The latest gem from Rumsfeld

[Durandal]

Let's get something straight: No matter what sort of weapons he has lying around, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy. He is a megalomaniacal psychopath who I wouldn't trust with a 22-cal air pistol, let alone what was once the number two armed forces in the Middle East (after Israel).

There are a lot of those kinds of people in positions of power -- Columbian drug lords, Chinese sweatshop owners, et cetera. What would you have us do? Go after them all? What's so special about Hussein when compared to all these other assholes in the world?

Hussein was the only one who went to war with the president's dad.

[Malecoda]

thank you, well said

Woah runaway thread

1: Regardless of the 11 122mm empty rockets found, they are hardly material breach- Iraq originally had 300 of them, all destroyed, no one can seriously claim that this 11 empty Grad rockets is somehow evidence of an ongoing WMD program.

2: Regardless of this latest development, it in no way justifies Rumsfelds stupidity. Basically what he was trying to do was

a: If we can't find WMD, it's evidence
b: If we can find WMD, it's evidence

Does anyone see the problem here? It was a fucking inane, stupid thing to say.

[Stormbringer]

All right, personally, I can see why the "Let's go to war with Iraq" camp would want Hussein to provide proof that he isn't running a weapons program. Hussein is not exactly a trustworthy individual, and his non-compliance in the past only makes things worse.

This does not, however, eliminate the logical fallacy in the situation. It's literally impossible for Hussein to satisfy the "prove you're not doing it" challenge because it gives no limits. That's at the heart of why proving a negative is fallacious. What if Hussein begins complying 100% with the weapons inspectors, and they find nothing? Shrub and Rummy could use this idiotic proof of a negative scheme to keep these searches going forever. At what point do Bush and Rummy become satisfied that Iraq is doing nothing illegal?

I have my misgiving about any possible war, especially when we still don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick in front of the Capitol. But I think Hussien is a dangerous nut.

Saddam needs to take reasonable steps to prove that he doesn't have WMD. We have very good reasons to believe he has them and he needs to disprove that. He doesn't have to offer absolute proof but he does have to comply. He flat out hasn't.

What Bush and Co. will do if Saddam really does cooperate is a another debate entirely.

[phongn]

Then why hasn't the states marched into Rwanda to stop the attrocities there...whoops, they have no oil!

One, they have abetted.

When they were slaughtering each other of course.

If you would kindly mention how theUS would be able to stage into Rwanda (a landlocked nation with surrounding countries that aren't the best of friends with the US), I'm all ears.

[phongn]

Let's get something straight: No matter what sort of weapons he has lying around, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy. He is a megalomaniacal psychopath who I wouldn't trust with a 22-cal air pistol, let alone what was once the number two armed forces in the Middle East (after Israel).

There are a lot of those kinds of people in positions of power -- Columbian drug lords, Chinese sweatshop owners, et cetera. What would you have us do? Go after them all? What's so special about Hussein when compared to all these other assholes in the world?

None of those are in charge of nation-states, or have the capability to destabilize a region (via WMD threat) with critical importance to the United States.

As much as I would prefer to go after Columbian drug lords, I doubt their government would allow us to do something like in Clear and Present Danger. And as much as I dislike the Chinese sweatshop owners, what do you want to do - send in the CIA and "take care of them? "

The situations are hardly analogous, Damien.

[Malecoda]

All right, personally, I can see why the "Let's go to war with Iraq" camp would want Hussein to provide proof that he isn't running a weapons program. Hussein is not exactly a trustworthy individual, and his non-compliance in the past only makes things worse.

This does not, however, eliminate the logical fallacy in the situation. It's literally impossible for Hussein to satisfy the "prove you're not doing it" challenge because it gives no limits. That's at the heart of why proving a negative is fallacious. What if Hussein begins complying 100% with the weapons inspectors, and they find nothing? Shrub and Rummy could use this idiotic proof of a negative scheme to keep these searches going forever. At what point do Bush and Rummy become satisfied that Iraq is doing nothing illegal?

