Iraq slams US 'banditry'
December 11, 2002

BAGHDAD has accused Washington of "banditry unparalleled" in UN history, after the United States seized Iraq's arms declaration within hours of its delivery to UN headquarters.

"The US behaviour shows utter disrespect for the UN Charter and the inalienable rights of the 10 rotating members of the Security Council," a foreign ministry statement said.

"It's an act of banditry unparalleled in the history of the United Nations."

A US official took Iraq's arms inventory from UN headquarters shortly after its delivery, arguing that only permanent members of the Security Council who are declared nuclear powers should see the full document with its sensitive details of banned weapons development.

The other 10 members of the council will receive only an expurgated version.

"The United States forced the council president (Alfonso Valdivieso of Colombia) to hand over the (Security Council's) copy of the Iraqi dossier in defiance of a decision by council members to entrust it to the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," the Iraqi statement charged.

"By acting in this way, the United States is looking for a figleaf for aggression at a time when the whole world has seen through its false claims about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction."

A second copy of the Iraqi declaration was shared between the two UN inspection agencies, which respectively have responsibility for disarming Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs.

UNMOVIC and IAEA experts in New York and Vienna are trawling through the 12,000-page document to see what new light it sheds on weapons programs still unaccounted for when the last UN inspections mission pulled out of Baghdad in 1998.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said it will be at least 10 days before his analysts are ready to make even a preliminary report to the Security Council.

Iraq insists that it has stopped developing weapons of mass destruction.

Agence France-Presse

Source. (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5656316%255E2,00.html)

Eh? We are looking at the document along with other countries and the UN inspection agencies. What is the big deal? Should we post it on the internet?

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Eh? We are looking at the document along with other countries and the UN inspection agencies. What is the big deal? Should we post it on the internet?
Yes, you should.

Did you not read the article? The USA will filter the document copies and pass on only what suits them. They may remove facts, add "facts" of their own, anything...

In the ADF we have entire libraries of real documents such as the one the USA has stolen, and they only vaguely resemble the ones released to the public. This happens all the time. Now it is happening in the open, right before your eyes, and the result will be war and death.

Britain, France, Russia and China all have unedited copies. Are they in on this conspiracy also? Give me a break.

You would want a document that details the operations of weapons development including possible waepons of mass destruction to be made available on the internet? Yeah, good idea.

Britain, France, Russia and China all have unedited copies. Are they in on this conspiracy also? Give me a break.

1) Any time anyone mentions anything Americans don't like, yo simply pull out the word "conspiracy". It's really pathetic.

2) As I've said before, this is simply the way it's done. It's all bullshit. The USA is the ONLY nation to have the ONE copy so far. They SAY they will pass "unedited" copied to the other security council members. It's not conspiracy. it's just the way things work. In case it has esacepd your notice, all the nations agreeing with the Bush polcicies have very strong tie with the USA.


You would want a document that details the operations of weapons development including possible waepons of mass destruction to be made available on the internet? Yeah, good idea.

You obviously need a lesson in logic. There has never been evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iraq. UN weapon inspectors admit this. The documents supplied to the UN are evidence of this. Thus they do NOT contain plans for buildings nukes.

Any time anyone mentions anything Americans don't like, yo simply pull out the word "conspiracy". It's really pathetic
What is pathetic is that you probably have this hotkeyed for anytime anyone says 'conspiracy'. I do not simply pull out the word conspiracy. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. You are just really defensive.

The USA is the ONLY nation to have the ONE copy so far. They SAY they will pass "unedited" copied to the other security council members
Ok, so what is your complaint? That the US got it first? That seems kind of trivial? Do you think they will edit the document? Isn't that a conspiracy?

You obviously need a lesson in logic. There has never been evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iraq. UN weapon inspectors admit this. The documents supplied to the UN are evidence of this. Thus they do NOT contain plans for buildings nukes.
I need a lesson in logic hehe. Please calm down and stop ranting so we can maybe talk like normal people.
Anyway, the US claims that a number of defectives from Iraq have confessed in detail the continued development weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is not hard evidence but do you deny that there is any reason to suspect Iraq of a weapons program? The UN is taking the precaution of not giving the documents to everyone in the world. I think this is a good choice.

Thus they do NOT contain plans for buildings nukes.
Ok, who has the faulty logic? Have you read the documents?

