Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Isn't it interesting that Clinton was forthcoming and eloquent in his explanation?

There can be no doubt that the current administration spins it to their advantage. I am not arguing that. I am just saying that the events that lead up to the current invastion of Iraq were seeded way before W ever took office and W, at least on the surface, was doing the right thing by holding SH's feet to the fire, esp. after 9/11. For example, if Clinton relied on essentially the same intelligence to hold SH's feet to the fire, then why is W bad for doing the same thing. Hell, Clinton even agreed with W for doing so. Yet, the hard core D's give Clinton a yard pass and W is the only bad guy here. That is BS to me.

Here is more on Clinton - I bolded the parts where he insists on Iraq haing unaccounted for WMD. So either Clinton too was lying, or, if Clinton was correct, then W had a peg to hang his hat on. Seeing it any other way is avoiding the facts and the facts are all that interest me.

Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'
Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

Clinton had called King to honor his guest, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, on Dole's 80th birthday.

Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.

Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.

"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.

He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing is to move forward," she said. "I agree with President Clinton on that."

The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Earlier Tuesday, Bush's No. 2 national security aide took partial responsibility for allowing the inclusion of the dubious claim in the State of the Union address.

The admission by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley marked the first time the White House had taken any blame in the matter. An administration official told CNN that Hadley offered his resignation, but Bush didn't accept it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Progressive news outlets were reporting right away that the intelligence to go into Iraq was flawed but no one was listening.

The mainstream media reported it as well. People just did not really care because Sh had been thumbing his nose at the US for a decade and people were tired of it. Moreover, after 9/11, they were scared that if he had the WMD, he would be emboldened to use them. I have to say that is a compelling argument considering the world (except Mary) thought he had them.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Blah Blah Blah - once again, here are the UN Resoultions. Please tell me what countries were not on board for decades and up until and during the final inspections.

Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq



Read the entire White House background paper "A Decade of Deception and Defiance"

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997


"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997


"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997


"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996


"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996


Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994


"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991


"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991


"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991


Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990


Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
_______________________________________________________

I cannot believe you are actually arguing this point, which is the world thought he had them and the US had killed thousands in the name of them way before W ever took office - yet all you can do is say W is solely to blame for all of the problems in and with Iraq and Clinton was a hero there and to bring Clinton's name up is blasphemy when all we should do is blame and hate W for dreaming up holding SH's feet to the fire when SH refused to comply for a decade or so. Hell, Clinton's bombing of Iraq was due, according to Clinton, to SH's refusal to comply as evidenced in the speech above and not Lewinsky and the subsequent related problems.

Talk about blind partisanship and head in the sand logic.

On edit - no comment on Oil for Food killing thousands - hmmmmmm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit.../Sanctions.asp

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

http://www.alternet.org/story/26054/

Good thing Clinton was such a nice guy and only W started the killing of innocent Iraqis in the name of oil

Jason, you only printed the resolutions, not how the countries VOTED!

the sad fact of the matter is, you were GUNG HO about invading Iraq and not even CLINTON did that! You were suckered in by the spin and propaganda and you got caught with your pants DOWN. Unlike me, who distrusted anything that came out of Monkey Boy's mouth. so, no matter how you try to justify it, it was a load of BULL and Monkey Boy had an agenda from the very beginning as I said. Maybe you need to go back and re-read those earlier posts!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Jason, you only printed the resolutions, not how the countries VOTED!

the sad fact of the matter is, you were GUNG HO about invading Iraq and not even CLINTON did that! You were suckered in by the spin and propaganda and you got caught with your pants DOWN. Unlike me, who distrusted anything that came out of Monkey Boy's mouth. so, no matter how you try to justify it, it was a load of BULL and Monkey Boy had an agenda from the very beginning as I said. Maybe you need to go back and re-read those earlier posts!!

No, I do not. What I said then and I say now is Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with, esp. after 9/11. The world agrees with me on that.

What I do not agree with was the halting of the last set of inspections and the going to war essentially alone. While I could even stomach that because SH has a long history of stringing the world along, I find even more distasteful the administrations lack of a plan to win the peace there. If I ever said anything different, let's see it.

Sadly, you want to place it all on W's shoulders because you blindly hate him to the point of being unable to see any facts, which again are all that interest me. So, please argue them only from now on.