I have my misgiving about any possible war, especially when we still don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick in front of the Capitol. But I think Hussien is a dangerous nut.

Saddam needs to take reasonable steps to prove that he doesn't have WMD. We have very good reasons to believe he has them and he needs to disprove that. He doesn't have to offer absolute proof but he does have to comply. He flat out hasn't.

What Bush and Co. will do if Saddam really does cooperate is a another debate entirely.

Nothing will appease them. They want this war and it's gg to go on and on and on.

[ArthurDent]

You are saying that it is best for America if you invade Iraq and monopolize the oil industry. Yet, the fact is, you already do monopolize the oil industry with OPEC.

Really? You mean that we're pulling the strings under the table or that OPEC realized after the 70s embargo that they need us to buy their oil at stable prices?

It is in OPEC's best interests to keep Americans (notice I say the people, not the government) content with the price of their fuel lest they decide to buy alternative fuel products, or simply not buy more fuel than they absolutely have too. Of course they also have to remember that there are large, untapped deposits of oil under US soil and in our territorial waters, not to mention the Gulf of Mexico. If OPEC pushes too hard, it will create a demand for the development of those fields, and as a result we will grow even less dependant on their oil.

Quite frankly I think we should speed research into vehicles that don't need petroleum fuels, then develop the needed infrastructure to support those new vehicles, thus eliminating our need for their product. Then they can fight each other all they want and we can sit on the sidelines and watch.

As for Iraq's oil, it should be controlled by the new government of Iraq.

[ArthurDent]

Shrub and Rummy could use this idiotic proof of a negative scheme to keep these searches going forever. At what point do Bush and Rummy become satisfied that Iraq is doing nothing illegal?

When Iraq comes into full compliance with resolution 1441. You should read it, and the resolutions it refers to, especially 687.

The fact is that resolution 1441 states very clearly that Iraq is in breech and has this one last chance to come in line, or face military force. It's quite simple, although it does seem to elude some of you.

[Durandal]

Let's get something straight: No matter what sort of weapons he has lying around, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy. He is a megalomaniacal psychopath who I wouldn't trust with a 22-cal air pistol, let alone what was once the number two armed forces in the Middle East (after Israel).

There are a lot of those kinds of people in positions of power -- Columbian drug lords, Chinese sweatshop owners, et cetera. What would you have us do? Go after them all? What's so special about Hussein when compared to all these other assholes in the world?

None of those are in charge of nation-states, or have the capability to destabilize a region (via WMD threat) with critical importance to the United States.

As much as I would prefer to go after Columbian drug lords, I doubt their government would allow us to do something like in Clear and Present Danger. And as much as I dislike the Chinese sweatshop owners, what do you want to do - send in the CIA and "take care of them? "

The situations are hardly analogous, Damien.

Of course not, but BenRG made it seem like we should go after Saddam just because he's a bad guy. We've got bigger fish to fry at home, and even if Saddam does have weapons of mass-destruction, we're well out of the range they would have. He would be more troublesome to his neighbors.

I have my misgiving about any possible war, especially when we still don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick in front of the Capitol. But I think Hussien is a dangerous nut.

Saddam needs to take reasonable steps to prove that he doesn't have WMD. We have very good reasons to believe he has them and he needs to disprove that. He doesn't have to offer absolute proof but he does have to comply. He flat out hasn't.

That's a simply preposterous demand to make, even of a brutal dictator. Again, how the fuck is he supposed to prove a negative? "Very good reason to believe" isn't evidence in the form of a chemical weapon. It's suspicion and claimsmaking. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence of the claim.

When will Shrub be satisfied? He can't prove he doesn't have weapons of mass-destruction anymore than he can prove that he doesn't have a clone army hidden away somewhere. The basic problem here is that, no matter what the UN inspectors find or don't find, Shrub has come to a preordained conclusion that they do have weapons of mass-destruction hidden away somewhere. If they find nothing, Shrub will simply say that that's evidence that Iraq is really good at hiding their weapons. This whole fucking ordeal is based on fallacious thinking. Saddam's noncompliance isn't proof of guilt anymore than my refusal to allow a police officer to search my home without a warrant is proof of guilt.

