:::''That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa'' I'm sorry, I couldn't find that in the sole document the US presented to detail the justifications for the war.[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html] Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports- perhaps you are from a region of the world where your transportation needs are fulfilled by livestock or rail? That's what that "national security" thingy alludes to. [[User:Batvette|Batvette]] ([[User talk:Batvette|talk]]) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:::''That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa'' I'm sorry, I couldn't find that in the sole document the US presented to detail the justifications for the war.[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html] Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports- perhaps you are from a region of the world where your transportation needs are fulfilled by livestock or rail? That's what that "national security" thingy alludes to. [[User:Batvette|Batvette]] ([[User talk:Batvette|talk]]) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
::::"Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports": Odd that the words petroleum, economy, and transportation occur no where within the declaration you cite while the word weapon occurs 17 times and the word nuclear occurs 4 times, specifically with the warning that "Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated".
::::Does it take [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18319248 non-partisan analysis] or [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42517-2003Mar17?language=printer multiple disagreeing technical agencies] to show that there weren't any weapons? Perhaps there wouldn't have been a case for war if the case were "we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of citizens' lives to maybe influence natural resources half-way around the world". Maybe you could have signed up!--[[Special:Contributions/99.162.60.191|99.162.60.191]] ([[User talk:99.162.60.191|talk]]) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Please stop defending biased entries against editing. This page will never meet neutral POV standards that way.
paragraphize and trim POV and weasel words as you copyedit in chronological order, citations needed tags, wikilink/wikidate text
theories on 1991 if no attack, chirac involvement, project 922, matrix churchill, gulf war syndrome? comment on UN controversy, oil for food, clinton 1998 bombing of Iraq, still there, hal lindsey's international intelligence, scott ritter turnaround
Information about the small number of WMDs uncovered by the 2010 wikileaks dump should be covered
".. Saddam had hidden WMDs in Iraq but The Terrorists stole them as part of a conspiracy with China, Russia and Iran to build an Islamic Bomb and obliterate your children. We were right all along! Saddam had WMDs! The MSM doesn't want you to know!"[1]Nomen NescioGnothi seauton10:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a few links and seperate articles placed IN THIS ARTICLE that support such conspiracy theories. I suggest you take you sad little Neo-Con ignorance somewhere else, Saddam had no WMD's. Nor did he hide them or plan to get them. 143.238.218.76 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]
The 2003 Iraq war
The section The 2003 Iraq war needs a lot of work (as does the rest of the page). It's somewhat fractured at the moment, having been written from the perspective that the jury is still out on Iraq's prohibited weapon status/compliance. I think we can now be more explicit. smb21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup tag
The section "Only retained old weapons and equipment to develop later" needs cleaning/rewriting in keeping with WP:NPOV. The header is loaded. "ISG findings and/or conclusions" would be appropriate. In addition: 1. I see embedded links in the main body. 2. The section has repetitive statements. 3. There is an unrelated statement from David Kay about "terrorist groups and individuals" passing through Iraq. 4. Bill Tierney's conjecture is also redundant (why should we quote a man who claims God told him where to find WMD?). 5. Uranium compound had been sitting behind lock and key under IAEA safeguard at Iraq's gutted Tuwaitha nuclear for several years. Something to this effect should be included in the article, so not to mislead readers into believing it was a fresh discovery. Other sections are equally questionable. Do we really need to have a section on the legal justification for war? Shouldn't this page simply describe the relationship between Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, as per other nations listed in the WMD panel? smb20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that has been a difficulty of this page; as the last few years have transpired, the topic has become too large to hold on just one article, so we have had to divide off sections, and perhaps we need to make a plan to get the article back to Iraq and WMD's, and then anything else should get transferred to its specific article. :) Judgesurreal77721:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like a giant jigsaw puzzle -- editors would insert a few different pieces here and there. But now we are in a position to make the picture more complete; describing the scene as accurately and concisely as possible. smb06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of removing unsourced statements and anything controversial. If individual objections are raised, we can discuss things further and perhaps reword/reinsert information. It would nice to get this page looking like most of the others. smb06:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says in the lead section that "the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction", yet says nothing of Iraqi cooperation, as described here by former UNSCOM inspector and UNMOVIC commissioner Frank Cleminson:
"It is often said, sometimes with dubious authority, that Baghdad never cooperated in the UN quest to account for its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. In fact, that is not entirely correct. Immediately following the termination of hostilities in 1991, Iraq did cooperate in a significant fashion. Not only did Iraq turn over militarily significant holdings of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations as instructed, but it also participated effectively in a follow-on destruction process. The destruction of proscribed weapons and of associated facilities was carried out mainly by Iraq but under constant supervision by UNSCOM and the IAEA. Data from the archives in New York bear out the contention that UN inspectors proved to be extremely successful in effectively accounting for the disposition and ultimate destruction of nuclear materials and associated facilities as well as of proscribed missiles and of chemical weapons." [2]
It's worthy of note, that Iraq produced and turned over significant quantities of illicit material to the inspectors. smb (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery of WMD after onset of 2003 war
Users are removing sourced entries from reputible sources (Fox News, Washington Post, US Congress, US State Department) which indicate that small numbers of chemical weapons and shells for their delivery were found in Iraq. They are replacing it with an unsourced, inaccurate personal analysis that the small numbers found count as "none". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.117.86 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Fox News as a reputable source is as far from the truth as one can get considering that that news organisation has been exposed as a propaganda outlet by formal content studies. In addition, only military-potent weapons should be considered as WMDs, not the odd rocket discovered in the basement of a house. It is almost certain that there are still a few weapons hidden in Iraq but this is more the product of the Iraqis disorganisation than any established covert plan. JG Estiot (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users are removing your additions because they're misleading. The article's introduction already mentions the 1980s-era remnants to which you're referring. Later on in the article, there's this:
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.[1][2]
The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988." [3]
Somebody in England discovered a rusty, useless shell from World War II in his garden in 2007. A few years ago the U.S. military couldn't account for a trillion dollars of taxpayer money and "dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Wasted munitions should not be unexpected for any military, especially with a military as inefficient as Iraq's was. Discarded, misplaced, and/or useless munitions could not reasonably be called "stockpiles." --Mr. Billion (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
````so the fact that WMD were found in Iraq is not good enough for wiki? But an unprovable negative assertion is? ("Great controversy emerged when no such weapons were found")
How do you know that "no such weapons" were found?
