Slashdot Mirror

Google UN Inspectors in Iraq and take the first result.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

The inspectors were denied access time and time again for 12 years. The UN passed security resolutions finding Iraq in violation for refusing access to the inspectors. When Iraq did allow inspectors, they were only allowed on certain days and to certain sites. You call that free run.

You are a flat out liar.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

I agree with most of your comment. However, I take issue with this statement:

Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq)...

I seem to remember something about ten years and 17 UN Resolutions

. I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.

The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.

There's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market, and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it's going to be used to suppress the populace. This is known as "unethical behavior," something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about. It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they don't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.

Often these things come back to bite one in the ass:

As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.
Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1992

Not in the weeks immediately following 9/11. On September 13th, the UN Security Council passed yet another resolution against Iraq, even though Iraq hadn't done anything new, but members of the council were drawing conclusions because Saddam publicly praised the terrorists.

I'm just curious, which resolution are we talking about? This site lists all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iraq prior to 2004. I don't see anything on September 13, except one drafted in 1990 regarding foodstuffs.

Perhaps this link doesn't have everything, but it seems comprehensive.

Many suggested the security council was immediately ready to approve military action against Iraq if the US wanted to pursue it.

Many? MANY?? Who would this 'many' be? Think tanks? Newspaper Op-Eds? National Security experts?

Your article suggests people were against the war in 2003, which is true. What I'm suggesting is that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, several leaders were vocally drawing links to Iraq, even though they had no proof.

Cool, I agree with this. Several "leaders" were drawing links to Iraq and they were wrong because they had zero proof.

The sentiments changed greatly because we pursued diplomacy instead of immediately charging in on trumped up charges when support was higher.

We pursued diplomacy? When? As far as I can recall, the U.S. kicked out the weapons inspectors in 2003 before the bombs dropped, because they weren't finding anything. The fact that they were on the verge of announcing that there were no WMD's in Iraq scared the crap out of the Bush administration, as it destroyed any case they had for war. This is further shown when the Bush administration changed their reasoning for war, going from finding WMD's to "ridding the world of a tyrant."

Also, while the 9/11 Panel, President Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz have publicly denied or questioned that there was any link between Iraq and 9/11, Dick Cheney is still TO THIS DAY spreading this lie in some shape or form.

The Bush Administration tried their hardest to make it seem like they exhausted all of their options, but in reality, they sent in a group of weapons inspectors, Saddam let them in, they couldn't find anything, and so Bush immediately called them ineffective and declared war.

You're right. I misread your statement. However, I heard an awful lot from people opposed to the war, including extremely high figures about casualties, a "protracted ground offensive", and other results that did not happen. Very few of those opposed to the war focused on a prolonged insurgency, although that may have been the media's preference for sensationalism over realism. It was far easier to take the UN document and WHO estimates and run with them than to predict small areas of continuing ongoing violence, and that's what a majority of opponents did.

The terms of the original gulf war cease fire agreement required him to do so.

Our support of Saddam is very well known. We were so upset that he gassed the Kurds that we increased the financial aid to his country. We supported him until he invaded Kuwait. Here is another page with more detail about our diplomatic relations with Saddam. This isn't exactly a smoking gun--everyone knows about this history, and has since well before we deposed Saddam and occupied Iraq.

My point here is not "Aha! The USA is eeeeevil!" My point was only one of perspective. He was a murderous tyrant before, during, and after our alliance with him. I would have liked to see a more thorough discussion (i.e. any discussion) about why we supported such a murderous dictator for such a long time. But that would have put Rumsfeld and Cheney on the hotseat, and that wouldn't have served the current political objectives very well.

When was Resolution 678 supposed to expire? The resolution itself does not say.

Now, to quote the original [quoted from http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html%5D:
"Autorizes member states [...] to use all necessary means to [...] and to restore
international peace and security in the area".

The way it was worded, it was a "do whatever you want to Iraq" resolution. I am not aware
of any modification to the above (Clause 2 btw). Nor does it say who gets to decide when
the area is secure and peaceful, suggesting that whoever goes into Iraq gets to decide for
themselves (the resolution only requests information on how things are going from whoever
goes into Iraq). Under resolution 678, any UN member state could do what US has done,
including Iran, Israel, and Turkey.

The fourth Geneva Convention governs treatment of civilian personnel.

True, I stand corrected. They do, however, set forth that a soldier must be in uniform to be treated as a legal combatant. This is not an arbitrary distinction: Bill Whittle wrote an excellent essay on the subject of the covenant of sanctuary.

