Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not giving relevant information with regards to Iraqi BCN weapons to the UN is a direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

No, it isn't.

[DaShi]

Damn, keep reading this as "Powell to Invent Iraqq Evidence to the UN"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
War presents numerous side benefits in terms of strategic position between Iran and Saudi, liberating the Iraqi people,

>Don't even bring them into it. The US has shown its contempt for the Iraqi people since the 1960s. If it gave a damn about them we never would have helped the Ba'athists and Hussein to power in the first place,

We did lots of bad things during the cold war - it was over VERY BIG issues, which are not germane to this thread.


>we wouldn't have supported and armed Hussein, given him chemical and biological weapons,

We supported him with intel and diplomacy because our local allies were threatened by Iran. To avoid being in that position again we need a democratic ally there. We did not give him chem and bio weapons - we gave him, IIRC dual use items - the accusation that we gave him WMD is a slander. We also did not sell him much (if any) arms - his arms were almost entirely Russian and French
This is another slander.


> tricked them into invading their neigher

BS - Bush sr's pre Aug 90 diplomacy may have been incompetent but there is no evidence US tried to get him to attack Kuwait. This is pure slander.

>, starved them,

You have elsewhere in response to the truth that saddam diverted oil for food money to WMD, said we killed them by denying them water purification chems, not by kiloing them - changed your mind??

In any case I agree that sanctions are an absurd, unsustainable policy - thats why we need Saddam out.

>and then sat back and allowed the Iraqi people to be slaughtered when they revolted at the end of the last war.

At the instigation of Schwarzkopf, Zinni and Powell, everyone's favorite "realists" Perle, Wolofwitz and Kristol certainly didnt go along with the abandonement of the Iraqi people. Your argument that because we hava abandoned them before means we must abandon them now does not hold water.

> The Iraqi people mean exactly ZERO to this administration except as a statistical problem.

and removing a bitter enemy of the United States, which disarmament alone does not.

>>An enemy which can do nothing to harm us.

It threatens our interests in the region. Thats why I said its a side benefit, not a casus belli or even the key to the prudential reasons for war.

>>>

However Iraq'a WMD's ARE a big concern.

>>>Why?

Ive answered that elsewhere

The US has been aware from the beginning that if Iraq disarmed we would not go to war,

>>>>Bull****. From the very begining we've said we were going to attack no matter what.


Absolutely not - we're still not saying we'll attack if he disarms peacefully. Some in the US (notably Rumsfield) have expressed GREAT skepticism that Iraq CAN be disarmed peacefully while Saddam is in power, but thats not the same as saying WMD are not the reason.

Our motivations include but go beyond the formal casus belli - that hardly invalidates the casus belli, which is quite real (unless you believe that Saddam has disarmed, as Iraq claims)

>>>Our motivations have nothing to do with Iraq except as as easy target. It's just a continuation of establishing global hegemony.

OK, how about we show we're not really interested in global hegemony by simulataneously withdrawing from other parts of our "empire" - like Korea (which should be able to defend itself by now) and reducing our troops in Germany??

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not giving relevant information with regards to Iraqi BCN weapons (look, neither chemical nor biological weapons cause mass destruction) to the UN is a direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

That was kind of my point.

(except that I think BCN weapons are WMDs, since many dictionries define them that way.)

[chequita guevara]

Inspectors dispute Bush's Iraq grievances

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By DAFNA LINZER



Jan. 29, 2003 | UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The top nuclear inspector in Iraq disputed President Bush's claims that Iraqi intelligence agents are posing as scientists but conceded Wednesday he would not be surprised if the inspections effort had been infiltrated -- not necessarily by the Iraqis.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency also stood by his inspectors' findings that aluminum tubes the Iraqis had tried to import were for rockets and not for a nuclear program, as the president reasserted Tuesday in his State of the Union address.

"We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program," ElBaradei said. He said the tubes could be modified for uranium enrichment, but the process would be expensive, time-consuming and detectable.