Everything boils down to this: We don't have a single shred of direct evidence that Iraq has an ongoing weapons program. We have circumstantial suspicions based mostly in fear and Hussein's less-than-cooperative stance.

What Bush and Co. will do if Saddam really does cooperate is a another debate entirely.

That's easy. They'll just claim that the fact that they found nothing is proof that Hussein is hiding the weapons "really goodly," as the president would probably say.

[Stormbringer]

I have my misgiving about any possible war, especially when we still don't have Bin Laden's head on a stick in front of the Capitol. But I think Hussien is a dangerous nut.

Saddam needs to take reasonable steps to prove that he doesn't have WMD. We have very good reasons to believe he has them and he needs to disprove that. He doesn't have to offer absolute proof but he does have to comply. He flat out hasn't.

That's a simply preposterous demand to make, even of a brutal dictator. Again, how the fuck is he supposed to prove a negative? "Very good reason to believe" isn't evidence in the form of a chemical weapon. It's suspicion and claimsmaking. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence of the claim.

When will Shrub be satisfied? He can't prove he doesn't have weapons of mass-destruction anymore than he can prove that he doesn't have a clone army hidden away somewhere. The basic problem here is that, no matter what the UN inspectors find or don't find, Shrub has come to a preordained conclusion that they do have weapons of mass-destruction hidden away somewhere. If they find nothing, Shrub will simply say that that's evidence that Iraq is really good at hiding their weapons. This whole fucking ordeal is based on fallacious thinking. Saddam's noncompliance isn't proof of guilt anymore than my refusal to allow a police officer to search my home without a warrant is proof of guilt.

One of my misgiving is the handling of it. I do think that's what Bush is doing, that doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't have to cooperate.

However we know he has made WMD and now he's required to cooperate and help prove that he does not have them any more. And the fact that he isn't cooperating fully does suggest that he's got something to hide. A genuinely innocent man wouldn't evade and avoid like he has.

[Sea Skimmer]

Let's get something straight: No matter what sort of weapons he has lying around, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy. He is a megalomaniacal psychopath who I wouldn't trust with a 22-cal air pistol, let alone what was once the number two armed forces in the Middle East (after Israel).

There are a lot of those kinds of people in positions of power -- Columbian drug lords, Chinese sweatshop owners, et cetera. What would you have us do? Go after them all? What's so special about Hussein when compared to all these other assholes in the world?

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

[BenRG]

Of course not, but BenRG made it seem like we should go after Saddam just because he's a bad guy.

I don't want to sound picky, but that is exactly the reasons that the US government is putting forwards as their main reason for wanting to attack Iraq.

Look at it this way. The United Kingdom has a small number of nuclear weapons (Trident SLBMs and the free-fall units that our Tornado strike fighters can carry). We also have a pretty advanced chemical/biological weapons lab at Porton Down. Why is the US not advocating inspections of our WMDs? It is quite simple. They (mostly) trust the British government not to use them except as a last resort. On the other hand, the argument is that Mr. Hussein will use them as soon as he has them. It isn't the WMDs that is the problem, it is whose finger is on the trigger.

Personally, I really think it was time that America and its' western allies started removing all the upleasent little warlords and dictators that it put into power. It is our fault that those monkeys are in a position of power. It is our responsibility to get rid of them.

[Durandal]

One of my misgiving is the handling of it. I do think that's what Bush is doing, that doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't have to cooperate.

Of course not, but it doesn't give Shrub free reign to make all the wild assumptions he wants.

However we know he has made WMD and now he's required to cooperate and help prove that he does not have them any more. And the fact that he isn't cooperating fully does suggest that he's got something to hide. A genuinely innocent man wouldn't evade and avoid like he has.

The problem is that we don't know what he's hiding or how much of a threat it presents. Without knowing the degree, there's no way we can formulate an appropriate response. I can't really see a solution to this problem, to be honest. I can't blame people for just wanting to invade the country, but it hasn't been established whether he's a threat to us or not.

