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.
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?
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.
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.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if one looks at the mission statement of UNMOVIC, this is also clearly spelled out:
(bolding by me for emphasis)
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:
(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
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!”
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:
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:
and here
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
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).
Greco wrote:
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!”
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.
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.
Once again, I have to agree with Hank Fescue: in their own words -
(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
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, the following authorizations are given to UNMOVIC and the IAEA:
Does that clear up your question?
Yes. Thanks, Xeno!
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.
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.
Of course [Lib** is correct, but those against the war conveniently ignore the facts (they are just too confusing).
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?)