Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

[Segnosaur]

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?

Well, I could be cynical and say they want to go 'right now' because a victory in Iraq would boost Bush's ratings and help him win the next election, whereas waiting might cause problems if the war does not go well.

However, there are other reasons for going now...
- They need to attack when the weather is cooler. The Americans have chemical suits, but they aren't really practical to use in the summer (too hot). So, either they attack now, or they wait another year
- Even though Saddam can only cause problems in his own country, invading Iraq now will allow sanctions to be lifted sooner. It will also mean that fewer people will die from Saddam's own actions.
- Even though Iraq is contained (and can't "Flex his muscles"), there is a fincancial and political cost to this containment. The sooner Saddam is eliminated, the sooner the U.S. can stop with the No Fly zones and other 'containment' action

 

[c0rbin]

"Right now" those who are most threatened by Saddam are his neighbors. Why don't they spearhead military action?

 

[Crossbow]

The US Military is the best military in the world and I am sure that they would have few real problems dealing with an enemy force pretty made up of conscripts who hate their leaders and are armed with old weapons.

However, winning a military victory would be the easy part.

There are many factions in Iraq (Kurds who want their own country, Shiites who want to destroy Israel, Sunnis who are lean more towards the West) and if the US forces a change in government, then that means the US will be obligated for years to come in winning the peace.

Countries with a few strong, but highly ambitious factions can make the job of a dictator a lot easier because most dictators are quite good at playing both ends against the middle. On the other hand, they make democracy quite difficult because everyone wants their own way and no one is willing to work with the opposition.

Do you think Iran will sit around watching events unfold on CNN while they have a chance to reshape their old enemy Iraq?

Do you think the Kurds in Turkey, Russia, and other countries will sit around playing backgammon when they finally see a chance to create their own country (as was promised after World War I)?

Do you think the citizens of Iraq will sit around drinking coffee while they have a chance to get revenge on those who have been repressing them for years?

Do you think Saudi Arabia will sit around buying new BMWs while they have a chance to settle their border dispute with Iraq once and for all?

Do you think ... (Well, you should have the idea by now)?

It will take years to keep all of the competing interests in balance and be both difficult and costly, and I really do not think the US could do a very good job of it thus setting the stage for future conflicts.

By the way, in regards to the note about Afghanistan, that situation was quite different. Afghanistan did attack the US and the US had good support from its allies in going there. This is not the case with Iraq.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

or those of you who continue to cry for evidence I ask you now to attempt to rebut these facts. Put up or shut up.

-z

Okay, Rik, I've just looked at your original post and have not yet read the responses of others. I'll point out that some of what you call proof is speculation. Dr. Hamza's testimony does not square with the current UN inspections. Though providing haven to Abu Nidal was dispicable, is there any proof that Iraq assisted Nidal during his terrorism days? (Also, Abu Nidal was never part of al Qaida, so that distinction should be kept in mind for those still confused on the mythical Iraq-al Qaida link.) The terrorism "school" to which you refer here you mentioned in another thread. Then you said it was documents detailing possible terrorist tactics with land mines, but that Ritter did not provide any discussion that the tactics had been put to use or that there were any potential targets.

 

[Segnosaur]

"Right now" those who are most threatened by Saddam are his neighbors. Why don't they spearhead military action?

Actually, "Right now" he's not threatening his neighbours. Why? because they're all dictatorships like Iraq is. And why threaten Iran or Saudi Arabia when you can threaten Israel? (He gets more brownie points from other middle east dictatorships from that.)

 

[rikzilla]

Rikzilla,

I agree that Saddam is a bad man and is lying to the world about his WMD programs.

But, so far, Iraq has been unable to flex any muscle.

The US is unpopular right now and cannot find the support for an attack that GW Bush has been quoted as saying needs to happen "right now."

What's the rush? Why "right now"?

Well,

I've been researching this question with an eye toward history. (Hey, the best place to start looking at a subject is at the beginning eh?) Anyway, UNSC 687 was signed in 1991...or maybe 1990...my brain is fogging up at the moment.... If you look at it from the beginning you start to see this massive pattern of deciet that Iraq has been playing on the UN. They have been literally in material breach of 687 since before the ink was dry.