[Stormbringer]

One of my misgiving is the handling of it. I do think that's what Bush is doing, that doesn't mean that Saddam shouldn't have to cooperate.

Of course not, but it doesn't give Shrub free reign to make all the wild assumptions he wants.

That's one thing I have serious misgivings about. But that does not mean we should let Saddam off the hook.

However we know he has made WMD and now he's required to cooperate and help prove that he does not have them any more. And the fact that he isn't cooperating fully does suggest that he's got something to hide. A genuinely innocent man wouldn't evade and avoid like he has.

The problem is that we don't know what he's hiding or how much of a threat it presents. Without knowing the degree, there's no way we can formulate an appropriate response. I can't really see a solution to this problem, to be honest. I can't blame people for just wanting to invade the country, but it hasn't been established whether he's a threat to us or not.

That's exactly what we have. If Saddam is pulling shit the bombs fall how is this different than the substance of the Bush Plan as it is now? Force Saddam to cooperate and satisfy the international community or invade.

[The Dark]

You are saying that it is best for America if you invade Iraq and monopolize the oil industry. Yet, the fact is, you already do monopolize the oil industry with OPEC.

Really? You mean that we're pulling the strings under the table or that OPEC realized after the 70s embargo that they need us to buy their oil at stable prices?

It is in OPEC's best interests to keep Americans (notice I say the people, not the government) content with the price of their fuel lest they decide to buy alternative fuel products, or simply not buy more fuel than they absolutely have too. Of course they also have to remember that there are large, untapped deposits of oil under US soil and in our territorial waters, not to mention the Gulf of Mexico. If OPEC pushes too hard, it will create a demand for the development of those fields, and as a result we will grow even less dependant on their oil.

Quite frankly I think we should speed research into vehicles that don't need petroleum fuels, then develop the needed infrastructure to support those new vehicles, thus eliminating our need for their product. Then they can fight each other all they want and we can sit on the sidelines and watch.

As a near-term alternative, we should also seek out oil from other sources. Russia has asked for assistance in rebuilding their pipelines; given Putin and Bush's friendship (assuming it's not all PR BS), we should be able to make an arrangement to obtain oil from Russia. I doubt our military will be weaned off oil for quite some time. It's needed for most of our naval ships, all ground vehicles I can think of, and most (if not all) aircraft (don't remember what Predator and Global Hawk use, whether they're ICEs or batteries). While alternative energy is a long-term alternative, in the short-to-mid-term we need to find other sources of oil.

As for Iraq's oil, it should be controlled by the new government of Iraq.

Of course. All nations should have the right to full and complete autonomy, given that they assume the responsibility of participating in the world stage in a fair and even-handed matter. Personally, I feel the United States does not really deserve autonomy under those criteria, but ethical ideals have a nasty tendency to not hold up in the real world.

[Ted]

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

Only because you are bombing him and shooting him with missiles.

What would the US do if someone bombed them? And continued to bomb them?

Sit there and watch the bombers come over and release more bombs?

Fuck no, they'd shoot down the planes.

[Falcon]

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

Only because you are bombing him and shooting him with missiles.

What would the US do if someone bombed them? And continued to bomb them?

Sit there and watch the bombers come over and release more bombs?

Fuck no, they'd shoot down the planes.

Maybe because we won the war, he signed the treaty, and now he isn't holding up his end of the bargin?

[Stuart Mackey]

ArthurDent, thank you for providing the inevitable injection of legalistic long-windedness.

Since we know that the US always respects UN declarations 100% of the time (except when it suits them *cough cough*), their motivations are now officially pure again.

Thank the UN Security Council since I quoted from their document. But the fact remains that Iraq remains in material breach until it proves that it is not. Its very simple, except to those with their own agenda who ignore the actual facts.

Or perhaps you have not heard of innocent until proven guilty.
The US claims that Iraq has WMD in breach of UN resolutions, it is up to the US to prove it.

