new weapon inspectors

[salm]

so the allies want to send in new weapon inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in irak. why don´t the allies want their inspectors to be accompanied by uno inspectors? that would increase their credability a lot.

[salm]

i heard that on the radio so i can´t provide a source.

[Arrow]

Because the hawks don't trust the UN inspectors. Their basically telling the inspectors that since you didn't do your job the first time and withheld information during SC meetings, you don't get a second chance. Politics at work.

[salm]

Because the hawks don't trust the UN inspectors. Their basically telling the inspectors that since you didn't do your job the first time and withheld information during SC meetings, you don't get a second chance. Politics at work.

what informations were withheld? i don´t know anything about that.

and even if they were withheld, why not take them along anyway. it´s not like they´d have to do the job. the only thing they would do is come along to prove that the ami/brit inspectors don´t bring their own wmds. i mean, people are definately not going to believe the american and british inspectors.

[Vympel]

Erm- Arrow I don't know what version of events you're following, butinformation was withheld *on request* of the US. Apart from that, nothing was hidden.

Frankly, I find it amusing that Rumsfeld is all of a sudden saying 'don't have high hopes' about finidng WMD- saying it may take a year even, while having the gall to say inspectors were working slowly 3 months ago. Typical.

Let's take Dubya's little 'list' that he made, for example, the '15,000 litres' of anthrax. Funny, what they didn't mention was that this was a *hypothetical* projection of *future production* at a plant closed down long ago.

Anthrax, chemicals and nerve gas: who is lying?
Growing evidence of deception by Washington
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
20 April 2003


If US and British forces are scratching their heads at their inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, perhaps they should talk to Scott Ritter, the United Nations weapons inspector who famously quit in 1998, after seven years on the job, and has been a controversial figure ever since.

For months, Mr Ritter has said Iraq's capability of producing or deploying chemical or biological weapons was 90-95 per cent destroyed on his watch and was very unlikely to have been built up again under international sanctions and the constant surveillance of spy satellites and US and British war planes.

Iraq's nuclear programme was dismantled at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991, he said, and factories to produce chemical or biological agents deactivated shortly thereafter. Any leftover nerve agents would only have a shelf life of five years and would probably be useless by now. The anthrax and botulism toxin that Iraq produced was never weap-onised and, although it was put into warheads at one point, was no more than harmless sludge that "could only kill you if it landed on your head".

This is the same Scott Ritter who, when he first made these assertions last autumn, was vilified in the US media as "misguided", "disloyal", not to be taken seriously and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein". One cable news host, Curtis Sliwa said on air he was a "sock puppet" who "ought to turn in his passport for an Iraqi one".

Perhaps it's time to give Mr Ritter another chance. It may, in fact, be time to reassess who exactly has been the deceiver and who the dupe in this whole affair. What Mr Ritter and others now allege, with increasing confidence, is a pattern of false information emanating from both Washington and London since last September – lies and distortions that launched a major war and are only now beginning to be widely exposed.

Exhibit number one is a speech Vice President Dick Cheney gave to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last summer. "The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents." he said. "And they continue to pursue the nuclear programme they began so many years ago." Mr Ritter says this is pure fiction.

Mr Cheney attributed his information to high-level defectors, including Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal. Supposedly, Kamal led UN inspectors in 1995 to a chicken farm stuffed with secret documents on ongoing weapons programmes. Actually, according to Mr Ritter, Hussein Kamal told US intelligence that the weapons had been destroyed, and the chicken farm documents subsequently examined by UN inspectors corroborated that.

Exhibit number two is the briefing paper issued by Downing Street on 24 September, which first alleged the purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons use from Niger. The documents indicating this purchase have now been exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency as glaringly obvious fakes.

The timing of the nuclear allegation was crucial in persuading the US Congress to grant President Bush full war powers against Iraq a few weeks later. Several angry congressmen who voted in favour now want to know how and why they were misled.

"This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened," Henry Waxman of California wrote to the President last month. "I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference... The two most obvious explanations – knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence – both have immediate and serious implications."

Exhibit number three is the list of dangerous substances that President Bush and Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, said the Iraqis had not accounted for. Another distortion, according to Mr Ritter. The 15,000 litres of anthrax on the list, for example, was a hypothetical projection of future production at a biological plant that was closed down long ago.

