Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 02-14-2003, 03:44 PM

This report, and the ensuing Security Council deliberations, are quite inconvienient for the Bush administration.

UN weapons inspectors' report: At a glance.

This report refutes a couple of Bush administration's claims, among them:

Quote:

No convincing evidence Iraqis knew in advance that inspectors were coming
Blix cast doubt on the importance of some US satellite pictures. It is not clear the Powell presentation demonstrated illicit movement of arms. Trucks seen near weapons plants in the run up to weapons inspections may mean nothing.

Other parts are also at odds with Bush claims.

But the report also points out that more work needs to be done, and that progress is being made. The general message that I get is there isn't any evidence that Iraq has WMD, but there are still some uncertainties. There should be more cooperation by Iraq, but it has been much more cooperative of late; this coupled to additional help from other nations means that the inspections will continue to be sucessful. Overall, Blix and El Baradei think that the inspections are going well, and that Iraq hasn't been found with anything serious yet. They want more time. (There are links to the full texts of the reports at the above site.)

Here's a story on the UN Security Council reaction:

Anti-war voices gain ground at UN.

Quote:

The US and Britain were on Friday night struggling to sustain their call for early action against Iraq after opponents of war seized on reports by United Nations weapons inspectors to demand more time for Baghdad to disarm peacefully.

The eagerly awaited reports appeared to swing a clear majority of the 15 Security Council members behind calls to delay any move to use military force, despite an impassioned appeal for tough action by Colin Powell, US secretary of state.

[...]

Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, drew rare and sustained applause from the security council chamber at the end of an emotional speech in which he argued that war was not yet justified and that a premature recourse to force was fraught with risks. Saying "big gains" had been made since Hans Blix, the chief inspector, delivered his last report on January 27, Mr de Villepin said "real progress is emerging".

He proposed that foreign ministers should meet again on March 14 to assess what should be done.

Russia and China, both permanent members of the council, with veto power, also called for more time and strengthened inspections.

It appears that if Bush wants his war, he's going to have to have it without the blessing of the UN.

theyeti

leonarde · 02-14-2003, 04:59 PM

Two of the item froms the inspectors' report:

Quote:

No convincing evidence Iraqis knew in advance that inspectors were coming.

The number of minders per inspectors had been as high as five but the Iraqis have agreed to reduce the ratio to one-to-one and the situation is now improving.

Okaaay, these two items are side-by-side in the summary of the report. I'm a foreign policy buff
and I've been following this Iraq thing for 12 years but never in my wildest dreams did I
ever picture 5 Iraqi "minders" for every UN inspector. So when each inspection vehicle starts off in a given direction, at leastone accompanying Iraqi vehicle (possibly as many as
five) goes along. And how would Hans Blix know that the Iraqi minders aren't letting the WMD sites know via cellphone that they(the inspector's vehicle and the "minders") were approaching? What would constitute "convincing evidence" of such a thing?

Cheers!

pz · 02-14-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Two of the item froms the inspectors' report:

Okaaay, these two items are side-by-side in the summary of the report. I'm a foreign policy buff
and I've been following this Iraq thing for 12 years but never in my wildest dreams did I
ever picture 5 Iraqi "minders" for every UN inspector. So when each inspection vehicle starts off in a given direction, at leastone accompanying Iraqi vehicle (possibly as many as
five) goes along. And how would Hans Blix know that the Iraqi minders aren't letting the WMD sites know via cellphone that they(the inspector's vehicle and the "minders") were approaching? What would constitute "convincing evidence" of such a thing?

I'm sorry, but do you seriously believe that a quick cell phone call while the inspectors were en route would give them sufficient time to dismantle a bioweapons or nuclear research facility? What are you imagining -- that all they have to do is hide a few test tubes in the back of the refrigerator, throw a sheet over the plutonium stockpile, and maybe flush a few vials of chemicals down the toilet?

leonarde · 02-14-2003, 06:37 PM

Post by pz:

Quote:

I'm sorry, but do you seriously believe that a quick cell phone call while the inspectors were en route would give them sufficient time to dismantle a bioweapons or nuclear research facility? What are you imagining -- that all they have to do is hide a few test tubes in the back of the refrigerator, throw a sheet over the plutonium stockpile, and maybe flush a few vials of chemicals down the toilet?

Well, no. Actually the big problem is that the sites that UNMOVIC is visiting are old sites: ones
looked over one or more times by UNSCOM (from 1991 to 1998). But the VERY FACT that there's this 5 to 1 ratio is indicative of something: nobody needs 5 translators/bodyguards.

