I see on the news that the US says Iraq is not cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Could someone explain to me exactly HOW they are not cooperating
Good question. The U.S. has chosen an assertion that anyone can debate, perhaps so they can’t be proven wrong. Here’s a Google search on Iraqi cooperation where all sources are CNN. Click on the Advanced Search link at the top of the page to add or remove sources.
Simple answer In 1991 Iraq was told by the U.N. to disarm. 12 years later he still hasn't - despite years of U.N. weapons inspectors. This indicates non cooperation at the very least,don't you think??
Reid, Iraq is cooperating, but not completely. On the positive side: 1) Iraq is not restricting access to sites. 2) Iraq is now allowing aerial surveilance. 3) Iraq is encouraging Iraqi scientists to have private interviews with weapons inspectors. 4) Iraq has provided information about its past WMD program. On the negative side: 1) Iraq has not accounted for all of the chemical and biological weapons in previous reports (Iraq claims that it destroyed the weapons, but presented no evidence). 2) Iraq is building missiles that may exceed the 150 km limit that was imposed by the UN in 1991. (Iraq claims that when guidance systems are installed in missiles, the missiles range will be under 150 km). According to Germany, France, and Russia, even though Iraq isn't in complete compliance with the UN resolution, it's still getting a passing grade. According to the U.S. and U.K., since Iraq isn't in complete compliance, it failed the test. One more thing, since no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the inspectors, Germany, France, and Russia assume that Iraq is "innocent until proven guilty". On the other hand, the U.S. and the U.K. assume that Iraq is "guilty until proven innocent". Tom
Prosoothus, good summary. Still, no reason whatsoever to start bombing. That thing with the missiles is just stupid
Reid, Yes, especially since Iraq declared those missiles in its weapons decleration, and if the weapons inspectors find that the missiles exceed the 150 km range, they'll just destroy them. I see no (legitimate) reason for war, either. Tom
Iraq is in material breach of a variety of UN resolutions ment to disarm it most specifically by not taking the inspectors to their banned weaponry and simply saying, "Here they are. They're all yours. We don't want them anymore." UN inspectors aren't supposed to be detectives, they're supposed to be inspecting the weapons Iraq is feeling compelled to show them straight out. It's nice to know that after the US goes to Iraq and does the UN's job for it it can blithly ignore any retributive UN resolutions -- with Iraq-like indifference -- as being nothing more than the toothless growlings of institutional impotence.
Reid Iraq is doing every single thing required in its dealings with the UN inspectors. They have failed in only one area: they have not fully accounted for weapons which were known to exist more then ten years ago. Yes, that's right, they are about to be attacked because they did not keep perfectly thorough records of their process of destroying things. The bureaucrat in the whitehouse is making war on bad record-keeping.
Yeah, that reminds me of the US’s heated calls for Vietnam to account for every single MIA, presumably even those whose bodies disintegrated in friendly fire. Clinton put an end to that nonsense. If I were Hussein I certainly wouldn’t have destroyed those weapons. Why comply with an agreement made under duress when compliance would allow someone else to more easily steal the country? The US isn’t concerned about compliance for defensive reasons. They want to know where those weapons are so they won’t be subjected to them when they invade.
Re: Reid I believe Iraq said they would allow flyovers only if the no-fly zones were eliminated, and that scientists could be interviewed if the Iraqis were allowed to tape the conversations. The US didn't say the latter was unacceptable; Blix did. Well, you would think when it was a matter of WMDs, and the Iraqis were supposed to be complying with a UN resolution, that they would have been real sticklers about keeping efficient records. Surely they weren't so stupid as to think they would never have to account for the weapons.
