The axis of weasel strikes back

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Inspectors fail to find smoking gun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...883529,00.html

In a plain-speaking and detailed speech, the head of the UN weapons inspection team, Hans Blix, today provided no "smoking gun" that would indicate Iraq has built up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but said that obstructions, inconsistencies and unanswered questions showed Iraq was not fully cooperating with inspectors.
Mr Blix admitted that despite twelve years of international demands, Iraqi cooperation has been intermittent and incomplete, in stark contrast to the attitude South Africa had taken in destroying its nuclear arsenal.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," he told the security council.

Indicating that his teams required more time, Mr Blix referred to today's report as an update and said it represented only the "results so far". The US has argued that UN resolution 1441 - which paved the way for the resumption of inspections after a four-year break - did not envisage reports beyond the two months the inspectors have already had.

The US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, immediately responded that he saw no evidence that Iraq will comply with UN resolutions.

"They are not cooperating unconditionally," he said, warning that this approach to the UN weapons inspections was "back to business as usual" for Saddam Hussein and that the security council had to face its responsibilities.

Report unlikely to convince doves

Mr Blix's findings will probably not be enough to provide security council members China, France and Russia with a casus belli. They have all publicly favoured allowing more time for weapons inspections.

He reported that Iraq had been cooperative on the process of inspections, particularly on providing access to the more than 230 sites already visited by UN personnel.

"Access has been provided to all sites we wanted to visit and on the whole it has been prompt," Mr Blix stated.

He also pointed out a number of obstructions and omissions by the Iraqi regime, including the possible production of VX nerve agent and proscribed Scud missile delivery systems. He said the Iraqis have refused to guarantee the safety of U-2 spy planes that inspectors want to use, and added that Iraq had failed to account for some 6,000 chemical rockets and stockpiles of anthrax.

Inspectors plead for more time

Making a diplomatic plea to continue his work, Mr Blix noted that the previous inspection regime destroyed more weapons of mass destruction that the first Gulf war. He ended the speech by reiterating to the coun c il that the inspectors now had access to eight helicopters and more inspection personnel.

"The capability which has been built up over a short time and is now operational is at the disposal of the security council," he said.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head o f the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke just after Mr Blix to state categorically that his teams had found "no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme". He also made a more direct plea for time.

"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to continue its natural course," Mr El Baradei told the council. "With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and providing there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able in the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon programme.

"These few months in my view would be a valuable investment in peace because it would help us avoid a war," he said.

US takes tough line on Iraqi compliance

Just before Mr Blix stood up to speak, the White House reiterated that it was looking for a pass or fail from the report.

"The United States will read the Blix report to see one thing and one thing very simple. Is Iraq complying yes or no? ... If the answer is only partially yes then the answer is no," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Mr Fleischer said that, under the terms of a UN resolution passed in November, Iraq must provide a "full, final and complete" accounting of i ts weap ons.

H e said: "It must comply in all regards, not in some regards, not in half regards, not in some areas but not other areas."

In December, Iraqi officials handed the UN a 12,000 page dossier on Iraq's weapons programmes, in line with the UN re solution. However General Hasam Amin, of Iraq's national monitoring directorate, said at the time: "Iraq is empty of weapons of mass destruction. I reiterate Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. This declaration has some activities that are dual-use."

Both the US and Britain have insisted that the country does have weapons of mass destruction.

The security council is due to debate the reports on Wednesday.

War or no war yet?


Blix

"These few months in my view would be a valuable investment in peace because it would help us avoid a war," he said.

Mohamed El Baradei, the head o f the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke just after Mr Blix to state categorically that his teams had found "no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme". He also made a more direct plea for time.




We shall see

[Main_Brain]

I doubt US grants Months

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Maybe they will if under pressure from the "axis of weasel" plus the inspectors

[Oerdin]

1441 was very specific; Iraq had to not only let inspectors back in and provide them with unfettered access (which hasn't happened) but they also had to tell us were he's remaining weapons are or account for what happened to them. There is still 30k pounds of anthrex and botulism still unaccounted for. Iraq claims they destroyed them between 1998 and now but they haven't provided any proof plus after spending seven years hiding them from the U.N. is it likely Saddam voulintarially destroyed those bioweapons when inspectors were no longer forcing him to? Also why didn't he call a single reporter to see as he magnamoniously decided to destroy the bio weapons himself.

1441 made it clear that the burden of proof was on Saddam to either produce the weapons we know he had as of 1998 or show clear evidience that they no longer exist. The Iraqis have done neither. That is a clear breach of the resolution.

[Ned]

Iraq said it destroyed its VX and Anthrax, its SCUDS, and other such chemical warheads in '91. It has offered no proof. It has effectively denied access to scientists and others that could verify whether the chemical and bio weapons were destroyed. He has denied the use of a U2. He will not permit the use of copters that are not "escorted." He simply wants the world to take his word for it while continuing to block effective inspections.

Without full cooperation from Iraq, there is no way to verify the truth of Iraq's declaration. What does Blix think he will achieve if he continues without cooperation?

[Oerdin]

Saddam's plan is the same as it always has been. To drag on inspections as slowly as possible, to just barely provide the minimium of complience to avoid a restart of hostilities, and wait for the sanctions system to break down so he can rebuild to his pre-gulf war strength. I never thought I'd agree with Cheney but he's right; we'll never get Iraq to comply as long as Saddam is in charge and trying to prevent disarmorment.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well than it might just be war, but we will see as they say the security council meeting in on Wednesday, that day if it doesn't go well might even redifine 21st century

[Jon Miller]

well the US will not fight until March at the earliest (I have heard)

if this is true, than the inspectors can be there for another month

Jon Miller

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Ned
Iraq said it destroyed its VX and Anthrax, its SCUDS, and other such chemical warheads in '91.

They said they did but in 1998 we had several defectors provide documants proving Saddam still had them and an on going WoMD program. So if he had them in 1998 where are they now? I don't buy Iraq's claim that they destroyed all of them the second U.N. inspectors left. He has them and he's hiding them ergo he's broken 1441.

[Oerdin]

CNN has said the invasion force won't be in place until march so the inspectors can keep getting lead around like a donkey by Saddam. At this point the inspectors are little more then PR which both sides will try to us as propoganda.

[Tripledoc]

From the article.
"The United States will read the Blix report to see one thing and one thing very simple. Is Iraq complying yes or no? ... If the answer is only partially yes then the answer is no," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

So if the answer was a 'partial no' then it would be a 'yes'. A typically illogical statement by the White House.

[chequita guevara]

Because, of course, going to war is more important that actually checking to see if Iraq is disarmed. This whole inspections thing was a joke, just to disarm opposition to the war while the US built up forces in the Gulf. The US always said that even if nothing was found, even if Iraq had been completely forthcoming, we'd still go to war because that would just prove that Iraq was lying. The US only wants war and war is what we're going to get.

Someone stop us before we kill again.

[Harovan]

Nobody can stop your country, chegitz. Unfortunately.

[MichaeltheGreat]

What's so wrong with killing *******s like Hussein and his thugs?

That part doesn't bug me near so much as the apparent lack of concern about having a real plan for what comes after.

[DanS]

In all the English-speaking press, the more damning quotes from the speech lead the headlnes. I don't think the Axis of Weasel will gain much diplomatic traction by it.

The Guardian even had to quote some of the juicier stuff. I'm sure it nearly killed them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What's so wrong with killing *******s like Hussein and his thugs?

It's not that I care about him or his thugs. I care about the whole world. As long as the US is able to go where it wants, how it wants, when it wants, the world is not safe. Hussein is a regional danger, we are a global one. Hussein is the lesser of two evils.

In a perfect world, we could do away with both sides.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The US always said that even if nothing was found, even if Iraq had been completely forthcoming, we'd still go to war because that would just prove that Iraq was lying.

Che: There were several Iraqi scientists who defected in 1998 an provided detailed accounts of Iraq's WoMD programs as well as methods & tactics which the Iraqis had been using to hide their weapons and confuse the inspectors. In his declaration to the U.N. after the passage of 1441 Saddam says all WoMD were destroyed in 1991 but this is not possible since we have evidience proving he had them in 1998. There for it can be proven the declaration was obviously false and in violation of 1441 (and several other resolutions).