If anyone wants to look at WMD found in Iraq after the onset of the war, I'd forget about those old shells and take a look at those 16 55 gallon drums of pure organophosphate found at the weapons depot that the Pentagon hastily called pesticides. Of course they were, but they were also the exact thing you make nerve gas out of and givrn the January 2003 find by Blix of nerve gas warheads that were undeclared and Saddam refused to destroy- as well as Kay and Duelfer's reports of dual use breakout capabilities- if you want to honestly look at what Saddam was up to I believe that was it. And so did Scott Ritter in November 2002. Batvette (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Interview on Last Night
Did anyone else see the interview on TV last night? Wished I remembered the channel, but it was very interesting. They interviewed the guy who interrogated Saddam in prison. He was definitely saying that they HAD weapons that they destroyed, and were planning to build new ones as soon as the US left the country. Do a google search or something and I'm sure you could find a video of the interview. [Techno Indie-1/28/08]
I disagree. The Iraqi dictator insisted that his country retained no such weapons of mass destruction. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. We might consider including a section on the recent controversy that Saddam "tricked" the United States into overthrowing his government, but that is a completely different thing. smb (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why would saddam admit to having them at all? It would completly hurt all of his interests, including strengthening the support for the war. If you heard about the interview at all sadam's intention was not to "trick" the united states into attacking them. He first did not believe bush would attack and when he found out he expected to have a bombing campaigh similar to the ones carried out on his country earlier by the US. Later when he realised there was a going to be a full scale invasion he instructed his army to hold out for several weeks before starting the insurgency. Whether you believe there was WMDs there are not you must admit that saddam would not have admitted to it becuase that alone could cuase him to lose his war. He was not that stupid to make such a mistake. I dont understand how you can take his comments as the truth. First look at his record as a person and then just recognize it is such a huge conflict of interests. At that point, possibly his life, and certanly his legacy and a possible retaking of his country depended on his words. You have to be stupid to think he would just tell the truth.
Think of what his goal was at that point, discredit the US, make them lose the war. What was the best way to do that? Say stuff that gets the democrats into power, they will lose the war for the US, Iraq goes to being terrorist controled.
Democrats must be ashamed to think they are on the same side as terroists and mass murderers. And seeing as they obviously dont have some conspiricay to help terrorists, they must just be plain stupid.
They did, for many years, no one disputes that. the question is did they after the mid 1990's, which is not known for certitude by anyone (that we know of). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Few Facts and Then a Few Questions
A Few Facts
1. The Hussein regime produced, stockpiled, and used chemical weapons.
2. The Hussein regime agreed to fully and completely disarm itself of all weapons of mass destruction, as a condition of the coalition ceasing combat operations in 1991.
3. The Hussein regime failed to fully comply with the tenants of the United Nations mandates that followed the "Gulf War".
4. The 2003 invasion of Iraq resulted in a regime change.
5. Subsequent to the regime change, stockpiles of chemical weapons could not be found.
A Few Questions
1. If the Hussein regime destroyed the stockpile of chemical weapons prior to 1999, why did the regime risk war, in 2003, over a moot point?
2. What advantage could be gained by the Hussein regime, if they removed chemical weapons from Iraq in the time between the ultimatum and the start of hostilities, in 2003? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.85.58.253 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pathetic, just pathetic. A1) He didnt risk war. He complied with everything the US and UN had asked for. The US went to war regardless of the fact he did not have any WMD. A2) That they would not be invaded. However because the US ignored the fact they didnt have any, they were invaded anyway.
2. Hussein's legitimate government DID completely disarm itself of ALL weapons of mass destruction in accordance with UN madates.
3. The US Government ignored that fact and invaded.
4. The 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq resulted in a puppet, US supporting government that declared any non-US supporting/neutral parties to be void from democratic elections and "insurgent groups". On top of which was the massive, devestating civilian death toll, injuries, civil and national damage, and a complete destruction of the nation, resulting in a semi-civil war.
5. Subsequent to the regime change, stockpiles of chemical weapons could not be found. Because none, outside already officialised review, existed any longer.
A Few Questions
1. If the Hussein government destroyed the stockpile of chemical weapons prior to 1999, and confirmed this through the UN and the USA's own official inspectors, why did the US still invade on the pretense that they had undeclared weapons?
2. What advantage could be gained by the USA regime, if they instigated an illegal war after the sovereign nation they invaded had met their set mandates?
1. Iraq did not disarm verifiably by the conditions of the cease fire. This statement suggests your grasp of the facts is skewed. Duelfer's report JUDGES that it is likely Iraq disarmed before 1999, and it also says it is possible he had them but moved them. Anyone claiming it is an absolute fact there were no WMD in Iraq before the war, is lying.
2. The war was not "illegal". It was a resumption of hostilities suspended by cease fire, AND we were not the aggressors, we were acting as agents in defense of Kuwait and KSA. See argument presented by John Wayne- err, the Doctor- [4]he's got the facts behind legalities dead on.