Also, still no comment on the thousands of dead children under Clinton's Oil For Food. Hmmmmmmm

[irishgrl]

Illegal Iraq Invasion

The invasion of a single nation by another nation or group of nations is only legal under the UN Charter if such an invasion has been sanctioned by the vote of the UN Security Council. This did not happen in the case of the recent Iraq invasion, since the United States and Great Britain, led by the U.S. Secretary of State Powell, withdrew on March 17, 2003 their resolution to stage such an invasion from consideration by the UN Security Council when they realized that the majority of its members would vote against it. Instead, Powell and others insisted that this approval was unnecessary, since UN Resolutions 687 and 1441 (the latter of 8 November 2002) had already granted this right. However, this is simply not true. As demonstrated by a close examination of the UN Charter and these particular resolutions, there is no possible interpretation that preempts the need for a final decision by the Security Council. Because the U.S. and U.K. withdrew their resolution, there could be no decision permitting an invasion. As a result, the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and those who brought it about can be held responsible for war crimes by an impartial international tribunal, for example the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Significantly, the Preamble to the UN Charter begins by declaring its primary purpose is “to prevent the scourge of war,” and Article 1 repeats this prerogative by stating that the UN’s role is to “maintain international peace and security.” As a peremptory norm of international law, Article 2(4) more explicitly prohibits the use of military force in international affairs except in accord with the guiding principles of the UN: “All members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In retrospect this emphasis may be appreciated as a consequence of the UN Charter having been drafted and adopted at the end of World War II, when the avoidance of warfare seemed of the utmost importance. Today, in light of the Iraq invasion, it seems no less important.

If and when warfare seems unavoidable, Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter specify under what circumstances military conflict can be sanctioned. Article 41 declares that effective means short of conflict must first be employed to resolve differences, and Article 42 makes it plain that only with the failure of these preliminary measures may the Security Council vote to permit military action. This decision is obtained by vote as specified by Article 27(e) earlier in the Charter.

Both Articles 41 and 42 are relatively short and may be quoted in their entirety:

Article 41: The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Also permitted by Article 41 as a “measure not involving the use of armed force” would be the inspections specified by Resolution 1441 in order to ascertain Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Only the failure of these measures to satisfy the Security Council would justify warfare as explained by the next article:

Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by land, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

In a nutshell, if preventative measures are found to be unsuccessful, then--and only then--can the Security Council decide to permit warfare. First there must be an effort short of warfare, after which warfare may be undertaken once the consent of the Security Council has been obtained through its finding that the preliminary effort has been unsuccessful. Obviously, this consent may only be ascertained by means of a vote--exactly the vote Secretary Powell first sought, then avoided, once he realized he would lose it, since UN inspections had come up with no evidence of WMD in Iraq. As a result, Powell was not able to recruit a majority of delegates who supported an invasion, and, even if he had, both France and Russia were prepared to veto the measure. He accordingly skipped the required vote, after which President Bush launched his invasion--necessarily an illegal act of war, since it had not been approved by the Security Council.

Again, let it be stated for emphasis: Articles 41 and 42 impose a simple and unavoidable sequence: (1) effective preventative measures short of military conflict should first be explored before (2) the Security Council can decide that every alternative short of military conflict has been exhausted without success, whereupon (3) military conflict can finally be undertaken. Unavoidably, the second step necessitates a majority vote to mandate warfare by the Security Council. Secretary Powell skipped this step by jumping from the use of preventative measures to an invasion not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. As a result the invasion was in violation of the UN Charter and therefore illegal.

The only exception to this sequence is under an extreme emergency as specified by Article 51 of Chapter VII: “Nothing in the Present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations . . .” However, the situation with Iraq did not fit this description, since Iraq had never attacked the U.S. or U.K., and there was no evidence of any imminent armed attack against anybody else. Thus Article 51 did not apply.

Some apologists for the invasion argue that Resolution 1441, which established the inspections regime in Iraq, somehow rendered unnecessary a Security Council vote to justify warfare as specified by Articles 41 and 42. The argument is simply not valid. Significantly, Resolution 1441 is specified to act “under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” Chapter VII includes all Articles from 39 to 51, of which 41 and 42 have a direct bearing upon the possibility of an Iraq invasion. By specifying its conformity to Chapter VII, Resolution 1441 confirms the necessary application of both Articles 41 and 42 for the Security Council to accept the transition from peaceful to military means. In other words, the choice of Powell to withdraw his second resolution did not eliminate the need for permission from the Security Council, especially after steps preliminary to its vote had already been undertaken fully in accord with resolution 1441.