This would be true had the US not proceeded unilaterally,

I'm sure that the 32 other countries who sent troops to Iraq three years ago would be quite surprised to hear that the US acted unilaterally, as you've just stated. Try telling it to a Brit, for a start.

but obtained a second resolution from the UN.

A second resolution? Try counting them up.

the US was lying.

Nope, the US was fooled by Saddam's posturing. His own officers were stunned to learn shortly before the attack that Saddam didn't have the WMD's anymore.

BTW, it is a matter of record that 1) he had them in the past, 2) he'd used them, both against Iranian soldiers and his own civilians, and that 3) he was stonewalling the weapons inspectors. There was no way to know that he'd gotten rid of them, because he insisted on jerking the weapons inspectors around. With hindsight, you can claim otherwise, but every member of congress who voted to authorize the attack saw the very same information that the white house did.

Hence, illegal invasion.

Nope. Resumption of combat operations in a war that Saddam started with an unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country in 1991.

If you want to argue legalities, then you're missing the biggest one of all, which is an American constitutional issue: the last war that the US congress actually declared was World War II. Every war the USA has fought since then has been not merely illegal, but unconstitutional, but that's a violation of US law, not international law. There's a reason why the constitution reserves the power to declare war to the congress: it's supposed to be difficult to do.

-jcr

And actually even the claim that Saddam gassed his own people in the 80s has been disputed.

Jude Wanniski (whose website you linked to), is quite alone in denying that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. Slate has a good article that discusses the issue. Besides, several of his claims are clearly false:

To begin with there were never any victims produced.

A quick Google image search for Halabja belies that claim. There are numerous photos of the immediate after-effects of the attack. More recently, there was a study to investigate the long term effects of the chemical exposure. The victims of the attack suffer from high rates of respiratory problems, cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and skin and eye problems. Maybe part of the reason he claims victims can't be found is because they're some of the 300,000 bodies discovered in mass graves.

The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The reports of the chemical bombing were not just from Kurds who crossed into Turkey. Some of the pictures linked above were from journalists flown in from Tehran the next day.

Wanniski even mentions the oft repeated myth: that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. According to this article from the Christian Science Monitor, that myth has been debunked by no less than Iraq's former Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz.

It may well have been Iran, and in either case it happened on a battlefield.

It is highly doubtful Iran was behind the attack. In the first place, their troops and allies were the ones attacked (see here). Secondly, there is no evidence of Iranian use of the type of chemicals at Halabja (see here).

In addition, although chemical weapons were used multiple times in the Iran-Iraq war, the reason the Halabja attack sticks out is precisely because it was not a battlefield. At the time, Halabja was a city with a population of about 80,000 which had just recently came under control of Iran and their Kurdish allies. Many of the approximately 5000 victims of that particluar attack were civilians. Most of the published photos were of women and children killed, for the simple reason that news media thrives on sensationalism.

We've managed to kill 100,000 civilians with our advanced "smart" bombs - is it surprising that primitive mortars would kill 5,000?

First, the claim of 100,000 dead is based on an extrapolation from a survey. I'd take the 100,000 figure with a grain of salt until a more extensive survey is done. There is a Slate article that dissects their methodology. A reliable number of civilians deaths reported can be found at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website. As of Feb 10, 2005, they count less than 18,000 civilians reported killed.

Second, most of the deaths are not from our precision guided munitions, the so-called "smart bombs." In fact, most of them

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,

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,

No, the Security Council of the United Nations failed to decide what to do when their resolutions regarding Iraq were violated. That is very different than voting against the war.

There was never a vote on it because Russia and France expressed their intent to veto any resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Here is a nice summary of the order of the UN delibarations before the US invasion.

Note the proposed resolution points out that UN resolution 687 ended the Gulf War with a cease-fire contingent on Iraq's acceptance and compliance with the provisions of that resolution. Iraq was found in material breach of its obligations in resolution 1441. Thus, the cease-fire is voided by Iraq's noncompliance and Iraq put us back at war. It would have been nice to have the Security Council express its support for its own resolutions, but it was not necessary even to be technically legal under international law.

However, I really don't understand from where the myth has arisen that the UN has some sort moral credibility. Libya is the chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee, and Russia was a permanent member of the Security Council while Stalin killed millions. The United Nations can be useful as a forum for discussing grievances, but it's organization and composition prevent it from being trustworthy as a guide to action.

The US is in compliance with the democratic decisions of the Security Council (Given the makeup of the Security Council is determined by historical accident for the permanent members and election to non-concurrent terms from within the general assembly and that the permanent members each have a veto calling it democratic is a bit of a stretch. Pseudo-republicish maybe?) It simply did not agree that the threat of veto prevents it from acting.