I am not sure why you are so worked up. I just do not think this particular action is all that alarming.

What is pathetic is that you probably have this hotkeyed for anytime anyone says 'conspiracy'.

Nice assumption. And pointless.


I do not simply pull out the word conspiracy. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else.

Actually, you do:

Are they in on this conspiracy also?

Is that not what you said earlier?


You are just really defensive.

No, I'm just pointing out the reality.


Ok, so what is your complaint? That the US got it first? That seems kind of trivial? Do you think they will edit the document? Isn't that a conspiracy?

The nation holding the evidence:
- Has nuked civilian cities and never been before an international war crimes tribunal for it.
- Has used bio and chem weapons, even on its own people.
- Today still uses chemical weapons on its own people (death penalty).
- Claimed a link between Iraq and Al Quaida which they never proved.
- Tried to block UN inspectors going back to Iraq.
- Claimed Iraq had, today, chem and bio weapons, using as evidence only the fact that Iraq had them in the past (and if we judge today by yesterday, then we must expect the USA to nuke civilian cities again). No evidence found of that today, so...
- USA claimed Iraq has nukes. Only evidence? A defector who suggested only that Iraq had the technical capacity to develop nukes if they ever decided to. And what happens? UN inspectors declare they have never found evidence of Iraq having or making nukes.
- Takes the UN-requested report, and tells the world they will release uncut copies to some nations and cut copies to the rest.

And we are supposed to trust that word.


I need a lesson in logic hehe. Please calm down and stop ranting so we can maybe talk like normal people.

Show me where I have ranted. Please. Else you are spouting crap. So far I have posted the facts, nothing but the facts Ma'am.


Anyway, the US claims that a number of defectives from Iraq have confessed in detail the continued development weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Wrong. The USA has ONE guy who worked in Iraq who said Iraq MIGHT, some day, develop nukes, because they have the technical know-how to do it.


This is not hard evidence but do you deny that there is any reason to suspect Iraq of a weapons program?

We can only go by the evidence. The only other option is to deal with people now on past performance, in which case we must bring down the American regime for their use of nukes against civilians in the past. Very simple logic.


The UN is taking the precaution of not giving the documents to everyone in the world. I think this is a good choice.

Why?


Ok, who has the faulty logic? Have you read the documents?

Nope. Because the USA nicked them.


I just do not think this particular action is all that alarming.
That's because you're a happy safe civilian, away from the bombs.

And we are supposed to trust that word.
So your main complaint/fear is that the US will edit this document and not tell anyone? Well shit that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. A pretty nutty one too. The US is not stupid enough to edit this document and add stuff.
The funny thing is that you probably have me wrong. I do not want the US to bomb Iraq. I think it would be a terrible mistake at this point. But I am not clouded by anti-american sentiment as you seem to be...

I heard on the news before the document was passed over that Saddam has said Iraq had tried to make WMDs but was unsuccessful. So being unsuccessful, Iraq had the equipment to at least attempt it.

So your main complaint/fear is that the US will edit this document and not tell anyone? Well shit that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. A pretty nutty one too. The US is not stupid enough to edit this document and add stuff.

Oh really? What does "Watergate" mean to you? Panama? The Iran-Contra deal? Enron? Do you really think the USA government is above lying, forging documents, and misleading legal investigations? Are you that uneducated regarding American history?


The funny thing is that you probably have me wrong. I do not want the US to bomb Iraq. I think it would be a terrible mistake at this point. But I am not clouded by anti-american sentiment as you seem to be...
1) Actually I don't care whether you personally wish to harm Iraq or not. It is your blindness regarding American history that I find ridiculous.

2) Prove that I am anti-American. Please.

Adam,

Are you just angry because the US might have found something and we actually might be right this time?

Do you really think the USA government is above lying, forging documents, and misleading legal investigations?
No I do not. I simply think in this case it is very unlikely the US would be able to add to or edit the document and get away with it.

1) Actually I don't care whether you personally wish to harm Iraq or not. It is your blindness regarding American history that I find ridiculous.
How have you gathered that I am blind to American history? Oh wait you are presuming and trying to pigeonhole me...nevermind.

2) Prove that I am anti-American. Please.
I said anti-american sentiment. Are you saying you do not have anti-american sentiment?