By the time Hussein Kamal defected in 1995 we had all the solid ironclad proof that one would ever need to convince the world that Iraq was in breach. It's really the Clinton admin's fault that hostilities did not resume in '95. (and please don't take me as a Clinton hater...I'm a dem...and I voted for him once...the first time)

So now it's Jan 2003. There's a valid school of thought that says that if Clinton had done the right thing in '95 there'd have been no 9/11 disaster. I have no crystal ball...so I don't know if that would have been so or not....but it's obviously a possibility.

All this is why I don't understand the argument; "why now"? If not now, when? If Iraq is truly in breach of 687...and my points in my initial post show that they are....then when are we to force them into disarming? If we do nothing, the sanctions and NFZ type containment must proceed into the indefinate future. These sanctions are killing scores of Iraqis per year, and don't seem to harm the lavish lifestyle of Saddam at all.

Like you said, there is no rush....but if I'm an Iraqi the need for action takes on a whole new urgency.
-zilla

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Proof that Iraq is in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 687 since inception.

Okay, Rik, I've just looked at your original post and have not yet read the responses of others. I'll point out that some of what you call proof is speculation. Dr. Hamza's testimony does not square with the current UN inspections. Though providing haven to Abu Nidal was dispicable, is there any proof that Iraq assisted Nidal during his terrorism days? (Also, Abu Nidal was never part of al Qaida, so that distinction should be kept in mind for those still confused on the mythical Iraq-al Qaida link.) The terrorism "school" to which you refer here you mentioned in another thread. Then you said it was documents detailing possible terrorist tactics with land mines, but that Ritter did not provide any discussion that the tactics had been put to use or that there were any potential targets.

You bring up some good points Wayne,

I'll try and address them later when I have some time. The books I read on the subject are now back in the library Mylroie's book did indeed address Abu Nidal and the group he headed in the 80's. She stated somewhere in her book that Iraqi military and intelligence agencies trained, equipped, and gave haven to Abu Nidal from the beginning of his activities.

.....but alas...you may have to go read that one yourself...or I may have to buy it as reference material in order to keep up my end of the discussion?? Money is tight ya know...

-zilla

BTW,...I will be travelling to Ft. Laud for the meeting this weekend, if anyone would like to discuss all this with me there I'd be pleased to do so face to face.

 

[c0rbin]

It would be so much easier for me to buy the anti-terrorism or bringing democracy or eleviating suffering, for the good of the Iraqi people (doesn't Iraq have the largest middle class in the middle east?) if oil weren't involved, with a country like North Korea, which, as far as I know, is a worthless rock jutting out into Ghidira's playground.

Sorry for the run-on.

Anyway, if there is so much internal strife, why not use that instead of perpetuating an Anti-American mythology that our might will make right? Are our interests in the region such that we can't take the moral high-ground and pressure/shame the whole world of freedom-loving peacenics into forcing Saddam out?

I realize that we are the big-bad military on the planet, but as has been pointed out in other threads, we are not the only military.

I guess I am coming at this from a PR perspective. You cannot justify going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons and not go into North Korea or Africa. Because we are willing to do this very thing, it seems like we care only for the oil to feed our "excess."

It is evident that a large portion of humans on the planet dislike A,ericans, why perpetuate thier reasons for hating us?

 

[rikzilla]

It would be so much easier for me to buy the anti-terrorism or bringing democracy or eleviating suffering, for the good of the Iraqi people (doesn't Iraq have the largest middle class in the middle east?) if oil weren't involved, with a country like North Korea, which, as far as I know, is a worthless rock jutting out into Ghidira's playground.

Sorry for the run-on.

Anyway, if there is so much internal strife, why not use that instead of perpetuating an Anti-American mythology that our might will make right? Are our interests in the region such that we can't take the moral high-ground and pressure/shame the whole world of freedom-loving peacenics into forcing Saddam out?

I realize that we are the big-bad military on the planet, but as has been pointed out in other threads, we are not the only military.

I guess I am coming at this from a PR perspective. You cannot justify going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons and not go into North Korea or Africa. Because we are willing to do this very thing, it seems like we care only for the oil to feed our "excess."

It is evident that a large portion of humans on the planet dislike A,ericans, why perpetuate thier reasons for hating us?

Well, I guess it has alot to do with being "world leader" and last "superpower"....I know, that sounds like alot of BS to me too. But I guess in the big picture someone must lead.