On the Iraqi scientists, ElBaradei said it was unlikely his inspectors "could be fooled in the nuclear area on who is a scientist and who is not."

"We know all the scientists from the past and I think our people could easily detect if that person is a scientist or not."

In his annual speech, Bush said: "Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say, and intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families."

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri dismissed Bush's allegations as "lies" and said his government will fully cooperate with inspectors to show "that these baseless allegations are nothing but fabrications."

Meanwhile, ElBaradei and the other chief U.N. inspector, Hans Blix, attended a crucial Security Council meeting on Iraq where they presented additional information regarding their reports on the first 60 days of inspections.

Their differing -- but ultimately negative -- reports issued Monday were used by Bush to strengthen arguments for possible war, and could convince reluctant allies to support military action to disarm Saddam.

But key council members appeared unswayed by the reports and Bush's address. During a break in the day-long meeting, German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger said inspectors should be given "a realistic opportunity to discharge their mandate. Let us not put aside an instrument we only recently sharpened."

While there were indications Moscow could be leaning toward the American position, Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov disputed that and said President Vladimir Putin had been misinterpreted.

"He said, 'We believe that inspections must continue, and that if Iraq stops cooperating with inspectors and starts blocking inspections we must look into it.' We have been saying this all along," Lavrov said.

The Russian diplomat also challenged the long-standing no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq established after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Kurds and Shiite Muslims.

"I believe the no-fly zones were unilaterally declared in violation of Security Council resolutions, and this is the Russian position vis-a-vis no fly zones, like the position of the overwhelming majority of United Nations Security Council members."

Still, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Moscow was waiting to examine U.S. intelligence for itself.

"We do not always assess specific sources of threats identically, but we regard Russian-American cooperation as an imperative in the resolution of common tasks of the provision of security and stability in the world," he said.

For the United States, Wednesday's closed-door council session will be a first opportunity to gauge international support for a war against Iraq after Bush's address. The president said the United States would consult with the council, but if Saddam does not disarm, "we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

The president said in his address that intelligence sources had revealed that Iraqi security personnel were hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

ElBaradei said security was tight among inspectors but he wouldn't be surprised if the teams had been infiltrated by any country eager to know what exactly was going on.

"We are used to many efforts of infiltration, but I will not be shocked if we have been infiltrated. We're trying to have a very tight security plan on a need-to-know basis, and any intelligence we get is shared with not more than three or four people maximum."

Blix agreed.

"I don't think anyone at a high level would contend that there have been leaks," he told reporters.

The president also announced that on Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell would present a special session of the council with "information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

The announcement was welcome by allies skeptical of war and Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaida.

"I'm delighted by this American decision," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said he would attend Powell's presentation. But at the United Nations, there was no indication that France was ready to shift positions.

In Brussels, NATO delivered another setback to the United States as France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg again blocked plans for the alliance to send planes and missiles to defend Turkey if there is war with Iraq.

Officials said the U.S. proposals to start preparations to support Turkey were not even discussed at a meeting of the alliance's policy-making North Atlantic Council, after the 19 allies failed to agree in private talks Tuesday.

The four allies say they do not oppose the U.S. proposals as such. But they feel it is too early to start military planning while there is still hope of avoiding a war through diplomacy and the U.N. weapons inspections process.

The American proposals include sending AWACS surveillance planes and Patriot missiles systems to Turkey, intensifying naval patrols in the Mediterranean, filling in for European-based U.S. troops sent to the Gulf and an eventual role for NATO in humanitarian or peacekeeping operations in a postwar Iraq.

In November, the United States managed to unite an often divided council behind a tough Security Council resolution giving inspectors broader authority to hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

But under the resolution, inspectors weren't burdened with having to prove Iraq is rearming. Instead, Iraq was warned up front of "serious consequences" should it fail to cooperate with inspectors and provide them with a complete picture of the country's weapons programs.

[DinoDoc]

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri ... said his government will fully cooperate with inspectors to show "that these baseless allegations are nothing but fabrications."

I loved that part.