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

Skip to comments.

Here We Go Again: Saddam Hussein has said "unconditional" before (White House Press Release)
NRO ^ | 9/18/2002

Posted on 09/18/2002 8:45:57 PM PDT by Utah Girl

Last week, the President of the United States focused the world's attention on Iraq's continued defiance of UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein's regime claimed yesterday that Iraq would comply unconditionally. While this new statement is evidence that world pressure can force the Iraqi regime to respond, it is also a return to form. Time after time, "without conditions" has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations.

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." - Naji Sabri, Iraq's minister of foreign affairs, September 16, 2002 (emphasis added)

The following timeline details the Iraqi regime's repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions" and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint. This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM report and excerpted from
cns.miis.edu.

April 3, 1991: U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687. Its provisions were reiterated and reinforced in subsequent action by the United Nations in June and August of 1991.

May 1991: Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

June 1991: Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 1991: Iraqi officials confiscate documents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of documents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these documents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the documents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

October 11, 1991: The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOM's plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

October 1991: Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715.

February 1992: Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

April 1992: Iraq calls for a halt to UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, stating that the aircraft and its pilot might be endangered. The President of the Security Council issues a statement reaffirming UNSCOM's right to conduct such flights. Iraq says that it does not intend to carry out any military action aimed at UNSCOM's aerial flights.

July 6-29, 1992: Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993: Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993: Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

November 26, 1993: Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

October 15, 1994: The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

March 1996: Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

March 19, 1996: The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added).

March 27, 1996: Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

June 1996: Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

June 12, 1997: The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

June 13, 1996: Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

November 1996: Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

June 1997: Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997: Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997: The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997: An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997: While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

November 12, 1997: The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

November 3, 1997: Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately.

December 22, 1997: The Security Council issues a statement calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added).

February 20-23, 1998: Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" for their inspections (emphasis added).

August 5, 1998: The Revolutionary Command Council and the Ba'ath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

 


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 09/18/2002 8:45:57 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; MJY1288; socal_parrot; ..
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



2 posted on 09/18/2002 9:05:59 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
What I'm suspecting is that I'm hearing bullcrap from both Saddam Hussein and from the White House. The resulution is simple. Take up Hussein's agreement on inspections. If we are barred at the door from inspecting a suspicious area, dial in a cruise missile and blow whatever it is up within 20 minutes. The ticket is cancelled right there. It should have been that way from minute one.

Saddam wants to be a recalcitrant hot shot. Bush wants a war and a crisis to puff his chest about.

3 posted on 09/18/2002 9:07:58 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
I would have to say, "enuf said!" Thanks for the post.
4 posted on 09/18/2002 9:30:52 PM PDT by RepublicanChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
The letter says we can only inspect military sites, not hospitals or schools.

Guess UNCONDITIONAL has a different meaning to Iraq!
5 posted on 09/18/2002 9:33:37 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl; weikel; hchutch; PsyOps
"Saddam is a fool and naive....he is more foolish than I thought...."

"FEAR IS OUR ALLY" "The Regional US Special Force Commanders will now have control over these Iraqi territories....FEAR will keep the Republican Guards in line.....FEAR of the Highway of Death retaliations....."

6 posted on 09/18/2002 9:45:59 PM PDT by Senator_Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
SO!!! I wasn't the ONLY one to notice!!!! As soon as GW saw that he must have burst out LAUGHING!!!! Only a FOOL would say that wasn't a ploy!!!!
7 posted on 09/18/2002 10:14:56 PM PDT by Roger_W_Isom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Roger_W_Isom
Actually, if you go to WhiteHouse.gov and read the list of offences by Iraq, the word UNCONDITIONAL appears many, many times. However, upon further reading, you find the same CONDITIONAL approach each time.

If Iraq thinks this will work with GW, he's sadly mistaken. I agree with George Will - Sadaam thinks he's still dealing with an x42 type, and he has no idea what he's in for.
8 posted on 09/18/2002 11:49:09 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RLK
You are so wrong about Bush - I cannot tell you how far off you are.