3. We went to war because Iraq refused to verifiably disarm. Since that was true, "peacenik morons" (to return your childish insult) tried to fabricate an insignificant rationale hoping proving it false would be significant- (as if we had to find WMD to prove Saddam had not changed his aggressive behaviour) Pointing to Rick Santorum's 500 WMD list just seeks to show you were wrong there too. Make no mistake, what we found after the war was a state of affairs that existed because of the war. Had the invasion not happened Saddam would have WMD programs and capabilities as Scott Ritter described in 2002 [5] and Charles Duelfer described in the ISG report. Batvette (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UN condemnation of chemical weapons use during Iran-Iraq war
This article states "For example, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On 21 March 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained)."
I don't think that is true. Resolution 582 (1986) was adopted unanimously and it includes this statement:
"2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol;"
I encourage you to correct the article. It is clearly false, since the Security Council cannot decide anything without U.S. agreement. The United States has a veto over any resolution, and statements by the Security Council President require consensus of all Council members. So the statement cannot be true and the cited reference cannot be taken as authoritative. NPguy (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This, and related articles require editing to restore NPOV regarding WMD materials possessed by Hussein. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk)
This material had been sitting in Iraq for twenty-five or more years. It was formally declared and handed over to the IAEA following the Gulf War in 1991. The Yellowcake was then stored locally and monitored briefly by UNSCOM and more regulary by the IAEA Action Team. Theoretical physicist and nuclear expert Professor Norman Dombey summed up the situation succinctly in 2003:
"Iraq already had far more uranium than it needed for any conceivable nuclear weapons programme. … Nuclear weapons are difficult and expensive to build not because uranium is scarce, but because it is difficult and expensive to enrich U235 from 0.7 per cent to the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Enrichment plants are large, use a lot of electricity and are almost impossible to conceal. Neither British security services nor the CIA seriously thought Iraq had a functioning enrichment plant that would have justified all the noise about nuclear weapons we heard before the war. When I read of the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger, I thought it smelt distinctly fishy. … It was a gigantic red herring."
You don't have to agree with Professor Dombey, but you must accept that this is not a 'new' discovery by any stretch of the imagination. ~ smb19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, truly sad 'Dr. B. R. Lang', truly sad. Its as if you Neocons can't even remotely handle the fact you were wrong. That cooouldn't be it, could it? Its bad enough that all the political forums are still being flooded with this failed attempt at legitimising illegally invading Iraq for WMD, let alone trying to push it here, where shouting down your opposition with "omg omg look, see they hadz it aaall along" dosn't work as we have strict rules and guidelines. And as such, that pathetic attempt is quite easily refuted. 124.182.59.85 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]
Except that Iraq under Saddam Hussein refused to hand over the yellow cake, the UN did not have possession of it and it became a huge weapons potential. Had the war not been fought, Saddam would have processed this into weapons grade material, a risk that few could take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.235.201 (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is correct. I don't believe Iraq was ever asked to get rid of its yellowcake. In general, yellowcake is not considered a high proliferation concern - it is a raw material that requires a great deal of processing before it can be used in a nuclear explosive. NPguy (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, though AFAIK the existing yellowcake was never part of the pretext for war. I think it was silly for them to even mention it in the 2003 SOTU. We should have invaded or vaporized the country in April 2002 when he went on Al Jazeera and broadcast the increase in the terrorism rewards. Batvette (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong men are ok as long as they are our strong men on our terms".... well hullo, Dorothy, you've returned from OZ. Would you like to add "Why Iraq and not Darfur or North Korea?"(personally I have respect for Saddam pre-desert storm and feel we put him up to fighting Iran then betrayed him- Desert Storm insulted him because we were too easy on him and thus he was bound by honor to spit in our eye as long as he lived. We in the west do not understand the Arab mindset of honor, respect, and brutal strength)Batvette (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missing: UNSCR 1441
This article is missing a central element of the history: the effects of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on the effectiveness of inspections in Iraq. When UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors returned to Iraq, at first they encountered the usual resistance and cat-and-mouse games from Iraq. However, as the United States excalated pressure on Iraq, both UNMOVIC and the IAEA Action Team were able to gain access and resolve most questions about Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. There is an account of this in the article [Rationale for the Iraq War], which should be summarized here.
This is important because it demonstrates the constructive effect of combining intrusive international inspection mandates and credible threats of military threats. This combination coerced Iraq into compliance and effectively resolved the WMD issue. It could have been a major victory for coercive nonproliferation diplomacy. Instead, the United States rejected this outcome and invaded Iraq anyway, damaging its own reputation and undermining the prospects future international unity in confronting the far greater proliferation challenges from Iran and North Korea. NPguy (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only stated requirements to be met by Iraq were "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" (with inspections) and Blix's report of 3/07/03 makes it quite clear Saddam was irrevocably in breach of 2 of the 3 qualifiers (and improving as the hammer was being cocked is not one of them), in light of the fact Blix himself described the inspections under 1441 "Iraq's final opportunity for peaceful disarmment" I find it bizarre you should mention "credible military threats" then damn us for following through with just that.
Blix and his team had MANY open issues yet to be resolved and Saddam knew if he could keep the dogs off until after the first week of April, we'd have to go home with our tail between our legs since the coming sandstorms folowed by brutal early summer temperatures would preclude a full scale attack.
"UNMOVIC...... were able to gain access and resolve most questions about Iraq's (omit)nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs." That is completely false. See Blix's final report (was it 3/17 or 3/19?) as he left Iraq. If you understand that the purpose of the last round of inspections was not to determine the absence or presence of WMD in Iraq (impossible)but for Saddam to demonstrate transparancy that led the world to believe he had changed and sought peace, then it would be easier for you to understand why he clearly failed. Batvette (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have three points in response. First, the inspections were working. They had not broken down. Backed up by U.S. military threats, they were steadily revealing the truth. While the resolution demanded Iraq's full and immediate compliance, no one expected that outcome. The best realistic outcome from inspections was a slow erosion of Iraqi resistance, revealing over time a substantially complete and consistent picture of Iraq's WMD and missile programs. Inspections are a process, not a once and for all revelation. The U.S. government should have understood that going in. I confess that I tend to focus on the nuclear portfolio, which was substantially resolved in 1998 and which the Iraq Action substantially confirmed by March 2003. Progress may have been slower in other areas, but increasingly rhetoric about the "smoking gun" being a "mushroom cloud" were becoming less and less connected to known facts on the ground.
