Saddam's UN Letter: Peace for our Time?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddam's UN Letter: Peace for our Time?
Saddam has probably bought himself a little extra time with his 'unconditional' offer to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. He has also sealed his own fate. When Iraq starts to obstruct the inspectors (as it has always done in the past), the Security Council will endorse a US-led attack on Iraq.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 17th Sep 2002 at 17:11.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I distinctly remember saying to Mrs Gadget several weeks ago, (when she asked me if The Daughter of the Mother of Battles was about to start) that that nice Mr Hussein 
would 'see sense' and 'unconditionally' allow the weapons inspectors back in once things had begun to get a little uncomfortable for him at the UN.
Recent press reports suggesting that a consensus was developing, whereby a resolution might be passed by the Security Council which was actually backed by the threat (albeit probably implicit rather than explicit) of enforcement - by military means if necessary - constitutes 'a little uncomfortable' in my book.
Now the Chinese, French and/or Russians have every opportunity to claim a victory for commonsense and thus to prevent such a resolution from being tabled (which it won't be if one or more of the permanent members threatens behind the scenes to veto it), thus depriving the US and its allies - at least for now - of the legitimacy that a UN mandate would undoubtedly have brought with it. And of course, when it becomes obvious that prevarication is the name of Saddam's game (as so, so many times before), it's...back to square one.
And so yes, he has bought himself more time. But hell, he's had four years already to hide his WMD, along with his stash of Mars bars and porn mags. Even his own mum wouldn't find them now.
Another bit of expertly-timed (if rather obvious and totally in-character) flannel from the undisputed king of flannel, I'm afraid.
But Scud-U-Like, I don't agree that the UN would ever 'endorse a US-led attack on Iraq'. The most that anyone was expecting (I think) was an implicit acceptance of military consequences if Saddam failed to re-admit the inspectors. The idea that the Security Council would ever pass a resolution that actually authorised military action would require a level of consensus which is pretty well unimaginable in today's world. Imagine if two or three small countries clubbed together and threatened to boycott French weapons sales, for a start. What's the going rate for a veto?
Edited to add BBC News link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2263232.stm
Things are hotting up! Edited again http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm
would 'see sense' and 'unconditionally' allow the weapons inspectors back in once things had begun to get a little uncomfortable for him at the UN. Recent press reports suggesting that a consensus was developing, whereby a resolution might be passed by the Security Council which was actually backed by the threat (albeit probably implicit rather than explicit) of enforcement - by military means if necessary - constitutes 'a little uncomfortable' in my book.
Now the Chinese, French and/or Russians have every opportunity to claim a victory for commonsense and thus to prevent such a resolution from being tabled (which it won't be if one or more of the permanent members threatens behind the scenes to veto it), thus depriving the US and its allies - at least for now - of the legitimacy that a UN mandate would undoubtedly have brought with it. And of course, when it becomes obvious that prevarication is the name of Saddam's game (as so, so many times before), it's...back to square one.
And so yes, he has bought himself more time. But hell, he's had four years already to hide his WMD, along with his stash of Mars bars and porn mags. Even his own mum wouldn't find them now.
Another bit of expertly-timed (if rather obvious and totally in-character) flannel from the undisputed king of flannel, I'm afraid.
But Scud-U-Like, I don't agree that the UN would ever 'endorse a US-led attack on Iraq'. The most that anyone was expecting (I think) was an implicit acceptance of military consequences if Saddam failed to re-admit the inspectors. The idea that the Security Council would ever pass a resolution that actually authorised military action would require a level of consensus which is pretty well unimaginable in today's world. Imagine if two or three small countries clubbed together and threatened to boycott French weapons sales, for a start. What's the going rate for a veto?
Edited to add BBC News link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2263232.stm
Things are hotting up! Edited again http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm
Last edited by Captain Gadget; 17th Sep 2002 at 15:25.
How long between the phone call from George W to Uncle Vladimir offering more than $11bn, and the Russian foreign minister claiming he was misquoted?
And why do I have this feeling that Saddam will, with his usual genius, obstruct the inspection teams and create the whole problem for himself again?
And why do I have this feeling that Saddam will, with his usual genius, obstruct the inspection teams and create the whole problem for himself again?
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That nice man Mr Butler of the last UN inspection team said this afternoon. "Saddam Hussein will have to approve full inspection rights, to wherever the team choose, whatever building they choose, interview any person they choose to interview and to have access to any document or documents they choose."
Now who will be the first to say that he will allow that? Not me.
