The Blix Report

[Chuck?]

United Nations -- Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, gave a broadly negative report Monday on Iraq's cooperation with two months of inspections, saying that Baghdad had failed to provide persuasive evidence that it had rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page litany on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs.

His report contained information that often appeared to echo the administration's view that Saddam Hussein would never disarm unless compelled to do so.

After Blix had spoken, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in Washington: "The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark.

It is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and to come clean. And the answer is: Not much more time."

Powell's remark came at the start of a critical few days in which President Bush will present his case for disarming Hussein in his State of the Union address tonight, before consulting with allies, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair later in the week. Then, and only then, Powell suggested, will the president make his plans clear.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for atomic weapons, was less critical of Iraq on Monday, reporting that his team had found no evidence so far that Iraq had attempted to revive its nuclear weapons program and appealing to the council for a "few months" more to complete his work.

The clash within the 15-member Security Council over the duration of the inspections sharpened Monday. The U.S. ambassador, John Negroponte, insisted they had already gone on long enough to demonstrate that Iraq had no intention of disclosing its secret arms to the inspectors. "There is nothing in either presentation that would give us hope that Iraq has ever intended to fully comply," he said.

But other veto-bearing council powers, including France, Russia and China, contended that the inspections were still working and should be allowed to continue. Britain, Washington's closest ally, expressed support for a German proposal that the inspectors report back to the council again on Feb. 14.


PRESSURE ON FRANCE, GERMANY
Blix's sweeping and detailed critique of Iraq's failure to demonstrate with documents, interviews and other evidence that it had destroyed its prohibited weapons appeared to put new pressure on France, Germany and other nations that have resisted early military action, to respond more forcefully to Baghdad's noncompliance.

Iraq heightened the confrontation Monday by bluntly rejecting all of the inspectors' criticism.

"Iraq has complied fully with all its obligations" under Resolution 1441, the measure that set up the inspections, Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said, in his most categorical dismissal of the inspections since they began in November.

The Security Council nations are due to give their official evaluations of the chief inspectors' reports on Wednesday.

In an open council meeting Monday morning and a closed session in the late afternoon, Blix said that despite Iraq's denials, his team found indications that Iraq had created weapons using the nerve agent VX, which he described as "one of the most toxic ever developed."

He said that Iraq had provided contradictory information about its VX stocks in a 12,000-page declaration of its arms programs that Baghdad presented on Dec. 7.

So far, he added, Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs that could contain as much as 1,000 tons of chemical agent.

While Iraq has dismissed as insignificant the inspectors' finding on Jan. 16 of 12 empty chemical warheads in a recently built bunker, Blix said the rockets "could be the tip of a submerged iceberg."

The discovery "shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate," he said. He added that his inspectors had also found at another site a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol, which he described as a precursor of mustard gas.

Iraq has declared that it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax for biological warfare before the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Blix said, and claimed to have destroyed all of it unilaterally that year.

"Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction," he said. There are "strong indications" that Iraq made more anthrax than it declared, and "at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date," Blix said.


MISSILES VIOLATE U.N. LIMITS
Blix also reported that Iraq was building two missiles, the Al Samoud 2 and the Al Fatah, which he said seemed clearly to violate U.N. restrictions limiting missiles to a range of 150 kilometers (93 miles). He said he had asked Iraq to cease test flights of the missiles.

Iraq has refurbished a missile plant that had been previously destroyed by weapons inspectors and has illegally imported chemicals that could be used for weapons, Blix said.

He also reported that Iraq was "not so far complying with our request" to use his team's U2 high altitude photographic surveillance plane.

Blix had especially strong language for what he called "disturbing incidents and harassment," including charges by Iraqi officials that his inspectors are spies.

"Iraq knows they do not serve intelligence purposes, and Iraq should say so, " he said.

In his much less confrontational report, ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that his team had visited nuclear- related buildings where satellite photography showed new structures and found no new nuclear activities there.

ElBaradei appealed to the council to give the 2-month-old weapons inspections program more time, saying, "These (next) few months would be a valuable investment, because they could help us avoid a war."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to ElBaradei's assertion about the Iraqi nuclear program by saying that Hussein's biological and chemical weapons capability alone could kill millions of people.



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

U.N. INSPECTORS STILL HAVE QUESTIONS
A look at specific issues raised by Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), before the U.N. Security Council on Monday:


AT ISSUE

VX
A nerve agent; one of the most toxic substances on earth.

Chemicals used to make VX


U.N. FINDINGS
-- Indications that Iraq has worked on the purity and stability of the substance.

-- Indication that VX has been weaponized.

-- Inspectors have questions concerning the fate of these chemicals.


AT ISSUE
Chemical bombs

A document found in 1998 details the expenditure of bombs used during the Iran-Iraq war.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- The document states that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988 - 6,500 less than the Iraqis claim. The amount of chemical agents in these bombs is assumed to be unaccounted for.


AT ISSUE
Chemical rocket warheads

Discovered by inspectors in December 2002.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- While Iraq's claims that these warheads were overlooked before are possible, this could also be "the tip of the iceberg" and points to the issue of several thousand unaccounted for rockets.