The notion that Saddam was waiting until summer when the weather would free him from the threat of military attack, at which point he would expel inspectors and then what? He had nothing. Could he really count on no attack?
Second, UNSCR 1441 did not authorize the automatic use of force, either by its plain language or by the interpretation of most states that voted for it. The "coalition" attack was not the embodiment of UN authority, but a defiance of it.
Finally, you see a contradiction between the utility of military threats and the disutility of actual use of force. It's not a contradiction, but a familiar paradox. Deterrence is widely recognized as the only legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons, but actual use has been unthinkable for decades. NPguy (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say "the inspections were working" and under the assumption you feel the purpose of the last round of inspections (those under 1441) were to determine the absence of WMD within Iraq I'd assert you can't say they were working if you do not understand their purpose.
"While the resolution demanded Iraq's full and immediate compliance, no one expected that outcome."
A UN resolution is not carelessly worded or filled with unnecessary embellishment. You've just taken the fundamental and core demands of UN 1441, reiterated verbally and in writing by Hans Blis in his January 27 2003 report, and declared them irrelevant? Preposterous!
While 1441 did not have an automatic trigger for action, what did Hans Blix mean when he said it was Iraq's final opportunity for peaceful disarmment? And when this same UN official declares 6 weeks later that Iraq was irrevocably in breach of its terms, does Iraq get a "do-over"? a "gimme"?
The reason we attacked Iraq was not because of the amount of WMD Saddam possessed at the time. It was because Saddam refused to end his desire for reqional conquest and procure and threaten his neighbors and his own people with WMD. The inspections were his chance to prove he'd changed. He failed, and the ISG report confirms those intents.
On your "final" point: Deputy Barney Fife. (the nuclear reference is silly and irrelevant, there have beeen countless people killed in conflicts since 1945 and we didn't nuke Saddam)Batvette (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you claim to know why we invaded Iraq. I can't figure it out myself, there have been so many justifications thrown out over the years. My best guess (from reading Bob Woodward) is that President Bush decided to do it back in 2001, and once he set preparations in motion they became self-fulfilling. No changes in circumstance could have prevented it.
You have said nothing of any substance to sway me from the conclusion that the inspections were working. They were making progress and there was no impasse. It was the United States that called them off, not the UN and not Iraq. NPguy (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, my contributions at Wiki are not intended to sway any single person's opinions nor do I feel the need to validate my own for their approval. If your goals are different please let me know so I won't further waste time with futility. Your "conclusions" are your perception of facts, the facts themselves are of encyclopedic relevance, what your opinion results from after viewing them is not.
2, Please define "working". Toward what goal? What conditions defined "finished?" I stated above what I believe the goals of the final round were, based upon Blix's 1/27/03 remarks. I think this is a fact that will not mesh with your opinions.
3, When UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors returned to Iraq, at first they encountered the usual resistance and cat-and-mouse games from Iraq. However, as the United States excalated pressure on Iraq,
After 12 years and as many resolutions it was so expected you call it "usual". Why then are you of the opinion if we hadn't invaded and removed him, that would not have been his continued behaviour? Now refer to point 2 and Blix's remarks and see why improving while the hammer of a gun at his head is cocked, is not "working", never mind specifically excluded by the wording of 1441.
4, The ISG report specifially stated that it judged Saddam would restart his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were relaxed. Please tell me how this does not leave Saddam with the ability to threaten the peace and security of the region with attack by WMD today had he not been forcibly removed. Batvette (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs. For the nuclear program (not Blix's responsibility), they had already largely completed that task. It's impossible to prove, since history took a different course, but I think the inspections were close to demonstrating that WMD was an untenable pretext for invading Iraq. NPguy (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs.
You're completely wrong about the purpose of inspections under UN1441. Hans Blix spelled this matter out to the letter in his January 27, 2003 interim report and address to the security council. [6] Your belief centers around the rather absurd concept that a team of 180 people could determine with absolute certainty, the lack of WMD in Iraq, a nation the size of California-as if that would even accomplish anything if it were possible. As Blix repeatedly points out, their purpose was to establish trust and confidence in Iraq by the world that they not only had disarmed, but they intended to remain as such without 250,000 US troops surrounding them. The ISG report in that case reaffirmed the WMD justification for war as valid. If not, tell me how if we had not invaded, Saddam would not now today be able to threaten his neighbors in the region with attack by WMD? How is a policy "working" if it requires a quarter of a million heavily armed men pointing guns at someone for cooperation?Batvette (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the inspections was to verify the absence of prohibited WMD programs. They were working - steadily achieving progress in achieving that objective. I do not believe Saddam was a significant security threat at the time, nor do I believe he would be one today, even if most of the sanctions were lifted. And the United States would be in a better position to confront Iran if it had not made the strategic blunder of getting bogged down in Iraq. NPguy (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The purpose of the inspections was to verify the absence of prohibited WMD programs."
I provided you a link above to the interim report Hans Blix delivered, in which he stated:
" In December 1999 – after one year without inspections in Iraq – resolution 1284 (1999) was adopted by the Council with 4 abstentions. Supplementing the basic resolutions of 1991 and following years, it provided Iraq with a somewhat less ambitious approach: in return for “cooperation in all respects” for a specified period of time, including progress in the resolution of “key remaining disarmament tasks”, it opened the possibility, not for the lifting, but the suspension of sanctions.
For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC. It was only after appeals by the Secretary-General and Arab States and pressure by the United States and other Member States, that Iraq declared on 16 September last year that it would again accept inspections without conditions.
Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active. The resolution contained many provisions, which we welcome as enhancing and strengthening the inspection regime. The unanimity by which it was adopted sent a powerful signal that the Council was of one mind in creating a last opportunity for peaceful disarmament in Iraq through inspection."
and.....
"Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be “active”. It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch can”. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items. "
At no point does Blix nor the resolution itself specify that the purpose was to or could even determine the physical absence of WMD in Iraq.
"the United States would be in a better position to confront Iran " Why would we want to do THAT? And if so, how would that be easier with Saddam in Iraq?
Furthermore, on Feb 14, Blix describes your "they were working" with his final words:
"Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."
I don't think you are reading Blix properly. He always balanced descriptions of cooperation with failures of cooperation. But cooperation was clearly improving over time and at no time reached an impasse that would have justified war. NPguy (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to get into fulfilling what would justify war in your eyes, or what you think was in Blix's words but isn't spelled out. Cooperation was the process which inspections were based upon, not the ability to endure with certainty an absence of WMD in Iraq.Your statement above, "The inspections were "working" in the sense that they were making steady progress toward a complete picture of the (nonexistent) status of Iraq's WMD and missile programs was an impossible goal. Batvette (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the requirement of the cease fire and subsequent resolutions? Get rid of them at an unspecified place, time and manner, then obstruct and evade verification of disarmment? Don't make Saddam out to be the victim of baseless persecution. You DO realize Duelfer's report made it clear he was just going to make more, right? The point was he didn't intend to disarm. He didn't intend to stop attacking his neighbors. Batvette (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The villain who invaded Kuwait agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Refusing to allow verification of disarmment because you wish to scare your neighbors was not one. As for "mistake".... oh really? Where is this crystal ball where I may view the fantasy world of decisions made differently and their results? Saddam gave no indication he had changed a bit. Batvette (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you think he was a villain when he used chemical weapons in the war against Iran? Where was the outcry when he was buying weapons from the West?
The goal was to disarm him and there was nothing to disarm. It was 650+ billion dollars and 5,000+ lives that did not need to be spent. If you want to disagree with the majority of the public in considering it a mistake, that is your own prerogative..--76.251.250.43 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may allow your views on issues to be influenced by public opinion polls, I do not. I've seen this "poll" shift from a small minority in mid 2003 to now become the vast majority, and now you imply I am wrong merely for not caving in to it. That is idiotic beyond belief. The majority of Americans believe in God, does this prove he exists? The fact remains that unless you can prove a more favorable outcome of decisions not made, any speculation about what was a "mistake" or not remains only a fantasy in the minds of cretins who believe life comes with "do-overs", and those with political capital to gain at the expense of telling millions of war veterans their sacrifice meant nothing. All does not exist in a vacuum if the action was not taken, and the emotional appeal of citing the monetary expenditure and number of casualties is nonsense. At 400,000 lives and $3.6 trillion (adjusted for inflation) was WW2 a "mistake" or money we didn't have to spend? Batvette (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that we are better off for having invaded Iraq under false pretenses. I thought it was a mistake at the time and still think so. By attacking the one of the "Axis of Evil" that threatened us least, we undercut out international credibility in dealing with the other two. We're worse off in dealing with Iran's nuclear program because we invaded Iraq. Of course, this is a counterfactual. We can't to the experiment to see what would have happened if we had not invaded. But by the same token, the notion that the invasion was not a mistake is just a "fantasy." The comparison to WWII is essentially the discredited Hitler-Saddam comparison. Give it up. NPguy (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former President said "the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq".[7] and the chairman of his party said the biggest mistake was "prosecution of the war."[8] When the chief proponents are acknowledging this, let alone independent investigations or polls, it is probably best to just let yourself finally acknowledge it as well. What would you prefer to call $640 billion and 5,000 lives spent on weapons which didn't exist? An oopsy woopsy?--76.251.250.43 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 We did NOT invade Iraq under "false pretenses", I think you can find the Joint Resolution here on wiki, review it and you'll find not one point within was ever proven false at all. You like many others have allowed a politically opportunistic media tell you what to think. (Note that the person who initiated the accusation about lying to go to war, Joe Wilson, had his claims wholly, 100% discredited by Congress!)
2 You people seem to forget we were bound by agreement to Kuwait and KSA to protect them from Saddam's agression (the latter paying us with a dollar a barrel discount in oil purchases since Desert Storm, AND guaranteeing US financial dominance of the world economy for over 30 years!) and walking away from such an agreement with such crucial allies was not an option. 10,000 miles away you sit in safety declaring Saddam was no threat. The citizens of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did not agree. The oil from their countries built America. We owed them, those billions of dollars and thousands of lives were payment deferred and past due.
3 the President never said he regretted invading Iraq. I don't care what the "chairman of his party" said. Your suggestion any statement by them should make me declare the war a mistake is a blatant example of intellectual dishonesty because they don't have that opinion at all. The fact remains it's purely speculatory and not a bit encyclopedic to assert you know an alternate path not taken in history while changing so much would surely lead to a better outcome.
4 Your sole reasons for doing so are for political capital gained in rubbing the opposition party's nose in a mistake. That is despicable not only because most Democrats were just as responsible in their roles, but for what you're doing to veterans who served honorably in that war, and in encouraging similar lowbrow behaviour from some members of the GOP who now seek to torpedo Obama's policies. Good Job, Guys! I won't participate and what you're doing approaches fascism. Batvette (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Iraq had no usable WMD to speak of. That was one of the major points. Al-Qaeda had no real links to Iraq. In fact, Saddam didn't really like AQ and they only started showing up after the fact when USA became an occupying force. Even the government denies Al-Qaeda being in Iraq. Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda#2006_Senate_Report_of_Pre-War_Intelligence. In that same article, Iraq did not provide support for 9/11. And as an after-the-fact, conditions in Iraq are only so bad because the US is so insistent on bombing the crap out of that country. Pre-Gulf War, it was the most successful country in the middle east under the SAME Saddam Hussien.
