Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Iraq accepts UN inspectors
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
From news.google.com
[quote]
Top Stories Auto-generated 16 minutes ago
TheNewsMexico.com
Blix: Iraq accepts all UN inspector rights
United Press International - 25 minutes ago
After "business-like and focused" talks on practical arrangements with Iraqi officials for the resumption of inspections, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday Baghdad has agreed to accept "all the rights ...
UN, Iraq reach tentative agreement Toronto Star
Iraq: Inspections, Vienna Talks Are Secondary To Political Events Radio Free Europe
BBC - Sydney Morning Herald - Deepika - jihadunspun.com - and 980 related »
[/quote]
Yay! Maybe no war after all!
[quote]
Top Stories Auto-generated 16 minutes ago
TheNewsMexico.com
Blix: Iraq accepts all UN inspector rights
United Press International - 25 minutes ago
After "business-like and focused" talks on practical arrangements with Iraqi officials for the resumption of inspections, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday Baghdad has agreed to accept "all the rights ...
UN, Iraq reach tentative agreement Toronto Star
Iraq: Inspections, Vienna Talks Are Secondary To Political Events Radio Free Europe
BBC - Sydney Morning Herald - Deepika - jihadunspun.com - and 980 related »
[/quote]
Yay! Maybe no war after all!
Comments
Tuesday, October 1, 2002; 3:16 PM
VIENNA, Austria –– U.N. inspectors reached agreement with the Iraqis Tuesday on logistics for a new mission to reassess Saddam Hussein's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq said it expected an advance party in Baghdad in two weeks.
The Iraqi representatives said "that they accept all the rights of inspections that are laid down" in previous U.N. resolutions, said Hans Blix, the chief inspector.
The negotiations resulted in "assurances from the Iraqis that we will have unconditional access to all sites," except the so-called presidential sites, said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the Vienna-based Atomic Energy Agency, the site of the talks.
That apparently was an Iraqi concession, in that Baghdad had put a number of other sites off limits to surprise visits, including the headquarters of the Republic Guard and Defense Ministry.
The United States demands that all sites be open to surprise inspections and wants the United Nations to adopt a news inspections resolution outlining that stance as well as the threat of military action if Saddam does not comply.
The Iraqi chief negotiator, Gen. Amir Al Sadi, said the issue of surprise inspections of Saddam's palaces and other presidential sites was "not a subject on the agenda."
"Quite honestly I don't understand why it is so critical," Al Sadi said.
Immediately after the Vienna agreement was announced, the State Department said any inspections should be deferred until a new resolution outlining the mission is approved by the U.N. Security Council. However, spokesman Richard Boucher said the Bush administration had no objection to inspectors making arrangements in advance.
As promised, the Iraqis handed over four CDs containing a backlog of monitoring reports for suspect sites and items, spanning June 1998 to July 2002, Blix said. Although that information was not yet analyzed, it would provide important clues about Iraqi weapons activity, he said.
Blix was asked if the results of the two-day meeting were a rebuff to the United States and its close British ally.
The chief inspector said he would not be so "presumptuous," as to rebuff anyone and that he would report in "all humility" to the Security Council Thursday.
Blix further said restriction on access to the eight so-called presidential sites – encompassing about 12 square miles – remained in effect.
The restriction on inspecting presidential sites would have to be lifted by the Security Council, something U.N. representatives in Vienna had emphasized throughout the two days of talks.
Blix said the Iraqis were serious about allowing the return of his team, saying: "There is a willingness to accept inspections that has not existed before."
Before the inspections resume, the Americans are expected to push the Security Council for a new resolution to include the threat of military action if inspections fail. But Russia, China and France oppose issuing threats before inspectors can test Iraq's sincerity.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France was still interested in a first resolution demanding a return to inspections, followed by a second resolution threatening military action if Iraq fails to comply.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a strong statement Tuesday backing the United States.
"Let us lay down the ultimatum. Let Saddam comply with the will of the U.N.," Blair said in a tough speech to a convention of his governing Labor Party.
"If we lose our collective will to deal with it, we will lose the authority not of the United States or of Britain, but of the United Nations," Blair said.
At a regular weekly Cabinet meeting led by Saddam in Baghdad, senior Iraqi officials discussed the American efforts toward a new resolution.
"If those evil people think that the war drums that are beating can force Iraq to give up its national rights, its rights according to the U.N. charter and to the (past) Security Council resolutions, they are under an illusion," Iraqi TV quoted the unidentified spokesman as saying after the meeting.
In Ankara, Turkey, meanwhile, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said the delegation in Vienna had been under instructions to cooperate fully.
"Iraqis will totally assist U.N. inspectors," Aziz said. "That way, those inspectors will be able to fulfill their mission and uncover the fact that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Aziz was in Turkey trying to persuade Ankara not to take part in any U.S.-led military action against Baghdad, as Turkey did in the Gulf War.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said the full success of Blix's mission would await Security Council comes up with new guidance or additional resolutions that might require him to modify his plan.
"I'm pleased that he is in that state of readiness and we'll have to see how things develop over the next couple of weeks with respect to a resolution with new requirements," Powell said in a television interview with PBS Monday night.
Nearly four years ago, inspectors withdrew from Iraq on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams.
By the end of the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA assessments indicated Saddam was six months away from building an atomic bomb. Inspectors discovered the oil-rich nation had imported thousands of pounds of uranium, some of which was already refined for weapons use, and had considered two types of nuclear delivery systems.
Over the next six years, inspectors seized the uranium, destroyed facilities and chemicals, dismantled over 40 missiles and confiscated thousands of documents.