[Stuart Mackey]

Inspectors Find Undeclared Iraq Warheads

By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 16, 2003; 2:04 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq –– U.N. inspectors on Thursday found 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition at an ammunition storage area where they were inspecting bunkers built in the late 1990s, a U.N. spokesman reported. They had not previously been declared by Iraq.

A 12th warhead, also of a 122 mm, was found that requires further evaluation, according to the statement by Hiro Ueki, the spokesman for U.N. weapons inspectors in Baghdad.

"It was a discovery. They were not declared," Ueki told The Associated Press.

© 2003 The Associated Press

The key word, used by the UN spokesman, is Undeclared.

Please show where they found the undedeclared WMD.

[Vympel]

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

You fogot to add in the illegal no-fly zones, not sanctioned by the UN, certainly never accepted by Iraq in treaty, and whose non-existent legal stance is admitted by the US when they don't take it to the Security Council, because everyone in the UN knows they're full of shit.

The reasoning applied to the no-fly zones is patently ridiculous. The US asserts that they're legal because in their opinion (no one else's of course) every member of the UN has the right to unilaterally enforce one of the UN's resolutions, even when there is no UN resolution that establishes the no-fly zones, and the resolution they use is a UN resolution 'urging protection' of the Kurds and Iraqi opposition.

If we applied the same bullshit reasoning to say, Israel, then Egypt could bomb the shit out of Israel because of the resolutions the UN has made about the Palestinians and say that Israel firing back was an act of war!

[Vympel]

Maybe because we won the war, he signed the treaty, and now he isn't holding up his end of the bargin?

STFU dumbass. You repeat this bullshit on every Iraq thread, and for the umpteenth time I'm going to call you out and demand where it says in the treaty that the US can establish no-fly zones over Iraq's own territory.

[Falcon]

Maybe because we won the war, he signed the treaty, and now he isn't holding up his end of the bargin?

STFU dumbass. You repeat this bullshit on every Iraq thread, and for the umpteenth time I'm going to call you out and demand where it says in the treaty that the US can establish no-fly zones over Iraq's own territory.

That particular thing wasn't in a treaty, nor does it need to be, we have the ability to do it as the victor. Thats how this whole 'war' thing works, you win you get to do virtually whatever you want to the looser.

btw, sry if 'treaty' looked like 'no fly zone treaty' to your nit picking mind. Treaty as in 'cease-fire' ie Saddam looses...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

He's actively shooting at us with missiles and guns.

You fogot to add in the illegal no-fly zones, not sanctioned by the UN, certainly never accepted by Iraq in treaty, and whose non-existent legal stance is admitted by the US when they don't take it to the Security Council, because everyone in the UN knows they're full of shit.

The reasoning applied to the no-fly zones is patently ridiculous. The US asserts that they're legal because in their opinion (no one else's of course) every member of the UN has the right to unilaterally enforce one of the UN's resolutions, even when there is no UN resolution that establishes the no-fly zones, and the resolution they use is a UN resolution 'urging protection' of the Kurds and Iraqi opposition.

That's totally reasonable. The UN has no right to be the final arbiter of International Law; only Nation States can be. The UN is just a place for Nation States to discuss the drafting of Internation Law. Any pretension the UN has to arbitrate International Law is just an indication of power-grabbing from traditional rights of Nation States on its part.

Saddam is in violation of the cease-fire ending the Second Persian Gulf War, and in fact, the Second Persian Gulf War never having ended, we are currently at war with Iraq.

If we applied the same bullshit reasoning to say, Israel, then Egypt could bomb the shit out of Israel because of the resolutions the UN has made about the Palestinians and say that Israel firing back was an act of war!

Well, in theory the Egyptians could. The fact that the UN resolutions in regard to Israel have never been enforced, however, proves that they are worthless pieces of paper, which is really quite excellent; that's exactly what they should be. Worthless pieces of paper which only have strength when the world hegemon decides to give them strength.