2. Iraq has been under so many sanctions for so long that it provides no credible threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Note how quickly the entire armoured forces and air forces of Iraq were completely wiped out by America. That is not to show that America is all powerful; it only goes to show the unpreparedness and low-quality of Iraq's modernized forces.
3. Bush did indeed say he had no regrets at one point in June [9], but later on, in December of the same year, claimed that the Iraq war was his BIGGEST regret, specifically in regards to the intelligence for the war. [10].
1. Using weasel words as hidden disclaimers ("usable" WMD or "real" links to Al Qaeda)works for the media selling leftist political fodder, not for people who know the facts, and those are spelled out clearly in the joint resolution. Saddam was a significant and prolific state sponsor of international terrorism. Terrorism by Islamic militants that killed Americans and harmed our interests. Saddam's WMD programs and capabilities threatened our allies and national interests in the Persian Gulf (and thus our national security) NO claim to links with Al Qaeda were made in the joint resolution whatsoever, nor any claims to material quantities of WMD at that time.
2. I shouldn't have to point out the intellectual dishonesty you just attempted with that. We couldn't babysit Saddam forever AND once Blix gave Saddam a clean bill of health sanctions would be relaxed and France and Russia, his main weapons suppliers, along with China, were about to go in and fill his pockets (and hangars and ammo dumps!)with the proceeds of what has now been resurveyed to be the largest petroleum reserves on earth, all in high pressure wells (50 cents a barrel lift cost!) You think Russia and their bad economy would mind paying Saddam in Migs and other hardware? How much oil do you think energy hungry China could pump out in a year or two? Saddam's armed forces were the largest and had more combat experience than anyone in the region,all they needed were new toys and they were about to get them.
3. Bush never said he regretted the decision to invade, nor should he. You're trying to interpret his statements to mean what you wish them to be. If he has regrets regarding use of intelligence that is nothing more than thinking in hindsight his actions could have been more perfect. Wouldn't life be great if all our decisions had benefit of a crystal ball?
4. Okay why don't we try "hive think by morons"? Another user suggested I change my opinion because public opinion polls were changing, over time, against my opinion. I think that merely shows a lack of integrity within that majority. The facts pertaining to the lead up to the war have not changed significantly, "what we found after the war" was because we invaded. Had we not invaded Iraq's Air Force would not have been buried and Iraq would have WMD programs and capabilities. The logic is like a child laying on a bearskin rug in his father's den, "he doesn't look so mean and these teeth are not so sharp,and his fur is very soft, why did you have to kill the nice bear, daddy?". I simply refuse to go along with that. (and I voted for Obama, no partisanship I assure you)Batvette (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. You obviously have never taken the time to educate yourself on Iraq's own declarations of their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs given to the IAEA and UNSCOM(UNMOVIC). (Wingnutrules (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
That IP's change to this article was to change the "suggestion" of Winston Churchill to the "order" of Winston Churchill.
The first reference given simply goes to the Telegraph's home page, while in the second the writer says he no longer believes the UK used gas, but only that the local commander asked for "large supplies" that were not needed. A third citation before that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts) does say that Churchill suggested using chemical weapons against the Arabs as an experiment, to "shock and awe" (Mustard gas had already been used against the Bolshevik troops in 1919, says the article).
I'm not an expert in this historical field, but the two references I could read demonstrate nothing except that the British were considering chemical weapons as an option that was never used. The text before the anonymous IP's change was clear enough, while the IP's change is misleading. Hence, I've restored the original text.
This “article” is about as biased as the most embarrassingly leftist conspiracy theory “newspapers”; It in no way addresses the possibility that there WERE, in fact mobile chemical weaps labs (at least one such truck, filled with componentry for such a lab, was intercepted along the Iraq/Syrian border) three days after the “official” start of the conflict). ¿Is this a fact based article or propaganda? Because as it stand, propaganda would be the POLITE term. --4.246.120.46 18:36, 29 October 2008
Most Wikipedia articles on political issues have some degree of bias, but this one strikes me as relatively even-handed. It describes Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program and its use of chemical weapons. But even the Iraq Study Group found no indication of WMD at the time of thd 2003 invasion. And it is by now well known that the intelligence was, if not manipulated, at least interpreted to promote the need for the invasion.
But if you know of missing facts and have references to support you, why not try to fix the article instead of just complaining? That's what I do. NPguy (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is that: “In the case of the mobile trucks and trains, there was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate.” And… “…it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.” (Colin Powell on Meet the Press - May 17, 2004)
The intelligence was discredited four years ago. The UN and even the U.S.'s Iraq Study Group asserted that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion. In short, do some reading.--69.208.141.201 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false interpretation of their findings, it leads one to think Iraq (saddam) had ended his desire to possess and threaten his neighbors with WMD. If Saddam employs scientists to research and develop ways to clandestinely manufacture chem and nerve agents from dual use products, and purchases and stocks these precursors, and we found evidence of that, are you going to say he had no WMD programs? Do you want to find the WMD mixed and loaded onto missile warheads before you say it was "active"? That's not going to happen. The joint resolution mentions WMD as a justification by saying:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
And what he was doing WAS just that, and notice what it DOESN'T claim there or anywhere else: stockpiles at the time of the draft of that document, because he was just going to make more. It might be more to the point that what we were able to catch him with or not after the fact is wholly irrelevant, just as Blix had asserted finding WMD during the inspections would not have been an automatic trigger for action. What the last round of inspections demanded from Saddam was "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" to demonstrate the transparancy he was hiding nothing and that he intended to end his desires for regional conquest. As the ISG final report clearly states that was far from what his intents were, and he had indeed advanced his programs- by transforming them from the pre desert storm above the table weapons production to dual use clandestine quick breakout capability. Batvette (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire introduction needs to be rewritten with a more nonPOV tone, and some factual content. It does not mention WHY the United Nations destroyed Iraq's WMD, it does not state that Iraq was supposed to disarm with verification to meet the cease fire conditions, and portrays the US as an aggressor by continually accusing Iraq of having WMD for no specific reason, when the reality was that Iraq was supposed to document what it did with the WMD it had. Batvette (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From AskOxford:
aggressor
noun - a person or country that attacks without being provoked.