Your points about N Korea, etc are very valid. However, these are all individual scenarios...and must be solved in their own time. Surely you don't suggest we do it all at once?? Also, the N. Korea question will be far touchier as these creeps have the fissile material and the missiles to deliver the nukes. Think how much stickier the situation in Iraq would be if we allowed Saddam to gain the same advantage!

Honestly, I think the pending war on Iraq has alot more to do with international terrorism than it does oil or anything else. the oil angle is certainly there....but if it were not, there would still exist the same valid reasons for the attack on Saddam's government.

-zilla

 

[Doctor X]

Crossbow:

No. Iraq is pretty much keeping its bad behavior within its own borders due to the strong international focus that has been on it for the last several years. Therefore, since Iraq is not an immediate threat to the USA or its interests, a war against Iraq is not warrented

Unfortunately, the strong international focus is anything but that. I have to agree with PM Blair--love PM Question Time on C-Span; imagine if senators could just insult one another!--in response to a question concerning Bush's apparent unilateralism and why he should wait for inspectors, Blair noted that if it had not been for Bush there would be no inspectors in Iraq.

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

Other good responses pro and con, so I will leave it at that.

--J.D.

 

[a_unique_person]

Crossbow:



Unfortunately, the strong international focus is anything but that. I have to agree with PM Blair--love PM Question Time on C-Span; imagine if senators could just insult one another!--in response to a question concerning Bush's apparent unilateralism and why he should wait for inspectors, Blair noted that if it had not been for Bush there would be no inspectors in Iraq.

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

Other good responses pro and con, so I will leave it at that.

--J.D.

so are they just playing good cop/bad cop with saddam?

 

[Crossbow]

...

Saddam has gambled that the world would give up. It has. The sanctions were not working, countries were selling him stuff he should not have. He is not contained.

...
--J.D. [/B]

To: Doctor X

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?

Thanks much!

 

[rikzilla]

To: Doctor X

Would you please provide some data to support your statement?

Thanks much!

Well gang...

JK may be a big stupid blow-hard....but giving credit where credit is due I must lift from his thread a link to my 11th point illustrating Iraqi non-compliance with UNSC 687. (Hey, the old broken clock syndrome)

Point #11....Hans Blix's most recent report of Iraqi non-compliance

From what I've heard lately Bush will indeed be comming out with detailed and just declassified intel proving Iraqi "material breaches"......but as I have illustrated on this thread, there is already plently of proof available for those who wish to look for it.

-zilla

BTW Crossbow....If you have read anything about the last ten years of Iraqi interaction with UNSCOM you would understand Dr. X's assertion to be quite true.

Allow me to suggest the following:
Source #1
Source #2
Source #3
Compare those to this dissenting view

 

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!

 

[rikzilla]

To: rikzilla

The point was made that some countries have illegally sold Iraq products that would enable Iraq to develop new weapons.

And I in turn asked for data to support this statement.

Now then, the article you posted does not provide any of the data that I requested.

If you can actually my question, then please do so.

Thanks much!

That would (mostly) be France, Germany, and Russia. I have read about this issue, but now cannot remember which book it's in. There was an issue about mobile chemical labs that were purchased from Germany...but alas...I'll need to refer back...and many of the books I suggested to you above I have already sent back to the DC library. Please recheck my earlier post....I edited it to add my reading list...so far.

 

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

Thanks for the data, however it still does not address the issue that I am trying illuminate.

I have not read the books you listed, but I looked through what I could and while they discussed things many interesting things that have been going within Iraq, now and in the past, they do not provide any data that states that other nations have been illegally selling Iraq items that would be used to develop illegal weapons. Therefore, my conclusion is that the 1981 Osrik raid, the 1991 Gulf War, and the current enforcement of International Sanctions have worked to prevent development of Iraqi WMD.

Now then, since you actually have these books if you could actually provide data to the contrary it would be appreciated.

 

[c0rbin]

Your points about N Korea, etc are very valid. However, these are all individual scenarios...and must be solved in their own time. Surely you don't suggest we do it all at once?? Also, the N. Korea question will be far touchier as these creeps have the fissile material and the missiles to deliver the nukes. Think how much stickier the situation in Iraq would be if we allowed Saddam to gain the same advantage!

