Does this mean further inspections are not necessary?

[walruskkkch]

Iraq Demands End to Sanctions After Blix Report
Sat Mar 8, 8:40 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!



BAGHDAD (Reuters) - President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to lift 12 years of sanctions against Iraq (news - web sites) after what he said was its fulfilling of its disarmament commitments.


In a statement after a meeting chaired by Saddam, the Iraqi leadership made a set of demands it said the Security Council should implement after the reports by chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday.


"The embargo against Iraq should be lifted totally and comprehensively after America's motives were revealed to the world and after Iraq abided by Security Council resolutions," the statement said.


It also demanded that the Security Council denounce the United States and Britain as "liars," strip Israel of its alleged weapons of mass destruction and force it to pull out of "Palestine and occupied Arab land."


The United States and Britain reject Iraq's disarmament moves as insufficient and are threatening imminent war. They have put forward a new draft resolution at the Security Council which would give Baghdad until March 17 to disarm or face an invasion.


Some 300,000 American and British troops are deployed within a striking distance of Iraq.


Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council on Friday Iraq's cooperation fell short of Council demands but applauded Baghdad's scrapping of al-Samoud missiles.


The meeting was attended by members of the ruling Baath Party, Revolutionary Command Council and the parliament speaker.


The statement said Blix and ElBaradei had testified that Iraq was sincere and implementing accurately Security Council resolutions.


"After the stage that Iraq had reached in implementing the commitments defined by the Security Council...the world, its peoples and most of its governments have come to realize the real aims of the American administration," the statement said.


"It wants to cover what it wants to do with allegations that Iraq did not implement Security Council resolutions," it said. "But testimonies on the truthfulness of what we say and the accuracy in implementation come from the concerned specialists led by the committee of Blix and ElBaradei."

I suppose now that we have the final word from Iraq that they have provided all the information to confirm the total destruction of all of their weapons and programs then continuing the inspections is not necessary. Given the positions held be France, Germany, Russia and China I would assume that they will now introduce a resolution calling for the lifting of sanctions. If Saddam is publicly stating that he has completed his disarmament then either he has done so, and the opponents of the war must acknowledge that he has or , if they still believe that further uncovering is necessary, then he is not going to disarm. So the question is, WHich is it? Is Saddam telling the truth and further inspections are no necessary or is he lying in which case then further inspections are pointless as well as he is not going to divulge anything more.

[alva]

You must hand it to the guy, he's got some nerve

[badman]

I don't believe Saddam and I think the inspections need to continue.
But I think lifting the sanctions might be a good idea because hungry people don't care about freedom and democracy (at least as long as they don't feel that it's their dictator's fault). So with the sanctions in place, the Iraqi people will never start a revolution against their oppressor. On the other hand lifting the sanctions could make it easier for Saddam to buy weapons.

[The Mad Monk]

So, let's just kill him.

[RGBVideo]

Does this mean further inspections are not necessary?

Oh, he said so?

I suppose now that we have the final word from Iraq that they have provided all the information to confirm the total destruction of all of their weapons and programs then continuing the inspections is not necessary.

I suppose now that you are twisting his words to your own favour.

[badman]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So, let's just kill him.

Killing Saddam won't help (I assume that you weren't joking). Some other guy from his family will take over. Conquering Iraq won't help either since the Iraqi people probably won't support the conquerers so Iraq will fall into anarchy.
Besides, conquering Iraq would give terrorists in the Arabian countries more support than ever before.

[The Mad Monk]

No, we're killing them, too -- haven't you been paying attention?

[Gatekeeper]

Yep, it's time to lift the sanctions so Saddam and the French oil companies can do even more business than they currently are. That, in turn, will increase the monetary flow, allowing Iraq to pay off its debts to Russia, which will in turn likely plow the funds into its war in Chechnya. Meanwhile, France's leaders will parade about claiming how they care so deeply for Iraq's citizens, and said leaders will likely get a nice contribution (or two) from French oil companies doing business in Iraq.

Just another day in the Earthly neighborhood.

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

So wait, the war isn't about oil, except when it comes to the French and Russians? How..... absurd.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

and than the mutant ants from space will have them all and everyone will think "Oh we should have listened to Bush and Blair, but now it's too late"...

[mactbone]

Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council on Friday Iraq's cooperation fell short of Council demands but applauded Baghdad's scrapping of al-Samoud missiles.

This like saying - he hasn't paid all his debt back like he said, but he gave us part of it - therefore he's cooperating. If I tell you I'm going to do something and I fall short of my promise, I still haven't fulfilled my promise.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So, let's just kill him.

It's time to put an end to this charade.


Bush wants him dead so let's get it overwith.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GePap
So wait, the war isn't about oil, except when it comes to the French and Russians? How..... absurd.

Well, gosh, due to those sanctions, American companies really don't have a presence in Iraq. But that didn't stop French companies from doing business with Saddam. But from the way the OT sounds half the time, you'd think the evil, imperalistic Americans were the *only* nation to do that sort of thing. I guess reality can be a bear sometimes.

Speaking of oil, we need some more muscle in making Hugo Chavez's life miserable in Venezuela. We're meddling down there, too, you know. **does the Evil American Dance** (And the reader's paranoia towards America grows as reality and fiction blend harmoniously ...)

As for the money Iraq owes Russia, I think that goes all the way back to the days of the former Soviet Union. Which begs the question: Would Russia split the money with other former members of the SU? Not likely.

Gatekeeper

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Well, gosh, due to those sanctions, American companies really don't have a presence in Iraq. But that didn't stop French companies from doing business with Saddam. But from the way the OT sounds half the time, you'd think the evil, imperalistic Americans were the *only* nation to do that sort of thing. I guess reality can be a bear sometimes.

Precisely. That's why GWB's oil buddies want him to knock off Saddam, so they can get in there.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Speaking of oil, we need some more muscle in making Hugo Chavez's life miserable in Venezuela. We're meddling down there, too, you know. **does the Evil American Dance** (And the reader's paranoia towards America grows as reality and fiction blend harmoniously ...)

Yes, the US is supsected to be behind the failed coup last year.

How many feet do you have in you mouth now?