Posted on 09/19/2002 5:38:53 PM PDT by dighton
America accused Iraq yesterday of defying international demands for weapons inspectors to be given unfettered access, after Baghdad declared that their work must not violate its “rights, sovereignty, security and independence”.
Three days after announcing that inspectors could return to Iraq “without conditions”, Naji Sabri, the Iraqi foreign minister, reading a speech on behalf of Saddam, suggested that this did not mean they would have unconditional freedom to seek out weapons of mass destruction.
“Iraq was, and is still, ready to co-operate with the Security Council and international organisations,” Mr Sabri told United Nations General Assembly.
“However, it rejects any transgression at the expense of its rights, sovereignty, security and independence that is in contradiction to the principles of the [UN] charter and international law.”
The White House said the comments proved that Iraq could not be trusted. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said: “When Iraq talks about sovereignty and independence, those are code words for thwarting the inspectors.”
UN weapons inspectors, who left Iraq four years ago, were repeatedly denied access to suspected sites on the grounds that they were “sovereign” or “presidential”.
Iraqi officials who met senior inspectors on Tuesday failed to give guarantees about their freedom of action.
This renewed Iraqi gamesmanship will strengthen President George W Bush’s call for Congress to give him authorisation to use military force.
If adopted and passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, the congressional resolution would give Mr Bush a free hand to order an invasion of Iraq at any time even if the UN Security Council failed to act.
Republicans and Democrats have said they do not expect the resolution to be amended significantly and it is likely to be passed overwhelmingly in both houses.
Mr Bush’s proposed wording, subject to amendment in Congress, authorises “all means that [the president] determines to be appropriate, including force, to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and restore international peace and security in the region”.
At the same time, US and British diplomats were pressing for a new Security Council resolution setting out stringent conditions for Iraq, backed by the threat of force.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said only the threat of force would compel Iraq to comply with demands that inspectors should carry out their work “without conditions, without delay and without games”.
British officials said they were seeking an early test of Iraqi intentions by sending inspectors into a sensitive site, such as a one of Saddam’s presidential palaces.
After days of intense diplomacy, Russia, the key to securing a new resolution, moved closer to the American position.
Having long resisted any war against Iraq, Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister, left the door open to the possibility of military action.
In Washington, where he was due to attend talks with Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and Colin Powell, the secretary of state, Mr Ivanov said: “Moscow’s position regarding a military operation against Iraq will depend on the information given to us by the American side about Baghdad’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.”
At the General Assembly last week, Mr Bush challenged the UN to compel Iraq to respect a long list of resolutions or become irrelevant.
He underlined the point yesterday when he said: “If the United Nations Security Council won’t deal with the problem, the United States and some of its friends will.”
In his response, Mr Sabri accused America of fabricating stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “I hereby declare before you that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,” he told the General Assembly. He invited any country to send experts “accompanied by politicians” to visit Iraq to verify its claims.
He said Iraq had accepted the return of UN inspectors but said the arrangements for their work should respect the country’s sovereignty. He criticised America for imposing more than a decade of economic sanctions and for seeking to overthrow Saddam.
Dr Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations agency charged with disarming Iraq, was due to brief the Security Council on his discussions with the Iraqis on Tuesday night when, according to diplomats, Iraqi officials failed to provide guarantees that inspectors would be able to work freely. Dr Blix is said to have presented the Iraqis with a detailed list of demands for logistical support once the inspectors started work.
But the Iraqi officials declined to offer any answers, saying that they had to check with Baghdad.
The topics were described as “nuts and bolts” questions central to the inspectors’ activities. They included issues such as security, communications and use of Iraqi aircraft and helicopters.
They also included the setting up of regional offices in Basra and Mosul, the installation of monitoring equipment, accommodation and even the round-the-clock presence - or lack of it - of an English-speaking minder.
They'll take anything and get the inspectors in fast, hoping they may help play the role of human-shield against the U.S., or at least tip off Sadaam as to when we are coming.
People like Kofi Annan and countries like France and Germany are NOT our allies. They are much closer to being enemies than allies.
All despot dictators require two things to stay in power. The must have a police force that will arrest and imprison anyone the dictator says to arrest and imprison. They must have a military that will shoot and kill anyone or nation the dictator says to shoot and kill.
The members of any Dictators Police and of his ARMY can overthrow their Dictator any day they choose to do so. For when the dictator says kill and the army does not kill and the dictator says arrest and the cops don't arrest, he is no longer the dictator. He has no power without a police force and an army.
So it is Saddams Army that lets him be a dictator. We should kill his army and all connected with it. We should kill his police all connected with it. If we did it ruthlessly enough, other armies and police forces around the world would be sore afraid to serve a dictator for a very long time. Armies and police enjoy the power a dictator allows them to have. But if it was certain to cost their deaths they would not do it.
You try to convince the readers that Saddams police and Miltiary are innocent of his crime. They are the only reason he can commit the crimes. They are at least as guilty as he is and should pay the full measure of the cost.
"I know you think you know what we said, but you should know that what you heard was not what we meant."
Just as he is ready to explain all the ways that is doesn't mean is, a thermobaric bunker-buster gives him that burning sensation.
The games afoot.
Saddam can run down the tunnel to Russia or die from an O.D. of B-2--
His choice.
Let's roll.
That said, your point is very well taken, and I did think of that when I originally posted.
After all, we'll need a trained police force once we remove saddam. who bettter than saddam's trained conscripts.
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.