Now who will be the first to say that he will allow that? Not me.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't take Saddam Hussein long to impose conditions. he's already announced that the Weapons Inspectors may only examine Military Sites, not Civilian sites.
Predictable or what?
Predictable or what?
Saddam has really had his lot when it comes to dealings with the International community.
He's had the past four years in which to hide his WMD gear. It looks as if this is just a stalling tactic to enable him to reach his full nuclear capability by Xmas.
Then, as he knows he's gonna be ousted very soon, the mad sod lets lose a primative nuke device in a near by capital city(ie. London)
We must deal with him now. After all if we knew in 1938 of the antics that Adolf would get up to, then I'm sure we would have reacted sooner and saved many more lives to boot!
Israel's flagrant disregard of UN resolutions is the only thorn in the Int. Comm.'s side. If that issue was dealt with too, then who knows, Saddam may have not been in power today!
A good war sorts the economy out too. Maybe then I'd be able to afford a house!!
He's had the past four years in which to hide his WMD gear. It looks as if this is just a stalling tactic to enable him to reach his full nuclear capability by Xmas.
Then, as he knows he's gonna be ousted very soon, the mad sod lets lose a primative nuke device in a near by capital city(ie. London)
We must deal with him now. After all if we knew in 1938 of the antics that Adolf would get up to, then I'm sure we would have reacted sooner and saved many more lives to boot!
Israel's flagrant disregard of UN resolutions is the only thorn in the Int. Comm.'s side. If that issue was dealt with too, then who knows, Saddam may have not been in power today!
A good war sorts the economy out too. Maybe then I'd be able to afford a house!!
Then, as he knows he's gonna be ousted very soon, the mad sod lets lose a primative nuke device in a near by capital city(ie. London)
Here's what the Iraqi government wrote to the UN:
"I have the honour to refer to the series of discussions held between you and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq, which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary General of the League of Arab States.
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded - by this decision - to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary General of the League of Arab States, as well as to the appeals of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.
This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally important, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991).
To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all member states of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.
I should be grateful if you would bring the present letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council."
So - the question is, should they be given a chance to prove their intentions? They have indeed reneged on promises and hindered weapons inspectors in the past; surely this time they must realise that any obstruction or imposition of restrictions will give the green light to Dubya - who has both insulted the UN with his scathing reference to a 'debating society' and who is seemingly hell-bent on military action, assisted by Toady.
Personally I consider that the inspectors should go in asap. But the very first time access to any site is denied, they should leave immediately and mark that site for immediate destruction. And Saddam should be told that in no uncertain terms.
He's got everything to gain by $hitcanning his WMD programs - lifting of sanctions would have to follow, his people would adulate him and the US would be made to look like a heavy-handed bully.
"I have the honour to refer to the series of discussions held between you and the Government of the Republic of Iraq on the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions on the question of Iraq, which took place in New York on 7 March and 2 May and in Vienna on 4 July 2002, as well as the talks which were held in your office in New York on 14 and 15 September 2002, with the participation of the Secretary General of the League of Arab States.
I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of the United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has responded - by this decision - to your appeal, to the appeal of the Secretary General of the League of Arab States, as well as to the appeals of Arab, Islamic and other friendly countries.
The Government of the Republic of Iraq has based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction.
This decision is also based on your statement to the General Assembly on 12 September 2002 that the decision by the Government of the Republic of Iraq is the indispensable first step towards an assurance that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass destruction and, equally important, towards a comprehensive solution that includes the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq and the timely implementation of other provisions of the relevant Security Council resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991).
To this end, the Government of the Republic of Iraq is ready to discuss the practical arrangements necessary for the immediate resumption of inspections.
In this context, the Government of the Republic of Iraq reiterates the importance of the commitment of all member states of the Security Council and the United Nations to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq, as stipulated in the relevant Security Council resolutions and in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.
I should be grateful if you would bring the present letter to the attention of the members of the Security Council."
So - the question is, should they be given a chance to prove their intentions? They have indeed reneged on promises and hindered weapons inspectors in the past; surely this time they must realise that any obstruction or imposition of restrictions will give the green light to Dubya - who has both insulted the UN with his scathing reference to a 'debating society' and who is seemingly hell-bent on military action, assisted by Toady.
Personally I consider that the inspectors should go in asap. But the very first time access to any site is denied, they should leave immediately and mark that site for immediate destruction. And Saddam should be told that in no uncertain terms.
He's got everything to gain by $hitcanning his WMD programs - lifting of sanctions would have to follow, his people would adulate him and the US would be made to look like a heavy-handed bully.
