Who cares about International Laws, we don't!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Yax

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2003
2,866
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I agree that 1441 promised "severe consequences", but the US jumped the gun...Hans Blix said he needed a few more months to determine whether or not Iraq was in material breach.

I'm sure there are some minor technicalities that could potentially put them in material breach, but the fact remains that no weapons of mass destructino were found in Iraq. They've probably already given them all to the terrorists :(
Again, it was not the job of the inspectors to find the actual weapons. Their job was to find proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc. were destroyed. That documentation was never provided and Blix, himself, admitted to Saddam pulling the wool over the inspectors' eyes and being quite evasive.

Ignorance or denial? If it was not their job to find the actual weapons, what the hell were they doing in Iraq? If they were only looking for proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc were destroyed, they could have just stayed at home and read the documentation then said, NOPE, there's no proof here that those things were destroyed.
 

Judgement

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
3,816
0
0
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I agree that 1441 promised "severe consequences", but the US jumped the gun...Hans Blix said he needed a few more months to determine whether or not Iraq was in material breach.

I'm sure there are some minor technicalities that could potentially put them in material breach, but the fact remains that no weapons of mass destructino were found in Iraq. They've probably already given them all to the terrorists :(
Again, it was not the job of the inspectors to find the actual weapons. Their job was to find proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc. were destroyed. That documentation was never provided and Blix, himself, admitted to Saddam pulling the wool over the inspectors' eyes and being quite evasive.

Ignorance or denial? If it was not their job to find the actual weapons, what the hell were they doing in Iraq? If they were only looking for proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc were destroyed, they could have just stayed at home and read the documentation then said, NOPE, there's no proof here that those things were destroyed.

Ignorance or denial? Would you trust a piece of paper from Iraq with them claiming they destoryed their weapons without actually going there and seeing for yourself that those weapons no longer exist?
 

Yax

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2003
2,866
0
0
Originally posted by: Judgement
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I agree that 1441 promised "severe consequences", but the US jumped the gun...Hans Blix said he needed a few more months to determine whether or not Iraq was in material breach.

I'm sure there are some minor technicalities that could potentially put them in material breach, but the fact remains that no weapons of mass destructino were found in Iraq. They've probably already given them all to the terrorists :(
Again, it was not the job of the inspectors to find the actual weapons. Their job was to find proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc. were destroyed. That documentation was never provided and Blix, himself, admitted to Saddam pulling the wool over the inspectors' eyes and being quite evasive.

Ignorance or denial? If it was not their job to find the actual weapons, what the hell were they doing in Iraq? If they were only looking for proof that the known quantities of Anthrax, VX, Scuds, etc were destroyed, they could have just stayed at home and read the documentation then said, NOPE, there's no proof here that those things were destroyed.

Ignorance or denial? Would you trust a piece of paper from Iraq with them claiming they destoryed their weapons without actually going there and seeing for yourself that those weapons no longer exist?

So did you think the inspectors were in Iraq to find actual weapons or not?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01

So did you think the inspectors were in Iraq to find actual weapons or not?
It was not the primary purpose. If they came across some, as they did, then that's just a bonus.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Phuz

So? That still doesn't change anything. You guys sanction any country you have a disagreements with.. geeze, you've done it to us over the softwood lumber crisis. The bill was dubbed with 'serious consequences', not because France was holding out... it was written to vaguely so the Bill could be munipulated.

I wish I had the link to an article discussing the wording of 1441 but it discussed how it was watered down to appease France.

FYI - the UN Resolution authorizing the U.S. to use force against Iraq in 1991 is still in effect. It never died. We signed a cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War, not a peace agreement. No international laws have been broken.

Wasn't the ceasefire between Iraq and the UN?

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard

Wasn't the ceasefire between Iraq and the UN?
Yep, which then would authorize any country involved in 1991 to join up with the current coalition.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Gaard

Wasn't the ceasefire between Iraq and the UN?
Yep, which then would authorize any country involved in 1991 to join up with the current coalition.

Is that just your opinion...or is that somehow worded in the ceasefire?

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Gaard

Wasn't the ceasefire between Iraq and the UN?
Yep, which then would authorize any country involved in 1991 to join up with the current coalition.

Is that just your opinion...or is that somehow worded in the ceasefire?

Resolution 660 states:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

That includes 678 (the cease fire).
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Gaard

Wasn't the ceasefire between Iraq and the UN?
Yep, which then would authorize any country involved in 1991 to join up with the current coalition.

Is that just your opinion...or is that somehow worded in the ceasefire?

Resolution 660 states:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

That includes 678 (the cease fire).

Hmmm, it would appear you are correct.