Also, Resolution 1441’s second listed “decision” describes inspections as “a final opportunity to comply” preceding “subsequent resolutions of the Council.” This reference to “subsequent resolutions clearly establishes the inspections program as a preliminary measure to the Security Council vote obliged by Article 42. The same is true of the twelfth “decision” of Resolution 1441, which emphasizes the necessity, “to convene immediately upon receipt of a report [bearing upon inspections] . . . in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.” The wording is euphemistic, but here again it accords with Article 42 to the effect that a vote would have been needed to mandate war before an invasion could be launched. Without such a vote (because Powell knew it would be negative), the invasion became totally illegal as specified by the UN Charter and therefore no less illegal relevant to Resolution 1441.

Nor could the Security Council be bypassed because of earlier Resolutions 678 and 687 of the Security Council at the time of the Gulf War in 1991. These were intended to compel Iraq first to withdraw from Kuwait and then to fully cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. Some invasion apologists have argued that these resolutions somehow provided legal authority for the later invasion, but this is not true. All UN Security Council Resolutions are specific relevant to time and space, and they cannot be cited years later to justify unilateral actions. Moreover, no country alone can presume to play the role of judge, jury and high executioner. Only the Security Council can find “material breach” and authorize “all necessary means.” This it was prepared to do on March 17, prevented only by the U.S. and U.K.’s withdrawal of their resolution

The U.S. Constitution also compels the need for a Security Council vote, since our nation is a signatory of the UN Charter, thus giving the Charter the status of a treaty guaranteed by the Constitution itself. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in Article VI, Section 2, specifically grants international treaties the same status as the Constitution itself and all state and federal laws enacted in accord with the Constitution. Moreover, as specified by Article 103 of the UN Charter, the Charter is the highest treaty of the world and supersedes any other international agreement. Accordingly, the Supremacy Clause extends the application of Articles 41 and 42 to all warfare conducted by our own particular government except under emergencies dictated by Article 51.

President Bush and Powell might have had a better case in justifying an invasion if they had bypassed the involvement of the UN in the first place. They could have applied the precedent that the United States already went to war against Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and, most recently Kosovo, without the approval of the Security Council. In the latter instance, President Clinton invoked the NATO connection, and the potential illegality of this decision was ignored in view of the need to terminate genocidal killings as soon as possible. The obvious demand for quick measures was satisfied, but at the cost of reinforcing a dangerous precedent in international relations.

Regarding Iraq, however, the U.S. and U.K. presented their case to the UN Security Council in order to obtain Resolution 1441 that met the demands of Article 41, and then, as required by Article 42, presented a second resolution permitting an invasion because of Iraq’s failure to meet the terms of Resolution 1441. All of this was intended to meet the guidelines of the UN Charter, obliging the U.S. to abide by its final authority in determining the legitimacy of military action against Iraq. However, as already indicated, Powell withdrew this second resolution once it became plain the Security Council would reject U.S. arguments that sufficient evidence had been disclosed to justify an invasion and that every alternative short of military conflict had been exhausted. Bush thereupon bypassed the Security Council’s vote by launching a unilateral preemptive strike on entirely illegal grounds.

Significantly, without the consent of the Security Council, those who planned and implemented the invasion of Iraq can be held responsible for war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg Charter. One doubts this will ever happen, since victors seldom prosecute themselves. However, it should, since U.S. government officials responsible for the Iraq invasion without the sanction of the Security Council are in direct violation of the Nuremberg Charter’s prohibition against “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity.” Therefore, they are liable for criminal prosecution by the new International Criminal Court. Specifically, the Nuremberg Charter describes “Crimes against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.” The invasion of Iraq clearly falls under this category, since it violates the UN Charter, signed by all its members, the U.S. included. Moreover, the Nuremberg Charter notes that “to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.” Granted there are many war crimes deserving of prosecution, inclusive of prohibited weaponry, the mistreatment of prisoners, etc., but the very worst of all is the illegal resort to warfare, and of course its illegality ultimately depends on its violation of the U.N. Charter.