AT ISSUE
Anthrax


U.N. FINDINGS
-- No documentation produced proves Iraq's claim it destroyed its supply of the deadly agent.

-- There are indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared.


AT ISSUE
Bacterial growth material


U.N. FINDINGS
-- The table showing Iraq's imports of this material was omitted from its Dec. 7 report to inspectors, and the pages of the report were renumbered.


AT ISSUE
Scud-type missiles Iraq may have retained after the Gulf War.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- No technical information has been given to prove Iraq's claim they were used to test an anti-ballistic missile system during the 1980s.


AT ISSUE
Missile development projects

Two Iraqi projects to develop missiles.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- Both missile systems have been tested in excess of the allowed range.

-- Both types of missiles have been given to the Iraqi armed forces despite Iraq's claim they are still in development.


AT ISSUE
High-strength aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to obtain tubes used to manufacture nuclear centrifuges.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- IAEA analysis of the tubes is consistent with the Iraqi claim they were needed to reverse-engineer conventional rockets, but they need more time to investigate fully.

-- Iraq is forbidden from purchasing the tubes under a U.N. Security Council resolution.


AT ISSUE

HMX
An explosive that can be used for nuclear weapons or for legitimate purposes.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- IAEA says it needs to investigate further the whereabouts of missing quantities of HMX the Iraqis claim were used for mining purposes.


AT ISSUE
Uranium

Iraq has denied trying to import uranium since 1991.


U.N. FINDINGS
-- IAEA does not have enough information on the topic and needs to pursue its investigation.

Sources: United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC); IAEA

[Deltapooh]

The report supports both sides. On the one hand Iraq is not complying fully with relevant UN SC RESO's. On the other, the UN Inspectors need more time to conclude what weapons and equipment Iraq possesses.

I don't believe Iraq can be disarmed within unconditional government support. Only Iraq knows what they have and where it's all stored. The UN inspectors could find more, but never completely resolve the issues in question. More importantly, unconditional compliance is our best hope that Saddam will never restart WMD programs after inspectors have left. The level of monitoring will not be sufficient to ensure this. So Saddam can't just give up the WMDs he already own. He must also change his opinion on the importance of these weapons in his military arsenal.

I don't believe another sixty days will bring us any closer to disarming Iraq. We might have more answers to questions, but little more. Saddam must seen the severity of the situation. His decision not to comply, whether it was to hide WMDs or out of pride, provides the necessary justification for the use of force. Twelve years of diplomacy, sanctions, and limited action have done nothing to change the Iraqi position. The only option available, at least in my opinion, is a military operation to remove those who create and enforce the belligerent policies of Iraq.

The US and it's allies should move quickly to take military action. If we do embark on attempting to get UN support, member states must understand they only have a week or two to make their decision. Nothing more. I know for a fact they can debate and decide the issue in less than a day. However, we should give them at least a week.

However, I don't believe UN support is necessary, although I would like to have it. Despite Blix's report, neither Germany nor France have changed their positions. Their decision was made "before" the report was released. So that leads me to believe they have already made up their minds and will not change no matter what evidence is presented. Without these countries support, UN approval is impossible, so why try?

In short, it's time for OPERATION: REGIME CHANGE. Saddam missed the only opportunity he had to disarm and preserve his regime. Now he must submit to the consequences he created by his arrogance and ignorance.

[Kraut]

I disagree with the opinion that the US/UN should strike immediately but they should give the weapon inspectors more time. Consider this: if the US strikes now they will (no matter how you interprete the current situation from your sight) get into serious international diplomatic trouble and would do everything to build up a negative picture uf the USA. All the USA needs is just one clear proove that Saddam is purposly hiding a large stockpile of WMDs from the weapon inspectors to change world opinion. So why not sit back, keep up the pressure and let the inspectors do their job ? At the moment Saddam cant even visit the toilet without being spied on by the US. Its absolutely impossible for him to secretly prepare an attack against any nation right now, no way!
So, let the Inspectors do their job, Iraq has promised just a few days ago to improve their cooperation with the weapon inspectors, lets see if they do.
Every week the inspectors work in Iraq gives us a better picture abour Saddams weapon stockpile. If it would take another 6 month to be sure whether saddam is hiding something or not, so what ???? Saddam is clearly no imminent threat so its no matter of days or weaks to disarm him, even if he had WMDs they are useless to him right now. And during 6 month the inspectors should at least be able to discover just _one_ WMD stockpile (if there are some) or informatuon that Saddam is continuing his WMD program, that would be enough to proove that Saddam broke 1441 and the USA could have it their way.

WHY strike immediately, what is the problem with waiting ??? As long as the weapon inspectors are able to do their job I don't see a justification for war.

[Deltapooh]

The problem is the inspectors will not be able to do their job as long as the Iraqi regime doesn't comply unconditionally. It would simply be a continuation of what is a failed policy. Furthermore, it's bad enough our troops are going to be fighting this war. I don't want them to also be hindered by the Desert Summer.

