'Dubya'- just illogical.

[Sea Skimmer]

And yet the US has been proven correct in a matter of days. If where already finding stuff after less then 20 inspections, god only knows what the other 3980 will hold. Hell the Chief of the inspections stated that it they inspectors themselves though Iraq still had three tons of VX alone.

Those shells were located and tagged by inspectors previously, and were slated for destruction years ago. They were found in an abandoned hangar filled with feathers and bird droppings. They had already been declared by the Iraqis- Hans Blix said himself that it was "not news". Finding them was no surprise, because they were where they had been left.

It's also besides the point- the weapons inspectors finding these is part of proving Iraq has WMD, not Iraq showing that it doesn't have any.

Iraq is more then capable of getting rid of Mustard gas on its own. The fact that they chose not to even though such where clearly know to them indicates that they don't want to. Big surprise. Iraq can't prove it doesn't have WMD because it does in fact have them.

[Vympel]

Iraq is more then capable of getting rid of Mustard gas on its own. The fact that they chose not to even though such where clearly know to them indicates that they don't want to. Big surprise. Iraq can't prove it doesn't have WMD because it does in fact have them.

Old shells in an abandoned hangar previously tagged by weapons inspectors for destruction? Clearly they were part of Iraq's massive hidden WMD stockpile, ready to be handed over to terrorists at a moment's notice ....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Let's face reality here. Bush is going to keep sending in inspectors, and they're going to keep finding nothing. How long is this going to go on?

Indefinitely. If the inspectors ever leave, Saddam will be given the opprotunity to start his programmes up again.

[Vympel]

Indefinitely. If the inspectors ever leave, Saddam will be given the opprotunity to start his programmes up again.

You have to prove that he has started his programs again first. Having inspectors there to establish whether that is the case is a good thing.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's not the point. The point is the burden of proof should be on the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction- how exactly, pray tell, does Iraq go about proving that it doesn't- especially considering that Bush won't believe them either way? This entire venture is a farce, based on something that is completely illogical.

The burden of proof is on Iraq because they signed a treaty agreeing to disarm in exchange for a cease-fire; they were the losing party in the Second Persian Gulf War, and this was one of the terms demanded of them.

Failure to comply allows the war to start back up again. Technically, the Second Persian Gulf War legally resumed the moment Saddam Hussein ejected the inspectors from Iraq. There was no need for any of this; the Second Persian Gulf War was sanctioned by the U.N.; and unde the laws of war, therefore, a war may be resumed at any time by the wronged party when the cease-fire is broken.

So, this war, sanctioned by the international community, was ended by a cease-fire. But it was still going on, just like Korea. There was just a temporary state of the ending of hostilities, again, like in the Korean War today. Iraq, when it ejected the inspectors, violated the terms of the cease-fire, however. In doing so, it legally allowed every nation that was part of the coalition to commit hostile acts towards it - as it, technically and legally - resumed a state of war towards the coalition, by violating the terms of the U.N. cease-fire.

Essentially, therefore, what the administration is doing is giving Saddam a last chance to maintain the state of armistice, by proving that during the period when he was in legal violation of the cease-fire, he did also commit a flagrant violation by commencing to rebuild his banned stockpiles of WMDs. The burden of proof is therefore certainly upon Saddam. If he cannot meet it, it is within our legal rights to resume the conflict, as it is for every single nation involved in the coalition.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You have to prove that he has started his programs again first. Having inspectors there to establish whether that is the case is a good thing.

No, we don't. He had not fully disarmed when he ejected the inspectors (The determination was that of the inspectors), and the question of programs as opposed to stockpiles is irrelevant in that case. Without complete disarmament we can reimpose the inspectors at any time and for any duration was desire. Furthermore Saddam's ejection of the inspectors was a legal violation of the cease-fire and a technical resumption of the State of War of the Second Persian Gulf War.

What we're giving him a chance to do, and where the burden of proof falls upon him, is to prove that he did not commit a flagrant violation of the cease-fire by resuming acts that had already been halted under the terms of the cease-fire. If he has then the war shall be resumed (as is our legal right).

[Vympel]

The burden of proof is on Iraq because they signed a treaty agreeing to disarm in exchange for a cease-fire; they were the losing party in the Second Persian Gulf War, and this was one of the terms demanded of them.