The Nuremberg Charter’s general laws of war also prohibit the use of weapons or tactics that cause indiscriminate harm to noncombatants. The “shock and awe” bombing of Baghdad and the use of depleted uranium tipped shells appear to violate these laws of war. As already indicated, government officials and military personnel who engage in these violations can be prosecuted under the new International Criminal Court (ICC). True, the U.S. is not yet a signatory to the ICC, but the Iraqi government has a right to make its appeal to the UN, and the ICC would thereby have technical jurisdiction over any war crimes committed during the conflict.

In sum, the U.S., U.K., and their allies have been aggressor nations in the invasion of Iraq, since they have conducted this invasion in clear violation of both international and domestic law. By now as many as 37,000 Iraqi and almost 1,000 Americans are estimated to have been killed, and the number who were injured surpasses anybody’s guess. No matter how vicious or bloodthirsty the behavior of combatants on either side, the responsibility for their acts of violence primarily reverts to the government leaders who possessed the authority to impose upon them an illegal war rejected by the world at large.

But see for yourself. Almost any college or municipal reference librarian can provide the necessary documents to confirm the arguments presented here.

Edward Jayne is a retired English professor with experience as a '60s activist. He can be contacted at: [email protected]. Ron Kramer is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Criminal Justice Program at Western Michigan University.

[strandinthewind]

As for the UN votes (please note all that pre-W non-compliance talk - guess they should have called you)
________________________________________________

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text

______________________________________________________________

Hmmm - a unanimous vote

U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections
Bush: 'All nations must continue to pressure Saddam'

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) --The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.
"How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

Iraq reportedly was reviewing the document. "Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Al-Douri told The Associated Press. (More Iraqi reaction)

The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said Iraq will be disarmed "one way or another."

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security," Negroponte said.

Immediately following the vote, President Bush read a statement in the White House Rose Garden saying Iraq would face "the severest consequences" if it fails to comply with the resolution. "If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with his obligations." (Bush statement)

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the international community must keep pressure on Iraq, or Baghdad will fall back to its old ways.

"The minute that Saddam Hussein and his small ruling clique sense that they're out of danger, I suspect that they'll have no further incentive to cooperation, and any U.N. inspection and disarmament efforts could then fail," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld also said that while the world waits for Baghdad to completely disarm, the United States will continue to work with the Iraqi opposition to prepare for the possibility of a future without Saddam.

"We will also continue developing humanitarian relief and reconstruction plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," the defense secretary said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking from his London residence at 10 Downing Street, said that the world community had chosen "disarmament through the U.N., with force as a last resort." (More on international reactions)

Iraq is accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological, chemical -- in violation of the cease-fire treaty it signed when Baghdad lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has repeatedly denied possessing such weapons.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix wasted no time Friday in announcing his intention to begin work in Iraq. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday the 18th of this month, so it will be within seven to 10 days that we have planned," he told reporters.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, there are indications that Iraq might accept the resolution, finalized on Thursday.

The final text was approved with two modifications. It now includes one section in which the word "or" is replaced with "and." Also, the phrase "restore international peace and security" is changed to "secure international peace and security." (Text of resolution)

The original language concerned France, Russia and China, whose representatives said such wording might be used by the U.S. as a "hidden trigger" for an attack against Iraq.

Syria had wanted to have language included in the resolution indicating that if Baghdad complied with the terms of the resolution, sanctions against Iraq would be lifted. Syria also had wanted language included that would declare the entire Middle East a "nuclear-free and weapons of mass destruction-free zone."

On Thursday, Bush spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the White House said "both agreed on the need to reach a strong resolution" dealing with Iraq.

A Russian official said Moscow still had "some concerns" about the resolution but he believed it had changed for the better compared to its original format.

Bush also called French President Jacques Chirac. Bush would not characterize the nature of the talks.

View from Iraq

In Iraq, an article Thursday in al-Thawra ("Revolution"), the newspaper of the ruling Baath party, said: "It is not in Iraq's interest to ignore or contravene Security Council resolutions, as others do."

In exchange, it said, the Security Council should recognize Iraq's rights.

Observers say the comments in al-Thawra indicate that despite its objections, the Iraqi government recognizes the resolution as its last opportunity to avert war and will likely accept it.

In the past, Iraq has said no new Security Council resolution was needed.

Nevertheless, there was widespread belief among Iraqi leaders and people on the street that war is inevitable -- that the U.S. goal is not to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but to topple its leader and seize its oil.

CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/0...ion/index.html

__________________________________________________________

So, what was your point again?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, I do not. What I said then and I say now is Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with, esp. after 9/11. The world agrees with me on that.

