Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam already defying UN, says White House
TelegraphCo.U.K. ^ | 11/19/2002 | By Toby Harnden and Anton La Guardia

Posted on 11/18/2002 5:58:08 PM PST by ex-Texan

Saddam already defying UN, says White House

By Toby Harnden and Anton La Guardia

The White House last night began to build its case that Saddam Hussein was already defying the United Nations.

It said Iraq's repeated attempts to fire on American and British aircraft in the no-fly zones amounted to a "material breach" of the latest Security Council resolution.

But Britain has not echoed Washington's comments and officials in London privately expressed concern that America could seize on Iraq's behaviour in the no-fly zones as a possible casus belli.

Whitehall sources said key members of the Security Council disputed the legality of the no-fly zones, and Tony Blair would find it difficult to join a war justified only by Iraqi threats to Allied aircraft.

As an advance party of UN weapons inspectors landed in Baghdad, saying Iraq had a "new opportunity" to comply, Washington made plain the Bush administration's scepticism that the UN would be able to disarm Saddam.

The arrival in Baghdad of Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, and some 30 colleagues was greeted without fanfare at the White House, which remains focused on how to topple Saddam by March.

Instead, it opened a new front in the war of words against Baghdad, where state-controlled newspapers pledged that the government would co-operate "in order to expose the lies of US and British governments".

Allied aircraft yesterday dropped precision-guided bombs on Iraqi air defences in "self-defence". The White House has seized on the almost daily clashes as a sign of Baghdad's defiance.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said: "In the resolution it says Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed at any representative or personnel of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution."

During a trip to Chile, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said: "I do find it unacceptable that Iraq fires. It is for the president of the United States and the UN Security Council to make judgments about their view of Iraq's behaviour over a period of time."

However, US officials indicated that America would not go back to the UN until further violations - such as impeding the work of the inspectors.

UN Security Council resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq does not co-operate with a reinforced system of weapons inspections.

America and Britain say the no-fly zones are designed to protect Iraqi Kurds and Shi'ites, and were imposed to support UN resolution 688 telling Iraq to halt the repression of civilians. But Iraq maintains that they are illegal because they were not approved by the Security Council.

Mr Blix was cautiously upbeat yesterday and said he was "making progress" after initial talks with officials.

Stepping off a UN transport aircraft earlier, Mr Blix said: "We have come for one reason and that is because the world wants to have assurances that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"The situation is tense at the moment, but there is a new opportunity and we are here to provide inspection which is credible."

American misgivings about the mission were reinforced when Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the team would need "six months to a year" before it could produce the results of its inspections.

Mr ElBaradei, who will lead inspections of suspected nuclear sites, called on the international community to "be patient".

Nearly three quarters of Americans now back war with Iraq and the Republican victory in the mid-term elections further strengthened the hand of those pushing for military action.

Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and Donald Rumsfeld, Defence Secretary, are understood to believe that resolution 1441 has many drawbacks and presents a potential trap for Mr Bush.

They are confident, however, that the trap can be avoided and that a casus belli for war can be presented to the UN within weeks


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: naughtysaddam; saddaminbreach
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: hole_n_one
They have the beginnings of the "Jim Jones" cult thing, don't they?
21 posted on 11/18/2002 7:02:35 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
To support a tin-pot dictator like Sadaam after he has broken UN resolutions 16 times is nuts. Sadaam attacked Kuwait in 1991, gassed the Kurds earlier and supports Terrorism worldwide. Any who believe that the U.S. does not have the moral high ground here are delusional. Make any excuse you want. We haven't targeted civilians in our own country like he has, We haven't attacked our defenseless neighbors like he has (And those who believe Sadaam had implicit or explicit approval, only are listening to what Sadaam says, which is foolish.), We haven't supported terrorism and purposely targeted civilians like he has. We haven't defied the UN like he has, the only thing the United States has ever done that is wrong is we have been the world's policeman and have done everyone else's dirty work for them. The rest of the world is either wanting peace at any cost, or they are on the side of Sadaam. Appeasement and Support of this ruthless and lawless state is insane. The U.S. has and will always have the moral high ground and cassus beli because of things that have happened in the past. We make the mistake of allowing some kind of moral equivilency into the argument and that is just insane.
22 posted on 11/18/2002 7:32:13 PM PST by lmr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
It said Iraq's repeated attempts to fire on American and British aircraft in the no-fly zones amounted to a "material breach" of the latest Security Council resolution.

