Arms report deepens UN split

The latest United Nations weapons inspectors\' report on Iraq has deepened divisions on the Security Council.
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Council should "in the near future consider serious consequences" - code for war on Iraq.

But France, China and Russia said inspectors should be given the time they need to complete their task.

"The use of military force is not justified today," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

INSPECTORS\' REPORTS
 
Called for by UN Resolution 1441

Second report since 27 January

Covers biological, chemical and nuclear weapons inspections
 
 
Reports: Key points

Blix: Full text
 
Minutes earlier, chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix told the council that Iraq still needed to provide evidence to back its claims it does not possess banned weapons.

But he took a more positive line than in his report two weeks ago, saying Baghdad had made progress in a number of areas.

At a news conference in Rome afterwards, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said Iraq was "willing - genuinely and accurately - to implement [UN] resolutions and we are doing our best to this purpose".

Mr Aziz, who was earlier urged by Pope John Paul II to show "concrete commitments" to disarm, said a US-led war against Iraq would be interpreted in the Arab world as "a crusade against Islam".

The inspectors\' reports are likely to determine whether the US and Britain, its staunchest ally, decide to seek a second UN resolution authorising the use of force to disarm Iraq.

Responding to the inspectors\' assessment, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Council a peaceful solution of the crisis "will require a dramatic and peaceful change by Saddam".

"This will only be achieved if we, the Security Council, hold our nerve in the face of this tyrant," he said.

But in a sign of the open rifts within the Council, the French foreign minister received applause when he said there was no justification yet for a war with Iraq.

This unusual and undiplomatic display caused German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, current council president, to ask for order inside the chamber.

In other developments:


Iraqi President Saddam Hussein issues a decree forbidding the development and trade of weapons of mass destruction - a key demand of Mr Blix during his visit to Baghdad last weekend.

Up to 150,000 anti-war protesters take to the streets of Melbourne, Australia, ahead of other peace rallies planned for this weekend around the world, including in New York and London.

Egypt calls for an emergency meeting of the Arab League on 22 February to discuss the crisis.

Austria bans the transit of US troops and equipment across its territory from Germany to Italy without a second UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq.
\'No evidence\'

In his report, Mr Blix said that while disarmament could be still be achieved, "the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles [are]... perhaps the most important problem we are facing.


Current Security Council
 
For military action: US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria

Sceptics or opposed: France, Russia, China, Germany and Syria

In doubt: Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan

Nine votes and no veto required to pass a resolution
 
 
Security Council quick guide

Views on Resolution 1441
 

"Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions," he said.

The chief inspector said 1,000 tons of banned chemicals and other proscribed weapons remained unaccounted for.

Mr Blix, however, cast doubt on American intelligence material presented to the Security Council last week by Colin Powell.

He said he had no evidence that Iraq had had advance warning of inspections - as has been claimed by the US - and said images said to show suspicious movement at an Iraqi weapons site could have been pictures of "routine activity".

Mr Blix confirmed a declaration by arms experts on Wednesday that Iraq\'s Al-Samoud missile programme exceeded UN-imposed limits on range and was "therefore proscribed for Iraq".

He said that while inspections had been carried out without problems, Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441 meant "more than opening doors".

He said private interviews with Iraqi scientists - a key sticking point - had "proved informative", but no interviews had taken place on the UN\'s terms since 9 February.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, repeated his finding that his inspectors had discovered no evidence that Iraq was restarting its nuclear programme.

He said, however, that documents passed on by Iraq last week did not answer outstanding questions about Iraq\'s nuclear programme since 1998.

Mr ElBaradei said inspections were continuing and the number of inspectors would be increased.

We will see what happens..

Remember this though:

The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting.
Sun-tzu

Begin rant...

I am really beginning to despise France with a passion.  If nothing is done about Saddam, France better pray no terrorist strikes the US with a weapon of mass destruction.  If a link was made that a weapon was acquired from Iraq in such an event, I would be all for seeing Paris burn.  

Oh wait, they would need postive proof that it came from Iraq, which we know they would deny till the end of time.

Sorry if I sound a bit pissed off, but France has only one interest in Iraq and that is their investments in the country.  The same goes for Germany.  As far as these hippy war protesters go, they should all volunteer to be human shields then we could be rid of them and they would only have died from their own stupidity.

/rant

The UN is becoming more irrelevant every day.  I wish a congressman or senator would introduce a bill removing the US from the UN.  No it wouldn\'t pass, but it would be interesting to see how close it would come.

^
||
||

Bill O\'Riley\'s Son.

^
l l
l l

Barbara Streisand and Chirac\'s love child.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Begin rant...