Mr Ritter has not, of course, been vindicated quite yet. US intelligence may really know something, and significant hidden caches of weapons could still materialise. But the pattern of deception and unsubstantiated allegation is unmistakable, even as the political embarrassment for the Bush administration deepens.

[Sea Skimmer]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

[Master of Ossus]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

Moreover, the UN's stated purpose is to prevent wars. The only way they could do that with Iraq was to claim that there were no WoMD there. The same was true with North Korea. The inspectors don't WANT to find WoMD.

[salm]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

it doesn´t matter if you trust them because that´s not the point. the point is the entire world is not going to trust the usa/british inspectors.
that´s why it would make sense to take along some inspectors which other nations can trust.

do you think that anyone besides a couple of americans and brits are going to believe the brit/ami inspectors? the allies are under pressure of finding some wmds to justify the war. if they don´t they might just smuggle in some of their own wmd´s and declare them illegal iraki weapons.

[salm]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

Moreover, the UN's stated purpose is to prevent wars. The only way they could do that with Iraq was to claim that there were no WoMD there. The same was true with North Korea. The inspectors don't WANT to find WoMD.

all right, then what´s the problem with sending both of them in? the amis/brits WANT to find them the UN dont want to find them. if they go in together we might find out the truth.

[Master of Ossus]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

it doesn´t matter if you trust them because that´s not the point. the point is the entire world is not going to trust the usa/british inspectors.
that´s why it would make sense to take along some inspectors which other nations can trust.

do you think that anyone besides a couple of americans and brits are going to believe the brit/ami inspectors? the allies are under pressure of finding some wmds to justify the war. if they don´t they might just smuggle in some of their own wmd´s and declare them illegal iraki weapons.

The US and British don't HAVE enough chemical and biological weapons to make the case. The US has already found small quantities of WoMD designed for training purposes (ie. a couple of vials), but that's obviously not the stockpiles they claimed earlier. The problem for them is that the US and Britain don't have enough chemical or biological weapons to convince anybody, and it's ludicrous to try to pass off American or British nuclear arms as being Iraqi in origin.

[Xon]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

Thats sig material!

[Sea Skimmer]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

it doesn´t matter if you trust them because that´s not the point. the point is the entire world is not going to trust the usa/british inspectors.
that´s why it would make sense to take along some inspectors which other nations can trust.

do you think that anyone besides a couple of americans and brits are going to believe the brit/ami inspectors? the allies are under pressure of finding some wmds to justify the war. if they don´t they might just smuggle in some of their own wmd´s and declare them illegal iraki weapons.

I don't care what the worlds wants to belive, and if UN inspectors return and find somthing then the same people will claim its just becuase the US had time to plant it.

[salm]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

it doesn´t matter if you trust them because that´s not the point. the point is the entire world is not going to trust the usa/british inspectors.
that´s why it would make sense to take along some inspectors which other nations can trust.

do you think that anyone besides a couple of americans and brits are going to believe the brit/ami inspectors? the allies are under pressure of finding some wmds to justify the war. if they don´t they might just smuggle in some of their own wmd´s and declare them illegal iraki weapons.

The US and British don't HAVE enough chemical and biological weapons to make the case. The US has already found small quantities of WoMD designed for training purposes (ie. a couple of vials), but that's obviously not the stockpiles they claimed earlier. The problem for them is that the US and Britain don't have enough chemical or biological weapons to convince anybody, and it's ludicrous to try to pass off American or British nuclear arms as being Iraqi in origin.

ok, that doesn´t matter either, because people won´t believe that.

now could you stop evading my question and try to answer it? what´s the problem with being accompanied by UN inspectors? let´s say they´ve got nothing to say, they simply go a long as whitnesses.

[salm]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

it doesn´t matter if you trust them because that´s not the point. the point is the entire world is not going to trust the usa/british inspectors.
that´s why it would make sense to take along some inspectors which other nations can trust.

do you think that anyone besides a couple of americans and brits are going to believe the brit/ami inspectors? the allies are under pressure of finding some wmds to justify the war. if they don´t they might just smuggle in some of their own wmd´s and declare them illegal iraki weapons.

I don't care what the worlds wants to belive

ok, then you´re pretty much irrelevant for this debate because this thread is based on the assumption that people actually give a shit about their countrie´s image.