That does not follow- why must the losing party accept a burden of proof that it cannot meet? Please provide a workable way for Iraq to prove it is not doing something, especially when the US is predisposed not to believe them anyway.

Failure to comply allows the war to start back up again. Technically, the Second Persian Gulf War legally resumed the moment Saddam Hussein ejected the inspectors from Iraq. There was no need for any of this; the Second Persian Gulf War was sanctioned by the U.N.; and unde the laws of war, therefore, a war may be resumed at any time by the wronged party when the cease-fire is broken.

One problem: Iraq didn't kick out the UN inspectors, Richard Butler ordered them out, without UN Security Council authorization- it's rather curious how the facts change in 4 years. I had an old URL that showed the difference in news reports between 1998 and 2002.

So, this war, sanctioned by the international community, was ended by a cease-fire. But it was still going on, just like Korea. There was just a temporary state of the ending of hostilities, again, like in the Korean War today. Iraq, when it ejected the inspectors, violated the terms of the cease-fire, however. In doing so, it legally allowed every nation that was part of the coalition to commit hostile acts towards it - as it, technically and legally - resumed a state of war towards the coalition, by violating the terms of the U.N. cease-fire.

Except Iraq didn't eject the inspectors.

Essentially, therefore, what the administration is doing is giving Saddam a last chance to maintain the state of armistice, by proving that during the period when he was in legal violation of the cease-fire, he did also commit a flagrant violation by commencing to rebuild his banned stockpiles of WMDs. The burden of proof is therefore certainly upon Saddam. If he cannot meet it, it is within our legal rights to resume the conflict, as it is for every single nation involved in the coalition.

How do you prove that you're NOT doing something?

[Vympel]

No, we don't. He had not fully disarmed when he ejected the inspectors (The determination was that of the inspectors), and the question of programs as opposed to stockpiles is irrelevant in that case. Without complete disarmament we can reimpose the inspectors at any time and for any duration was desire. Furthermore Saddam's ejection of the inspectors was a legal violation of the cease-fire and a technical resumption of the State of War of the Second Persian Gulf War.

You're just repeating yourself now. There is no logic behind trying to get Iraq to prove that they haven't resumed their activities, rather than proving that they have. The reason Bush made the statement is because they have no proof that they have.

What we're giving him a chance to do, and where the burden of proof falls upon him, is to prove that he did not commit a flagrant violation of the cease-fire by resuming acts that had already been halted under the terms of the cease-fire. If he has then the war shall be resumed (as is our legal right).

Still asking them to prove that they haven't done something, rather than finding proof that they have, which is much easier.

[Vympel]

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Ah found it- what a difference four years makes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Ah found it- what a difference four years makes.

Iraqi noncompliance causing the UN to order the inspectors out would be sufficient (legal) grounds. They left because Saddam wouldn't let them do their jobs; he kept them out of the necessary areas.

[Vympel]

Iraqi noncompliance causing the UN to order the inspectors out would be sufficient (legal) grounds. They left because Saddam wouldn't let them do their jobs; he kept them out of the necessary areas.

The chronology was reported as such:

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).

Iraqi reluctance to admit inspectors into some areas was maybe because there were US spies in their midst that were performing espionage work- these have however transformed to facts four years ago to 'allegations' now:

Treating the use of the U.N. weapons inspection team for espionage as a mere Iraqi allegation might be referred to as "Saddam Says" reporting. In fact, reports of the misuse of the inspectors for spying were made in early 1999 by some of the leading U.S. newspapers, sourced to U.S. and U.N. officials (FAIR Action Alert, 9/24/02). These papers reported as fact that "American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors" (New York Times, 1/7/99) in order to "eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency" (Washington Post, 3/2/99) as part of "an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein" (Boston Globe, 1/6/99).

A full account of this remarkable transformation from fact to allegation:

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The chronology was reported as such:

One of the most common media errors on Iraq is the claim that the U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 because they were "kicked out" or "expelled" (Extra! Update, 10/02). The inspectors, led by Richard Butler, actually left voluntarily, knowing that a U.S. bombing campaign was imminent. This was reported accurately throughout the U.S. press at the time: "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night" (Washington Post, 12/18/98).