As for Sadaam. The White House already knows the letter from Iraq said there was a condition to the inspections. We can only inspect military sites, not hospitals or schools. It never was UNCONDITIONAL. Kofi LIED!

Of course, that would pretty much tell us that hospitals and schools are where Sadaam will hide his stuff. We CAN'T bomb it ... the hospitals and schools are filled with innocent people. We know that ... and so does Sadaam.

Also ... even if we could call in a strike on a location they would not let us inspect ... what happens to the inspectors who are still there??

Your logic and your perceptions are way off the beaten path. You can disagree with GW if you want to, but don't make snide remarks about his character when you have nothing to back it up.
9 posted on 09/18/2002 11:55:45 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

The Peanuts cartoon of Lucy holding the football - and promising Charlie Brown she won't pull it away, this time - comes to mind.

This time Charlie ain't buyin it.
10 posted on 09/19/2002 12:00:31 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RLK
= Iraqi Hostage Crisis.

No thankyou. Bush ain't falling for the ploy. War before the end of this year.
11 posted on 09/19/2002 12:03:07 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
The Peanuts cartoon of Lucy holding the football - and promising Charlie Brown she won't pull it away, this time - comes to mind.

Great idea for a political cartoon! Everyone remembers that image so the idea would be immediately clear.

12 posted on 09/19/2002 12:07:51 AM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
You can disagree with GW if you want to, but don't make snide remarks about his character when you have nothing to back it up.

---------------------------------

A few years back on, I think May 27, I happen to remember a presidential candidate debate between McCain, Bush, and Alan Keyes. Bush and NcCain spent a major proportion of the time arguing over who was putting nasty campain literature on whose windshields so as to avoid talking about serious issues. There was demand to force drug companies to produce medicine of demanded types at prices people arbitrarily wanted to pay. Dr. Keyes brought up the constitutional issue of involuntary servitude relative to this. Bush and McCain drowned Keyes out and laughed him off the stage. At that point it was clearly demonstrated who the bums were.

As far as I'm concerned Bush has neither character nor intelligence. You can agrue with that from your level of understanding, but it won't change my evaluation.

13 posted on 09/19/2002 12:13:08 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RLK
I don't trust Bush. I don't believe he's competent, honest, or intelligent. Period. Neither did I like McCain or Owlgore.
14 posted on 09/19/2002 12:15:47 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RLK
As far as I'm concerned Bush has neither character nor intelligence. You can agrue with that from your level of understanding, but it won't change my evaluation.

That says more about you character that it does about Bush's. I won't comment on your intelligence until I see some.

15 posted on 09/19/2002 12:17:08 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I'll stand with what I said.
16 posted on 09/19/2002 12:23:08 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Senator_Palpatine
"General Franks, prepare your troops."

"Saddam is as clumsy as he is stupid."
17 posted on 09/19/2002 6:38:16 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RLK
"my level of understanding"

Is that statement anything like "you're too stupid to understand".

Typical liberal - reduced to name calling.

And ... for whatever it's worth, I saw that debate and there is no way your candidate was laughed off the stage.
18 posted on 09/19/2002 7:18:11 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Is that statement anything like "you're too stupid to understand".

-----------------------

It's a combination of unwillingness, and incapability to examine anything beyond superficiality.

I notice you don't answer why Bush, as well as McCain, refused to address the legitimate constitutional issue Keyes brought up during the debate.

Oh, wait a minute. I know what's coming. The all purpose answer used to deflect serious questions. "First, you gotta win."

19 posted on 09/19/2002 9:55:46 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Excuse me ... is there some reason you are blaming me for Key's poor performance?

I personally don't care for Mr. Keys; but to each his own. If you like him, be my guest. But don't try to blame me because he didn't do well.

I have been a Bush supporter since before most people. He's not perfect. There are things he has done in the last 2 years which I don't agree with.

The danger is people try to throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if there are a few things I don't agree with GW about, I'm not going to pull my support over ONE issue.
20 posted on 09/19/2002 10:14:47 PM PDT by CyberAnt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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