# Iraq sets conditions on unconditional weapons inspections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224 "2002-09-23T03:30:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/21 "2002-09-24T06:02:34Z")
> [@](#): > > **I am frightened at what Saddam might do as soon as he gets nuclear weapons. He may already have them** And just how frightened were you a short three moths ago before this whole hoopla began? IIRC, it was a different boogeyman at the time. Or are you also _curently_ scared of say, China, NK, Pakistan and India, just to name a few potential nuclear enemies? If so, should they be next in line for “regime changes”? Makes sense if you believe in the new World Supremacy Policy. Go on a killing spree so you can sleep better at night. _If_ you can get them all before they can get to you of course. Personally, what scares the hell out of _me_ are all the warmongering madmen currently occupying the White House. They seem to be getting ready to unleash the most terrifying chain of events humanity has ever known. And way too many Americans are cheering them on. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/22 "2002-09-24T06:08:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **I am frightened at what Saddam might do as soon as he gets nuclear weapons. He may already have them** And just how frightened were you a short three moths ago before this whole hoopla began? IIRC, it was a different boogeyman at the time. Or are you also _curently_ scared of say, China, NK, Pakistan and India, just to name a few potential nuclear enemies? If so, should they be next in line for “regime changes”? Makes sense if you believe in the new World Supremacy Strategy. Go on a killing spree so you can sleep better at night. _If_ you can get them all before they can get to you of course. Personally, what scares the hell out of _me_ are all the warmongering madmen currently occupying the White House. They seem to be getting ready to unleash the most terrifying chain of events humanity has ever known. And way too many Americans are cheering them on. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/23 "2002-09-24T06:15:14Z")
\This has got to be one of the best all-around informative forums on the Net – and also the most frustrating to post in. It’s always a crapshoot with the hamsters\ ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/24 "2002-09-24T10:41:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > No. In fact, they haven’t. The inspectors were tossed out of Iraq in violation of its obligations under the cease fire. Economic sanctions are clearly flawed in just about every way conceivable. How many more times do we have to go over this old chestnut – Clinton/Allbright _withdrew_ the UNSCOM Inspectors, they were _not_ “tossed out”. And before you ask (as you surely weren’t going to…), yep, it’s a little strange that one nation unilaterally decided to end a UN mission but, hey, it pretty much sums up the smoke and mirrors bullshit of UNSCOM’s manipulated (by all parties, especially the US and Saddam) mission as well as its subsequent demise. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/25 "2002-09-24T12:01:58Z")
I’ll give you partial credit, **London** , and admit I was exaggerating. The UNSCOM mission was ordered out by Butler after Iraq _unilaterally_ (the new word of the day, apparently) imposed new restrictions on the mission and the US began building up a military presence there and ordered its civilian personnel out of the area. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq knew that the new restrictions would bring some sort of military response from the US and result in having UNSCOM pulled out. But hey, maybe all of this could have been avoided if Europe would do something besides yammer and protect its energy ties in Iraq and Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/26 "2002-09-24T13:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > But hey, maybe all of this could have been avoided if Europe would do something besides yammer and protect its energy ties in Iraq and Iran. Here we go again… ‘All this talk about morals and laws from Europeans is just a front. They too only care about the oil.’ _ **Yaaaaaawn** _\* Btw, you nicely danced over the bit _why_ Iraq restricted the movements of UNSCOM. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/27 "2002-09-24T14:12:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RedFury \* > \*\* And just how frightened were you a short three moths ago before this whole hoopla began? IIRC, it was a different boogeyman at the time. \*\*YDNRC. If you go back 3 months on this board you will find me saying the same thing about the danger of Iraq nukes. > [@](#): > > Or are you also _curently_ scared of say, China, NK, Pakistan and India, just to name a few potential nuclear enemies? China’s government has been expansionist (e.g., Tibet), but not to the degree Iraq has. Also China has behaved cautiously. India is a sensible democracy. Pakistan worries me – not the current government, but the possibility that a radical group could take power and control their nuclear arsenal . > [@](#): > > If so, should they be next in line for “regime changes”? Where is the logic to your argument? Do you really believe that the existance of other problems other means we should do nothing about Iraq? Let’s try this in other spheres: \*-- Thousands of Amercans die of cancer, so we should ignore Iraq. – AIDS is a world wide pandemic, so we should ignore Iraq.\* Or, maybe we should turn the “argument” around: - – Iraq is working to devleop nuclear weapons, so we should do nothing about AIDS\* This makes no sense at all to me. ---