Iraqi reluctance to admit inspectors into some areas was maybe because there were US spies in their midst that were performing espionage work- these have however transformed to facts four years ago to 'allegations' now:

Treating the use of the U.N. weapons inspection team for espionage as a mere Iraqi allegation might be referred to as "Saddam Says" reporting. In fact, reports of the misuse of the inspectors for spying were made in early 1999 by some of the leading U.S. newspapers, sourced to U.S. and U.N. officials (FAIR Action Alert, 9/24/02). These papers reported as fact that "American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors" (New York Times, 1/7/99) in order to "eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency" (Washington Post, 3/2/99) as part of "an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein" (Boston Globe, 1/6/99).

A full account of this remarkable transformation from fact to allegation:

http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

The ejection was effective, and that's what counts.

See here: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page6122.asp - I assume, of course, the word of the British government being somewhat more credible than that of the American in your eyes.

[Vympel]

15. By the end of 1998 UNSCOM was in direct confrontation with the Iraqi Government which was refusing to co-operate. The US and the UK had made clear that anything short of full co-operation would make military action unavoidable. Richard Butler was requested to report to the UN Security Council in December 1998 and stated that, following a series of direct confrontations, coupled with the systematic refusal by Iraq to co-operate, UNSCOM was no longer able to perform its disarmament mandate. As a direct result, on December 16 the weapons inspectors were withdrawn and Operation Desert Fox was launched by the US and the UK a few hours afterwards.

That doesn't say much of anything. It ignores:

a- espionage against the Iraqi government; in addition, on the subject Scott Ritter expands saying that UNSCOM did use some 'espionage techniques' for the purposes of finding WMD- this included high-resolution photography, communications intercepts, talking with defectors etc- this was within their clear UN mandate.

However, in the final months of the inspections, Richard Butler folded under US pressure to divert intelligence efforts to matters pertaining to the "security of Saddam Hussein" (his words)- a violation of the inspectors mandate and perverting their mission into one for intelligence gathering by the United States. Furthermore, Scott Ritter alleges that the US influenced Richard Butler's report to the UN of non-compliance and that it was under urging from the US that he unilaterally, and without UN security council approval, pulled the weapons inspectors out. Unbelievably, this was then used as justification for the strike that occured in 1998.

It also ignores that Iraqi cooperation took a steep dive when, again under US influence, Richard Butler broke the 1996 that any inspections carried out on politically sensitive sites would be done by a limited number of inspectors- once this agreement was broken in the final months, Iraq became quite intransigent- obviously why should Iraq comply by UN rules if the inspectors aren't?

The ejection was effective, and that's what counts.

Oh come on, you still use the word 'ejection' as if they were forced out. Butler ORDERED them to leave. Quite frankly, I'm not surprised at Iraqi stubborness considering the shit that was going on. The fact that inspectors left is certainly not what counts- the question is WHY did they leave.

I should also add that these ad hoc rationalizations for war hold no water whatsoever- noone in the administration uses these arguments for war because they know that in the international forum they don't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny- this is also the case with the no-fly zones.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Given that it took 17 people a week to find WMD in Iraq, I'd say he's right on the money.

Seventeen Weapons inspectors where in Iraq for less then seven days when they found artillery shells which held Mustard gas.

They found traces. That's hardly a smoking gun.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Seventeen Weapons inspectors where in Iraq for less then seven days when they found artillery shells which held Mustard gas.

They found traces. That's hardly a smoking gun.

If they found traces, there could be more elsewhere.

[weemadando]

If they found traces, there could be more elsewhere.

And there are traces of cocaine on what percentage of banknotes in the US?

So does that constitute grounds to arrest any citizen carrying such a note for possession of a restricted substance?

[Ted]

The main reason why Saddam kicked the insepctors out was beacuse the US WAS SENDING CIA AGENTS IN AS SUPPOSED WEAPONS INSPECTORS. Wouldn't you kick them out if they sent their SIS in to the US?

[Falcon]

The main reason why Saddam kicked the insepctors out was beacuse the US WAS SENDING CIA AGENTS IN AS SUPPOSED WEAPONS INSPECTORS. Wouldn't you kick them out if they sent their SIS in to the US?