There are also political concerns here in the US that must be considered. While few people care, I would prefer not to see this war become "the" issue of the 2004 election. Bush will not be able to muster the kind of Congressional support he possesses now. Politics is politics, no matter the justifications.

To be honest Kraut, even if the inspectors found WMDs, I doubt public support internationally would change. It's been twelve years and most have been lulled into a since of security that only a direct attack could alter.

I do see your point in waiting, as hard as it might be to believe. I just don't think it waiting will achieve our long term objectives if Saddam doesn't become a far more active participant in the process. The inspections were never decided or intended to solely disarm Iraq. They always depended on the cooperation of Iraq. Their effectiveness is limited by Saddam's level of cooperation. So if he is only 50% cooperative, the inspectors will be just 50% effective.

Those are my reasons why I believe we should attack now. Not immediately, necessarily, but as soon as our forces are ready.

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Kraut

So, let the Inspectors do their job, Iraq has promised just a few days ago to improve their cooperation with the weapon inspectors, lets see if they do.


Iraq promised to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors when RESO 1441 was enacted and the Blix report says they haven't. How many times are you willing to hear Saddam lie ??

[Chuck?]

I'm not sure extra time will do much unfortunately. The Blix report is a lot worse than I thought it would be. Look at the anthrax issue. Iraq claims to of destroyed all of it's antrax but doesn't have any documentation to prove it:


Blix: Do you still have Anthrax?

Saddam: No, we destroyed it.

Blix: Where was it destroyed?

Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)

Blix: When was it destroyed?

Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)

Blix: Who destroyed it?

Saddam: (shrugs shoulders)

[Kraut]

one thing you all seem to forget is that this is not just about Saddam but about hundreds of thousands of human beings who will most likely die in this war! If it would be just Saddam... go on, kill him, I dont care but this war will not just kill Saddam nor 'only' the soldiers in the Iraqui and US army but also many many thousands of innocent civilians ! Remember how you fealt when America was attacked by Osama, how much sorrow and despair but also hate and anger? 3000 US citizens died in this tragedy but a gulf war will most likely kill 100.000 equally innocent Iraquis! Can you imagine what you are about to do to the citizens ?
And that is my point! Saddam isn't complying fully.. yeah yeah. He is an evil man who deserves death, true. BUT HE DEFENITELY ISN'T DANGEROUS ENOUGH TO KILL ALL THESE INNOCENTS JUST TO KILL ONE MAN!

I know that nobody wants to kill these citizen but we all know that a war will have terrible consequences for the civilians, there houses will be destroyed, their relatives killed, the Infrastructure will be destroyed, this is unavoidable especially if Saddam defends inside the cities.

I think that you'd need some damn good arguments to justify all this and the Iraq not complying fully (he is complying but could do better, thats my opinion) is definitely no reason for war.

:mad:

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Kraut
one thing you all seem to forget is that this is not just about Saddam but about hundreds of thousands of human beings who will most likely die in this war!

This is true. If it wasn't for concern of the loss of innocent life Saddam would of been removed by force many years ago. Hopefully some Iraqi will soon 'convice' Saddam to step down by putting a bullet in the back of his head.

[tigersqn]

The thing with Saddam is that he has been killing civilians in his own country for years.
Had he been stopped in '91, who knows how many would have been saved?

Yes, any military should be very concerned about the possibilities of collateral damage and civilian deaths. But military forces can't let the fear of civilian deaths deter them from accomplishing their goals.

Civilian deaths are a certainty in any war. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Believe it or not, but as violent as warfare is today, the technology available to the military commander actually lessens the likelyhood of civilian deaths. It doesn't eliminate it but it does reduce it.

I guess that's as much as we can hope for.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by tigersqn
The thing with Saddam is that he has been killing civilians in his own country for years.
Had he been stopped in '91, who knows how many would have been saved?


Well, I can't remember any massacres after the GulfWar. OK, the shiits and kurds revolted and were crushed by saddams forces but the west knew this would happen and watched it happen. I don't know much about these revolts but I heaven't heard that saddam purposly killed the civilians during these revolts. So you cant use these as a justification for a war. And you should know which country protected Saddam back in the 80's when he gased the Kurds...



Civilian deaths are a certainty in any war. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Believe it or not, but as violent as warfare is today, the technology available to the military commander actually lessens the likelyhood of civilian deaths. It doesn't eliminate it but it does reduce it.

I guess that's as much as we can hope for.

Yes, civilian death will happen in this war but war wasn't declared (I know, technically the US is still at war with Iraq) and before military force is used I want to see some real reasons why these many civilians must die! US officials said that GW2 might claim 100.000 - 500.000 Iraquis dead, most of them civilians !!!

So, what are your points to justify a war that'll lead to these many casualties ?? And please forget about Saddams mass murders 20 years ago, we all agree that it would be best if Saddam would be shot dead but that is no justification for the horrors a new war will bring upon the innocent iraqui citizen!

[tigersqn]

Back in GW 1, Saddam agreed to dismantle his WMD.
Since that time he has consistently and continually tried to circumvent the various UN resolutions that were imposed.