© 2002 The Associated Press
First there are some 50 or more so called "Presidential sites" and one of the presidential sites is an area the size of London! Without access to some of those sites, nothing will be found, and thus Sadam's weapons development programs will continue.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
3D Artist - GVFX
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
You are comparing apples and oranges. However when it has been appropriate the United States has allowed such inspectors. Would Canada allow inspectors in EVERY facility, they might be small but you have weapons programs also? In addition neither Canada or the United States have ever been defeated in a major war were terms were drawn up.
[b]Would the US be willing to let foreign inspectors into EVERY single one of it's military installations?
[/b][/quote]
No, but have we proven ourselves untrustworth by making weapons banned from almost every country since the 80s(I think thats around when we banned them).(i.e. biological weapons)
Every country has military installations that they want to keep hidden from outside view, it's just plain unrealistic to expect them to open ALL of their doors.
------------------
[url="http://www.alecm.com/"]Alec McClymont[/url]
3D Artist - GVFX
"Something is only impossible until it's not."
We need a Security Counsel resolution dealing with the inspections.
Then if Iraq dosen't comply we will have the international backing to actually do something about it.
And those palaces definetly need to be on the inspection list.
------------------
"Ambassador we all know that the first casulty of war is the truth."
-John Sheridan
Ok so it's not exactly Max's journal but I think it's good [url="http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40551"]http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40551[/url]
[This message has been edited by Ricobirch (edited 10-02-2002).]
But Iraq has proven that it wants to gain nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction. So how does that make them different from America and Russia in the 40's? Nuclear weapons in Sadamm's hands WILL be used. Sadamm is not developing for deterance (as the Russians did, kinda) or to end a war (as we, the US did). He is trying to get them in order to launch at Israil as well as hold other contries hostage. As for biological weopons, as far as I am concered: NO nation should have them. They are too dangerous. Even more so than Nukes IMHO. Easier to distribute, invisible, and damn near imposible to detect until it is too late. They just scare the hell out of me.
EDIT: [quote]I can't belive I'm about to say this, but I agree with the French.[/quote]
God help you... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] in all seriousness, a UN resolution would be great, but I dont think we will get it. The UN does not want to force Iraq to accept unrestricted access. Without that, a resolution is worthless...
[This message has been edited by rhett (edited 10-02-2002).]
I say, and I know I'll get grief over this,
To the victor gos the spoils.
Inspect where and when they want with military backing. Git in the way, you Die!
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
2. Iraq is in violation of the agreements established at the end of the Gulf War II (the Iraq Iran war is Gulf War I actualy)
3. back to 1, again, the US does live up to its WMD agreements and treaties because our facilities are open to inspection by those who are parties to the revelent treaties. so accusations of hypocrypsy on this count dont hold much water.
[b] 1. As somebody already pointed out[/b][/quote]
I'm glad I'm 'somebody', and not just a 'nobody.' [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 10-04-2002).]
In this regard it is accurate. In fact, it would only be hypocritical for the U.S. to act in accordance with the U.N. as it regularly disregards U.N. resolutions and the World Court. In the interest of truth and removing Uncle Sam from the butt of many a European joke they should do it without U.N. approval. Maybe then the European Union will start a peace keeping organization with some balls. (U.S., China, Russia and a Blair-run-Britain excluded of course) Given the popular sentiment this may be the future of the European Union. Here's to hoping. [img]http://www.cdv-download.de/vb/images/smilies/xyxthumbs.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
The UN resolutions that the US is in violation of are General Assembly resolutions, which, if you read the UN charter, have no effect or power, all important and theoreticly binding resolutions must come from the Security Council, and the US is not in violation of a single Security Council resolution.
Two The US isnt in violation of any International Court of Justice agreements to my knowledge either, because the US is one of several countries who doesnt accept compulsary ICJ jurisdiction, the only case we lost and then skanked out on to my knowledge at this juncture was the Nicrauaga case in the 1980's and in hind site we were right, the Sandanistas WERE evil genociding SOB's, who promptly lost the first REAL democratic election that was held. Go figure.
If you assume I idealize the E.U. I don't. Most of its members are imperialist of the neo-colonialist variety, like the U.S. However, the European public consciouness *MAY* change this.
[Tyvar]The UN resolutions that the US is in violation of are General Assembly resolutions, which, if you read the UN charter, have no effect or power, all important and theoreticly binding resolutions must come from the Security Council, and the US is not in violation of a single Security Council resolution.[/Tyvar]
Though you are technically correct it is moot. In the international arena law is determined by the power brokers so a resolution that was binding would be meaningless. Furthermore, there have been General Assembly resolutions with proposed Security Council counterparts; however, a U.S. vote against in the Security Council is a veto.
[Tyvar]Two The US isnt in violation of any International Court of Justice agreements to my knowledge either, because the US is one of several countries who doesnt accept compulsary ICJ jurisdiction, the only case we lost and then skanked out on to my knowledge at this juncture was the Nicrauaga case in the 1980's and in hind site we were right, the Sandanistas WERE evil genociding SOB's, who promptly lost the first REAL democratic election that was held. Go figure.[/Tyvar]
The Sandonistas were not evil genociding SOBs. True, they did not treat their indigenous population fairly (if I recall they did commit two or more massacres) but nothing like genocide. Compare this to U.S. treatment of domestic indigenous population...
If memory serves, the leader of the Sandonistas lost the election because of his charisma, a scandal marking him as a pedophile and the population's fear of future U.S. reprisals. To extend the last point, the 80's kaffufle was the third time Nicaragua bore direct U.S. imposition and has since learned to play ball Uncle Sam's way. The citizens avoid voting for parties with revolutionary or socialist roots for fear of the outcome. The Nicaraguan media also plays ball lest it be denied access to press conferences at the U.S. embassy.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live