CIA agents are highly trained intelliegence personal who are very good at uncovering deceptions, coverups, etc... Furthermore the United States defeated Iraq in war, they signed the cease fire, we wrote the terms. If Iraq doesn't like CIA agents, or military personal, or little green bunnies, or whatever we decide to send they can get over it, post haste. The loser does not dictate to the winner and if they try to it only prolongs the painful process on both sides. Iraq, if it had went along with the terms it agreed to, could have had the inspections over in 1-2 years tops, but instead Saddam decided to be 'smart' and drag it out. Now we're sick of it again and we've drawn our final (hopefully) line in the sand. Either these inspections go through and we go home, or we finish what we started.

[weemadando]

The main reason why Saddam kicked the insepctors out was beacuse the US WAS SENDING CIA AGENTS IN AS SUPPOSED WEAPONS INSPECTORS. Wouldn't you kick them out if they sent their SIS in to the US?

CIA agents are highly trained intelliegence personal who are very good at uncovering deceptions, coverups, etc... Furthermore the United States defeated Iraq in war, they signed the cease fire, we wrote the terms. If Iraq doesn't like CIA agents, or military personal, or little green bunnies, or whatever we decide to send they can get over it, post haste. The loser does not dictate to the winner and if they try to it only prolongs the painful process on both sides. Iraq, if it had went along with the terms it agreed to, could have had the inspections over in 1-2 years tops, but instead Saddam decided to be 'smart' and drag it out. Now we're sick of it again and we've drawn our final (hopefully) line in the sand. Either these inspections go through and we go home, or we finish what we started.

Actually I believe that you'll find that under the cease fire there was no provision allowing the US to send in CIA agents to Iraq. There was a provision for weapons inspection. UN weapon inspections. The UN weapons inspections teams are not allowed to have any people on them who are a) members of a sovereign nations intelligence network, b) reporting to someone other than the UN.

So according to the cease-fire treaty that the US drafted Iraq was justified in ejecting the weapons inspectors if even a few were found to be CIA.

[Vympel]

If they found traces, there could be more elsewhere.

To be more specific, they found old artillery shells with mustard gas that had been previously found in that same location (an abandoned hangar filled with bird droppings/feathers in the middle of the desert) by previous UN weapons inspectors. It's not even a 'find'.

CIA agents are highly trained intelliegence personal who are very good at uncovering deceptions, coverups, etc... Furthermore the United States defeated Iraq in war, they signed the cease fire, we wrote the terms. If Iraq doesn't like CIA agents, or military personal, or little green bunnies, or whatever we decide to send they can get over it, post haste. The loser does not dictate to the winner and if they try to it only prolongs the painful process on both sides. Iraq, if it had went along with the terms it agreed to, could have had the inspections over in 1-2 years tops, but instead Saddam decided to be 'smart' and drag it out. Now we're sick of it again and we've drawn our final (hopefully) line in the sand. Either these inspections go through and we go home, or we finish what we started.

As weemadando said, it's illegal, in violation of treaty, and not authorized by the UN. They perverted the weapons inspections process unilaterally.

[Falcon]

Actually I believe that you'll find that under the cease fire there was no provision allowing the US to send in CIA agents to Iraq. There was a provision for weapons inspection. UN weapon inspections. The UN weapons inspections teams are not allowed to have any people on them who are a) members of a sovereign nations intelligence network, b) reporting to someone other than the UN.

So according to the cease-fire treaty that the US drafted Iraq was justified in ejecting the weapons inspectors if even a few were found to be CIA.

Iraq began violating cease-fire almost immediately, before any alleged CIA agents were there. Iraq can't disobey one part of a treaty and then use another part to justify some trumped up charges was my point...

[Vympel]

Iraq began violating cease-fire almost immediately, before any alleged CIA agents were there. Iraq can't disobey one part of a treaty and then use another part to justify some trumped up charges was my point...

Immaterial to the issue at hand. Iraq belatedly (i.e. with much brow-beating) cooperated with weapons inspectors for 7 years, to the extent that by 1998 Iraq was effectively disarmed (90-95%- the 5% consisting of stuff like those old mustard gas arty shells, probably). The end of inspections in 1998 can hardly be called the fault of Iraq.