# Any way out of war, as of February 9? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002 "2003-02-10T02:37:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Hank\_Fescue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@Hank\_Fescue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Fescue)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/41 "2003-02-11T00:21:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Thanks for the link. I read the document, and unfortunately, it leaves inspectors undefined. It mentions them frequently, but only in terms of what is accessible to them and what powers they have of mobility. But it seems to define their mission clearly in the context of overseeing disarmament: > > 1. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up **an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process** established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; > > Emphasis mine. What am I missing? Are their duties spelled out in prior resolutions? \*\* Missing reading comprehension maybe? It says “with the aim of BRINGING TO FULL _AND_ verified completion”. And is a conjunction. You know, hooking up words and phrases and clauses. Remove the conjunction and it’s object “verified” and you have “with the aim of bringing to full completion the disarmament process.” The verification part is there but you ignore that they are there to actually help bring this about. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Fescue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@Hank\_Fescue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Fescue)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/42 "2003-02-11T20:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hank Fescue \* > \*\*Missing reading comprehension maybe? It says “with the aim of BRINGING TO FULL _AND_ verified completion”. And is a conjunction. You know, hooking up words and phrases and clauses. Remove the conjunction and it’s object “verified” and you have “with the aim of bringing to full completion the disarmament process.” The verification part is there but you ignore that they are there to actually help bring this about. \*\* I must apologize for my gramar. “verified” is not and object of “and”. It simply connects the ideas of “full” and “verified”. The interpretation of this is still the same. The inspectors are to bring about full disarmament. The inspectors are to bring about verified disarmament. We make one sentence out of two by adding “and”. The meaning is the same. It is not an easter egg hunt and it is not just a mission of observation. It is a mission to bring about full and verified disarmament. Please excuse my misuse of gramar. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/43 "2003-02-11T20:49:02Z")
Like I said, “it seems to define their mission clearly in the context of overseeing disarmament”. Do you disagree with yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Fescue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@Hank\_Fescue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Fescue)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/44 "2003-02-11T21:01:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Like I said, “it seems to define their mission clearly in the context of overseeing disarmament”. Do you disagree with yourself? \*\* I disagree with your assertion that they are to only oversee the disarmament. It clearly says they are to “bring about” full disarmament. Do you see no difference? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/45 "2003-02-11T21:39:13Z")
It is bringing to completion “the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council”, not “disarmament”. However the process was laid out in 1991 is what is to be completed. Note also that the inspection regime is set up with the aim of completing the disarmament process. This certainly allows for the inspections to be PART of the process rather than the central point of the process. In 1991, Saddam agreed to disarm, and PROVE he disarmed, via the inspections. He is unable to prove he disarmed, so we’re going back to make sure. We should have gone back the day after he violated the agreement, I guess now will have to suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/46 "2003-02-12T10:32:52Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council; It clearly says that the inspectors are to bring the disarmament process to a full and verified completion. It does not say that the inspectors are to disarm Iraq. They are to varify that Iraq is fully disarmed. ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/47 "2003-02-12T11:57:05Z")
Not to beat a dead horse, but if one looks at the mission statement of UNMOVIC, this is also clearly spelled out: > [@](#): > > UNMOVIC was to replace the former UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and continue with the latter’s **mandate to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction** (chemical, biological weapons and missiles with a range of more than 150 km), and to operate a system of ongoing monitoring and verification to check Iraq’s compliance with its obligations not to reacquire the same weapons prohibited to it by the Security Council (bolding by me for emphasis) [http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/](http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/) Seems to me that even UNMOVIC thinks they are in the destruction and removals business, if you also reference this quote from the UNSCOM mandate: > [@](#): > > to take possession for destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related sub-systems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; to supervise the destruction by Iraq of all its ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km and related major parts, and repair and production facilities (same link as above, just go to UNSCOM and then Mandate) On the same page, you can see that the verification process, as described at the time, was only part of the mandate; it was broken down as 1) inspection, 2) destruction or removal of banned items, 3) supervision of destruction of ballistic missiles over the proscribed capabilities, and 4) verification and monitoring of Iraq’s statement that it would not develop or attempt to procure banned items in the future. Now, being an ex-English teacher, I would have to say that UNMOVIC’s job, as was that of UNSCOM before it, is to disarm Iraq. At least, that is what they think they are there to