Reasonable people may disagree about whether the invasion is technically a violation of international law (I've of course argued above it isn't), but the ultimate arbiter of whether it was illegal is what, the UN Security Council? This points out a fundamental weakness in the organization of the UN: any permanent member of the Security Council could do whatever they wanted, and no response would be "legitimate" without UN Security Council approval which would just be vetoed.

You stated, "[i]t seemed clear to the majority of the members of that council, that there are neither WMD nor that there is any connection to Al Quaida."
That's false on both counts. Every serious intelligence service believed that Saddam still had WMDs. Also, there were Iraqi connections to al Qaeda. The preliminary report from the 9/11 commission that caused headlines said that there was no evidence that Saddam supported al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. Look up the text of the relevant section of the report yourself.

No, the Security Council of the United Nations failed to decide what to do when their resolutions regarding Iraq were violated. That is very different than voting against the war.

There was never a vote on it because Russia and France expressed their intent to veto any resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Here is a nice summary of the order of the UN delibarations before the US invasion.

Note the proposed resolution points out that UN resolution 687 ended the Gulf War with a cease-fire contingent on Iraq's acceptance and compliance with the provisions of that resolution. Iraq was found in material breach of its obligations in resolution 1441. Thus, the cease-fire is voided by Iraq's noncompliance and Iraq put us back at war. It would have been nice to have the Security Council express its support for its own resolutions, but it was not necessary even to be technically legal under international law.

However, I really don't understand from where the myth has arisen that the UN has some sort moral credibility. Libya is the chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee, and Russia was a permanent member of the Security Council while Stalin killed millions. The United Nations can be useful as a forum for discussing grievances, but it's organization and composition prevent it from being trustworthy as a guide to action.

The US is in compliance with the democratic decisions of the Security Council (Given the makeup of the Security Council is determined by historical accident for the permanent members and election to non-concurrent terms from within the general assembly and that the permanent members each have a veto calling it democratic is a bit of a stretch. Pseudo-republicish maybe?) It simply did not agree that the threat of veto prevents it from acting.

Reasonable people may disagree about whether the invasion is technically a violation of international law (I've of course argued above it isn't), but the ultimate arbiter of whether it was illegal is what, the UN Security Council? This points out a fundamental weakness in the organization of the UN: any permanent member of the Security Council could do whatever they wanted, and no response would be "legitimate" without UN Security Council approval which would just be vetoed.

You stated, "[i]t seemed clear to the majority of the members of that council, that there are neither WMD nor that there is any connection to Al Quaida."
That's false on both counts. Every serious intelligence service believed that Saddam still had WMDs. Also, there were Iraqi connections to al Qaeda. The preliminary report from the 9/11 commission that caused headlines said that there was no evidence that Saddam supported al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. Look up the text of the relevant section of the report yourself.

The mandate was there. The Security Council just tried to change its mind, and was unable to marshal the votes to do so.

The mandate was there. The Security Council just tried to change its mind, and was unable to marshal the votes to do so.

The mandate was there. The Security Council just tried to change its mind, and was unable to marshal the votes to do so.

The mandate was there. The Security Council just tried to change its mind, and was unable to marshal the votes to do so.

Sanctions have ended and Saddam will not return. That is wonderful. But for the record:

Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money

Of course the Iraqi government was creating cash revenue for itself. The oil-for-food (O.F.F.) program only provided commodities in exchange for oil; it didn't allow the government any access to cash. How well would the US government function without cash? Oil smuggling was the only thing that gave a salary to Iraqi teachers, public healthcare workers, and civil servants. Physicians in particular began receiving salary increases that were proportional to the crumbling of sanctions in 2000. Sure, the regime invested in social services partly to reduce popular discontent; it was self-serving. But that doesn't change the fact that sanctions, not just Saddam, violated Iraqi human rights and were in fact designed to. Bush Sr. thought of this as "Making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people."

The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq

Actually no, they were supposed to appear to allow this on paper, but not in practice. For six years Iraq could sell no oil, which cut off 90 per cent of its foreign revenue at a time when Iraq imported two-thirds of its food. As the UN predicted (Bush Sr. ignored it), this led to massive malnutrition. In 1996 the O.F.F. program began, with a pointless cap on oil exports. Two years later the cap was removed, but the US and Britain tied up $5 billion of humanitarian supplies including many spare parts for the oil industry. The point wasn't to kill Iraqis; that was just an "acceptable" consequence of wrecking Iraqi oil production and undermining its global market influence. This should come as no surprise. Donald Rumsfeld certainly wasn't preaching human rights when he shook hands with Saddam, as Reagan was launching his campaign to support Iraq's unconventional weapons development.

