we say...not as we do.

If the US attacks without UN Security Council backing...they are just as much in the wrong as Iraq not complying with the inspections.

[LiquidCourage]

The UN's a joke.
I can't believe you listen to what they say like it's the word of God.

[FiveB247]

What is sad is your nationalistic attitude and lack of thought you put into something you show such devotion for...and no matter the circumstance. You believe everything you are told by the media, politicians, etc... The same very areas people mock and talk of corruption at any other period....except wartime. But when that kicks into gear...you bark like a good dog. And when another notion, idea, belief or view is mentioned, no matter what it is, you bash it. Like I've said before...simple beliefs for a simple mind.

The UN is what this world and humanity should be attaining and working towards. Not the wars and rhetoric you speak of. And the reason the UN is under its current shape is due to nations like the US ignoring and making it this way.

You are always saying how this nation is great. Which areas do you talk of or believe this to be? Obviously I can name many as well, but I'm curious to hear it from someone who believes everyone should be practicing such beliefs as well.

[Bergalad]

Five, I asked you specific questions which you have decided you don't want to answer. I am not looking for conflict with you; indeed I value the opinion of someone with convictions. Still, you don't respond to my queries, and that leads me to the conclusion that you are afraid to answer them. If you can't answer my specific questions, then respectfully I think you should post in the entertainment threads. I would like to believe the people who look at these threads like facts, not rhetoric. I think together you and I can do that. Please answer the questions, and I will be happy to answer any of yours.



This message was edited by Bergalad on 2-15-03 @ 12:18 AM

[FiveB247]

You don't seem to get it Bergalad...I answered your questions...you've answered your own questions...etc....

1) Yes 1441 requires Iraq to comply.
2) No, Iraq has not fully complied to 1441 due to missing items and a few unanswered questions.
3) The notion of "serious consequences" is specific to the Securtiy Councils interpritation of that item. The US deems that item as "war or invasion"...while the Council has not specified what such items truly mean.

These items and answers are obvious...but you seem to disregard the fact that the US finds it ok to act without the UN Security Council's regards. As if Iraq not complying allows for the US to act upon its wishes; which is completely unfounded and absurd. One has nothing to do with the other and doesn't make it correct for 2 wrongs to make a right. If the US acts upon its wishes to invade and create war, it's just as wrong as Iraq not complying with 1441.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 2-15-03 @ 3:15 AM

[Bergalad]

1) Yes 1441 requires Iraq to comply.


2) No, Iraq has not fully complied to 1441 due to missing items and a few unanswered questions.


3) The notion of "serious consequences" is specific to the Securtiy Councils interpritation of that item. The US deems that item as "war or invasion"...while the Council has not specified what such items truly mean.

"Serious consequences' cannot mean more inspectors. There is no way that is what the UN meant by that. They meant the use of force, not more displays. Turn it all around: the will of the UN is being blocked by Germany and France, not the US. Both of those countries have huge profits to gain from a Saddam-controlled, sanction-free Iraq. They, most especially France, are preventing the disarmament of Saddam and preventing the UN from acting as it said it would. No the US shouldn't go in and do what the UN should, but 1441 should be enforced. The UN is not able to enforce the Resolution, so what now? I am not too happy about it, but the US and allies will enforce 1441 for the UN. Right or wrong, that is what will happen soon, and then what remains is to determine the relevance of the UN, because if they can't follow through with what they say they will do then they really have no place as a ruling body.

[FiveB247]

You are interpreting what you think 1441's mention of "serious consequences" means. The UN has stated they want more inspections to see and check into some more items. Like I said before...the Security Council will determine what the consequences shall be......not the US.

And as for the nation that would profit the most from and invasion and war...it is clearly the US. Iraq holds 10% of the world's oil resource. The highest nation is Saudi Arabia with 25%. With the 10% of Iraq's oil being monitored and not running at full capacity due to restrictions....an invasion and regime change would booster US interests in the oil market, take a ton of power away from OPEC and their market setting capabilities in the industry; as well as make not itself reliant on any one nation with diversifying the centralized and collective market and price setting capabilities. In other terms..if such actions occurred on Wall Street, it would be called, "cornering the market"....obviously an illegal action.

[Bergalad]

French oil giant TotalFinaElf has exclusive exploration contracts worth $US40-50 billion to develop the massive Majnoon and Bin Umar oilfields in southern Iraq...


The United States has the most to gain? I beg to differ. And this idea that 'serious consequences' is to be decided by the UN, great. Then let's have them! It means something more than they are doing now. The UN is failing in it's obligation.

"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

[FiveB247]

Where are you getting this info from about the French oil company?

And as for the arsenal of nations and your quote......that is all very nice from a moralist stand point, but you leave out the fact that the US is the largest arms dealer in the world. We've built up, sold weapons and development blueprints to almost every nation we now contend. On a side note, Iraq's WMD programs (specifically their chemical and biological weapons programs) were gained from US help during the early 80's. If you are going to talk of an issue...mention everything about it, not just the portion that suites your agenda or the immedite answer.

[Bergalad]

The info on the French-Iraq oil deal is from open source information, so go look it up if you don't believe it. As for the quote, I was not using it to have you spin it into some anti-war propaganda. Rather, I was trying to highlight the idea that the strength of the US doesn't really lie in it's military might; it lies in it's people. Since you love my posts so much, here's another quote for 'ya:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)