Iraq in Material Breach: U.S. Buildup Would begin in January

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Meanwhile Saddam has said the U.S. threat to disarm him with military force is nothing more than a dog bark. Once again Saddam is underestimating the United States and will likely force military action to be used against his regime for a second time.

U.N. experts: Little new in dossier

Dec. 19 — The top U.N. officials responsible for disarming Iraq told the Security Council Thursday that Baghdad’s latest declaration contains few new details on its alleged weapons of mass destruction. NBC News has learned that Secretary of State Colin Powell, who will deliver the U.S. verdict on the declaration later on Thursday, will describe Iraq’s failure to abide by the resolution while calling on the U.N. inspectors to test Baghdad’s coopera

AT THE closed meeting Thursday, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said there was “not much” new information about Iraq’s weapons programs in its 12,000-page declaration.
“There is a good bit of information about non-arms-related activities,” Blix said. “Not much information about the weapons.”
Blix said gaps remain in the declaration. “The absence of supporting evidence is what we are talking about mainly. That continues,” he said.
tion.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=121920021045

2

“Iraq in material breach says Bush’s Representative at the UN.”.. thats what the title of this thread should of read.

Its up to the UN to decide whether Iraq is in breach or not and what action to take, NOT the Bush Administration..

UN official - Iraq not breaching resolution](http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=57373090&p=57373796) :stuck_out_tongue:

3

From the article:
The term "material breach" is widely accepted as a trigger for military action against President Saddam Hussein.... the United States is notably the only nation to date that has used it in reference to the Iraqi dossier...

4

If I'm not wrong 12th january is the date set for attack on Iraq by Bush Administration ??

can anybody confirm it ?

5

flamezz, the Bush Adminstration has made it clear of its intention to invade Iraq regardless of the UN and International Law..

Meanwhile the French are continuing to champion the role of the UN.. vive la france :k:

Only UN can decide if Iraq has breached resolution: France](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/europe/view/27527/1/.html) Channel News Asia 19 Dec 02.

Only the United Nations has the sole prerogative to decide whether Iraq is in breach of its disarmament obligations, according to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. France is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.“In the case of a serious breach of obligations on Baghdad’s part… it will be solely up to the Security Council to reach any and all conclusions,” said Mr de Villepin.

His comment comes after US media reports say Washington is about to declare Baghdad in violation of the UN Resolution 1441, which calls for Iraq to disarm. The US is due to present its assessment of a 12,000 page Iraqi declaration on its weapons programmes to the UN Security Council.

That document has already stirred controversy as Syria, the only Arab nation currently on the Council, is returning its edited copy. Damascus says it is in protest at not getting the complete version which only the five permanent members have received. In the meantime, an international conference has opened in Egypt, hoping to highlight the dangers of a possible US military strike on Iraq. Some accused the US of having an ulterior motive behind its readiness to declare war on Iraq.

“That’s what its all about, it is launching an attack on Iraq, occupying Iraq, usurping its resources, natural resources oil and otherwise in order to continue being the sole superpower in the world according to the published strategy of the United States,” said Ashraf el-Bayoumi, an Egyptian professor and one of the conference organisers. The two-day meeting brings together academics and politicans from all over the world united in their opposition to military action.It also reflects rising concerns that war would be catastrophic for the Iraqi people.

6

This is more bogus posturing by the Bush administration which should be worried about the highest unemployment rate in America in 9 years rather than what Saddam is doing.

7

This all about finding an escape goat for their failure in afghanistan..which is as voliatile as ever. This is a very poor strategy for diverting the spotlight....which is doomed to backfire. I agree with kareem that they should be focusing more on their crumbling economy and other internal issues such as drug addiction, literacy rate (lowest in all developed countries) and the ever popular corporate scandals.

8

Rather than focus on the opinion of the US, and Powells’ statements, perhaps we should examine Hans the Meek’s meeting notes from yesterday’s Security Council meeting.

“While in most cases issues are outstanding because there is a lack of supporting evidence, in a few cases, there is information in our possession that would appear to contradict Iraq’s account. At this point, I will only mention that there are indications suggesting that Iraq’s account of it’s production and unilateral destruction of anthrax during the period between 1988 and 1991, may not be accurate.”