I am really beginning to despise France with a passion.  If nothing is done about Saddam, France better pray no terrorist strikes the US with a weapon of mass destruction.  If a link was made that a weapon was acquired from Iraq in such an event, I would be all for seeing Paris burn.  

Oh wait, they would need postive proof that it came from Iraq, which we know they would deny till the end of time.

Sorry if I sound a bit pissed off, but France has only one interest in Iraq and that is their investments in the country.  The same goes for Germany.  As far as these hippy war protesters go, they should all volunteer to be human shields then we could be rid of them and they would only have died from their own stupidity.

I agree with you about France and Germany. They have a vested interest in Iraq\'s current regime. However, I don\'t understand why you still think there is a need for war when the delegates in the UN(who are much better versed in the situation than 99.9% of the rest of us) do not all agree that there is a need for war. In fact the only people that are die hard for the war are the US and our allies.

It just amazes me how some people will swallow everything that the US govt. feeds them without even trying to question the facts.(Not directed at you Giga)

Gohan,
The same can be said about the anti-US people. Taking everything that France or Germany is saying, and discounting the US and its evidence. Hans Blix, despite his "need more time" and "need more inspectors", shows that Iraq is in violation of the UN resolution 1441. If simply being in violation of UN resolution 1441 warrents a war (and if you have read it, it does) then the UN should\'ve supported the war. But no. France and Germany have their own agenda, while accusing the US of going out "unilaterally". The UN is NOT the end all of end all. If you don\'t think that the UN as a whole doesn\'t have its own agenda, then you would be sadly mistaken. The UN is becoming irrelevelent like the League of Nations before it.

Which, US going out unilaterally? Lets see the nations that support the US.
Britain
Australia
Romania
Israel
Romania
Poland
Spain
Czech Republic
Portugal
Kuwait
Hungary
Qatar
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Denmark
Slovakia
Turkey
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Albania
Croatia
Bulgaria

Now, you can argue (not directed at you Gohan, but to people that are, say, anti-War, UN is god, Bush is evil, etc.) that, "thats only political leaders, the majority of people themselves don\'t want war", well, then let me tell you a quote I have read.

If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Grit

Note, I didn\'t say that it doesn\'t go both ways. Just that, especially the millions that are supposed to protest today, that quote holds true (many are not really anti-War but anti-Bush and anti-American [where were they when Clinton unilaterally bombed Albania?]).

the french have been pansys since WWII and maybe earlier than that, and they treat foreigners like crap!


:hat:ScottyJ:hat:

Simchoy, that\'s a pretty impressive list.  Now tell me how many of those countries have a majority of their population in favor of the war.

Originally posted by shockwaves
Simchoy, that\'s a pretty impressive list.  Now tell me how many of those countries have a majority of their population in favor of the war.

I think I adressed that.

Now, you can argue (not directed at you Gohan, but to people that are, say, anti-War, UN is god, Bush is evil, etc.) that, "thats only political leaders, the majority of people themselves don\'t want war", well, then let me tell you a quote I have read.

quote:

If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Grit

Its true that millions, even in these nations, oppose war (heck, millions oppose war here too). Though, because it is the "leaders" who are doing this, don\'t you think that these leaders know something we don\'t? England\'s Blair is going through with this war despite what polls are saying since he sees that Iraq is a threat, and safety is more important then what millions of his own nation think. My point was that these nations (leaders) are going against the UN, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Belgium and throws in the face that Bush is going at it "unilaterally".

Chances are, you would probably find that before WWII, 70% of Europe, heck, probably even the US opposed war. Hence, the reason why Chamberlian (along with France) tried to appease Hitler to prevent war (cutting up Czechloslovakia to prevent war that occured anyway), France did nothing when Germany took the Rhineland in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. There is an arguement that if France stood up and enforced the Treaty of Versailles (there are problems with this treaty, but that is another topic entirely), Hilter (in turn, World War 2) wouldn\'t have occured (supposively, the French Army at the time was still superior to the Germans when Germany took the Rhineland). But that is another thread entirely and is getting off the point (which is, before WW2, most probably didn\'t want a war then).

First of all, sorry I didn\'t read your entire post.  I skimmed it, and missed you saying that.

Second, the World War 2 references are not in any way valid.  This is not Germany we are talking about.  Germany was one of the most powerful nations in the world.  Iraq is a developing third world nation.  There\'s a big difference.  Besides, Germany started WW2.  We are starting this war.

And many of those nations are siding with the US for reasons related to foreign aid from us, among other things.  There are reasons outside the morality of this war that have "earned" us some of our allies.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
^
l l
l l

Barbara Streisand and Chirac\'s love child.