what about the ones bombed in the last war? what if those who knew the stuff was killed sort of hard to keep records when people r getting blown up
this whole war thing is senseless in the first place Reid, the way i see it, it doesn't matter if Iraq is not complying, even if they DID have weapons of mass destruction, and here are some real simple reasons why anyone can see my point of view: a. Iraq has never hurt us in any way, period. MAYBE they have tried screwing us over by threatening to shut off oil connections, but that's info you'd have to dig pretty deep for i suspect. b. Iraq is no more a threat to us than our own government, or our own citizens. war is a pretty scary thing when you think about it... it can break out anywhere at anytime. all one has to do is learn how to make a bomb, make it and blow themselves up taking others down with them, like those crazy Taliban guys. it's always been that way. the whole war on terror is this brand new PR thing that has one purpose only: rallying support for (yet another) Middle Eastern invasion. c. the U.S. gov't is crying because they are losing control over the world. awwwee, poor widdle united states of shit can't go around bullying people for their lunch money anymore. poor widdle united states of shit has to start facing realitya nd get off it's high horse. yes, i am denouncing our country as a sovereign nation. we're a filthy stain on the carpet of life.
well, aside from all those cool protesters who risked going to jail today. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"REID: Iraq not cooperating, please explain... " It is a nonsense, because it is logical impossible to proof a negation: how can somobody proof that he do not have a given item? It is against any basic concept of logic and justice, but this is not important. There is no proof about the existence of any WMD in Irak, but this is also not important, many will be imported and "discovered" after the invasion. The whole affair is a pretext - idiotic - for a pure aggresive war, designed for (1) control of the oil reserves, and (2) remaping the area. The long - and lasting- effect, will be an intense hate against everything american. We are raising a whole world against us, and have no excuse other than the stupidity of our officials. The slogan of "war of eliberation" it is also a cheap propaganda piece, in which only the politicians and media seems to believe. Regards, Cornelius.
And for the illiterate retards... From: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports2.html http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6179&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=inspect http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6169&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect
The last war was in '91. The records should be from any post-'98 destruction of weapons, the year the last inspectors were kicked out of Iraq after reporting that Iraq had large amounts of WMDs. Those are the weapons that there should be records for showing they were destroyed. Iraq is not providing documentation of their destruction. I'm all for avoiding war too, but I don't think continuing to poke through buildings are going to find anything. These things are in all likelihood located in those deep bunkers. Dr. Khidhir Hamza, the former head of Saddam's nuclear program, said that the program is still ongoing and that is a clear threat to the West. While I can understand an anti-war sentiment among people, I really don't understand the naivety by so many that Saddam is simply an innocent victim of Bush's aggression. http://www.perspicacityonline.com/207/Iraq20716.htm http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/hamza011222.htm
"These things are in all likelihood located in those deep bunkers." ...where they pose no threat justifying invasion. Maybe I'm reaching saturation, talking, protesting, thinking. I feel much of the hair-splitting finer points of truth about Iraqi weapons has little bearing on the future. Multiply all of Saddam's weapons a hundredfold, and they compare patheticly to the retaliations that will answer American occupations in the Middle East. America is so tragicly distracted. The United States' special relationship with Israel now includes identical mentalities in top leadership, that the Arab world will be subdued by force and threats. On this course, Americans will soon be living as Israelis do: Afraid, volatile, "addicted to WMDs" (to borrow a phrase) and mobilized military at a level they cannot sustain psychologically or economically. Israel is drowning, and may pull the U.S. down with her. And as the U.S. begins to founder, she is taking down the U.N. and NATO. I have a sense that a new geopolitical shakedown is about to result in a new landscape. *ding*"Ladies and Gentleman, please fasten your seatbelts. It's going to get a little, uh, bumpy."
Won't argue that. But if Bush backs off and inspections continue without cooperation what will happen? They won't find anything, and eventually Saddam will feel safe enough to boot out inspectors once again. In the meantime, Saddam can continue with his underground nuclear program. Even German intelligence reports say he will have usable nukes by 2005. So eventually this process will have to start all over again, but this time Saddam will be in a much stronger position. I wish inspections would work, but I don't think so. I wish Saddam would agree to vacate his throne and go into exile, but I don't think so. His former top man says he will be inclined to use a nuke. I think it would be suicidal, but who knows his mind? Tragically true. The UN has been a failure in major crises anyway. Perhaps it is time for a restructuring of NATO anyway. However, NATO has survived serious disagreements before. In '56, it was the US opposed to Britain and France, when they backed Israel's attack on the Sinai, because the Britain and France wanted control of the Suez back after Nasser nationalized it. It caused a serious rift in NATO at the time. Democracies generally weather their differences because in the long run they still share so many common interests And pass the popcorn.