Are you just angry because the US might have found something and we actually might be right this time?
1) I'm not angry.

2) I am amazed. Given US history, there are still US citizens who remain completely oblivious to their own government's actions.

I was just talking with a friend from Argentina this morning. She majored in politics, and works for some translator group their which deals specifically with relations between South American nations and outside nations. She, too, was amazed at the lack of knowledge among US citizens about their own governmnet. She, too, was amazed than any time anyone points out the US involvement in South America, such as Pinochet, Noriega, El Salvidor, Cuba, and more (and that is only a few on South and Central America, I didn't even touch on other regions), the only thing US citizens can say is:
- "You're anti-American!" or...
- "You whacky conspiryacy nuts" or...
- "We're the best nation on Earth and you're all just jealous".

I report the news here. Lots of news, about many nations. And generally American citizens respond quite rationally, until any of those news articles is about the USA, then it's:
- "You're anti-American!" or...
- "You whacky conspiryacy nuts" or...
- "We're the best nation on Earth and you're all just jealous".

No I do not. I simply think in this case it is very unlikely the US would be able to add to or edit the document and get away with it.

Actually I agree. Nobody outside the USA is going to believe the edited versions of that report now. Nobody. I do hope you American citizens realise that this kind of deception and eagerness for war is what the rest of the world sees of your country.


How have you gathered that I am blind to American history? Oh wait you are presuming and trying to pigeonhole me...nevermind.

Well, it did seem you were trying to assert that the US governmnet is honest, fair, and innocent of all wrong-doing.


I said anti-american sentiment. Are you saying you do not have anti-american sentiment?

I am absolutely against US foreign policy. I disapprove of the US government and many of its actions. However, I do not dislike American people.

You totally eluded my question. Are you upset that we might be right this time? Or are you so certain that we will try to "cover up" something? If you reread your posts, you will realize that you sound exactly like those:

- "You're anti-American!" or...
- "You whacky conspiryacy nuts" or...
- "We're the best nation on Earth and you're all just jealous".

We are just as ignorant to our government as any other country. Only the world looks to us first and points out our problems first because:

- "You're anti-American!" or...
- "You whacky conspiryacy nuts" or...
- "We're the best nation on Earth and you're all just jealous".


That and were number 1:D

Did you not read the article? The USA will filter the document copies and pass on only what suits them. They may remove facts, add "facts" of their own, anything...No. All five permanent members of the council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - get unedited copies. The US doesn't have the original; just an unedited copy, along with the four other countries on the Security Council and the UN inspectors who still have the original.

You are arguing over nothing.

You totally eluded my question. Are you upset that we might be right this time?

No. I doubt a hell of a lot that the US accusations are correct. None of the others over the past year have been correct.


Or are you so certain that we will try to "cover up" something?

If the past is any guide at all, then yes.


If you reread your posts, you will realize that you sound exactly like those:
- "You're anti-American!" or...
- "You whacky conspiryacy nuts" or...
- "We're the best nation on Earth and you're all just jealous".

I posted a news article. The responde was precisely ^ those three lines above. To which I responded with examples of US behaviour, which nobody can deny.


That and were number 1 :D

You're just asking for a spankin'...

You're just asking for a spankin'

So now I know how to go about getting one.... Ive been wondering;)

Originally posted by Nasor
No. All five permanent members of the council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - get unedited copies. The US doesn't have the original; just an unedited copy, along with the four other countries on the Security Council and the UN inspectors who still have the original.
1) The US took the original report.

2) The US says it will produce unedited copies for the other Security Council members. Remember, they have the best photocopier...

3) The US says it will pass edited copies to those outside the Security Council.

What it boils down to here is, do you actually trust the US government to pass on to the Security Council member copies that are truly unedited?

You misunderstand the situation. To quote CNN:

"After behind-the-scenes discussions, the current Security Council president, Colombian U.N. Ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso, announced Sunday that all five permanent members of the council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- would receive unedited copies.

The United States was the first to receive it, and White House officials said Tuesday the four other permanent members have received copies of the declaration."

You quote a news source from a nation with a vested interest In fact, you quote a news source from a nation accused of theft on a truly staggering scale.

I quote a news source from a third party:

A US official took Iraq's arms inventory from UN headquarters shortly after its delivery, arguing that only permanent members of the Security Council who are declared nuclear powers should see the full document with its sensitive details of banned weapons development.

