Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: silverleaf
What part of “observation” do you not understand?

OK, what kind of "observation" did the UN have after UNSCOM inspectors were removed from Iraq in 1998?

What part of "if not outright control" did you not mean? All of it? lol

Inspections resumed on 27 November 2002. UNMOVIC received greater cooperation from Iraq than had UNSCOM and made some progress, notably in destroying 72 Al Samoud 2 missiles that exceeded the permitted 150 km range. However, the inspections were short-lived. By 17 March 2003 differences in the Security Council over continuing Iraqi non-compliance reached a head. With no consensus on a second resolution to authorise the use of force to compel Iraq to fulfil its obligations, the US declared its intention to act unilaterally. On 17 March the US advised the UN that inspectors should leave Iraq. They were withdrawn the next day, signalling the end of the inspections.

64 posted on 07/07/2008 11:06:28 AM PDT by TigersEye (Berlin '36 Olympics for murdering regimes Beijing '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: TigersEye

“OK, what kind of “observation” did the UN have after UNSCOM inspectors were removed from Iraq in 1998? “

sigh.

The UN received constant intelligence about the activities at Tuwaitha.
From multiple sources.
From multiple platforms.

You keep posting that UNSCOM nuclear inspectors were kicked out in 1998. Ok. I get that. But UNSCOM was not the only agency that monitored, and controlled.

You must believe that inspections and observation and monitoring are done only by boots on the ground.
Not.
There are other ways.
Saddam’s CCD&D program made it difficult and even had some successes- but there are technical means that do not require inspectors on the ground to observe- and to control.

Concerning the DECLARED stockpile at Tuwaitha,
Saddam continued to comply with the IAEA protocol.
There were IAEA inspections beyond 1998.

IAEA inspectors visited Tuwaitha in January 2000.
And again in January 2001.

Part of the inspection and verification protocol is for the IAEA to verify the yellowcake stockpile,
they check number of drums
they inspect the seals for tampering.

Sometimes samples are taken.
I do not know if they did this part in 2000, and again in 2001.

Meanwhile Saddam was shopping for uranium in 1999.
His program needed additional yellowcake at another, undeclared unmonitored location.

This was because
of continuous monitoring
and OBSERVATION
of Iraqi clandestine sites
by technical means
and IAEA monitoring
of DECLARED sites

The IAEA monitoring of Tuwaitha rendered a clandestine program at this openly declared site - impossible.
Before and after 1998, Tuwaitha was under observation.
And by result, under IAEA control.

it may not have been the concept of control you seem fixated on, but it did deny Iraq the free use of the materiel stored onsite. If I deny the enemy an action,
I control him, at least for that action

Reportedly
After 1998 Saddam formed an axis with North Korea and libya (and others), and with advisory help from AQ Khan, moved nuke scientists and equipment to Libya, set up a new underground facility (a program the IAEA did not even know about until Qadaffi surrendered it to the US and Britain in 2003)

and started seeking another stockpile of yellowcake

Reportedly
After 1998
Saddam moved a major part of his nuclear weapons development program out of Iraq to a 3rd site.

Libya had/has a big stockpile of yellowcake and reportedly in the year 2000 (note timing)
Libya imported more - from Niger
(sacre bleu! impossible! French controlled mines?)

Paid for by? Purpose?
That is another story.

Fortunately in 2003, after the US invasion of Iraq
Qadaffi declared “his” surprise nuc weapon program (seemingly)

and we (US and Brits) removed at least some materiel in 2004.

The administration has not tied this program to Iraq.
Perhaps to avoid embarrassing several other “allied” governments that were involved


65 posted on 07/07/2008 12:20:33 PM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson