Clarity:

There has been a lot of discussion out there, just thought I would sum some things up which I think explain the facts as they stand.

1. UN resolution 1441 requires that Iraq demonstrate and prove their efforts at dissarmament due to their loss in the 90/91 Gulf War. It also requires that they not only allow inspectors to see the proof of their destruction of the weapons of Mass Destruction but to also voluntarily assist them in finding said documentation.

2. Hans Blix today said they have not done this. They have allowed access to places for the most part but are not cooperating in substance.

3. Iraq is in material breech of resolution 1441 and the earlier resolutions.

4. Egypt is #3 trading partner with Iraq on economic matters...#2 is Russia and #1 is France

5. In the food for oil department France is #3 in total dollars to Iraq, preceeded by ...you guessed it, Egypt and Russia.

6. France has over 3 billion dollars combined trade with Iraq, France stands to loose a lot if the US goes to war against Iraq as does Russia.

7. France and Germany have been dealing with Iraq outside the legally allowed (by the UN) regulations

8. France and Germany voted to back UN Resolution 1441 and their recent announcements show that they have renegged on their promises made to Colin Powell and to the UN.

9. Iraq under UN resolution 1441 is required to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction which we already know and have established as fact (we being the world) Hans Blix has stated that a large quantity of these weapons are currently unaccounted for.

These are facts that are readily verifiable and well published. I hope this helps make the matter a bit clearer.

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, I generally agree with you pal, but I do want to point some things out:

(your no.) 3. "Material" breach is a legal conclusion. There is something known as "substantial performance" in contract law. This means that if the contractor finishes everything with your house except one (or some) part(s), he may well have "substantially" performed the contract, making you liable to him for the value of his work. Same with Resolution 1441, IIRC. I do not remember it statings, X,Y,or Z will be a material breach. But, it's been a while. I have the document in a textbook and home and can check it, but I think you're simply asserting an argument rather than stating a fact here.

(Your no.) 7. I'd have to see some proof on this before I'd swallow it. Hard to prove this, and if so I'd expect a UN slap on the wrist, which I have not seen.

(Your no.) 8. Is again a legal conclusion. Depends on the text of REsolution 1441, and the *interpretation* of that text.

Oh, and MagiK - QUIT TROLLING HERE AND GO ANSWER MY POLL ON GD!!!!!! [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

for #3.Well if you are gonna get all legal on me, then yeah a room full of lawyers will never come to a conclusion....sort of like trying to get a room full of accountatns to come up with the same answer to an accounting quiz

As for #7 it was reported in many major news papers a few months ago, it got swept under the rug rather quickly because there was some freighter from NK that made all the buzz.

For #8 see my #1 in this post

and lastly, I will look for your post, but I think I answered it in the follow up thread.

[Skunk]

Regrettably after a year on the boards, this will be my last post. I learnt a lot from you guys (especially in the original terrorism board in the wake of 9/11) - but on returning I've discovered that the New McCarthyism has spread here too... (no offense to Ziroc, Memnoch & Cloudbringer)

Anyway - you can't really have a thread about resolution 1441 - unless you can actually *see* the resolution in full - so here it is:

Resolution 1441 (2002)

“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 non-compliance 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 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 United Nations 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.”

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I think Skunk's post proves my point on the legal conclusions. The resolution, like most UN stuff, has enough "floof" in it that two people could equally argue either side. This is why lawyers cost big bucks, folks. Course, on that note, as the US has the best lawyers (period-full stop- you got the news here) then this document will likely come to mean whatever the US wants.

Skunk, sorry to see you go. I think from what I've seen of your posts, I would point out that there are differences of opinion and then there are insults, there are good points and there are ways of putting them appropriately.

I think in the post-9/11 world some subjects are touchy. As an example (that I'm not ascribing to you), if your support for Iraq or opposition to the US goes so far as calling the US terrorist, you have simply gone to far. It's like calling a modern-day German a Nazi - the worst of insults. And, trust me, in my country we toss around the word "Nazi" in a lot of slang, but say it once to a German and you'll learn it's got the F-word status over there.

Just some thoughts.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think in the post-9/11 world some subjects are touchy. As an example (that I'm not ascribing to you), if your support for Iraq or opposition to the US goes so far as calling the US terrorist, you have simply gone to far. It's like calling a modern-day German a Nazi - the worst of insults. And, trust me, in my country we toss around the word "Nazi" in a lot of slang, but say it once to a German and you'll learn it's got the F-word status over there. Just some thoughts.

So, if I described the US government as funding terrorism or in fact employing terrorist tactics then you would think I had "gone to far"? Is it not the case that it is just an opinion based on facts - an opinion you disagree with I'll grant you. Why is it exactly that it is quite alright to describe one set of people as terrorists with limited evidence to back it up, but it is just "going to far" to do the same for another group.

No one is outright calling you a terrorist Timber, and frankly I haven't read a post where Skunk has described the US govt as terrorist in its actions either. But I don't quite get your argument that it is somehow a dirty word and therefore the US govt should be immune to it. This is an opinion like any other and I had always understood IW to be in full support of a freedom of speech where it does not outright insult specific people on the board.

Skunk - don't go mate... there are lots of nice people here, honest! I know how you feel, a lot of the time this gets me down as well but stick it out - its not that bad really. I hope you reconsider...

[Timber Loftis]

Barry, again, to ignore the distinction between "making war" and "terrorism" is insulting. And, to insult my country is to insult me in at least some degree, as I happen to be patriotic.

Do you truly assert that the characteristics of terrorism - including specifically targeting civilians and the purpose of inflicting fear, confusion, and anarcy, and including religious purpose - apply the US's actions? Really? I don't even go as far as to call Kim Jong Il or Saddam "terrorists" - "petty despot" maybe, but not terrorist.

As for ascribing the words to Skunk, I didn't. In fact, I was referring to a rather vicious tift I got into with Jorath C. It was by way of example only.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Barry, again, to ignore the distinction between "making war" and "terrorism" is insulting. And, to insult my country is to insult me in at least some degree, as I happen to be patriotic. Do you truly assert that the characteristics of terrorism - including specifically targeting civilians and the purpose of inflicting fear, confusion, and anarcy, and including religious purpose - apply the US's actions? Really? I don't even go as far as to call Kim Jong Il or Saddam "terrorists" - "petty despot" maybe, but not terrorist. As for ascribing the words to Skunk, I didn't. In fact, I was referring to a rather vicious tift I got into with Jorath C. It was by way of example only.

I think you've kind of missed my point. I'm not necessarily saying I think that, just that its a viewpoint like any other. On this website people have a right to express any viewpoint as long as it does not insult specific members, or at least that was my take on it. I maintain that this does not insult specific members, so I can't see the grounds for you getting quite so uptight. Skunk, or Jorath as it may be, are allowed their opinion that the US govt commits terrorist acts. Thats my view and I'm sticking to it...

As for the point that insulting yoru country directly insults you because you are patriotic. I don't think that idea holds a great deal of water personally. If that were a permissable reason to censor an opinion then we'd never discuss anything! We can't criticise the US on any grounds if that is your view of the matter - any criticism is taken personally by you. And also no one is actually insulting the US - they are insulting its policy and the makers of that policy if anything. You cannot apply patriotism to simple policy in my view, even if that were a particularly good reason to censor things. Patriotism is a love of a country, or an ideal that the country stands for. It is not a love of its policy.

If you are going to equate being a patriot with being insulted by criticisms of your countries foreign policy then you must feel obliged to defend the US on every stand it takes, or might ever take, simply on the basis of it being the US. Tell me Timber, if the US govt decided to (for example) donate money to terrorists openly would you defend the policy out of patriotism? Would you be insulted by people criticising that policy? I doubt it. Patriotism does not mean being unable to take criticism.