[Sea Skimmer]

ok, then you´re pretty much irrelevant for this debate because this thread is based on the assumption that people actually give a shit about their countrie´s image.

Next time don't ignore the rest of my post moron, as it explains exactly why I don't care. In this the US and UK can't win, so we might as well keep the UN away and save the trouble of it.

[salm]

ok, then you´re pretty much irrelevant for this debate because this thread is based on the assumption that people actually give a shit about their countrie´s image.

Next time don't ignore the rest of my post moron, as it explains exactly why I don't care. In this the US and UK can't win, so we might as well keep the UN away and save the trouble of it.

that´s bullshit, dumbass! a majority is going to believe it if the UN comes along. nobody´s going to believe it if it´s a usa/uk only mission.

[Stormbringer]

ok, then you´re pretty much irrelevant for this debate because this thread is based on the assumption that people actually give a shit about their countrie´s image.

Next time don't ignore the rest of my post moron, as it explains exactly why I don't care. In this the US and UK can't win, so we might as well keep the UN away and save the trouble of it.

that´s bullshit, dumbass! a majority is going to believe it if the UN comes along. nobody´s going to believe it if it´s a usa/uk only mission.

No, they probably won't. And the ones that would believe probably wouldn't acknowledge it for political reasons. I think we should allow them in but frankly we'll get nailed one way or the other.

[Axis Kast]

According to 'Strategy & Tactics' Magazine's issue #208 (published for Nov/Dec 2001), Saddam was in possession of the following immediately after weapons inspectors left in 1998:

"[...] At the time of their final departure from the country, the UN inspectors had drawn up a list of WMD agents and weapons known to already exist in Iraq that had never been located. That list includes 17 tons of biological growth media, 4,000 tonns of chemical warfare munitions of various types, 50 to 100 Al-Husseni missiles (range out to 400 miles), and 20 Scud-B (185 miles) missiles."

That from an article written by Ty Bamba, also published in 'Command Magazine'. Both pieces are entitled, 'Back to Iraq?'

So what do you make of this? Did Hans Blix locate each of the items listed above? If not, what do you believe happened to them?

[Illuminatus Primus]

That's great Kast, but if they weren't caught or destroyed--where are they now?

[Uraniun235]

Didn't Iraq shoot off some Scuds during this latest operation? Wouldn't that already prove they had forbidden weapons?

[Alex Moon]

Didn't Iraq shoot off some Scuds during this latest operation? Wouldn't that already prove they had forbidden weapons?

Last I had heard, they weren't sure what the missles fire were.

[Graeme Dice]

UN Inspectors certified North Korea as nuclear free, exactly why should be trust them?

Maybe because at the time North Korea wasn't building nuclear weapons.

[Axis Kast]

That's great Kast, but if they weren't caught or destroyed--where are they now?

Hidden. Buried. Lost. Found. Destroyed. Take your pick. It’s a combination of the five, most likely.

Within the space of eight years, some of the culture doubtless died. Chemical or biological compounds would have degraded – especially while on the movie during, before, and after the last round of inspections in 1998. A fair number of the missiles would have ceased to work; some cannibalized for parts and others – like the al-Samouds – destroyed under UNMOVIC’s supervision just prior to the Coalition invasion. A handful Hussein might have destroyed himself, wary of their being found.

Others were disseminated during that same period. Baghdad is home to sprawling catacombs. In a city of five million – and a desert nation the size of California -, it could be months before anything turns up, most likely by accident. Assuming Hussein distributed them among territorial commands, items could be strewn across the country. Like the SCUD missile launchers – rumored to have survived Desert Storm -, mobile laboratories are probably somewhere underground. South Africa hid a pair of gargantuan subterranean boreholes and a nuclear test range in the Kalahari Desert for two years before being found out. You think Iraq can't do the same?

[Master of Ossus]

Didn't Iraq shoot off some Scuds during this latest operation? Wouldn't that already prove they had forbidden weapons?

They have found some SCUD missiles, but the Iraqis do not appear to have fired any of them during the war. Iraq DID fire some other mid-range ballistic missiles, but those were not SCUD's.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip*

Well that's all nice, but until anything is actually verified and found, I think further commentary is premature.