**Author:** ![partly\_warmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@partly\_warmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/partly_warmer)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/28 "2002-09-24T14:35:02Z")
This recent article from RAND suggests Iraq has already had enough lead time to hide its weapons by the time the UN gets there, and that the UN inspectors are not likely to be successful unless the UN is able to interview scientists without Iraqi agents being present. > **[Press Room](https://www.rand.org/news.html)** > > The RAND Newsroom features topics that are in the news and relevant to current public policy debate, including commentary by RAND policy experts, press releases, events, and congressional testimony. It also mentions that the ambiguous language surrounding the term “unconditional” is part of Saddam’s delaying tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/29 "2002-09-24T14:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Latro \* > \*\*Here we go again… > ‘All this talk about morals and laws from Europeans is just a front. > They too only care about the oil.’ > > _ **Yaaaaaawn** _\* > > Btw, you nicely danced over the bit _why_ Iraq restricted the movements of UNSCOM. \*\* Not so much oil, mainly natural gas reserves. But some oil. And you have to be kidding me if you think that economic and strategic resource interests don’t play a heavy part in European policy making. But please, believe that Europeans governments are only interested in lofty ideals and humanitarian concerns when they formulate policy if it helps you sleep at night. As for Iraq. Well, they restricted the movements because they accused them of spying for the US and the Zionist oppressors. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/30 "2002-09-24T14:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*As for Iraq. Well, they restricted the movements because they accused them of spying for the US and the Zionist oppressors. \*\* Don’t you think it’s really the reverse? That is,\* Iraq accused them of spying for the US and the Zionists because they wanted an excuse to restrict the inspectors movements.\* ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/31 "2002-09-24T15:21:43Z")
**David Simmons quoth:** > [@](#): > > For example, after Bush’s UN speech Hussein made a proposal for “unconditional inspections.” Why not grab that ball and run with it? Have the UN immediately respond with something like, “Our inspection organizing team will be in Bagdad Monday at 0900, your time. Where can be meet you to arrange the details?” Instead, the response was to the effect that based on past performance he doesn’t mean it. But people can change if they see the handwriting on the wall. Well, we saw what the UN responded with: “Well, we can probably be there in six months or so…” Surely Saddam couldn’t hide his WMDs by then. And surely he won’t be continuing to develop nukes until then. And surely he won’t use the interim to try to stall and bend the rules to his favor. The truth is, Saddam giving us permission to conduct “unconditional inspections” wasn’t the only, or even the main ultimatum given by Bush to the UN. Frankly, the inspections in and of themselves aren’t terribly useful. Iraq’s a big place, and there are an infinite number of places to stash weapons. And if by sheer luck the inspectors happen to fall over a site that’s storing nukes, it would be a trivial matter for Saddam to move them using traditional stall tactics: Inspector: “We have reason to believe you’re storing NBCs in that mosque.” Iraqi: “_gasp_ Surely you’re not suggesting we would stoop to such levels. Asking to search our sacred temples is an affront to our religion! I refuse!” _Inspectors report that Saddam refuses to allow access to a mosque. While the red tape is being sorted out, over the course of a couple days, Saddam has the weapons moved out of the church through secret underground tunnels, then has the tunnels sealed._ Inspector: “Let us in, or we bomb the place.” Iraqi: “Well, well, no need to get huffy. If you put it that way, of course you may come in!” …and so on… Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/32 "2002-09-24T16:56:00Z")
Since I probably won’t have time to address every objection that has been raised against my arguments in the debate thus far, I will start by responding to those proffered by **Neurotik** (the aptly-named?), who is clearly the most strident critic of my position. Some of these responses, however, will be relevant to counter-arguments made by others. **Neurotik** : Regarding the claim that the US government is an unreliable negotiating partner, that’s merely an opinion I have, based on too many general examples to enumerate, and a side issue as well. You’re