At 11:40 PM 4/10/2005 +0000, Bob Chassell wrote: >Here, John is right: > > ... the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world > that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This > assurance was impossible to make under the inspections. > >In January 2003, I read Blix's report on the inspections. While he >did not report active violations of the terms (as he had in the >previous report), he was also unable to provide assurances that the >Iraqi government did not have radiological, nuclear, or chemical >weapons or programs to create them, as they had had earlier. > >Blix said, in effect, that so far, inspections had failed. Blix was >against the US invasion and argued at the time that in 6 months or a >year, he could report more accurately one way or the other, but that >at the time, he could not. > >In particular, in 2002, Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq started >out by avoiding cooperation with the UN inspectors. Later Saddam >Hussein's government did cooperate more, but that cooperation was not >sufficiently evident that Blix could make assurances that he and his >inspectors were not being fooled as they had been in the early 1990s. > >The January 2003 report was critical because after that time it became >harder for the US government to do something else (such as borrow the >same billion dollars a week, but use it to investigate and innovate >alternative sources of energy, as I suggested earlier, rather than >invade Iraq). > >You can argue that the US government acted years previously to prepare >an attack against Iraq. The point is, both the Iraqi government and >the UN inspectors understood the situation, and in January 2003, the >UN inspectors could not provide assurances that they were not being >fooled as they had been before.
Indeed, consider UNSC Resolution 1441 (2002), which as I recall, was passed unanimously by the UN Security Council, acting under its binding authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter: "1. Decides that Iraq has been, and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevation resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991) [which I cited in a previous e-mail], in particular through Iraq's failure to to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 and 13 of resolution 687 (1991); 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions by this Council...." You can read the full text of the resolution here: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement To anyone who says that the US did not listen to others in the lead-up to the Iraq War, this resolution is a solid counter-point to that. The US voted for the above resolution, and clearly gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its *existing obligations* as a Member of the United Nations and party to the San Francisco Treaty. If Iraq had complied, there would have been no war - which is precisely the opportunity our few friends that did oppose the war had asked for. Iraq refused. UN and IAEA inspections were unable to provide the world with assurances that Iraq was not stockpiling WMD threats. The rest is history. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