In 1945, the Germans initially attempted to negotiate terms for a surrender, Eisenhower shut them down and reiterated the terms: Unconditional Surrender. Had the German representatives continued to attempt negotiations, do you think Ike would have said "OK, one more chance" ?

How much longer does the world have to wait before Saddam complies with their demands ???

BTW, about all these estimates of civilian deaths. In GW 1, American casualties were estimated to be as high as 10 000 or more. IIRC, they were much lower.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by tigersqn
Back in GW 1, Saddam agreed to dismantle his WMD.
Since that time he has consistently and continually tried to circumvent the various UN resolutions that were imposed.



I repeat my question: do you think that it is justified to willingly accept the death of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians just because Saddam is not complying to 100% ?? remenber, Blix gave him a 'B' for his compliance!!



In 1945, the Germans initially attempted to negotiate terms for a surrender, Eisenhower shut them down and reiterated the terms: Unconditional Surrender. Had the German representatives continued to attempt negotiations, do you think Ike would have said "OK, one more chance" ?


In no way is the current situation similar to WW2 !! That's just silly!



How much longer does the world have to wait before Saddam complies with their demands ???

If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !



BTW, about all these estimates of civilian deaths. In GW 1, American casualties were estimated to be as high as 10 000 or more. IIRC, they were much lower.

In GW1 the iraqui losses already exceeded 100.000 ! So ppl will die and just because few americans but mostly iraquis will die doesn't change anything. These people have the same right to live in peace than you.

So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'

[Deltapooh]

Yes, civilian death will happen in this war but war wasn't declared (I know, technically the US is still at war with Iraq) and before military force is used I want to see some real reasons why these many civilians must die! US officials said that GW2 might claim 100.000 - 500.000 Iraquis dead, most of them civilians !!!

Had the Iraqis resisted, the casualties might have been as high as 10,000. Fortunately, the regular army collapsed so fast, it degraded the effectiveness of the entire Iraqi military force. They really had no choice, but to withdraw. Unlike in 1991, there is nowhere for these troops to go. And we can't depend on the assumption that civilians will be able to escape the combat intensive urban battlefields. 100,000 - 500,000 don't reflect how many dead is estimated. Instead it concerns the number of people who will receive injuries or be killed as a result of combat operations. That doesn't mean they'll be shot. Starvation, lack of medical treatment, structural hazards, lawlessness, etc all can be attributed to combat. The number of civilian dead will probably be less than 10% of any of these numbers. Still, that's alot of people.

The reports of atrocities committed by the Iraqi government even after 1991 is well established. Saddam did little to hide his ruthless method of command and control. However, IMHO, this is more of an internal issue that should be settled by the Iraqi people, not outside parties. I know that sounds cold, but unless I see more outcry from the Iraqi people opposing Saddam, I would not be very quick to send troops to resolve internal issues.

(Unfortunately, they will in any case.)

My justification for war Kraut are as follows

UNSC Resolution 687; April 3, 1991 (Note paragraph 8-12)

http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/gulf_states/resolution_687.html

UNSC Resolution 707; August 15, 1991

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0707.htm

UNSC Resolution 715; October 11, 1991

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0715.htm

UNSC Resolution 949; October 15, 1994

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0949.htm

UNSC Resolution 1060; June 12, 1996

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1060.htm

UNSC Resolution 1115; June 21, 1997

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1115.htm

UNSC Resolution 1134; Octber 23, 1997

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1134.htm

UNSC Resolution 1137; November 12, 1997

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1137.htm

UNSC Resolution 1154; March 2, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres1154.htm

UNSC Resolution 1194; September 9, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/unscr-1194.htm

UNSC Resolution 1205; November 5, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/98110505_nlt.html

UNSC Resolution 1284; December 17, 1999

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/99sc1284.htm

UNSC Resolution 1441; November 8, 2002

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/iraq-110702-1198.pdf

Further information concerning reports

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/

While Saddam has since complied with some Resolutions, he has yet to comply with all. This doesn't take months to materialize. If Saddam was serious it would do more than say it destroyed the weapons without UN Supervision, which a tad bit on the stupid side.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Kraut

remenber, Blix gave him a 'B' for his compliance!!

Please get the facts right. The U.N. nuclear agency gave a 'B' for compliance, not Blix.


If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !

This was said six months ago! I'm sure in 6 months there will be found yet more reasons to wait another 6 months...

Then someday down the road say a terrorist uses a WMD on a major American city and huge numbers die. I'm sure Gerhard Schröder will make a little speech giving his deepest 'sympathies'. Yeah right.

So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'

What a bunch of bull. Clearly he isn't doing 90% or even close. There is a specific reason Iraq hasn't come clean to the inspectors.

[Kraut]

Originally posted by Chuck
Please get the facts right. The U.N. nuclear agency gave a 'B' for compliance, not Blix.


You are right here Blix didn't gave the Iraquis a note but his report wasn't that negative either. Blix: It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. Blix report (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html)




If I could choose to wait 6 more months to see results and than decide what to do or strike now and thereby kill hundreds of thousands I would wait _anytime_ !

This was said six months ago! I'm sure in 6 months there will be found yet more reasons to wait another 6 months...


that was 2 month ago! The weapon inspections started again in november! And they at first had to build up again (Blix report: Mr. President, I must not conclude this update without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC. In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communication, translation and interpretation staff, medical support and other services at our Baghdad office and also Mosul field office.

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues. Even at this moment, we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we should have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

The team supplied by the Swiss government is refurbishing our office in Baghdad which had been empty for four years. The government in New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. And the government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a field office in Larnaca.

All of these contributions have an assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities, so has help from the U.N. in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.





Then someday down the road say a terrorist uses a WMD on a major American city and huge numbers die. I'm sure Gerhard Schröder will make a little speech giving his deepest 'sympathies'. Yeah right.


I think it'll be a lot easier for terrorists to get WMDs from former SU states than from Iraq and some of better quality, too. I would be more concerned by this threat!


So if Uncle Sam is going down there, starting a war which will kill so many I think he should provide a better reason than 'Their leader is only doing 90% of what we want him to do'

What a bunch of bull. Clearly he isn't doing 90% or even close. There is a specific reason Iraq hasn't come clean to the inspectors. [/B]

This isn't a bunch of bull! Read the report that I provided a link to!
Blix is saying that the Iraq is generally complying but has to improve in some ways. I still say 90% compliance is reasonable to say but thats just my personal opinion.

[Marko]

Delta:

Resolution 687, known as the ceasefire resolution and adopted by the United Nations Security Council, had called for many things but it did not include getting rid of Saddam.

The resolutions against Israel - all ignored or rebuffed:

* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return.

One rule for one and not for all will never work. Do not get me wrong either Delta - I actually beleive Saddam has some chemical weapons somewhere, but war will only aggravate there use. Just find 'em and destroy the capability to make them and monitor him until he dies.

[Marko]

Infact here is a more concise list of resolutions that have been ignored and not just by Israel:

Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.

354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.

360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."

364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.

379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.

380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.

391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.

446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.

550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.

573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.

694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.

725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."

726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.

809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.

815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.

822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

896 (1994) Russia
"Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia."

904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.

995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.

1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."

1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."

1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.

1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.

1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.

1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.

1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.

1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.

1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.

1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.

1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.

1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.

1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.

1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."

1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.

1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.

1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.

1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.

1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.

1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.

1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.

1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.

1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."

1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.

1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Marko

1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.


The UN did in fact investigate the civilian deaths during Israel's assault on the Jenin refugee camp and found Palestinian allegations of massive civilian casualties to be wholly without foundation.

In fact, in one incident, a man was laying on the ground in a pool of blood being filmed by media cameras. Once the cameras were turned off, the man got up and walked away. You see, the Palestinians
have many years experience in playing up to the media and western sensibilities.

[Dr Zaius]

Originally posted by Kraut
I disagree with the opinion that the US/UN should strike immediately but they should give the weapon inspectors more time.

Okay, let's get right down to the heart of the matter shall we. If the US was willing to give the UN inspectors an additional 4-6 months to complete their inspections and at the end of that time they conclude that Iraq is not in compliance, are you willing to contribute a German Panzer division as part of a UN attack to disarm Iraq? If not, then what's your point?

It's true that Iraqi civilians might be killed if there is a military confrontation. It's also true that thousands of Iraqi civilians have been put to death under Saddam's rule, and a great many more people from other nations might suffer if Saddam "wins" this showdown.

The international community can't afford to wait for another six months. That's wishful thinking for a variety of reasons. First, Saddam has only given the limited degree of cooperation he has because of the huge number of US troops on his border. The US had to send those troops or he never would have cooperated. Second, the US can't afford to maintain such a large deployment for long. It's costing billions of dollars and taking a huge toll on the equipment and soldiers themselves. They can't just stay there for the next six months waiting for you to make up your mind, and them wait another couple of months for additional international forces to arrive in theater. Third, the threat of looming military action is causing havoc to the stock markets and seriously hindering the recovery of the US economy. Also, political support for military action will not last forever.

Yes, the US is a superpower (whatever that means), but it can't maintain such a large deployment indefinitely. This issue must be dealt with decisively. Kraut, your heart is in the right place and I wish we could make the decisions you're suggesting. However, real world conditions are going to demand that this crisis be brought to a decisive conclusion soon. The longer it drags on the worse it will get.

The US can't maintain this deployment for long. On the other hand, if we do as Kraut suggests and withdraw for six months, Saddam will certainly perceive this as a victory. This man doesn't respond to anything other than a real threat of force. If we withdraw now it is very likely the political climate will never allow us to return. For better or worse we have a tough decision to make: attack within the next month or two, or go home and hope Saddam decides to reform his life and become a responsible leader. There simply are no other options. Which side do you want to be on?


So, let the Inspectors do their job, Iraq has promised just a few days ago to improve their cooperation with the weapon inspectors, lets see if they do.

Wow, I feel better already.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by tigersqn


The UN did in fact investigate the civilian deaths during Israel's assault on the Jenin refugee camp and found Palestinian allegations of massive civilian casualties to be wholly without foundation.