welcome to have the opposite opinion if you like, and I won’t even ask for a cite in support. In response to this: > [@](#): > > - The US has never disregarded a legally binding resolution. Iraq IS disregarding a legally binding resolution that was a condition of the cease-fire agreement signed after the Gulf War. So basically unless you can provide concrete evidence in the form of reliable cites and examples, you need to stop saying that the US is holding Iraq to a different standard. \*Well, there are many well-documented and obvious examples to support my claim. The most obvious, of course, is the US-backed UN decision to bomb Iraq in the first place. As you probably know, this decision was based on the fact that Iraq had violated Article 2 of the UN Charter, which states (amongst other things): > [@](#): > > \*\* 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members…. > > 1. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. > > 2. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. \*\* Clearly, in invading Kuwait, Iraq violated the principles of the Charter quoted above. The US, along with the rest of the world community, held Iraq rightly accountable according to the standards of international law, and if there’s any serious disagreement concerning that, I’m not aware of it. However, how are we to interpret US actions that are on par with those of Iraq? Let us take, for example, the US invasion of Panama, which was roundly condemned by the world community as a violation of Article 2 – something that the UN Security Council would certainly have acted upon, had it not been for the fact that the US sits on the Council as permanent member. Understandably, the US representative on the Security Council always sanctions actions undertaken by the US government, even when they clearly contradict Charter commitments. It is for this reason, quite simply, and none other – i.e., that as a permanent member of the SC, the US can always veto any resolutions drafted against it – that one can safely assert that the US has never broken a “legally-binding” Security Council resolution. Not surprisingly, we can say the same for the other 4 permanent members as well. But at the same time, as I hope you understand, the argument that the US has never broken a Security Council resolution, while Iraq has, is a non-starter as a pretext for military action. In doing so, proponents of such action are simply using some legal technicalities, along with serious flaws built into the structure of the UN, as a kind of blanket excuse for bombing raids. As long as the US has a monopoly (along with the other Big 4) on the interpretation of the Charter’s articles, it can (and will) always interpret them in manner that favors US policies. Thus, with regard to the Panama invasion, the US representative at the time invoked Article 51 of the Security Councils mandate, which allows states to defend themselves militarily if they are attacked. By his interpretation, the US was merely defending itself militarily from Panamanian aggression. There are numerous other examples of my point. The US bombing of Libya, and the invasion of Grenada, are two that leap to mind immediately. That’s not to include the countless covert operations that the US has pursued around the globe, all of which would qualify as violations of Article 2 if they were a matter of official policy. Now, with Bush’s latest foreign policy statement, the right of the US to strike “preemptively” against other states – in direct contradiction to Article 2 – has been pronounced as official US policy. This is clearly an example of _privilege_; the US claims that other states must play by the rules (the UN Charter), but reserves for itself the right to break them when it sees fit. Since the General Assembly has no recourse when permanent members of the Security Council violate fundamental articles of the Charter, they are reduced to protesting such actions by means of resolutions that, as you and **Sua** have rightly pointed out, are not binding. They _do_, however, carry some moral authority, especially when a majority of the Assembly condemns a specific act that clearly contradicts Charter commitments. If we take the phrase “legally binding,” applied to the sphere of international politics, as relating to the Articles set forth in the Charter, then US has time and again violated such “legally binding” agreements – even though, as a permanent member of the SC, it can always get away with it. Do you see my point? With regard to this: > [@](#): > > - Unfortunately, not ratifying the NPT is not a crime under international law. Therefore, Israel is breaking no treaties nor any laws. Iraq, I believe, HAS signed the treaty and is therefore breaking a treaty AND violating its cease-fire agreement. So Iraq is still worse \*Its no news that Iraq is “worse” than Israel, and I can’t imagine who would disagree with that. I never claimed that Israel had violated international law by not ratifying the NPT. I agree completely that violations of the NPT are serious and should have consequences – this point is not in dispute. Rather, the question here is – what sort of consequences? Do violations of the NPT justify military action? > [@](#): > > - Of course, since it was the French that provided the nuclear assistance to Israel, they might have broken some treaties. But we’ll let that go for now as the French are not germane to this discussion, as usual. - Yes, yes, we all hate the French (probably because they are so much like the rest of us, only more so). If we uncover semi-solid evidence that the French have violated the NPT, do you think we should bomb them? > [@](#): > > - Generally acknowledged by who? You have a reliable cite? Not yet? OK, I’ll wait.