Doing it all at once is probably not the best, especially considering the bad press the US gets as a Monger.

Your timing point is the right idea, but backwards, I think.

Again, back to our PR issue, why not let the world deal with the passive aggressive evil that is Saddam, they guy who might have a gun, so we can deal with Korea, the guy holding a gun.

That way, we could domonstrate to the world that we are in this for the security of all, and not to line our pockets with oil.

 

[rikzilla]

To: rikzilla

Thanks for the data, however it still does not address the issue that I am trying illuminate.

I have not read the books you listed, but I looked through what I could and while they discussed things many interesting things that have been going within Iraq, now and in the past, they do not provide any data that states that other nations have been illegally selling Iraq items that would be used to develop illegal weapons. Therefore, my conclusion is that the 1981 Osrik raid, the 1991 Gulf War, and the current enforcement of International Sanctions have worked to prevent development of Iraqi WMD.

Now then, since you actually have these books if you could actually provide data to the contrary it would be appreciated.

Crossbow,

A skeptical Scottie would have looked this up himself. I provided the link...scroll back some....I stole the link from JK, but it goes to the heart of your request about info on WMD's Iraq is KNOWN to have. (It doesn't address how they got 'em...but I can't be
responsible for spoon-feeding this stuff to you...you do need to look on your own a bit)

From the link:

Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, the agent was never weaponised.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilisation and that more had been achieved than has been declared. ...

I would now like to turn to the so-called "Air Force document" that I have discussed with the Council before.

This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War.

I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC. The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs.

The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume these quantities are now unaccounted for.

Now in Ritter's book he recounts how Iraq claims to have unilaterally destroyed some of this stuff.....but since UNSCOM was never able to find evidence of the actual destruction they concluded it was more BS from Saddam. (why would Saddam destroy chemical weapons and make it impossible to verify the destruction thereof? seems pretty counterproductive)

Then there's this:

Biological weapons

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of (anthrax), which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. ...

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999.

As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. ... I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Does this help you out? I can't help you with info as to country of origin....the info is out there if you research it though. Gee, isn't it enough that UNSCOM is reporting that Iraq has this stuff??

-zilla

 

[Crossbow]

To: rikzilla

I have to say that you are being dense.

This makes the fourth time I have asked, but I will try again.

The question is:

What countries have helped Iraq in developing illegal weapons (Nuclear and/or Biological and/or Chemical)?

I hope you now understand and if you will actually read my earlier post (instead of just hitting the 'Quote' button and mindlessly reacting) you will see that I did follow-up on the links you provided. To reiterate, the links did not provide the evidence requested.

> So then, you, and others, have stated that other nations have helped Iraq in circumvent the international trade sanctions in order to support an Iraqi WMD program.

> I have disagreed and asked for you and the other interested party (Doctor X) to provide evidence for you claim.

> So far none has been provided.

Therefore, if you do have this type of evidence I would like to see it.

Thanks much and I hope that you, or someone else, can actually provide the evidence in question.

By the way, if you do not have this evidence, then just say so.

 

[rikzilla]

To: rikzilla

I have to say that you are being dense.

This makes the fourth time I have asked, but I will try again.

The question is:

What countries have helped Iraq in developing illegal weapons (Nuclear and/or Biological and/or Chemical)?

I hope you now understand and if you will actually read my earlier post (instead of just hitting the 'Quote' button and mindlessly reacting) you will see that I did follow-up on the links you provided. To reiterate, the links did not provide the evidence requested.

> So then, you, and others, have stated that other nations have helped Iraq in circumvent the international trade sanctions in order to support an Iraqi WMD program.

> I have disagreed and asked for you and the other interested party (Doctor X) to provide evidence for you claim.

> So far none has been provided.

Therefore, if you do have this type of evidence I would like to see it.

Thanks much and I hope that you, or someone else, can actually provide the evidence in question.

By the way, if you do not have this evidence, then just say so.

Listen,

This thread has a stated purpose. If you are not here to attempt to refute the 11 points of specific evidence against Iraq then go and start your own thread.

Your attempt to sidetrack and hijack this thread is duly noted. I made the mistake of entertaining your question as I thought you were asking it in good faith. You are not. You are merely making a very feeble attempt to obfuscate, and bait. That makes you very troll-like....beam yourself back up Scotty.

-zilla