No wonder UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday said the O.F.F. program was "designed to fail". I heard this with my own ears when Halliday spoke in New York; similar things from his successor Hans von Sponeck when he spoke in Milwaukee; and more diplomatically from Sponeck's successor Tun Myat when he spoke in Baghdad.

the facts are pretty simple.

Not really, as I have shown. I'm glad this is behind us, but if the history books are honest, they will slaughter the leaders on both sides.

and the our "right-thinking left-wing friends" never say shit about it?

Actually, we do. A lot. It just never gets to the news. I'm too young, but my parents have spoken up on every conflict there was.

In the case of Iraq, Amnesty International had a huge body of knowledge about the atrocities committed by Saddam.

Unfortunately, when Ronald Reagan decided Saddam was the good guy, and sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with him, it gets really, really hard to say otherwise. Furthermore, when Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja, the Reagan administration blamed Iran, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and voted down every condemnation of Iraq, but inside and outside the US.

OK, but that's history. How about today? Now that Saddam's gone, there are other dictators that should follow. For example Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The democratic opposition had great hopes when America entered Central Asia. Unfortunately, you let them down. Islam Karimov is now one of the cherished allies in the "coalition". With US support, he has semented his power. Perhaps it is not too much to ask that you at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet, and let the people have a chance to get rid of them themselves?

I realize anti-Americanism is popular, but ...

Uhm, no, you missed the point. It's not anti-americanism to tell America it's wrong. OK, you can find anti-americanism, and it is a fair amount of around, on the form: "America is headed for the quagmire (hehe)". But it is not anti-americanism to say that "America is headed for the quagmire, and we have to work with america to change its course". The latter is far more common than the former.

The difference between America and China is that America is a democracy and it has a free press. Those two things should make it possible to get through to America far more easily than to China. So, the reason why America is addressed is that there are certain values it tends to uphold. That's not anti-americanism, to the contrary, it is recognition. But it also demands of you that you realize that your current President is wiping his ass with your constitution, and that you get rid of him. Nobody else can do that but you.

Have to post a link to this famous example, the dodgy dossier. There was a writeup here. If you're thinking of making the case for war, don't release Word documents to the press - unless they're very very docile.

and another (actually a little less opinionated and more just fact with bibliography...so probably a little better than the previous one)

Iraq-U.S. Commerce History

yes.

I was a kid when Iraq when this happened, but I found a history of the Iran/Iraq war. The bottom line is: Saddam was financed during the period of its worse attrocities by the United States administration.

In fact, every time the CIA has overthrown a democratically elected government, it has made the situation worse for the population. In Chile (where Allende, the popular elected president was deposed and assasinated in a state coup, and Pinochet assumed power), in Iran, where the democratic government was overthrown by the CIA. The Sha's government was brutal. The brutally went to the point that a religion uprising lead to the extreme muslims to take the power again.

Given past history (and who could forget the five continous US administrations that lied to the american public, and manufactured evidence to wage a war against the Vietnamese), I am more than reluctant to believe that there are any moral reasons to wage this new war.

If morality were the real issue, why not begin by taking Ariel Sharon to the world court for his crimes in Sabra and Shatila.

The supposed buildup against Saudi Arabia was manufactured evidence. Also, the story of the babies in Kuwait: that was also a lie.

Now, since you feel so strongly about the gassing of the kurds. Tell me how you feel about the five US administrations that used agent orange and destroyed Vietnam?

You know that the US agreed to pay reparations to Vietnam, and has to this date not paid a cent?

Stop watching FOX news, it will burn your brain ;-)

And so on. It has _nothing_ to do with America's freedom. I have no idea where you got that from, but it is completely wrong. I suggest that you know your enemy before you accuse them.

IRAQ supports terrorists and is trying to build nukes

Hmm, well, here's a defector who worked on the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for 30 years, and says that the nuclear program is ancient history.

I might add that if Donald Rumsfeld didn't like the gassing of the Kurds and the other atrocities, maybe he should have raised the issue after he shook hands with Saddam Hussein during a 1983 meeting, instead of inviting the Butcher of Baghdad to expand his military and business ties with the United States.

Give me one example of a time when Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction without the support of Ronald Reagan (esp. note 33), and I'll reconsider the idea that Iraq is an imminent threat to America.