do; judging by testimony of those inspectors who have spoken to the press, I would also have to say that they have undertaken in the destruction of said banned weapons and programs. So where is the argument here? Mr. **Fescue** is clearly correct in his assertion that UNMOVIC exists to bring about the “disarmament” of Iraq, at least in the areas of prohibited WMD and long-range ballistic missiles. Those of you who are arguing so strongly against him might want to try going to the source next time. BTW - to answer the OP: from my standpoint here on a very large air base in the Persian Gulf - nope. We have commited way too much to this to back out now; short of Saddam being seen leaving the country in a caravan with most of the Tikriti clan, BM’s strapped to the roof, and VX, Sarin and Anthrax in barrels in a trailer behind, I don’t think there is any way the administration is going to back down. Just wait and see what happens in a couple of days… Thanks Greco ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/48 "2003-02-12T12:08:46Z")
No one is arguing that their job is not to disarm Iraq, Greco. The argument is over whether the inspectors are authorized to seek and destroy. It does not appear that they are. Rather, it appears that they are authorized merely as overseers. Is it the case that the inspectors are entitled to hunt down weapons and destroy them? Or is it the case that the inspectors are entitled to go wherever Iraq produces its weapons in order to oversee their destruction by Iraq? In other words, are they inspectors like the lady who inspects Hanes underwear? “They don’t say destroyed until I say they say destroyed.” Or are they inspectors like Inspector Clouseau. “Aha! I have deah-dyuced where zee weapons are hidden. Take me to zem!” ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/49 "2003-02-12T13:17:33Z")
**Lib** , actually you, **Cheesesteak** , and **Soup\_du\_jour** all make a point of saying that the goal is simply “disarmament” - as referenced by the following quotes: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Libertarian_ > **Like I said, “it seems to define their mission clearly in the context of overseeing disarmament”. Do you disagree with yourself?** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Cheesesteak_ > **It is bringing to completion “the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council”, not “disarmament”.** > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour_ > **It does not say that the inspectors are to disarm Iraq. They are to varify that Iraq is fully disarmed.** Not to quibble, but those are the comments that were made. As for whether the inspectors have to play a shell game: no one has made the determination either way. It is up to the UN to assign those tasks, as required; once again, if you look at the sites for both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, you see that the inspectors have the right (and have indeed used it) to go where they please. They do expect Iraq to disclose all possible sites where banned weapons existed or currently exist, but they do not limit themselves to only those locations. Judging by UNSCOM’s own words: > [@](#): > > Furthermore, the Special Commission had the right to carry out inspections, at any time and without hindrance, of any site, facility, activity, material or other items in Iraq. and here > [@](#): > > Despite the obstacles placed in the way by Iraq, the Commission was able to compile much information about Iraq’s capabilities and facilities of concern to it and destroyed large amounts of proscribed weapons and facilities. I think one could deduce that they actively searched for and destroyed prohibited weapons. Again, if you read their own words, I don’t see where the argument is; unless of course you are yourself an inspector, and know something about this that they aren’t telling us. Under UNMOVIC, the inspectors’ role has been expanded, given the statements made by both Mr. Blix and the UN itself; as such, they are supposedly being afforded much greated cooperation than given previously. If that is the case, and UNSCOM felt they did such a bang-up job last time, what is the problem with letting the inspectors continue? Once again, I am going by what the UN inspectors themselves are stating; they seem to feel confident they are doing a competent job, based on their mandate. Thanks - Greco ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/50 "2003-02-12T14:44:22Z")
I’m afraid the train has left the station. Bush can’t back out now - even if it were magically possible to flip Iraq over like an old rug and shake any WMDs loose, there’s been too much sabre rattling and belicose talk. So, Bush will get a war, and I’m afraid that it is going to the most costly ever conducted (you think there are terrorist cells now? this little incursion into Iraq will be fodder for terrorist activities until hell freezes over). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/51 "2003-02-12T16:11:18Z")
Greco wrote: > [@](#): > > Lib, actually you, Cheesesteak, and Soup\_du\_jour all make a point of saying that the goal is simply “disarmament”… No one is arguing that their job is not to disarm Iraq. The argument is over whether the inspectors are authorized to seek and destroy. It does not appear that they are. Rather, it appears that they are authorized merely as overseers. Is it the case that the inspectors are entitled to hunt down weapons and destroy them? Or is it the case that the inspectors are entitled to go wherever Iraq produces its weapons in order to oversee their destruction by Iraq? In other words, are they inspectors like the lady who inspects Hanes underwear? “They don’t say destroyed until I say they say destroyed.” Or are they inspectors like Inspector Clouseau. “Aha! I have deah-dyuced where zee weapons are hidden. Take me to zem!” ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Fescue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@Hank\_Fescue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Fescue)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/52 "2003-02-12T16:33:30Z")
I never said the inspectors were to seek and destroy. My point is that they are to seek. An “easter egg hunt”, as you put it, would be a good analogy. Clouseau is also a good analogy. They are authorized to go about the country looking for weapons. If they find them they report them and from there I suuppose it is out of there hands as far as disposal is concerned. But they are not there to simply oversee destruction of weapons that Iraq offers up. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/53 "2003-02-12T17:44:23Z")