\* [Sure](http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm). A quote: > [@](#): > > - Israel’s nuclear weapons program dates back to the late 1950s and the construction of the nuclear facility at Dimona, in the Negev. Here, with French and later South African assistance, the Israelis embarked upon a nuclear weapons program that, according to U.S. Intelligence estimates, is thought to have yielded between 75 and 130 devices… > > The states arrayed against Israel hold that it is their right to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the Israeli arsenal. They believe that Washington maintains a double standard by ignoring Israel’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction while opposing the transfer of even peaceful nuclear technologies to others. Both Iraq and Iran have sought a nuclear capability as a strategic equalizer….The Israeli nuclear arsenal will continue to drive Iranian and Iraqi WMD acquisition efforts for the foreseeable future. \*As an aside, I would just like to assert that had I stated “Iraqi weapons programs are a primary incitement for other countries in the region to develop their own nuclear arsenals,” as one in a series of arguments justifying action against Iraq, I seriously doubt you would have raised an eyebrow. That an aggressive weapons research program in one state tends to drive other states in the region to pursue similar programs, as a matter of self-defense or for the purposes of strategic advantage, is of course so self-evident that I find it difficult to believe anyone would seriously question it. We certainly don’t question such statements when they are made in relation to official enemies – so why the demand for extensive documentation when they are made about official allies? > [@](#): > > - By the way, are you seriously saying that no Arab states would be pursuing a nuclear program if it wasn’t for the fact that Israel has them? \*I am absolutely **not** saying that. The CDI report cited above, for example, also notes: > [@](#): > > - Even without Israel, there are inter-Arab and regional rivalries that provide impetus for proliferation. The Iran-Iraq war was a powerful formative experience for both these countries and their concept of national security and deterrence. Likewise, Israel’s long history of conflict with its neighbors, its innate sense of vulnerability, and the hostility it faces from the Gulf States will drive its own elusive search for security. \*My assertion is merely that when considering this issue, it would be hypocritical of us to ignore the effect Israel’s nuclear weapons programs on the power balance in the region, and lay all blame for the situation at the feet of the Arabs (or Persians). In reference to this: > [@](#): > > - While they both are in violation of Security Council resolution and are both in violation of international law, the resolution that was passed referring to the Israel situation was not a part of a cease-fire negotiated with the Security Council. In other words, if after the '67 war, the Security Council attacked and defeated Israel and as a condition of the cease-fire agreement, Israel agreed to leave the West Bank, then reneged on it, then the cease-fire would be invalidated and hostilities would resume. Just as in the Iraq case. > > Well, unfortunately for your argument, that ISN’T what happened. The Security Council resolutions in the case of Israel were not conditions of a cease fire. There has never been an authorization to use force against Israel, while there is one to use force against Iraq. See the difference yet? Probably not. - This is of course an important consideration, and many people interpret the cease-fire agreement in this manner. I assume, considering your expertise in these matters, that you have read the terms of the agreement yourself, fully understand the implications of the agreement within the context of international law, have literally hundreds of cites at the ready to back up your interpretation of these facts, and are merely waiting for me to ask. Just out of curiosity, what provisions are made, within the agreement itself, for consequences should its terms not be met? No doubt you can answer this simple question in your sleep. Naturally, we do not take into account violations of the agreement that might have been perpetrated by our side. Which clause in the agreement give the US and Britain the right, for example, to expand the no-fly zone from the 31st to the 32nd parallel? Inquiring minds want to know. > [@](#): > > - And have the inspections, no-flight zones and economic sanctions worked? No. In fact, they haven’t. The inspectors were tossed out of Iraq in violation of its obligations under the cease fire. Economic sanctions are clearly flawed in just about every way conceivable.