As to what happened before, when UNSCOM would show up at a site they WOULD be kept waiting for many minutes, sometimes hours, and on occasion were told to come back the next day. As to the test tubes in the refrigerator: now they have mobile biological warfare labs (ie on wheels) so short of playing bumper tag with them
Blix and company don't have a snowball's chance in (bad word: sounds like 'Nell')of "entering the facility".

But for a prescient view of what they're up against take a look here:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/defeatinspectors.htm

A highlight (which is to say lowlight):

Quote:

Whatever one's stance on how best to handle Saddam Hussein, it is crucial to understand one thing: United Nations inspections, as they are currently constituted, will never work.

There are several reasons for this. Consider the record of the United Nations Special Commission, an agency that was charged with inspecting Iraq's weapons programs from 1991 to 1998. While Unscom did manage to destroy tons of missiles and chemical and biological weapons, it could not complete the job. Iraqi obfuscations prevented it from ever getting a full picture of the entire weapons production effort. The commission's replacement, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which has not yet been allowed to enter Iraq, will have even less success given its structure and policies.

Another highlight:

Quote:

Even if it is allowed into Iraq, Unmovic will run up against obstacles at least as formidable as those that stymied Unscom. After years of practice, Unscom became adept at launching surprise visits to weapons sites, yet Iraq's intelligence operatives defeated it more often than not. It was a rare inspection when the Iraqis did not know what the inspectors were looking for before they arrived. Most Unmovic inspectors have little experience in Iraq and even less in handling intelligence information.

Compounding this handicap is the fact that Iraq has taken considerable pains to make its weapons programs mobile. Laboratories, components and materials are ready to hit the road at a moment's notice. Once, as an experiment, Unscom had photos taken from a U2 spy plane of a site that it was about to inspect. First the photos showed no activity, then large numbers of Iraqi vehicles leaving the site, then no activity, then the inspectors' vehicles arriving.

The above was written in September which is why it says "Even if it is allowed into Iraq, UNMOVIC..."

Cheers!

Answerer · 02-14-2003, 08:09 PM

I think Bush will have to wait until June, maybe even by then Iraq is still not yet..........while North Korea become the big issue.

Loren Pechtel · 02-14-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Two of the item froms the inspectors' report:

Okaaay, these two items are side-by-side in the summary of the report. I'm a foreign policy buff
and I've been following this Iraq thing for 12 years but never in my wildest dreams did I
ever picture 5 Iraqi "minders" for every UN inspector. So when each inspection vehicle starts off in a given direction, at leastone accompanying Iraqi vehicle (possibly as many as
five) goes along. And how would Hans Blix know that the Iraqi minders aren't letting the WMD sites know via cellphone that they(the inspector's vehicle and the "minders") were approaching? What would constitute "convincing evidence" of such a thing?

Cheers!

And you think 5 minders is it?! There's no doubt a bunch of others also who are just hidden. I would be surprised if the Iraqis don't overhear virtually every word, also.

Loren Pechtel · 02-14-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
I'm sorry, but do you seriously believe that a quick cell phone call while the inspectors were en route would give them sufficient time to dismantle a bioweapons or nuclear research facility? What are you imagining -- that all they have to do is hide a few test tubes in the back of the refrigerator, throw a sheet over the plutonium stockpile, and maybe flush a few vials of chemicals down the toilet?

It wouldn't do much about nukes, but chem and bio aren't that hard to hide if you've set up for it. After all, the difference between legitimate stuff and prohibited stuff is often not very much.

Amen-Moses · 02-15-2003, 12:43 AM

Hans Blix asked for more "minders" (actually bodyguards) back in December, in fact the 1-1 ratio is a lower limit that was requested. They have been provided up to 5 each in some cases thus the Iraqi's are providing 5 times the minimum requested.

And they get blasted for it?

See it doesn't matter what they do or how far they go in order to comply with UN wishes they get slated.

Amen-Moses

pz · 02-15-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
It wouldn't do much about nukes, but chem and bio aren't that hard to hide if you've set up for it. After all, the difference between legitimate stuff and prohibited stuff is often not very much.

I don't know about the chem stuff, but hazardous biological material is not easily hidden. If it is, you've got a bunch of dead biologists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2003, 08:09 PM	#5
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	I think Bush will have to wait until June, maybe even by then Iraq is still not yet..........while North Korea become the big issue.

02-15-2003, 12:43 AM	#8
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Hans Blix asked for more "minders" (actually bodyguards) back in December, in fact the 1-1 ratio is a lower limit that was requested. They have been provided up to 5 each in some cases thus the Iraqi's are providing 5 times the minimum requested. And they get blasted for it? See it doesn't matter what they do or how far they go in order to comply with UN wishes they get slated. Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.