Question regarding Saddam violating Resolution 1441

[Shinova]

Has he violated it? Or has he not?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Has he violated it? Or has he not?

Oh, it's unquestionable he's violated it. It's just that to get the French to sign it in the first place, the wording was vague - So it's uncertain as to if a second resolution is needed or not. French say yes, USA says no, and depending on who rents the lawyer the opinion varies as well. That's law for you.

[Dahak]

Two lawyers, three opinions

But the wording really is essential.

[theski]

Yes, Please see Paragraph 3 in 1441 it is clear on what is to be expected from the Iraqies. Make up your own mind..-

[Lord Pounder]

THis is typical of the French goverment. They convientantly ignore they fact that the treaty is broken. They ignore they fact that the French themselves have taken exactly the same actions in the past. I seem to remember that just after WW1 was over the French invaded the Rhineland for similar reasons.

[neoolong]

THis is typical of the French goverment. They convientantly ignore they fact that the treaty is broken. They ignore they fact that the French themselves have taken exactly the same actions in the past. I seem to remember that just after WW1 was over the French invaded the Rhineland for similar reasons.

Didn't they also take over the Ruhr because Germany didn't cough up enough reparations?

[Lord Pounder]

That was the one, the Rhur coal fields.

[Zoink]

The problem with Resolution 1441:

The resolution calls for inspections. Material breaches are reported to the security council for "assessment". The assessment doesn't have to be war. Given what they found so far, France/Germany/Russia/China want inspection to continue, they don't want war yet. Given what the U.S. has seen so far, it wants war. The Resolution allows for "serious consequences", but doesn't say what that is, nor does it require serious consequences in response to every difficulty.

The U.S. wants a new resolution that spells out war. This probably won't pass because it doesn't support inspections (what France/Germany/Russia/China originally signed on for). Its basically a statement saying the U.S. position is right. Canada suggested, and now Pakistan and various other countries have suggested an extended version, of a 45 day inspection period, with specific goals and targets, that would call for war at the end of the 45 days if these goals and targets are met.

The benifit of this resolution is that its no longer the U.S. simply deciding for war, but comparing actions versus an agreed checklist to determine war. Blix says he can have Iraq disarmed in a few months. France might go along with this.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Academic masterbation.

All that matters is that Bush thinks the Iraqis are in violation, and intendes to DO something about it.

All else is political jockying, to help out our allies.

If NO other country was with us, we would still do the same, only it would already have happened.

I personaly believe he was in violation the day the report came out.
The wording was just loose enough to give this pig some lipstick
The entire UN escapade is bad theater.

[Enlightenment]

If NO other country was with us, we would still do the same, only it would already have happened.

If no other country was with you, you'd be too busy carving staging areas out of various countries to attack Iraq for a year or more. Basing and overflight rights are rather important when attempting to attack a mostly landlocked country using weapons other than long-range missiles.