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/blix.notes/page8.html

Now, for someone as outwardly diplomatic as Hans to essentially say that they have direct evidence that Iraq is lying is indeed damning. The US contention that Iraq is in material breach may be well grounded in fact.

9

I am wondering if we should just drop the pretence that the UN inspections have any meaning at all.

The US has been chomping at the bit for the last 12 years to try and stick one on the eye of Saddam Hussein. I think we all would have been much happier if we had let them get on with it.

Here's a thought...

If we can send the UN into Iraq to do whatever they want, wherever they want, however they want... Instead of doing weapon inspections, why don't we get the UN to run democratic elections in Iraq by posting troops at every polling station and counting center... and threatening war if he tries to interfere?

If Saddam Hussein won't interfere with the weapons inspections through the threat of war, I doubt he will interfere with UN mandated and protected elections.

If there is going to be a regime change anyway, do we really need a war to achieve it?

The only question then remains, who will oppose Saddam Hussein in an election? If we can pick Karzai out of nowhere for Afghanistan, I am sure we can find some suitable candidates somewhere. In regional elections, I am sure the Kurds, ****es and other members of the Iraqi National Congress would be willing to stand.

Mind you, we were told that the last gulf war was to bring freedom and democracy to Kuwait. What a joke that was. I am sure that Afghanistan will go the same way, no democracy... just more of the same from a government with a different name. Once the US installs a military government in Iraq, then installs this Chalabi dude to scratch their backs... we'll realise that the BS we got about freeing Iraq from the clutches of a dictator, was just that and nothing more.

10

Okay, I am tired and stressed and I went off on a tangent... what I wanted to say was...

I doubt very much that Saddam Hussein is as innnocent as he says he is. He should be removed for the sake of the Iraqi people who have suffered more than enough.

Having said that, the removal should be done by the UN, not the US and UK. Why? The US and the UK do not have the moral equity to conduct such an operation. They were quite happy to give him all of the weapons, toture equipment and to turn the other way when he abused his people, so I don't think they have any right to impose their will on a people they have already helped to brutalise. I don't trust these countries to do anything for the innocent civilians out of the pure goodness of their hearts.

If the US and UK were to contribute forces to a UN military operation, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact this would be an ideal solotuion. However, they should not tbe in control and should not be installing military governments there.

The problem lies in these two countries bringing war to the innocent civilians of Iraq just because Bush's dad and Hussein had a lover's tiff.

11

Pilot,

I don’t think the Republican Guard would like a bunch of UN troops standing around at polling places. People leaving the polling places are likely to disappear.

In response to FlameZZ, It would appear that Jan12th is a little premature. I would guess that something will happen right after Han’s report to the UN on Jan 27th. Here is some interesting and updated data:

Recent Developments
A report from Knight Ridder dated December 20, 2002 indicates that the USNS Pilalaau (TAKR 304) was loading equipment in Beaumont, Texas on December 19, 2002. While it is not clear what the Pililaau was carrying, Beaumont is the port of embarkation for the 1st Cavalry Division and for the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized). It is unclear whether or not these units have received an alert and are preparing to deploy, as they are primarily tasked for operations in Korea, though the 1st Cavalry is part of the secondary force package for CENTCOM.

Furthermore, the same Knight Ridder story reported that the USNS Yano (TAKR 297) would be loading equipment on or about December 20 at Charleston, S.C. The report speculates that the equipment being loaded belongs to the 3rd Infantry Division.

Additionally, the Washington Post reports in a story dated December 20, 2002 that the USNS Watson (TAKR 310) and the USNS Charlton (TAKR 314) both sailed into the Persian Gulf since December 10, 2002. Both of these units are part of the afloat prepositioning squadron located at Diego Garcia.

In light of this information, the Order of Battle has been edited to reflect that elements of the 2x2 Brigade Set and the 1x1 Brigade set at Diego Garcia have been relocated to Kuwait.

This would bring the total number of brigade sets located in Southwest Asia to at least 6 possibly as much as 7 or 8 due to recent shipments from the United States. This roughly enough equipment for 2-3 Divisions.

Given this, the date of Jan12th would be premature, however the end of Jan is very reasonable to expect all equipment to be in order. The troop transit would take about 2 weeks. Given the huge amount of supplies each of the above mentioned ships carry, the probability of war just went up a great deal.

12

delete