Indeed, the embargo against Iraq is really a form of economic warfare against the Iraqi Republic. The war hasn't ended and we have every reason to escalate it back to a level of full armed conflict and end the regional threat that Iraq poses.


Read this, Vympel:

Resolution 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting on
April 3, 1991
The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990, 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 and 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991,

Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government,

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),

Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Taking note of the letter sent by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq on 27 February 1991 and those sent pursuant to resolution 686 (1991),

Noting that Iraq and Kuwait, as independent sovereign States, signed at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", thereby recognizing formally the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and the allocation of islands, which were registered with the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations and in which Iraq recognized the independence and complete sovereignty of the State of Kuwait within its borders as specified and accepted in the letter of the Prime Minister of Iraq dated 21 July 1932, and as accepted by the Ruler of Kuwait in his letter dated 10 August 1932,

Conscious of the need for demarcation of the said boundary,

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons,

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention,

Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

Recalling the objective of the establishment of a nuclear- weapons-free zone in the region of the Middle East,

Conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons,

Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,

Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means, including a dialogue among the States of the region,

Noting that resolution 686 (1991) marked the lifting of the measures imposed by resolution 661 (1990) in so far as they applied to Kuwait,

Noting that despite the progress being made in fulfilling the obligations of resolution 686 (1991), many Kuwaiti and third country nationals are still not accounted for and property remains unreturned,

Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of international terrorism,

Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

Taking note with grave concern of the reports of the Secretary-General of 20 March 1991 and 28 March 1991, and conscious of the necessity to meet urgently the humanitarian needs in Kuwait and Iraq,

Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council,

Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire:


A
2. Demands that Iraq and Kuwait respect the inviolability of the international boundary and the allocation of islands set out in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964;

3. Calls upon the Secretary-General to lend his assistance to make arrangements with Iraq and Kuwait to demarcate the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait, drawing on appropriate material, including the map transmitted by Security Council document S/22412 and to report back to the Security Council within one month;

4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;


B
5. Requests the Secretary-General, after consulting with Iraq and Kuwait, to submit within three days to the Security Council for its approval a plan for the immediate deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the Khor Abdullah and a demilitarized zone, which is hereby established, extending ten kilometres into Iraq and five kilometres into Kuwait from the boundary referred to in the "Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters" of 4 October 1963;

to deter violations of the boundary through its presence in and surveillance of the demilitarized zone; to observe any hostile or potentially hostile action mounted from the territory of one State to the other; and for the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Security Council on the operations of the unit, and immediately if there are serious violations of the zone or potential threats to peace;

6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);


C
7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;
8. Decides that shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:


All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:


Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 (b) above;

The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Special Commission, to develop a plan for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with this paragraph. to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of this resolution;

11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968;

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9

(b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9

(b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency to confirm that the Agency's safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution;

14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons:


D
15. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the steps taken to facilitate the return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, including a list of any property that Kuwait claims has not been returned or which has not been returned intact;

E
16. Reaffirms that Iraq, without prejudice to the debts and obligations of Iraq arising prior to 2 August 1990, which will be addressed through the normal mechanisms, is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait;

17. Decides that all Iraqi statements made since 2 August 1990 repudiating its foreign debt are null and void, and demands that Iraq adhere scrupulously to all of its obligations concerning servicing and repayment of its foreign debt;

18. Decides also to create a fund to pay compensation for claims that fall within paragraph 16 above and to establish a Commission that will administer the fund;

19. Directs the Secretary-General to develop and present to the Security Council for decision, no later than thirty days following the adoption of the present resolution, recommendations for the fund to meet the requirement for the programme to implement the decisions in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 above, including: administration of the fund; mechanisms for determining the appropriate level of Iraq's contribution to the fund based on a percentage of the value of the exports of petroleum and petroleum products from Iraq not to exceed a figure to be suggested to the Council by the Secretary-General, taking into account the requirements of the people of Iraq, Iraq's payment capacity as assessed in conjunction with the international financial institutions taking into consideration external debt service, and the needs of the Iraqi economy;
arrangements for ensuring that payments are made to the fund; the process by which funds will be allocated and claims paid; appropriate procedures for evaluating losses, listing claims and verifying their validity and resolving disputed claims in respect of Iraq's liability as specified in paragraph 16 above; and the composition of the Commission designated above.