The other 10 members of the council will receive only an expurgated version.


Are you American? If so, what do you think of the reliability and integrity of Al Jazeera? Probably about what the rest of the world thinks of American news services.

This is getting stupid. Check with the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2563849.stm

Iraq's condemnation of the US came shortly after Washington duplicated and handed over copies of the dossier to the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The move - which the US said it took on security grounds - sparked complaints from some of the 10 Council members who have been excluded.

The original version remains in the hands of the weapons inspectorate.

Note that the New York copy of the report is merely one of the two originals. The other is in Vienna. So even if the US had stolen the original New York copy - which they didn't - there would still be another in the hands of the UN. So, once again, you are arguing about nothing.

Originally posted by Nasor
This is getting stupid. Check with the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2563849.stm
From your link:

The move - which the US said it took on security grounds - sparked complaints from some of the 10 Council members who have been excluded.

Obviously I must repeat myself again, for your benefit: The US has control of the information and is in charge of who in the SC gets what.

Again from your own link:

In a BBC interview, Mr Wehbe expressed fears that the five big powers might claim Iraq was in material breach of UN Resolution 1441 - triggering "serious consequences" - before non-permanent members of the Security Council had even seen the dossier.



The original version remains in the hands of the weapons inspectorate.

I hope that is 100% correct. It may be the only thing that saves the USA form this outright breach of international relations etiquette.

Originally posted by Nasor
Note that the New York copy of the report is merely one of the two originals. The other is in Vienna. So even if the US had stolen the original New York copy - which they didn't - there would still be another in the hands of the UN. So, once again, you are arguing about nothing.
As I said to *stRgrl*, I hope the other information gets into public view, and I hope unedited info get to the General Assembly. And yes, from your own link, the US is handling who in the SC gets what.

The other members of the Security Council were pissed off because they wanted full, unedited copies. Originally a UN team was going to edit the document and then distribute the edited copy to everyone on the grounds that the unedited document would essentially be a guide to producing weapons of mass destruction. The US insisted that the countries on the Security Council who already possessed nuclear weapons should get the unedited version, which the UN agreed to. Now the non-nuclear members of the council are annoyed that they're getting left out.

In any case, the UN in New York still has the original, unedited document. There is also the Vienna copy. This makes it impossible for the US to change what the document says to suit their purposes, since there would still be at least two original copies to compare it to. Happy?

Happy?

Not until the death of all American swine:D

... which the UN agreed to.

Please re-read the link you posted. Especially the bit about the other members of the UN kicking up a fuss about the matter, including member sof the SC.


In any case, the UN in New York still has the original, unedited document. There is also the Vienna copy. This makes it impossible for the US to change what the document says to suit their purposes, since there would still be at least two original copies to compare it to. Happy?

Follow the logic:
- The full report is in the hands of the UN.
- The SC has veto power over the General Assmebly.
- Only a few members of the SC have access to the full report.
- The UN gets only what those few members of the SC pass on.
- On SC orders, the report is already being sealed, for the reason you said (to keep delicate info restricted), so the UN gets only what is allowed by those few nations.
- The full report with delicate info remains locked away, and the UN can't touch it.
- The edited report is the only report the UN will see.

I hope that is very wrong. I hope that if there is anything changed, someone with access to an unedited version has the opportunity to make a free rebuttal. I hope you're right.

Not until the death of all American swine:D

That's it, spankin' time for you...

Originally posted by Adam
Please re-read the link you posted. Especially the bit about the other members of the UN kicking up a fuss about the matter, including member sof the SC.
Right, some members of the security council are kicking up a fuss about it; the non-nuclear ones. Like I said.

In any case, all of the weapon inspectors (which include only a handful of Americans) still have unrestricted access to the document. I imagine they would say something if the US government began making extravagant claims about the contents of the report. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the weapons inspectors who have access to the report are slowly killed off in mysterious accidents.

1) Ever heard of Joseph McCarthy (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAred.htm)?

2) http://members.aol.com/bblum6//assass.htm

3) During WW2, my country "disappeared" 4,000 Japanese POWs, and covered up the deaths of over a hundred Australian civilians.

It happens.

the evidence the council wants to suppress is arms dealing with iraq and matters relating to the construction of bombs