Dave >they could have taken over Iraq in 1991 with all their oil.
Indeed so and now, too. The US and its allies did not need to come to the UN to seek consensus or Security Council approval. America can easily finish off Iraq and do whatever it wishes in the region. It's my understanding that Tony Blair persuaded GWB to go the UN route but there is a problem because France, Germany, Russia and China are emphatic that they will not support a second resolution saying that Iraq has not complied with 1441. In the circumstances, the US can still decide on its own that Iraq has not complied with 1441, as we know, and as Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfelt told us again this evening (SA time) on TV.
However, if the US and its allies (whoever they are) go to war in defiance of the UN then I am sure there will be serious repercussions. A few days ago I posted the opinion of some eminent Australian lawyers who stated that in the circumstance of the US going to war without UN approval it will have violated the UN Charter and will thus have committed a criminal act.
><<I believe Saddam has complied and is complying with the UN inspectors.>>
The discussion ends here. I do not believe he is telling the truth.
Getting to the nitty-gritty, what does compliance involve and why does the US say Saddam has not complied?
1. There is a "missing" quantity of VX nerve gas. This evening, at an interview in NY, Hans Blix said they were busy testing the soil in the places where Iraq said the nerve agent was destroyed or poured out. Blix is confident that an answer will soon be forthcoming.
2. There is a quantity of anthrax culture which apparently, according to Iraqi records, existed at the time of the Iraq/Iran war. Iraq said they destroyed it after the Gulf War in 1991. To date, we have not heard the last word on this. The point is, if it was not for Iraq's own admission, originally, no-one would have known about this or the VX.
3. The El Samoud rockets were not "discovered" by the inspectors but were shown to them by the Iraqis. Blix & Co said they have to be destroyed because their range, even without guidance systems and warheads, is too far according to UN stipulations. Iraq is doing so, reluctantly.
4. Dr El Baradei, Head of the Atomic Energy Agency, has been emphatic that Iraq has no nuclear weapons or the means to make them. Radio-active materials and/or residues are apparently easy to detect and the inspectors have not found anything.
So, that is why I say that Iraq has complied. Admittedly, there is a difference between the US approach and mine(!). The US, according to their precise approach, says Saddam was given one chance and has not fulfilled his undertaking. I accept that that is "technically" true but contend he is attempting to do what is required, albeit tardily, and as I see it, will be "clean" in a very short time. Undeniably, no "smoking gun" has yet been found by inspectors, spies, defectors, satellites, surveillance aircraft etc.
Frankly, I still retain optimism that there will not be war. In fact, both Powell and Rumsfelt labored the point this evening that if Saddam complies war will be avoided. In the circumstances, I do not consider compliance will be that hard to achieve because there is so little left to do. There are objective standards and I believe they can be met.
Of course, it is easy to imagine Saddam could have a secret stash of who-knows-what hidden somewhere but, so far, despite all kinds of searches by many people, it has not been found. In the circumstances, I am prepared to concede that it does not exist. |
