[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] the poetry of donald rumsfeld

From: Clark McGrew
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] the poetry of donald rumsfeld
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:22:13 -0500

On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 19:13, Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:

> > All Kay did was confirm reports from previous inspectors.
>   Not entirely true. Here's an interesting article.

Those sources show that Kay confirmed Iraq did not have a viable WMD

> >  Namely, Iraq
> > had not had a viable WMD program for several years preceding March
> > 2002.  Since inspectors were in the country during March 2002 until the
> > US told them to leave, you can't argue that Iraq was in material breach
> > of the relevant UN resolutions.

(hmm... I must have been in a personal time warp... obviously, that's March 

>   Uh, actually, having read Blix's report, which detailed a list of  
> questions that SH had to answer, I can.

I sincerely doubt you can.  

As stated in UNMOVIC report S/2003/580 (Blix's report) the Iraqi's were
cooperating and most of the "breaches" pertain to Iraq needing to
provide more physical evidence that weapons had actually been
destroyed.  No evidence was found to substantiate an active weapons
program and the Iraqi government was still responding to questions as
the US forces invaded.  

Leaving aside quibbling about dotting 'i's and crossing 't's, I'd be
interested in hearing the argument with citations to the relevant
passages of SC resolutions (particularly 686 and 687) justifying
invasion and overthrown of the Iraqi government without further
authorization (note that the conditions in UN Charter, Chap VII must be
met, particular a39, 41, 42 and 51).  You don't want the full UNMOVIC
report (10000+ pages), but the summaries are here.

Note that Blix determined that “an effective presence of international
inspectors would serve as a deterrent against efforts aimed at
reactivating or developing new programmes of weapons of mass
destruction”, and in the same document that "during the last month and a
half of inspections the Iraqi side had made considerable efforts to
provide information".

Absent justification in 686, Chap VII 51 seems to be most relevant:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." 

Anyway, I think you can see why the US Administration is still flogging
the WMD horse.  Without SC 686 (et. al.), an active Iraqi WMD program
with an imminent intent to attack the US is about the only justification
that stands between President Bush and "War Criminal" (well, that and
the US armed forces).  There is a tiny bit of wiggle room based on "fog
of war", but not much;  The UN Charter, Chap VII sets a very high
standard and, as far as I know, it was not invoked in any SC resolution
on Iraq.


Clark McGrew                    Univ. at Stony Brook, Physics and Astronomy
<address@hidden>        631-632-8299

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]