Iraq refuses weapons inspection provisions.
 

So much for diplomacy.

Iraq Rejects Push by U.S. to Toughen Inspection Rules; Lobbying Continues in U.N.
By JULIA PRESTON and PATRICK E. TYLER - The New York Times


UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 28 — Iraq rejected today a proposal by the United States and Britain for a Security Council resolution imposing tough weapons inspections, saying that it would not accept any new rules for the work of United Nations inspectors.

Diplomats from Washington and London shuttled to Moscow and Beijing today after consulting in Paris, trying to overcome strong objections to the draft resolution among the other three permanent, veto-bearing members of the Security Council. The proposal gives Iraq 30 days to make full disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction and provides for intrusive inspections, authorizing a military attack if Baghdad does not comply.

Where the US and Britain would have bypassed diplomacy if they could and where Iraq began with only a half arsed interest in diplomacy anyway, probably just to buy time and sympathy.

I bet all sides have twiddled their diplomatic thumbs knowing full well that plan A is well afoot for both sides.

The Areoplane flies high, turns left, looks right

if you'll excuse me I need to go hug a tree now.

------------------
I'm not gay.
I'm not gay.
But I dance around in a gay, gay way.

exactly. the previous one that iraq offered was perfectly fine, and was incompliance with allready agreed upon UN plan, and with US demands. the US rejects it calls for a ridiculously more tough inspection (which violated a UN resolution), so when iraq rejects their offer they have the stance of all "well, we tried. now were being forced to go to war. so how evil iraq is?"
if they gave a shit about resolving this peacefully, they wouldnt have done this and they know it.

I'll agree that George Jr. ALWAYS had the intent to go to war with the dictator who tried to have his father assasinated BUT I don't think the new resolutions are "ridiculous". If anything the new resolutions show the "old" resolutions were political dressing & lacking in any real teeth. The New Resolutions are :

* 7 days for Iraq to accept the new resolutions
* 30 days for Iraq to provide a list of "deadly" weapons it has
* Allow inspectors access to ALL sites including mosques, government buildings, & Saddam Hussein's Residences
* Iraq to provide full details on any mass destruction development programs
* Unannounced checks by inspectors with accompanying armed guards (prior inspections were with Iraqi guides)

There's going to be a War with Iraq because Iraq is doing all the things USA accuse them of & their stall tactics have finally worn their welcome. Also, George Jr. & his men/women (other than War Veteran Powell) are all G.I.JOE for it & the Democrats know that post 9/11 the objection to War with a "evil" country like Iraq is political suicide (at least for now....as usual, the more a War drags on the less the general public is willing to accept it esp. is death tolls start mounting for the US Side).

Nevermind the reaction of Russia, China & France, the U.S. (with Britain) will go to War. Hey Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly an evil sonofabitch & I'm more than happy to see him dead (like I'm sure most of us are) but the real threat in an Iraq war is not Iraq itself but how the muslim countries react to the US led attack. For example, I fear more the instability of Pakistan (a confirmed nuclear capable country) than I do Iraq & their alleged Al-Qaeda connections.

In any case History (WWW I to WWW II) has shown us that post-war penalties on a "defeated" country that devastates them economically will only crate more "evil" men like Saddam & a population willing to accept such evil.

The most ironic part of all this is George W. pre 9/11 did not want to be a "world-builder" but now he is doing that in Afghanistan & will have to do it again in Iraq if their war is successful". Nevermind the problems in Pakistan/India, North Korea, China, Philippines, etc.....good thing for Republicans if the "Bush Wars" keep going past 2004, a Democrat will definetly not be elected President in War time http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/smile.gif

Bingo. When Bush was elected, did anyone really think he'd get another term? But now it's not so cut and dried. Funny how things work out.

As far as the resolutions go... I'm not so sure about the legalities, but those look like extremely heavy measures. Allow inspectors to go absolutely anywhere in the country, accompanied by armed forces, completely unannounced? And whose armed forces would they be? I don't think any country would be jumping at this chance - especially for unfettered access to the provate residences of the head of state (who is obviously already feeling threatened). It's similar to what happened in Serbia - agreements on Kosovo were prevented by unacceptable provisions set by NATO, and so Serbian cities (and Serbian civilians) ended up being bombed.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kosovo-solution.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/9907/kosovo-diplomacy.html

Looks like war will be inevitable soon enough...


------------------
"What else is in the teaches of peaches?"

Well, what should be done is for the UN (*not* the US and UK) to say 'look, either you comply with the terms of the original resolutions, or there is really going to be trouble.' I think an amnesty on any weapons they *do* have would be appropriate, so long as they're dealt with. The thing about Saddam is if he's backed in a corner (which this new resolution effectively does) he's going to hole up and fight it out. If you give him a concession, and that allows inspectors in, you get 2 positives - Iraq gets disarmed without a war, and then the UN sanctions can end, and the country can start to recover. Now is not the time to sweep in, kill a bunch of Iraqis and take out Saddam, and then leave an already shattered country in a completely unstable situation politically. If the UN does apply pressure to accept the original resolutions, and Saddam still rejects them... then something will have to be done. Unfortunately, that option isn't even available at the moment.

Incidentally, there's been a memo leaked recently which suggests all these fantastic next-generation smart weapons don't actually work as well as is made out. I'm glad I don't live in Baghdad
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-020908-failures.html

they should just have a big e party...theyd all come out friends afterwards

Side note question: How do you pronounce Iraq?? Eraq or iraq?? Seriously.

I agree with everything you said, except I think you skipped over this a bit too quickly. It's a bit naive to think that if the UN sanctions are lifted, the country will start to recover; it's quite likely that, in fact, Saddam's atrocities against his own people (as I have said in other threads, in my eyes, the only justification for going to war with Iraq) aren't going to stop even if the means for their ending are there.

That's not to say we should go to war immediately to ensure this doesn't happen--war may, in fact, not be inevitable. But at the same time, it might be.

Just not now.

i've always said 'uh-rack.'

Well, I was talking about how the current sanctions against the country (put in place until the resolution is met, ie when 100% of the inspections are complete) are hurting the population a lot more than they're hurting Saddam. So when the sanctions are lifted, conditions *will* improve for the Iraqis somewhat. I'm not saying they're going to suddenly have a fantastic quality of life, but it's a definite start. When the country starts to find its feet again, *then* we should start giving support to the opposition parties in the country, and working towards political change by political means. Right now, there's nobody ready to step in if Saddam was toppled. Whether or not the west would support a democracy there is another matter... but I'm hopeful the whole Saddam issue will be resolved for the benefit of Iraq

people in britain generally say "A-rack"

This is why we must fight IRAQ!! Saddam is holding the other!!1!!

http://www.alledegodenavnevaroptaget...02bushring.jpg

It's like 'Ih-rawqh', but the vowel sound isn't drawn out, and the q is a slightly guttural sound from the back of the throat. I know I didn't explain that very well

it's like how scousers pronounce everything

how's that?

Well I was just curious if you say it with an E sound or an I sound...

Yes!

And it's 'I', like 'In' beev.