Also 1441 was very clear that the burden of proof was on the Iraqis; that they must show inspectors where any WoMD are or they must provide proof that the weapons have been destroyed. The Iraqis have done neither. They continue to insist that all WoMD were destroyed in 1991, but, again we know of an estimated 30k lbs of Anthrax and VX gas that existed as of 1998. They are obviously lieing.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, we do not have evidence he had them. We have statements from interested parties that he had them. Their statements have not been verified. This doesn't mean they were lying, but as yet, they have not been proven to be true.

In any event, your statement, even were everything true (and I'm not saying it's not, just that it isn't verified), doesn't change the fact that this war has nothing to do with Hussein having or not having WoMD. It's about US power and vulgar Republican electoral politics.

[Case]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What's so wrong with killing *******s like Hussein and his thugs?

Nothing. When are the invasions of Burma and Zimbabwe scheduled for?

[The Mad Monk]

Here's a little more --

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=373367

The Blix Report: Anthrax, missiles and nerve gas... all missing
28 January 2003


The following is an edited transcript of the report by Professor Hans Blix to the UN:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. ...

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time far-fetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. Iraq knows they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". ...

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.

The discovery of a number of 122mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170km south-west of Baghdad was much publicised. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. ...

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further four chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

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.

Missiles

There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile called the Al Fatah.

Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150km ... The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the executive chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600mm. ...

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150km. These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. In the meantime, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles. ...

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Mr President, I have touched upon some of the disarmament issues that remain open and need to be answered if dossiers are to be closed and confidence to arise. Which are the means at the disposal of Iraq to answer these questions?

Our Iraqi counterparts are fond of saying there are no proscribed items and if no evidence is presented to the contrary they should have the benefit of the doubt and be presumed innocent. UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it – or I think anyone else after the inspections between 1991 and 1998 – presuming the opposite, that no such items and activities exist in Iraq. Presumptions do not solve the problem. Evidence and full transparency may help. Let me be specific.

Find the items and activities

So far we have reported on the recent find of a small number of empty 122mm warheads for chemical weapons. Iraq declared that it appointed a commission of inquiry to look for more. Fine. Why not extend the search to other items? Declare what may be found and destroy it under our supervision?

Find documents

When we have urged our Iraqi counterparts to present more evidence, we have all too often met the response that there are no more documents. ... However, Iraq has all the archives of the Government and its various departments, institutions and mechanisms. It should have budgetary documents, requests for funds and reports on how they have been used. ...

In response to a recent UNMOVIC request for a number of specific documents, the only new documents Iraq provided was a ledger of 193 pages which Iraq stated included all imports from 1983 to 1990 by the Technical and Scientific Importation Division, the importing authority for the biological weapons programme. Potentially, it might help to clear some open issues.

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of some 3,000 pages of documents relating to laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their workplaces.

On our side, we cannot help but think the case might not be isolated and such placements of documents are deliberate. Any further sign of the concealment of documents would be serious. ...

Find persons to give credible information

When Iraq claims tangible evidence in the form of documents is not available, it ought at least to find individuals, engineers, scientists and managers to testify about their experience.

UNMOVIC asked for a list of such persons, in accordance with resolution 1441. Some 400 names for all biological and chemical weapons programmes as well as their missile programmes were pro- vided by the Iraqi side. This can be compared to over 3,500 names of people associated with those past weapons programmes that UNSCOM interviewed in the 1990s or knew from documents and other sources.

At my recent meeting in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to supplementing the list and some 80 additional names have been provided.

Allow information through credible interviews

In the past, much valuable information came from interviews. There were also cases in which the interviewee was clearly intimidated by the presence of Iraqi officials. This was the background of resolution 1441's provision for a right for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to hold private interviews "in the mode or location" of our choice, in Baghdad or even abroad.

To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq's monitoring directorate or in the presence of an Iraqi official. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews "in private", that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed.

UNMOVIC's capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this update without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. In the past two months, we have conducted about 300 inspections on more than 230 different sites.

Mr President, we have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams all over Iraq, by road or air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, built up in a short time and now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What's so wrong with killing *******s like Hussein and his thugs?

Nothing, it's just that the country will be further damaged and a lot of civilians will be killed.

I always find it ironic that the US didn't regard Saddam as a thug before he got the gall to invade Kuwait.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That part doesn't bug me near so much as the apparent lack of concern about having a real plan for what comes after.