F
20. Decides, effective immediately, that the prohibitions against the sale or supply to Iraq of commodities or products, other than medicine and health supplies, and prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall not apply to foodstuffs notified to the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait or, with the approval of that Committee, under the simplified and accelerated "no-objection" procedure, to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs as identified in the report of the Secretary-General dated 20 March 19919, and in any further findings of humanitarian need by the Committee;

21. Decides that the Security Council shall review the provisions of paragraph 20 above every sixty days in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council, for the purpose of determining whether to reduce or lift the prohibitions referred to therein;

22. Decides that upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

23. Decides that, pending action by the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990) shall be empowered to approve, when required to assure adequate financial resources on the part of Iraq to carry out the activities under paragraph 20 above, exceptions to the prohibition against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq;

24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security Council, all States shall continue to prevent the scale or supply, or the promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals, or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:


Arms and related matérial of all types, specifically including the sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components and their means of production, for such equipment;

Items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above not otherwise covered above;

Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

Personnel or materials for training or technical support services relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;

25. Calls upon all States and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with paragraph 24 above, notwithstanding the existence of any contracts, agreements, licenses of any other arrangements;

26. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with appropriate Governments, to develop within sixty days, for the approval of the security Council, guidelines to facilitate full international implementation of paragraphs 24 and 25 above and paragraph 27 below, and to make them available to all States and to establish a procedure for updating these guidelines periodically;

27. Calls upon all States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Security Council under paragraph 26 above as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24 above, and calls upon international organizations to take all appropriate steps to assist in ensuring such full compliance;

28. Agrees to review its decisions in paragraphs 22,23,24 and 25 above, except for the items specified and defined in paragraphs 8 and 12 above, on a regular basis and in any case one hundred and twenty days following passage of the present resolution, taking into account Iraq's compliance with the resolution and general progress towards the control of armaments in the region;

29. Decides that all States, including Iraq, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Government of Iraq, or of any person or body in Iraq, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 661 (1990) and related resolutions;


G
30. Decides that, in furtherance of its commitment to facilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals, Iraq shall extend all necessary cooperation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, providing lists of such persons, facilitating the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to all such persons wherever located or detained and facilitating the search by the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Kuwaiti and third country nationals still unaccounted for;

31. Invites the International Committee of the Red Cross to keep the Secretary-General apprised as appropriate of all activities undertaken in connection with facilitating the repatriation or return of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990;


H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

If Iraq violates these terms, a state of war exists between every single coalition member, and the Republic of Iraq! It doesn't matter if Iraq has to prove a negative or not. This isn't philosophy school or a debate club. It's international law, and the terms are laid out and fixed in the UN Resolution I just posted.

If Iraq has broken any of those terms, no matter in how trivial of a fashion, it is not even casus belli; for, rather, the State of War still exists. It is simply that the cease fire has been violated, and thus armed conflict has resumed. It's as simple as that.

[Andrew J.]

Strange, I thought the US never declared war officially against Iraq.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Strange, I thought the US never declared war officially against Iraq.

No, it didn't. However, the Security Council authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait, and all the nations which operated militarily under that resolution were at war with Iraq according to the terms of that resolution. A cease-fire ended the war, the terms of which I have listed, which was between Iraq and every single nation enforce the UN Security Council's resolution.

Iraqi violation of the cease-fire resumes the war, against every single one of those nations, technically.

Furthermore, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently said in its opinion on the case regarding the detention of US Citizens as "Enemy Combatants" that the USA is in fact currently in a State of War.

If SCOTUS upholds that opinion, it would be tantamount to interpeting the constitution as saying that any congressional vote giving the President the power to use military force, not just a formal declaration of War, is constitutionally equivlant to a declaration of War.