USA - Fabricated evidence against a country to invade them. The evidence is now widely admitted to be fabricated (IRAQ HAS WMD OMGS?!) or misconstrued (Nigeria's Uranium from the British Intelligence). In any case, USA attacked Iraq without being provoked. The WMD case arguers can state all they like that Iraq had WMD, but an even more important point is that Iraq had ZERO delivery capability. Even if Iraq had a nuclear warhead, they COULD NOT deliver it anywhere, as they have no missiles capable of launching a warhead anywhere significant. How is it possible for a country without a real weapon to provoke the most powerful nation (for a few more years) in the world ?
Tell the 5,000 Kurds killed in the attack in 1988 Iraq had no "delivery vehicles". The gas in those attacks was deployed in bomb casings that could be dropped by a number of different aircraft in Iraq's Air Force inventory in 2002. Before the war began in 2003, Saddam buried them, hoping the war would end quickly and he would stay in power. Your position is essentially "I know almost nothing about what Saddam could or would do, so the war was wrong". The threat to our national security was not in his ability to reach the US with a delivery vehicle with a WMD warhead, but in serious interruption of US oil imports by continuing his record of regional conquest in the Persian Gulf. As for "real weapon" see this [11]Scroll down to where it describes how US fighters were unable to ever intercept his MIG-25's. Here was his 2002 inventory of about 200 aircraft: [12](note 10 mig-25s total and 45 mirage F-1's) Now figure Scott Ritter said in Fall 2002 Saddam could produce nerve gas agents in a matter of days.
Furthermore "The US attacked Iraq without being provoked" ignores that as a declared war Desert Storm never ended, hostilities were suspeneded and in 2003 as in 1991 we were acting as agents in defense of Kuwait and KSA. Some may say "that was 12 years ago!" in ignorance of the fact a war within the no fly zone went on for the duration. That 12 years was more than enough patience for him to comply with cease fire conditions. The actions and policies used to contain Saddam directly resulted in the attacks on 9/11, suggesting they were an acceptable status quo to maintain indefinately is not realistic. Batvette (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a few people won't be thrilled about the change but the version as it existed was hopelessly biased and was a misrepresentation of the facts, including the purpose of the last round of inspections which Blix has always maintained finding or not finding WMD were never going to be a trigger for war. (So if finding WMD was not going to be a trigger for war, it is intellectually dishonest to imply that because inspectors did not find WMD we were acting contrary to its {UN 1441} intent when we went to war) Most disturbing was the inclusion of the reference to the "report" about 900+ false statements by the administration, which not only was a blatant partisan hit piece, but it was really not encyclopedically relevant to this page and its content. Other pages exist about that matter, and even a few of the things in my rewrite, so I am fairly open to a rewrite by someone else- though if you look at the closing statement (and I'd like that to be retained) I think that's the most relevant thing that can be said- despite legitimate complaints about the human and monetary cost, Operation Iraqi Freedom undoubtedly ended the longstanding concerns about Saddam and WMD. Finally, I think it's important to rely more on official documents- like the UN's own transcripts of Blix's interim reports, or actual transcripts of the text of the Joint Resolution or White House speeches- than citing media reporting of the same, particularly media reports long after the fact. The political maneuvering is sickening, to be sure. Batvette (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your intro was heavily biased and misinterpreted the underlying facts in numerous ways - although some of the earlier text had bein biased in the opposite direction. I think my changes are self explanatory, but feel free to discuss. NPguy (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't like that part about Bush being bound by law to attack Iraq? Why not? :-) (in a way it's true) I think it's a fair enough compromise with a couple of detail changes needed: The last statement should read not inspections but the Iraqi survey group report by Chsrles Duelfer, and not confirmed but "JUDGED that saddam probably disarmed after desert storm" (and I won't insist you include his less possible exception that he might have gotten rid of them right before the war) and I'll research the exact wording about his intentions after sanctions were lifted to see what physical evidence was found about his dual use clandestine programs the intents section was based on. If worded 100% correctly toward the facts Duelfer's findings can find both sides with points of happiness and frustration. That should be acceptable IMO. I might mention we should probably avoid going into the subject of what actually justified the war itself- you didn't go there and I tried not to either, there will be a difference of opinions there and other pages have wars to be fought over it someday. One other thing that is in fact in error, is "launched a second gulf war". All UN resolutions refer to the original invasion of kuwait and the cease fire conditions, indeed that was the reason UN1441 put inspectors in Iraq! As well the Joint resolutions begins with it as well. I am comfortable if you want to word it to imply Bush initiated the resumption of/ beginning of new hostilites, but regardless of what people would like to believe all pertinent documents make it pretty clear by the legal way wars are declared OIF was a resumption of suspended hostilities caused by Saddam's failure to comply with cease fire conditions. 12 years doesn't make it a second war, it means we had extreme patience. It's late and I'm tired so if I did these revisions myself they'll come out sloppy, feel free to give them a try or I'll do it in a couple of days. Otherwise I think you showed an open mind, good edit. Batvette (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The United States ... sought a further UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force, but abandoned this effort after France declared it would veto over any such resolution.