Oh dear! the scandal!

I was using Germany as an example of what happens when people do nothing. I did not say that Iraq is the same as Germany. But if we allow Iraq to develop its WMD, while he may not be able to say, take over Europe, much less America, he could certainly create problem in the area (Middle East where, unless America can instantly become fuel self-sufficient, will harm us anyway).

Now, we didn\'t start this war. 9-11 wasn\'t started about this. Even if you are in the camp that "Saddam has no connection to Al-Queda" (doesn\'t mean he doesn\'t have connection to non-Al-Queda terrorist...again, another topic entirely) then you can go back to the Persian Gulf War where when Saddam was defeated, a treaty was written up where MUST disarm if he were to stay in power (WMD that he used against his own people. Hench, the reason why we have No Fly Zones). Its even a question of whether or not he even disarmed before. Now, even Blix and his Keystone Cops found a missle that can go futher then what Iraq was allowed to have. Sure, it was only one missle, but what are the chances that they only made "one" missle?

As for the allies backing us, I did NOT say that our "allies" are there because of any moral stance (although I\'m seriously doubt that it simply because of foreign aid from the US :rolleyes: [but I\'m not going further into this since I don\'t know much about why they are supporting us]). So, yes, maybe there is some "devious" reason why they are behind us (though I\'m thinking that at least a few of them are more then simply butt kissing the Americans for money as you simply put it).

But if you are trying to paint the American supporters are supporters only because of "unmoral" reasons, then what are you going to say about the opposers of war? After all, why are France and Russia so staunch against going to war? Maybe its because that France and Russia (and possibly even Germany) both have deals with Saddam to get its oil (DESPITE the embargo we have them). Also, France does have a long history with Iraq (France worked with Iraq with the nuclear plant that Israel destroyed. What are the possibilities that the WMD in Iraq won\'t have, say France stamp on it?). So, in a way, neither side are angels in this war.

Originally posted by Simchoy
Gohan,
The same can be said about the anti-US people. Taking everything that France or Germany is saying, and discounting the US and its evidence.

I agree.

Still, I am part of the camp that still thinks the US should just flat out say that this is over oil. We can\'t get at the oil in the Caspian sea without striking deals with all the countries bordering it. We are better off if we can get rid of Saddam and put in a puppet leader that will facilitate negotiations over there.

Do I have a problem with that? Yes and no.  Wars have been fought over money and resources since the beginning of time and unless the entire world goes through some sort of paradigm shift in the next week or so then it will continue like that. Still why does the US feel the need to make it a moral decision about us protecting the middle east and europe from Saddam\'s weapons of mass destruction? Especially when you consider the fact that North Korea has admitted to having nukes and will not hesitate to use them. They have even threatened to attack us first if we continue sending troops to the area.

On a side note. I was told that the Korean war never actually ended and that we are in an extended cease fire. Any validity to this?

True. The Korean War never really ended (at the same time, never really started either). We didn\'t declare war on Korea when we went in, and when it ended, we ended up on a cease fire that left the borders where they are today.

As for "its all about oil", I don\'t think so. At least, not entirely (and certainly not to the extent of France and Russia. But obviously, the simple fact that Iraq has oil can\'t be avioded). Iraq only supplies 6% of the total oil supply today. If we wanted that oil, we could\'ve simply lifted the embargo and viola, oil for us Americans (of coarse, the people of Iraq will continue to suffer under Saddam\'s thumb. But hey, at least we get our oil, right?). Heck, we if we REALLY wanted that oil, we could\'ve gotten it the first time we went itn (Persian Gulf War). Instead, we allow Saddam to stay there, along with the oil he is sitting on.

As for North Korea, again, North Korea is one of the LAST Cold War dictators left and are talking like it is still the Cold War. Sure they have the nuke (which in part, can be blamed on Clinton and Carter), but if North Korea has any brains, any attack from North Korea would bring the wrath on America and all our nukes. Also, unlike Iraq, North Korea is surrounded by nations that have a vested interest in containing North Korea. China, Russia, South Korea, and especially Japan (who have said that they will attack North Korea if first if need be). And unlike Iraq, North Korea doesn\'t have, say, deals with France or Russia to gain it "Western friends". As much talk as North Korea can say, it doesn\'t appear that they are gaining much leway, and is probably why they are trying to ratchet up their rheteric.

Now, South Korea. If South Korea wanted to deal with the North Korean problem themselves, I say let them do it. Pull our troops out (its what the Prez there wants anyway) and let the South Koreans defend themselves.

do you know how much OIL we have here in the states? A Crapload!  there is enough in the gulf of mexico and the midwest.



:hat:ScottyJ:hat: