This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What's so alternative about it? There were a hell of a lot of quid pro quos given out by the US to support its war on Iraq. Having been a leader in the anti-war movement at the time, I laughed and pointed at all the liberals who expected the UN to stop Bush's war drive. For example, the USSR was given a free pass in Lithunania, Egypt got it's debts forgiven and it's aid bumped up to mathc Israel's, the US changed the focus of the Lockerbie bombing from Syria to Lybia, and so on.

But I still doubt very much that the US leading in the Sec. COuncil that nothing would have been done. I guess am just not as cynical as you are in that regard.

[Bereta_Eder]

the US and the UK are ready to kill thousands for oil.

Boooo, I say. And it is the least I can say.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, they were. Do I really need to dig up those articles stating as much again?

Go ahead. Pull the articles up from December 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq. Clinton withdrew the inspectors just prior to the his Wag the Dog bombnigs before his impeachment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
But I still doubt very much that the US leading in the Sec. COuncil that nothing would have been done. I guess am just not as cynical as you are in that regard.

The Security Council has done nothing for 35 years in regards to Israel's annexation of the Golan and it's occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Security Council did nothing about the annexation of East Timor by the Indonesians for 25 years, and then sat back and watched as the Indonesians ran amok after the independence vote. The Security Council did nothing about Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea. The Security Council did nothing about Morroco's annexation of Western Sahara.

Yet I'm to believe that the Security Council had to do something about the invasion of Kuwait?

[chequita guevara]

MtG, al-Qaeda is not being harbored by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, like the rest of Iraq, are ruled by secular leaders, specifically two Maoist factions. Al-Qaeda linked operatives are attacking the current Kurdish "government." They are operating in a border area along Iran and Northern Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Go ahead. Pull the articles up from December 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq.

Done. It's like I said before. Iraq expelled the Americans and the UN pulled the rest out.

13 November Expulsion

Iraq finally ordered the immediate expulsion of all US UNSCOM officials on 13 November. In a statement carried by the Iraqi News Agency (INA), the Government stated: "All American inspectors should leave Iraq immediately until the American administration and the Security Council decide to review their irresponsible policy and their dealing with Iraq." The 6 US inspectors were ordered to leave Iraq by land. The same day, speaking at the UN in New York, Tariq Aziz told reporters: "UNSCOM is supposed to be an international agency. It can work with or without Americans. There are many inspectors working under UNSCOM." The Security Council issued a statement on the evening of 13 November condemning Iraq "in the strongest terms" and demanding the "immediate and unequivocal revocation of this action." UNSCOM Chair Richard Butler reacted (13 November) by raising the issue of what damage to UNSCOM's efforts Iraq may have already achieved: "In this last 10 days when they were moving toward what happened in the last 24 hours, they started to impede our cameras, move equipment, prevent our inspections..." Butler predicted that his teams would soon be back in Iraq "one way or another": "We have to find a way to bring Iraq back to its senses on this issue and to get inspectors back in the country."

As soon as the expulsion was announced, Butler withdrew all his inspectors from the country. He later (14 November) defended this move against reported criticism by China and Russia: "Had I allowed the Americans to be pushed, ejected from the country on six hours' notice and stayed there with a non-American UNSCOM, I would simply have completed Saddam Hussein's policy for him." Butler said he understood that some Council members would have preferred to consult with him before he made his decision, but added that the "awfully short time-frame we were placed under" had made this impossible.

On 14 November, the Security Council convened the board of arms commissioners, which normally meets twice a year to advise UNSCOM, to discuss the crisis. The move apparently came at the behest of Russia. The same day, the Russian Duma passed a resolution urging Yeltsin to "take all necessary measures not to allow the use of any military force against the Republic of Iraq." The same day, Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev said he was confident that "there is enough sober-mindedness around to resolve the situation in Iraq without military intervention." A very different tone was set by UK Foreign Secretary Cook and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, meeting in Edinburgh on 14 November. Albright told reporters:

"The Foreign Secretary informed me of Britain's intention to beef up its forces in the Gulf at the same time we are doing so... Hopefully, this will help persuade Saddam Hussein that there is no salvation in defiance and no reward for recalcitrance."

On 15 November, Iraq's Babel newspaper, owned by Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, argued that "American and British interests, Embassies and naval ships...in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and...attacks by Arab political forces."

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd20/20iraq.htm

[Velociryx]

Ummm...Che....the main question....the main POINT is not whether the inspectors were kicked out, invited to dinner with Sadam and Elvis (up in the UFO where they're keeping Hitler and Kennedy, of course), or withdrawn by Clinton (and btw, I did not know that the US President could order UN inspectors to do much of anything....curious).