Where does it say that they are authorized to seek? That’s all I asked from the get go. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Fescue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/49beb7/32.png) [@Hank\_Fescue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Fescue)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/54 "2003-02-12T18:20:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Where does it say that they are authorized to seek? That’s all I asked from the get go. \*\* They are authorized to go anywhere they want. From the sanitation department to the presidential palaces. Do you think they did that so they could go have humus with the locals? You are being intentionally obtuse and obviously some sort of message board/post count pride is obstructing your judgement. I give. You win. You’re right, I’m wrong. The inspectors are just sitting around waiting for Iraq to call on them to watch some weapons destruction. They must be bored out of thier collective minds by now. ---
**Author:** ![greco\_loco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@greco\_loco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greco_loco)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/55 "2003-02-12T20:07:31Z")
Once again, I have to agree with **Hank Fescue** : in their own words - > [@](#): > > The **inspections undertaken had to be energetic, rigorous and intrusive** because of the failure of Iraq to adopt the candid and open approach to the full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons programmes called for in Security Council resolutions 687 and 707. Despite the obstacles placed in the way by Iraq, the Commission was able to compile much information about Iraq’s capabilities and facilities of concern to it and destroyed large amounts of proscribed weapons and facilities. (again, the bolding is mine for emphasis) Just how literal do you want it? If the inspection process is “energetic, rigorous, and [most especially] intrusive,” then what the hell are they doing? They are seeking, for lack of any better term. They also go on to state that, despite difficulties (presumably regarding lack of information and cooperation), they still managed to find and destroy “large amounts of proscribed weapons and facilities.” **Libertarian** , this was a bit of a hijack to start with, and I think adequate information has been posted to give you the answer you requested; indeed, if you read through the documentation on the links I provided earlier (which also produced the quote above), then I think it is even clearer to anyone who comprehends the English language just what the inspectors are mandated to do, and what they have done in regards to said mandate. Hate to say this, but if you don’t see this yet, obtuse is not the word to describe your current condition; “willfully ignorant” would be closer to the truth. Greco ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/56 "2003-02-12T20:27:05Z")
**Lib** , I’d thought your objection on the first page was regarding the _focus_ of the inspection regime (to verify disarmament rather than merely hunting for weapons). How that became a question of authorization for searches, I’ve no idea. In the body of [UNSCR 1441](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement), the following authorizations are given to UNMOVIC and the IAEA: > [@](#): > > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available; > – All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA; > -UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, **the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites** , notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998; > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities; > – Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards; > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have **the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected** ; > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles; > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have **the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof** ; and > – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage; > > (Bolding added.) Does that clear up your question? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/57 "2003-02-12T20:28:20Z")
Yes. Thanks, Xeno! ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/58 "2003-02-12T21:14:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hank Fescue \* > **I may be the first to tell you but we bombed Iraq at least 66 times during 2002. That is just last year. What _exactly_would you need to constitute pressure?** Those bombings were because our planes were fired upon in the established “no fly zones”. Iraq is the one that broke the agreement. What you want is for us to enforce the agreement made at the end of the Gulf War, with our hands tied behind our backs. > [@](#): > > **You deny that Kuwait was exceeding OPEC produciton and angle drilling before the Invasion of the country by Iraq?** For every cite you make showing it as a fact, I will show one that says "Kuwait was accused by Iraq (Saddam) of angle-drilling. Fact is that the UN and the other members of OPEC did not think this was sufficent to justify Saddam invading Kuwait. Lastly, just a personal view, based on a show I saw but can’t cite. An expert in the oil business, who dealt in the Middle East talked about how Kuwait would angle drill on one side of the border and then Iraq would come along and angle-drill from their side. Then Iraq would angle-drill…you get the point. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/59 "2003-02-12T21:25:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mojo \* > \*\*Doesn’t this support Libertarian’s assertion? Specifically #2 on Page 2, beginning with _Decides…to afford Iraq…_ \*\* Of course [Lib\*\* is correct, but those against the war conveniently ignore the facts (they are just too confusing). ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002/60 "2003-02-12T21:31:19Z")
Um **kniz** … which facts are you talking about that those of us who are against this war are ignoring? (And how exactly do those facts support invasion over a strengthened inspection regime backed by the threat of military sorties?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-way-out-of-war-as-of-february-9/154002.md?page=4)