Almost as many civilians (26) died in the fight as IDF soldiers (23). So much for the 'Jenin Massacre' theory. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/31/un.jenin.report/

[Marko]

Originally posted by Chuck


Almost as many civilians (26) died in the fight as IDF soldiers (23). So much for the 'Jenin Massacre' theory. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/31/un.jenin.report/

Civilian - a person engaged in civil as distinguished from military and naval pursuits.

Soldier - a person engaged in military service.

Chambers Dictionary (1999).

[Marko]

"During the brutal Israeli military campaign in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank during the period of March 29-April 13, 2002, the Israeli occupation forces committed a massacre in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed. Initial estimates were more than 500 children, women, and men......"


There is always another version of events.

[Marko]

"JENIN, West Bank — Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation. The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office."

But which one do you beleive ? CNN, Washington Post, Palestininan Alliance news (!) ?

[Siberian HEAT]

I *think* the UN finally was allowed to investigate that camp and found the numbers were much lower than the Palestinian estimates. I don't have a source I can quote, but I know it was a big deal at the time. The unfortunate thing is that civilian casualties cannot be avoided when militia is fighting from inside buildings and sniping soldiers from within a crowded civilian camp.

Again, I think this is a case where both sides are to blame. :cry:

[Deltapooh]

We all know now the Palestinians grossly inflated the casualty numbers at Jenin. Even groups that are critical of tactics, like Human Rights Watch, put the civilian fatalities at below 25. I spoke out against Israel at Jenin, and was wrong. I foolishly believed the CNN reports, and learned after-the-fact Palestinians used the media to force a halt to the invasion, not because it was wrong, but because it was destroying their terrorists network.

So when you ask who I believe, I can honestly say I damn sure won't back the media or the Palestinians. Independent organizations investigated the incident clarifying their conclusions. None backed the Israeli attack. They simply went on the facts. Something I should have done.

During the brutal Israeli military campaign in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank during the period of March 29-April 13, 2002, the Israeli occupation forces committed a massacre in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed.

The Israeli attack was in response to repeated terrorists attacks. In 2002, Israel per capita (to the US) lost had 16,000 killed by terrorist attacks. That's several times more than what the United States lost on 9/11. A military response was the only solution available. All else failed.

I don't support the Palestinians because it's leaders are terrorists who have randsomed the lives of their people for personal reasons. Arafat is a politician who sees it's better to be oppressed than free. He's more concerned with his imagine than his people's liberty.

Secondly, I don't care what their reasons are, the Palestinians have no right to embark on the terrorists campaign they have. History is filled with examples of people achieving freedom peacefully. Some endured 100's of years of oppression. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has more to it than just security and freedom. Until the peoples are willing to seek peace (Israel did more so than the Palestinians in recent years) you will see a continuation of the violence. And I turn away from Palestinians who want to lie, and just kill.

Most of the resolutions you listed pertain to internal conflicts I don't believe can be resolved by military action. I feel the same way about Iraq. Notice I left out those resolutions condemning Saddam's oppression of the Kurds. That is an internal issue best solved by the Kurds and Saddam. While they stand to benefit from the invasion, I really don't want to bother with their internal issues. (However, I accept the reality that we ill become involved in any case.)

The UN is more quick to condemn Israel because it never recognized terrority seized during the Six-Day war. I do. The way I see it, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the Palestinians all believed the USSR's reports and moved against Israel. The IDF recognized the impending danger and struck first, which IMHO was the only way they might have achieved success. The IDF didn't massacre Egyptian POWs. They sent them home. The Arabs got their *sses kicked, and lost. They tried again in 1973, and still lost. So why don't they just shut up and take the whipping like a man?

I'm not saying Israel is blameless. However, the Palestinians have no halo. The fact that the UN hasn't moved to further condemn the Palestinians for their part is a statement of the hypocrisy that often dominates diplomacy.

Anyhow, the US didn't go to war against Israel, Turkey, or Morroco. We do go to war against Iraq. We spelled out conditions for him to meet. If he failed to meet them on purpose, it was at his own risk. Personally I couldn't give two hoots about the what the UN thought at this point. However, since everyone is "UN Happy," I wanted to remind them we didn't just imagine the past twelve years. If the UN want's to forget those resolutions fine by me, but they shouldn't jump down our backs for dropping the hammer.

[Mantis]

Marko, pardon my ineloquent turn of phrase, but why do you have such a hard-on for the Isrealis? You never miss an opportunity to lambast them, never giving credit to the fact that the group they are in direct conflict with are 'represented' by a mob of fanatics that are little more than terrorists? The Palestinians have real, honest-to-God griefs with Isreal, but they discredit themselves and turn the whole process into a joke by way of their actions. Who's going to side with them after a car slams into a school bus and kills 20 children? YAY??!!??

I'm not coming down on you, Marko, I simply want to go underneath the 80 things you've posted against them, and find out WHY you hate them so much.

[Marko]

I do not hate Israel or Israeli's. I do beleive that the war is a stupid one that needs to be resolved. I do blame the Israeli's for instigating many attacks and not allowing the peace process to develop. For example, there were no attacks for several weeks (primarily due to excellent security measures by the Israeli security forces). So all of a sudden the Israeli's initiate a surge into Gaza with hundreds of troops and tanks, killing and injuring innocent people, and probably a few terrorists (the law of averages). So guess what happens, the Palestinians swear revenge and they get it, and then the whole circle starts again. The Israeli's have also systematically destroyed the Palestinian security forces infrastructure and as a result they are no longer able to aid the fight against terrorists. So more terrorists attacks ensue. So smell the roses and stop labelling me - I DO NOT HATE ISRAELI'S. I also happen to think their soldiers are amongst the finest in the world.:love:

[Marko]

Oh yes...I cite Israel alot for their ignoring of UN resolutions and I do this to underline the Iraq situation. You know one rule for one....The same could be said for any other violating country.

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Marko
For example, there were no attacks for several weeks (primarily due to excellent security measures by the Israeli security forces). So all of a sudden the Israeli's initiate a surge into Gaza with hundreds of troops and tanks, killing and injuring innocent people, and probably a few terrorists (the law of averages).

Wrong Marko.

Palestinian rockets were being launched into Israeli territory from Gaza two days BEFORE
the Israeli incursion. The Israeli objectives were to seized and/or destroy the factories that manufactured the rockets and to neutralize the launching areas.

Granted, some innocent Palestinians may have died in the process, but can you expect anything less when Hamas and Hezbollah forces are launching attacks on Israel from within built-up areas ?

As I've said in another post, the Palestinians are very adept at using the media to their advantage.
They launch rockets or snipe at Israeli units from within built-up residential areas and scream blue bloody murder when the Israelis move in to deal with the problem.

I admit the Israelis are often heavy handed in their application of force, but you have to understand that they've been fighting for their survival from the day they became a country back in 1948.

[Siberian HEAT]

I support neither side in the Palestinian conflict. However, I have the least respect for the Palestinians and here is why. Their leader (Arafat) has his little "Fatah" movement - and every other suicide attack in which women and children are targeted seems to get credited to "the Fatah movement, a group affiliated with Yasser Arafat." <-- as quoted on news reports.

If Arafat TRULY wanted peace he would disband his movement, and not allow his name in any way shape or form to be associated with terrorist attacks. Quite simply he is preaching peace at the front door and sending his Fatah buddies out the back door to mix it up with Israel.

Israel has it's own problems including needless bloodshed (why use bullets against stones?), but the prize for stupidity goes to the Palestinians.

In fact, just a few years ago I bet the majority of americans supported the Palestinian cause...until the current uprising began and the suicide squads started up again. :cry:

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
I support neither side in the Palestinian conflict. However, I have the least respect for the Palestinians and here is why. Their leader (Arafat) has his little "Fatah" movement - and every other suicide attack in which women and children are targeted seems to get credited to "the Fatah movement, a group affiliated with Yasser Arafat." <-- as quoted on news reports.


Don't be so harsh about Al-Fatah, it was only founded to free the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israeli occupation. No wait a second, it was founded in 1956 over a decade before the occupation..:rolleyes:

[Marko]

Originally posted by tigersqn


Wrong Marko.

Palestinian rockets were being launched into Israeli territory from Gaza two days BEFORE
the Israeli incursion. The Israeli objectives were to seized and/or destroy the factories that manufactured the rockets and to neutralize the launching areas.

Granted, some innocent Palestinians may have died in the process, but can you expect anything less when Hamas and Hezbollah forces are launching attacks on Israel from within built-up areas ?

As I've said in another post, the Palestinians are very adept at using the media to their advantage.
They launch rockets or snipe at Israeli units from within built-up residential areas and scream blue bloody murder when the Israelis move in to deal with the problem.

I admit the Israelis are often heavy handed in their application of force, but you have to understand that they've been fighting for their survival from the day they became a country back in 1948.

I admire their resolve against the Arab nations and their surviviability. However, I have read different versions of the latest attack and why it was provoked. I am more likely to believe Palestinian versions of events than I am those of the Israeli's, because they seem to be more accurate when compared to the results of investigations into what really happens in the area. By the way - to those pro-Israeli's, who will bombard me for being pro-Palestinian - unlucky. :clown: I don't like systematic genocide by any country.

[Deltapooh]

I admire their resolve against the Arab nations and their surviviability. However, I have read different versions of the latest attack and why it was provoked. I am more likely to believe Palestinian versions of events than I am those of the Israeli's, because they seem to be more accurate when compared to the results of investigations into what really happens in the area. By the way - to those pro-Israeli's, who will bombard me for being pro-Palestinian - unlucky. I don't like systematic genocide by any country.

The Palestinians were given an opportunity to achieve almost every political objective they sought. Arafat simply refused to participate in the negotiations for "god only knows" what reason. He then ran home and said the Israelis were no longer committed to the peace process.

I don't claim Israel is an angel. However, the Palestinians must realize violence will not achieve their objectives. People have achieved freedom and equality through non-violence. I would certainly look more kindly upon the Palestinian cause if everytime I opened my newspaper I didn't see another report of some Palestinian jackass who blew up a bus filled with Israeli civilians.

I trusted the Palestinians in the past, and felt betrayed by consistent lying on the part of their leaders. The only way I would support an Israeli withdrawal now is if the Palestinians halted all attacks for an extended period of time.

Israel has shown great restraint. The Palestinians are dangerously close to pushing that nation beyond the rational point. The Israelis have adopted urban warfare doctrine in the hopes of minimizing civilian casualties. Palestinian terrorists continue to use their own people as cover.

I'm not prepared to give the Palestinians anything now. They will have to earn peace by showing the kind of restraint that so many other oppressed people have expressed. The continuation of the senseless violence, whether provoked, or not, can't be justified. If Israel isn't the better man, the Palestinians should step up to the plate. Since they aren't, and appear to me the aggressor, I will simply ignore most of their cries for freedom.

It's time the Palestinians realize what kind of leadership they have. Arafat is more concerned with his legacy than the freedom of his people. He is so frightened of becoming the first leader of the a failed Palestinian state, he is willing to offer his people's trust and freedom as resource for his political position. The terrorists who are supposedly fighting for the freedom of their people have adopted an outrageous objective which will ensure violence will continue for decades to come.

If the Palestinians halted their attacks for a few months, I would demand Israel reinstate a previous offer that met many of the Palestinians demands. Until then, they will have to accept the consequences of their senseless action. However, I fear their will come a time when Israel's restraint will evaporate. The international community must be ready for that. I don't want to see the IDF embarking on a house to house search for terrorists with no ROE.

I don't support genocide either Marko. I just degree on who is committing that genocide.

[Marko]

I say let Norway deal with them both. I say this after hearing Norway was recently involved in her first combat since WWII - two F-16's providing air support for US led forces in Afghanistan a couple of days ago. Don't mess with the nordic boys.

[Chuck?]

Originally posted by Deltapooh

The Palestinians were given an opportunity to achieve almost every political objective they sought. Arafat simply refused to participate in the negotiations for "god only knows" what reason. He then ran home and said the Israelis were no longer committed to the peace process.

Arafat has killed many people in his life. It is also true Arafat would of been killed by Palestinian hardliners for making any peace deal. But at least Arafat would of gone to his grave with at least some respect. Now, sooner rather than later, Arafat will die as a thug. For the Palestinians who want to live normal lives in peace I'm truly sorry they have this guy as their 'leader'.


I don't claim Israel is an angel. However, the Palestinians must realize violence will not achieve their objectives. People have achieved freedom and equality through non-violence. I would certainly look more kindly upon the Palestinian cause if everytime I opened my newspaper I didn't see another report of some Palestinian jackass who blew up a bus filled with Israeli civilians.

It's irrevelant if Israel is an angel. It's like saying the United States wasn't an angel in World War Two. Didn't we kill millions of innocent civilians in Japan and Germany? In the big scheme of things, so what? We were still right.


I trusted the Palestinians in the past, and felt betrayed by consistent lying on the part of their leaders. The only way I would support an Israeli withdrawal now is if the Palestinians halted all attacks for an extended period of time.

Israel can't worry about whether you, I, or anyone else 'trust' the Palestinians. They have to have some solid guarantees in regards to security before any type of lasting peace will occur.


Israel has shown great restraint. The Palestinians are dangerously close to pushing that nation beyond the rational point. The Israelis have adopted urban warfare doctrine in the hopes of minimizing civilian casualties. Palestinian terrorists continue to use their own people as cover.

This is very logical and correct. Some accuse Israel of being just like the Nazi's and practicing genocide. Of course a lot of these same people think Bush is worse than Saddam. It's all far left horse**** if you want my honest opinion on the matter.


I'm not prepared to give the Palestinians anything now. They will have to earn peace by showing the kind of restraint that so many other oppressed people have expressed. The continuation of the senseless violence, whether provoked, or not, can't be justified. If Israel isn't the better man, the Palestinians should step up to the plate. Since they aren't, and appear to me the aggressor, I will simply ignore most of their cries for freedom.

We have to think in the long term rather one incident from the next. A change in attitude for both parties at this point is impossible. After so many deaths on both sides there can be no talk of real peace for many, many years. To talk about peace at this point ignores reality.

It's time the Palestinians realize what kind of leadership they have. Arafat is more concerned with his legacy than the freedom of his people. He is so frightened of becoming the first leader of the a failed Palestinian state, he is willing to offer his people's trust and freedom as resource for his political position. The terrorists who are supposedly fighting for the freedom of their people have adopted an outrageous objective which will ensure violence will continue for decades to come.

I don't think Arafat is much worried about his legacy. He's more worried about getting a bullet in the back of his head. However he is an old man now and won't be around much longer.


If the Palestinians halted their attacks for a few months, I would demand Israel reinstate a previous offer that met many of the Palestinians demands. Until then, they will have to accept the consequences of their senseless action. However, I fear their will come a time when Israel's restraint will evaporate. The international community must be ready for that. I don't want to see the IDF embarking on a house to house search for terrorists with no ROE.

I would put any timetable in years rather than months but it's really not up to me.

[Marko]

Free Palestine...down with the Israeli invaders.....:ar15:


Its a two way street.