What I do not agree with was the halting of the last set of inspections and the going to war essentially alone. While I could even stomach that because SH has a long history of stringing the world along, I find even more distasteful the administrations lack of a plan to win the peace there. If I ever said anything different, let's see it.

Sadly, you want to place it all on W's shoulders because you blindly hate him to the point of being unable to see any facts, which again are all that interest me. So, please argue them only from now on.

Also, still no comment on the thousands of dead children under Clinton's Oil For Food. Hmmmmmmm

Thats Bull**** and you know it. first of all, Clinton never INVADED Iraq whereas Bushwhacker couldnt WAIT! And the Oil-for-food scheme was NOT Clinton's idea! Are you just pulling this stuff out of thin air? Also, your viewpoint changed when it became obvious you couldnt very well justify your pro-war stance based on faulty propaganda any longer. I dont buy into that whole "Saddam is a threat to the world" garbage. He really couldnt even do much in his own area primarily because of the damage inflicted on him in Desert Storm!!
I repeat, you got caught with your pants down.

[strandinthewind]

Out of curiousity - do you not see that SH is mostly to blame for this because of his repeated non-compliance. I get that at the very end, he may have complied, but it likely was a day late and a dollar short considering 9/11.

I mean if you had a neighbor who repeatedly told you he would comply with some zoning ordinance and for a decade lead you on, would would continue to believe him? I think not.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As for the UN votes (please note all that pre-W non-compliance talk - guess they should have called you)
________________________________________________

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text

______________________________________________________________

Hmmm - a unanimous vote

U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections
Bush: 'All nations must continue to pressure Saddam'

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) --The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.
"How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

Iraq reportedly was reviewing the document. "Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Al-Douri told The Associated Press. (More Iraqi reaction)

The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said Iraq will be disarmed "one way or another."

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security," Negroponte said.

Immediately following the vote, President Bush read a statement in the White House Rose Garden saying Iraq would face "the severest consequences" if it fails to comply with the resolution. "If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with his obligations." (Bush statement)

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the international community must keep pressure on Iraq, or Baghdad will fall back to its old ways.

"The minute that Saddam Hussein and his small ruling clique sense that they're out of danger, I suspect that they'll have no further incentive to cooperation, and any U.N. inspection and disarmament efforts could then fail," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld also said that while the world waits for Baghdad to completely disarm, the United States will continue to work with the Iraqi opposition to prepare for the possibility of a future without Saddam.

"We will also continue developing humanitarian relief and reconstruction plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," the defense secretary said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking from his London residence at 10 Downing Street, said that the world community had chosen "disarmament through the U.N., with force as a last resort." (More on international reactions)

Iraq is accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological, chemical -- in violation of the cease-fire treaty it signed when Baghdad lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has repeatedly denied possessing such weapons.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix wasted no time Friday in announcing his intention to begin work in Iraq. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday the 18th of this month, so it will be within seven to 10 days that we have planned," he told reporters.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, there are indications that Iraq might accept the resolution, finalized on Thursday.

The final text was approved with two modifications. It now includes one section in which the word "or" is replaced with "and." Also, the phrase "restore international peace and security" is changed to "secure international peace and security." (Text of resolution)

The original language concerned France, Russia and China, whose representatives said such wording might be used by the U.S. as a "hidden trigger" for an attack against Iraq.

Syria had wanted to have language included in the resolution indicating that if Baghdad complied with the terms of the resolution, sanctions against Iraq would be lifted. Syria also had wanted language included that would declare the entire Middle East a "nuclear-free and weapons of mass destruction-free zone."

On Thursday, Bush spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the White House said "both agreed on the need to reach a strong resolution" dealing with Iraq.

A Russian official said Moscow still had "some concerns" about the resolution but he believed it had changed for the better compared to its original format.

Bush also called French President Jacques Chirac. Bush would not characterize the nature of the talks.

View from Iraq

In Iraq, an article Thursday in al-Thawra ("Revolution"), the newspaper of the ruling Baath party, said: "It is not in Iraq's interest to ignore or contravene Security Council resolutions, as others do."

In exchange, it said, the Security Council should recognize Iraq's rights.

Observers say the comments in al-Thawra indicate that despite its objections, the Iraqi government recognizes the resolution as its last opportunity to avert war and will likely accept it.