The French position needs to be qualified because ministers were prepared to support a second resolution if Hans Blix declared the situation hopeless (the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle was ordered to the Persian Gulf). The BBC's premier current affairs program, Panorama, documented this episode in 2004. Here is the relevant clip. I recommend watching the entire program. Highly informative. Dynablaster (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would you change it? Listening to clip, it seems Chirac said his position might change "if Iraq ceased cooperation" with inspectors. I'm not sure how genuine that was and (assuming the narrated summary is accurate) it set a threshold so high (completely ceasing cooperation) that it was safe to predict Iraq would not cross it. In other words, Chirac's equivocation as reported in this clip seems disingenuous. NPguy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
France's position was only tenable so long as inspectors were making progress. It hinged on the word of UNMOVIC and IAEA. It is not for us to speculate how Jacques Chirac may have reacted if matters had reached a dead end (was the Charles de Gaulle (R 91) deployment an empty gesture? etc). But we must be sure to report the position of France without distortion. Dynablaster (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall that film clip, it quoted Chirac as saying France could change its position if Iraq stopped allowing inspections. That is different from inspections reaching a dead end, which could occur for other reasons. Chirac wasn't the only French official making statements like this. I recall that Foreign Minister (or had he become Prime Minister by then?) Dominique de Villepin made statements of opposition that were more unequivocal than Chirac's. It was not unreasonable to conclude that France would veto a resolution on the use of force most realistic circumstances. NPguy (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Let me recap. I have a source that says France would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force because Hans Blix believed disarmament experts were making progress and thus should be afforded more time:
Jacques Chirac: There were two ways to disarm [Iraq]. There was war, of course, but there was also the method of inspections and exerting pressure, the one which consisted in going over there, with the UN's authority, to control these weapons, find and then destroy them. And the international community, by adopting UNSCR 1441 unanimously, took the decision which consisted in saying: "we are going to disarm Iraq peacefully, i.e. through the inspections. We are going to appoint inspectors, and they will tell us whether or not this method is possible".
It's not for you or me to say whether the inspections are effective, whether Iraq is sufficiently cooperative ... [it's] for the inspectors to whom the UN has entrusted the responsibility of disarming Iraq to say. The inspectors have to tell us: "we can continue and, at the end of a period which we think should be of a few months" – I'm saying a few months because that's what they have said – "we shall have completed our work and Iraq will be disarmed". Or they will come and tell the Security Council: "we are sorry but Iraq isn't cooperating, the progress isn't sufficient, we aren't in a position to achieve our goal, we won't be able to guarantee Iraq's disarmament". In that case it will be for the Security Council and it alone to decide the right thing to do. But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn't today.
France will vote "no" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.[13]
My concern is with the lead section and how it is written, which may give readers the impression that France would veto come hell or high water. Can you actually produce a source that contradicts the president of France? Here is a Guardian leader in 2003 in which French officials complain they are being misquoted:
Both Mr Blair and Mr Straw have blamed France for paralysing diplomacy at the UN by vowing to use their veto to block a second resolution whatever the circumstances. The French insist Mr Chirac was willing to be flexible and is being misquoted deliberately by the British to suit Mr Blair's interests and to disguise his failure to win support of the majority of states on the security council.[14]
Chirac says "dead end" in a separate interview, but it's perfectly clear what he is getting at.
France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until we’ve come [to] a dead end, but that isn’t the case.[15]
My comments above were based on the video clip, not a transcript. In any case, I think it may be misleading to take a single statement of President Chirac as defining France's position over time. I am writing from personal recollection rather than research, but I believe this statement came rather late in the process. As I recall, it seemed to be meant in part to revise France's position to appear more reasonable, responding to criticism that France had been unequivocal in opposing military force. I don't mind editing, but I think relying on a single statement, however authoritative, would be misleading. Here's are a couple of usefulsources.
Again, speaking from recollection, I think France's position was seen as uncompromising - that there were effectively no circumstances under which France would approve a UN resolution authorizing the use of force. Rather than impeding the Bush Administration from attacking Iraq, France's position gave the Administration the excuse it needed to bypass the Security Council. In the politics of the day, rather than impeding the use of force, France enabled it. By the way, I agree (and agreed at the time) with France's formal position that the inspections were working and should be given more time. NPguy (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the quote above (with the number 13 reference) stating they weren't willing to use force was the way I believe France stood at the time. I included it and it was more relevant than one might think because the joint resolution stated:
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
The Statement by Blix about Iraq's cooperation coming with conditions and not immediate was taken by us as determining a breach of UN1441,and Blix himself stated on Jan 27 that 1441 was Saddam's "final opportunity for peaceful disarmment".(IMO) Chirac's position at that time was obstructionary, the posittion of the security council should have been as it was before Desert Storm, but it was divided due to each having personal fortunes involved- France, Russia and China having lucrative drilling contracts about to be realized, the US not willing to risk the loss of its middle east dominance and dollar hedgemony. Batvette (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where was the threat to U.S. national security and where was the resolution authorizing the usage of force? Or it was "the US not willing to risk the loss of its middle east dominance and dollar hedgemony"? That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very different from Saddam Hussein nuking the United States with fictional uranium from Africa I'm sorry, I couldn't find that in the sole document the US presented to detail the justifications for the war.[16] Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports- perhaps you are from a region of the world where your transportation needs are fulfilled by livestock or rail? That's what that "national security" thingy alludes to. Batvette (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, most US grade school children are taught in Social Studies that it is vital to our economy and our way of life for us to maintain relative security in the middle east due to our dependence on petroleum exports": Odd that the words petroleum, economy, and transportation occur no where within the declaration you cite while the word weapon occurs 17 times and the word nuclear occurs 4 times, specifically with the warning that "Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated".
^"De-classified Report"(PDF). House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. June 21, 2006. Retrieved 2006-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