In any case, the POINT is that while the UN inspectors were there, they were led on a string of wild goose chases by S. Hussein, of Iraq.

-=Vel=-

[walruskkkch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The Security Council has done nothing for 35 years in regards to Israel's annexation of the Golan and it's occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Security Council did nothing about the annexation of East Timor by the Indonesians for 25 years, and then sat back and watched as the Indonesians ran amok after the independence vote. The Security Council did nothing about Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea. The Security Council did nothing about Morroco's annexation of Western Sahara.

Yet I'm to believe that the Security Council had to do something about the invasion of Kuwait?

YOu seem to keep missing my point about the US being a part of the Sec Council and that they would have forced the issue, as they did, in regards to Kuwait as opposed to protecting Israel at other times. So if the question is "Would the Sec. Council have done anything in 1990-91 concerning Kuwait" the answer is yes because the USA would have pushed for it. Which brings me back to my orginal disagreement with your premise that the US didn't want to do anything about Kuwait in the first place.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I assume you mean anti-gulf war? If you dont mind, what was your reasoning behind being against driving the Iraqi's out of Kuwait?

A number of reasons, in no particular order.

Kuwait is historically part of Iraq.

The majority of the population of Kuwait are virtual slaves.

I don't give a damn about the property of royalty.

As bad as Iraq is, it was among the most Westernized and moder of Arab states, with the highest levels of literacy, health, and rights for women.

I oppose American imperialism on principle.

Kuwait was an excuse, the war wasn't primarily about Kuwait or oil, it was about demonstrating American power while the USSR was falling.

A problem among the Arab states should be solved by the Arabs themselves, and not have soultions forced upon them by outsiders who are interested in seeing the Arab people carved up into tiny statelets.

I saw no reason why Americans should die for the profits of oil companies and American control of European oil supplies.

It would destablize the region and lead to more terrorism.

It was hypocrisy to focus on the recent occupation of Kuwait while the Palestinians had languished under Israeli dictatorship for 24 years (at that point).

Iraq had legitmiate greivances with Kuwait, including the theft of Iraqi oil via slant drilling, as well as over-producing to drive down oil prices, which hurt thr Iraqi economy.

Iraq repeatedly indicated its willingness to withdraw from Kuwait if its grievences were discuessed, offers which were considered serious by every country but the US and Britain.

At the time I believed that the US had set Iraq up (and there is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that that was the case, though I no longer believe that we did).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Done. It's like I said before. Iraq expelled the Americans and the UN pulled the rest out.

Okay, so I appear to have been wrong on this point.

Given the fact that the US was using the team to spy on the Iraqis above and beyond the scope of the inspections team, was it unreasaonable to expell the Americans? It still remains that it was not the Iraqis who expelled the team, but rather the UN.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Iraq repeatedly indicated its willingness to withdraw from Kuwait if its grievences were discuessed, offers which were considered serious by every country but the US and Britain.

The same people considered his latest offer of "unrestricted inspections" a serious one too... and now they look like fools

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Iraq repeatedly indicated its willingness to withdraw from Kuwait if its grievences were discuessed, offers which were considered serious by every country but the US and Britain.

I thought that you were oppossed to rewarding aggression.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In any case, the POINT is that while the UN inspectors were there, they were led on a string of wild goose chases by S. Hussein, of Iraq.

Have you read any interviews by Ritter? He makes it clear that they got most of what they knew about. The stuff that Iraq was being really cagy about and giving them a hard time over and limiting their access to, when uncovered, time and again, turned out to be information related to the whereabouts of Hussein. Given that he believed (not unreasonably) that he was the target for an assassination by the US, don't you think the Iraqis had a right to be cagy.

In any event, the material uncovered in this period wasn't part of the scope of the team. It's problematic in that in order to find what you're looking for, you have to uncover a lot of stuff you aren't authorized to look for. UNSCOM was only authorized to look for WoMD, but they'd uncover stuff about troop strengths and deployments and the whereabouts of Hussein, none of which were germane to their mission, and which would also get passed along to the US, since the US was using UNSCOM as spies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Have you read any interviews by Ritter?

Have you read his testimony before the US Senate in 1998?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming


The same people considered his latest offer of "unrestricted inspections" a serious one too... and now they look like fools

What Hussein may or may not have done in 1990-91 before the war and ten years of sanctions and after are very likely two different things. We'll never know, really. Up to that point, Hussein had been a "co-belligerent" of the US against Iran, and he thought he had a good relationship with us. If we hadn't deliberately attacked his honor, who knows what would have happened.

It is clear that the US had no intention of reaching a negotiated settlement. It wanted total surrender. That's its imperial prerogative as the planetary hegemon. People of good conscience, however, must act against against the empire, however.