\* To my knowledge, these points are not relevant to the question at hand, namely in what sense it can be asserted that the US has supported the indigenous democratic movements within Iraq. > [@](#): > > - Force should have been authorized in 1998, unfortunately, a certain political party in the US practically made it impossible for the president to act during that time, although I doubt he would have done anything but ineffectively toss a few cruise missiles into the vicinity. \*I assume that’s a swipe at the democrats. Swipe away. Daniel Pipes, writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1991, lists some reasons why it was considered strategically unsound at that time to continue with military operations. Noting that Desert Storm had been a limited venture from the beginning, he argues that: > [@](#): > > - Alternatively, there is the danger of Iraq being dismembered. As Turkish president Turgut Ozal rightly observed, this would lead to “incalculable turmoil.” **The world economy needs a reasonably strong Iraq to balance Iran and assure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.** Were Iraqi power to disappear, Iran would likely become the regional hegemon, rationing oil according to its whims. Iraq’s dissolution also raises the prospect of the Iranians imposing a fundamentalist Islamic regime on southern Iraq…. > > Further, the fracturing of Iraq would create chaos from the Persian Gulf and to Turkey. This week, the world is glorifying the Kurds. But if they achieve their long- sought independence in northern Iraq, some real fun would begin. Persecuted by Kurds, non-Kurds would flee the new state. Large and bloody exchanges of population would follow. Kurdish leaders, eyeing the predominantly Kurdish areas of Iran, Turkey and Syria, would destabilize those important countries. Border wars would proliferate, as would terrorism. \*Such was the state of official US policy thinking in 1991. My how times change, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/33 "2002-09-24T19:02:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\* > > Well, we saw what the UN responded with: “Well, we can probably be there in six months or so…” Surely Saddam couldn’t hide his WMDs by then. And surely he won’t be continuing to develop nukes until then. And surely he won’t use the interim to try to stall and bend the rules to his favor. \*\* If this was the UN response, our action could be to ask them if they didn’t hear what was said. The UN enforcing its resolutions promptly is vital for that body to be relevant at all. You seem to imply that since this response, if it were actually ever made (and you didn’t provide a cite), doesn’t suit, the only action is for us to start the bombs. > [@](#): > > \*\*The truth is, Saddam giving us permission to conduct “unconditional inspections” wasn’t the only, or even the main ultimatum given by Bush to the UN. \*\* So what was the “main ultimatum?” > [@](#): > > **Frankly, the inspections in and of themselves aren’t terribly useful. Iraq’s a big place, and there are an infinite number of places to stash weapons. And if by sheer luck the inspectors happen to fall over a site that’s storing nukes, it would be a trivial matter for Saddam to move them using traditional stall tactics:** I have never conducted an inspection for nuclear manufacturing capability, and I suppose you haven’t either. However, I’ve been around a few factories. My guess is that someone who is experienced at atom bomb manufacturing technology doesn’t have to actually see a bomb to know whether or not the capability is present. > [@](#): > > \*\*Inspector: “We have reason to believe you’re storing NBCs in that mosque.” > > Iraqi: “_gasp_ Surely you’re not suggesting we would stoop to such levels. Asking to search our sacred temples is an affront to our religion! I refuse!” > > _Inspectors report that Saddam refuses to allow access to a mosque. While the red tape is being sorted out, over the course of a couple days, Saddam has the weapons moved out of the church through secret underground tunnels, then has the tunnels sealed._ > > Inspector: “Let us in, or we bomb the place.” > > Iraqi: “Well, well, no need to get huffy. If you put it that way, of course you may come in!” > > …and so on… > Jeff \*\* “B” movie scenario. Maybe even “C.” Fanciful hypotheticals just won’t advance the discussion. It looks to me like GW’s dilletante nature has come to the forefront. A year ago it was all (paraphrased) - \* We’ll get bin Laden dead or alive. We’ll go anyplace to root out these terrorist cells. They can’t hide. The war on terrorists is our main job. \* However, that has turned out to be a really, really hard program to carry out and it requires constant attention to niggling details. So what does a dilletante do? Well, when this job palls, you switch to that job. An army using artillery and bombs is effective against a centralized government like the Taliban. It isn’t worth a damn against a scattered and clandestine opponent like al Qaeda. What’s the answer? Well, Hussein and his government form a centralized government against which an army is effective. We have an army all waiting and ready to go. Hussein is also an easy target since he is an easy guy to dislike and foment a prejudice against. The next step is as easy as ABC. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/34 "2002-09-24T19:38:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha \* > \*\*I assume that’s a swipe at the democrats. Swipe away. Daniel Pipes, writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1991, lists some reasons why it was considered strategically unsound at that time to continue with military operations. Noting that Desert Storm had been a limited venture from the beginning, he argues that:\*Such was the state of official US policy thinking in 1991. My how times change, don’t they? \*\* I’m reading this on my break at work right now, and I’ll have a more substantial reply later tonight after I get home and eat dinner (mmmm…ribs). This quote just happened to catch my eye. Why would my comment be a swipe at Democrats? And what would something someone wrote in 1991 have anything to do with what I was talking about? Let’s try it again: > [@](#): > > \*\* Force should have been authorized in 1998, unfortunately, a certain political party in the US practically made it impossible for the president to act during that time, although Idoubt he would have done anything but ineffectively toss a few cruise missiles into the vicinity.\*\* See, I’m referring to 1998. So some article written in 1991 really has nothing to do with anything and will henceforth be disregarded. Second, since I am referring to 1998, the president was a Democrat named William Jefferson Clinton. And the political party making it difficult for him to take on various foreign policy initiatives without having dog-wagging accusations made against him was…_gasp_…the Republicans. In fact, I was making a swipe at Republicans (well, Clinton, too, but let’s face it, there wasn’t much difference between them). But that wouldn’t fit your carefully constructed image of who I am, would it? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/35 "2002-09-24T20:09:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Quite a fine point of international law, **Neurotik** , of which I was quite unaware. The "cease fire"aspect certainly changes everything, doesn’t it. Why, that very fact alone is sufficient, under international law, to alter the entire legal landscape. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > Israel is in violation of int. law, but no cease fire is involved, therefore a stern talking to is the extent of sanctions. Iraq, however, is in violation of int. law, and a cease fire is involved, hence, immediate war. > > Precisely which section of International Law covers this? Whats the precedent here, _Guatemala vs. Nicaragua, et.al_ You do know what a cease-fire is, don’t you? It is not the end of hostilities, but instead a truce. Under a cease-fire, so long as the parties act in accordance with the terms of the cease-fire, the parties is forbidden to resume hostilities. However, if a party breaches the cease-fire, the cease-fire is null and void, and the parties to the cease-fire become belligerents again. And that is the difference between Iraq and Israel. The UN has never said to Israel, “do X, Y, and Z, or we will kick your ass.” Thus, there is no basis in international law for the UN to kick Israel’s ass. Sua ---
**Author:** ![occ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8c91f0/32.png) [@occ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/occ)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/36 "2002-09-24T20:21:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > \*\* > Hussein is also an easy target since he is an easy guy to dislike and foment a prejudice against. The next step is as easy as ABC. \*\* Just to be obnoxious, I’ll point out that he’s easy to dislike because he’s a fairly despiccable person. I wouldn’t call this a prejudice, by any means – he’s being judged for his actions, not pre-judged. He has very few goals other than the increase of his own authority. He admires notable Western military leaders greatly – Winston Churchill is apparently his idol. He doesn’t seem to have any particular ideology, other than “I am a great man, and I will prove this to the world.”. He’s a crappy military strategist, yet likes to get involved with these things. He comes off to me as a hobbyist that likes to play strategy games, and managed to amass enough power to play them out on a grand scale. His lack of skill is both an advantage to the US (when he’s actually being attacked), and a danger (in that his poor decisions have often cost lives, and likely will continue to do so). ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/37 "2002-09-24T21:01:54Z")
**Mr. Simmons:** > [@](#): > > If this was the UN response, our action could be to ask them if they didn’t hear what was said. The UN enforcing its resolutions promptly is vital for that body to be relevant at all. You seem to imply that since this response, if it were actually ever made (and you didn’t provide a cite), doesn’t suit, the only action is for us to start the bombs. Since you ask so nicely: [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=334645](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=334645) **Simmons again:** > [@](#): > > So what was the “main ultimatum?” Well, according to Bush’s UN speech: > [@](#): > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions. > > If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. [http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document091202.asp](http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document091202.asp) **David Simmons:** > [@](#): > > I have never conducted an inspection for nuclear manufacturing capability, and I suppose you haven’t either. However, I’ve been around a few factories. My guess is that someone who is experienced at atom bomb manufacturing technology doesn’t have to actually see a bomb to know whether or not the capability is present. I don’t doubt that inspectors could look at a site that was once used to make nukes, for example, and has since had all equipment removed, and say, “Yup, there’s a good chance that this may have been a nuke factory.” And then what? We bomb the place based on an educated guess? Can you imagine the backlash if we did that? And then Saddam goes and makes a children’s nursery look like it may have once held nukes, and we bomb that, based on the same premise? There’s no realistic and diplomatic way to go about these inspections with a person who we know is actively trying to screw us. **Simmons:** > [@](#): > > It looks to me like GW’s dilletante nature has come to the forefront. A year ago it was all (paraphrased) - We’ll get bin Laden dead or alive. We’ll go anyplace to root out these terrorist cells. They can’t hide. The war on terrorists is our main job. However, that has turned out to be a really, really hard program to carry out and it requires constant attention to niggling details. So what does a dilletante do? Well, when this job palls, you switch to that job. An army using artillery and bombs is effective against a centralized government like the Taliban. It isn’t worth a damn against a scattered and clandestine opponent like al Qaeda. What’s the answer? Well, Hussein and his government form a centralized government against which an army is effective. We have an army all waiting and ready to go. Hussein is also an easy target since he is an easy guy to dislike and foment a prejudice against. The next step is as easy as ABC. Good idea. We’re not done with al Qaeda, so we’d best put the rest of the world on hold until we are. We better hope that we don’t need our military for the next couple centuries while we finish making sure that there’s not a single terrorist cell anywhere in the world. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/38 "2002-09-24T22:12:14Z")
**Neurotik** : > [@](#): > > - See, I’m referring to 1998.\* I’ve heard from so many quarters that we ”should have finished when we had the chance,” i.e., during the Gulf War, that I misread your statement as a another version of that old chestnut. Sorry, my bad. Just out of curiosity, what event are you referring to, in 1998? > [@](#): > > - In fact, I was making a swipe at Republicans (well, Clinton, too, but let’s face it, there wasn’t much difference between them).\* Well, that was certainly a sharp observation. Cite? Where’s a _little devil smiley_ when you need one? > [@](#): > > - But that wouldn’t fit your carefully constructed image of who I am, would it? \*I honestly haven’t constructed an image of who you are – after all, I don’t know you from jack. On the other hand I admit that, as a preliminary assumption, I placed you somewhere on the right of the political spectrum, because this debate tends to divide along that line – with right-wingers being pro-war, and lefties against. But to be honest, political affiliation in this issue isn’t a particularly central concern of mine. As an ex-pat, I don’t participate in the polarized culture of US pop politics these days, and in fact, it’s been many a long year since I last did. I only get a taste of it here on the boards, when Dems and Reps start slinging shit at each other, and I find it to be a rather sterile pastime in general (although you’ve gotta admit, Bush provides a pretty _target rich environment_ [if that’s the right phrase] for us lefties. He must be a real drag for the right to deal with. We’re talking **major** damage control unit here.). Enjoy yer ribs; I await your response with interest. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/39 "2002-09-24T22:16:41Z")
Uh oh. Still problems with the programming. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224/40 "2002-09-25T01:54:26Z")
I’m surprised that no one mentioned that Saddam’s ‘unconditional’ inspections turned out to have a whole bunch of conditions attached after all. No inspections of palaces and personal residences, inspections ‘that respect Iraq’s sovereignity’, inspections that ‘do not compromise Iraq’s need for security’. How many more times do we have to do this song and dance before it becomes clear to everyone that this guy is playing a game? [Iraq refuses to accept any new UN resolutions](http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/21/iraq.un/index.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-sets-conditions-on-unconditional-weapons-inspections/129224.md?page=3)