In the past, Iraq has said no new Security Council resolution was needed.

Nevertheless, there was widespread belief among Iraqi leaders and people on the street that war is inevitable -- that the U.S. goal is not to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but to topple its leader and seize its oil.

CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/0...ion/index.html

__________________________________________________________

So, what was your point again?

If you READ this you would have seen that the resolution was to give Iraq a final time to comply with inspections!! NOT TO INVADE!!!!!!!

US and UK withdrew from the Security council and Bush initiated a UNILATERAL strike. you should have read my post prior to yours. tsk.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Thats Bull**** and you know it. first of all, Clinton never INVADED Iraq whereas Bushwhacker couldnt WAIT! And the Oil-for-food scheme was NOT Clinton's idea! Are you just pulling this stuff out of thin air? Also, your viewpoint changed when it became obvious you couldnt very well justify your pro-war stance based on faulty propaganda any longer. I dont buy into that whole "Saddam is a threat to the world" garbage. He really couldnt even do much in his own area primarily because of the damage inflicted on him in Desert Storm!!
I repeat, you got caught with your pants down.

No, Clinton just starved the Iraqi children to death to the tune of thousands a month or more. Yet, W is the only bad guy here for following in Clinton's footsteps

Also, please argue facts.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

US and UK withdrew from the Security council and Bush initiated a UNILATERAL strike. you should have read my post prior to yours. tsk.

Again, the UN unamimously passed the resolutions that called out SH for failing to comply with the inspections and all thought SH had WMD unaccounted for. If I said anything different let's see it.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Out of curiousity - do you not see that SH is mostly to blame for this because of his repeated non-compliance. I get that at the very end, he may have complied, but it likely was a day late and a dollar short considering 9/11.

I mean if you had a neighbor who repeatedly told you he would comply with some zoning ordinance and for a decade lead you on, would would continue to believe him? I think not.

There never were any ties between Saddam and 9/11!!!!! 9/11 is not, and never was a reason to go after Saddam! I cant see why you think that is a reasonable justification!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, the UN unamimously passed the resolutions that called out SH for failing to comply with the inspections and all thought SH had WMD unaccounted for. If I said anything different let's see it.

What you said was you thought the invasion was justified based on the mythical WMD. What I said was that I didnt believe the spin and that I believed there were NO WMD. I was right, even before Hans Blix announced it. If SH would have had WMD, I believe he would have used them. I believe his reluctance in allowing inspections revolved around his distaste for being dictated to by the world community, NOT because he had anything to hide.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, the UN unamimously passed the resolutions that called out SH for failing to comply with the inspections and all thought SH had WMD unaccounted for. If I said anything different let's see it.

but thats not the same thing as voting unimously to INVADE which is what you were implying above!!! quit prevaricating Jason, you CANT drum up any world support for invasion no matter how hard you try. The WORLD was NOT on board for invasion!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

There never were any ties between Saddam and 9/11!!!!! 9/11 is not, and never was a reason to go after Saddam! I cant see why you think that is a reasonable justification!

9/11 caused a different way of thinking about Islamic terrorists and the threats to the US. Sh was an Isamlic terrorist who had used WMD before and had shown aggresssion by invading Kuwait. SH had made it clear he would attack the US if he could and he had attacked an ally of the US and US planes in the no fly zones. So, it was logical to say "hmmmmmm - maybe we ought to see if SH really has those WMD after all because we now know the US can be attacked on its own soil" --- I wish you would explain to me how that is a huge leap of logic or in any way wrong.

Again, if SH had complied for the prior decade, none of this would have happened. Yet, you assign no fault to him. Only W and never Clinton.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

but thats not the same thing as voting unimously to INVADE which is what you were implying above!!! quit prevaricating Jason, you CANT drum up any world support for invasion no matter how hard you try. The WORLD was NOT on board for invasion!!

I never said the world unanimously supported the invasion - though the last reolution unanimously paved the way. I just said they unanimously thought SH was in violation of his agreement to account for the WMD, which the world though he had. If I said anything different, let's see it.

On edit - by using the word "implying" - that is the fatal mistake of your "logic" --

I am not advocating the invasion. I am arguing that the US and the world were correct to hold SH's feet to the fire regarding the WMD, which the world unanimously thought he had and which SH was not really willing to lift a finger to prove otherwise. That gave Clinton and W the basis to attack Iraq. Thems the facts, whether you like them or not.