We can see that by looking at Afghanistan.

[Drake Tungsten]

I always find it ironic that the US didn't regard Saddam as a thug before he got the gall to invade Kuwait.

We didn't consider the Chinese to be thugs before Tiananmen Square either. What can I say; we're bad judges of character...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And we didn't consider US to be thugs before Vietnam, and Grenada, and Nicaragua and.... oh US doesn't have a dicatator, well maybe we should install one

Point being this is the world of the powerfull who kill for money, and their own interests, the difference is that US says that it is doing it for "humanitarian causes" like WOMD prevention or that Saddam is a dictator who is "evil" They throw a just cause in your face and than do what they intended to do hoping that we - the brainwashed citizens- will take it as the truth. That is the democratic way. (Well surely better than the dictatorial) But it doesn't make it right anyway, and our leaders can do better. Or better to say we should be capable of electing better ones.

[Rogan Josh]

It seems to me that the US is the most aggresive country in the world right now. And they have lots of Weapons of Mass Destruction - in fact, they have been hording them up since the 40s!!

When are we going to see a UN resolution to force the US to destroy its WoMD? And we had better make sure they comply by sending a UN inspection team, otherwise Bush and his thugs will just hide them away and claim they were destroyed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As long as the US is able to go where it wants, how it wants, when it wants, the world is not safe.

The precedent problem.

But iraq is not a precedent, Iraq is in a unique position under international law. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Kuwait invoked its right of collective self defense, recognized under the UN charter, but predating the charter. The US foought against Iraq. The US signed a cease-fire with Iraq, CONDITIONAL on several things, among them the disarmament of Iraq. (again ratified by UNSC resolutions, but existing independent of said resolutions) Should Iraq fail to disarm, then ceasefire is no longer in effect and the US is within its rights in continuing the Gulf war.

This situation does not apply to India or Pakistan or Israel or Iran or North Korea or anywhere else. It is unique to Iraq.

We may disagree on whether Iraq has in fact disarmed (Guevara, you saw my iraqi civil service post, but did not reply directly) but the claim that this establishes an unlimited precedent for US intervention is false.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Should Iraq fail to disarm, then ceasefire is no longer in effect and the US is within its rights in continuing the Gulf war.

I'm sorry, but this is just silly. When it comes to war, there is no such thing as 'rights'. There is only the will of the stronger imposed on the weaker. I am not necessarily saying that that is wrong per se, but to say that the US has a 'right' to attack Iraq is just bullshit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I'm sorry, but this is just silly. When it comes to war, there is no such thing as 'rights'. There is only the will of the stronger imposed on the weaker. I am not necessarily saying that that is wrong per se, but to say that the US has a 'right' to attack Iraq is just bullshit.

But no one is absolutely strong - the US to achieve its ends needs support from as many states as possible. Those states must judge whether supporting the US re Iraq grants a precedent that strengthens the US too much - in that context the US "justification" for war is very important.

[Oerdin]

What he has been saying is that War against Iraq was already authorized by the U.N. in 1990 & 1991 and has never been formally ended. There was a temporary cease fire signed upon the condition that Iraq agreed to do certain things. Since they have failed to do those certain things the cease fire has ended and war can be resumed.

A very similiar situation exists in Korea today with an offical U.N. sectioned war continueing but with a temporary cease fire.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Nothing, it's just that the country will be further damaged and a lot of civilians will be killed.

I always find it ironic that the US didn't regard Saddam as a thug before he got the gall to invade Kuwait.



We can see that by looking at Afghanistan.

WE were attacdked on 9/11. We were certainly not going to wait to respond until we had a post-war plan for afghanistan ready. So we had to do it on the fly.

It would help if the Europeans would follow through on their aid commitments, though.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Should Iraq fail to disarm, then ceasefire is no longer in effect and the US is within its rights in continuing the Gulf war.

Except for one little detail. The US was not authorized to invade Iraq, replace the regime, nor disarm the country. It was authorized to liberate Kuwait. If the US wants to return to war under the '90 state of hostilities, it must limit itself to the liberation of Kuwait. Once Kuwait is liberated, then the war ends. As Kuwait is already liberated, the war is over already.