This to me is not defying the UN...It is outright stupid!!!!

23 posted on 11/18/2002 7:55:03 PM PST by Mixer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Milwaukee_Guy
My son got to shoot, It was terrifying, and that was from the inside of the tank.
24 posted on 11/18/2002 9:52:19 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
DEFENSE LINK.mil: RUMSFELD DISCUSSES IRAQ (November 18, 2002)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2002/n11182002_200211186.html
25 posted on 11/18/2002 11:10:46 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
ONLY?! Are they trying to say that it's okay to kill our pilots?!

The reason why it's no big deal is because Saddam can't hit our aircraft.

26 posted on 11/18/2002 11:27:51 PM PST by powderhorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
It said Iraq's repeated attempts to fire on American and British aircraft in the no-fly zones amounted to a "material breach" of the latest Security Council resolution.

LOL. No fly zones are an invention of the US and Britain. They are not authorized by any previous or current UN resolution. Thus, Iraq cannot possibly be "breaching" any UN resolution by shooting back.

27 posted on 11/19/2002 12:07:31 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lmr
gassed the Kurds

Not supported. An Allegation made by Kuwait and not documented.

supports Terrorism worldwide.

Against Iran. Our own Congress supports the "terrorist" groups that Iraq has aided.

28 posted on 11/19/2002 12:09:50 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Wonder why they never expressed this "concern" before.

They have. If you can name the alleged security council resolution that created or authorized them you'll be helping the Bush administration out.

29 posted on 11/19/2002 12:11:55 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Oh his gassing of people within Iraqi borders isn't real? Just a figment of our collective imaginations. Isn't there video of the corpses? Isn't this a well-known event?

What are you talking about, Akbar?
30 posted on 11/19/2002 12:21:23 AM PST by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Surely you KNOW that any attack on U.S. planes in the no-fly zone is a material breach under Security Council Resolution 1441, section 8:

"...Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution"

AND the fact is that IRAQ is NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE on our planes. It is CLEARLY a material breach.
31 posted on 11/19/2002 12:29:16 AM PST by recalcitrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam's representative SIGNED the agreement.
32 posted on 11/19/2002 12:30:40 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
here is the link to the resolution should you care to actually read it...
33 posted on 11/19/2002 12:32:27 AM PST by recalcitrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: recalcitrant
With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

You don't suppose shooting at allied planes constitutes ensuring safety, do you? :-)

34 posted on 11/19/2002 12:41:21 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: recalcitrant
Why is Kofi trying to say that that might not be relevant now? Did you hear that?
35 posted on 11/19/2002 12:42:08 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Wonder who those people were in the pictures in Time magazine showing women and children dead in the street with foam coming out of their mouths?
36 posted on 11/19/2002 12:53:09 AM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: powderhorn
The reason why it's no big deal is because Saddam can't hit our aircraft.

To an amazing extent, yes. However, if we keep on year after year letting the Baathist regime get away with firing on us, eventually, through science or smuggling, they will improve their anti-aircraft defenses and we will be faced with either retreat or losing airmen.

37 posted on 11/19/2002 3:51:25 AM PST by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Not supported. An Allegation made by Kuwait and not documented.

Is this comment serious? Is so, here's "documentation" of the gassing of Iraqi-citizen Kurdish civilians from the New Yorker, a liberal magazine famed for its fact checking:

The Great Terror

38 posted on 11/19/2002 4:04:09 AM PST by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
Time is short, we need to get this job done. We have other wars to fight.
39 posted on 11/19/2002 5:34:28 AM PST by johnb838
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
Oh his gassing of people within Iraqi borders isn't real?

It is an allegation made by Kuwait but hasn't been verified.

40 posted on 11/19/2002 7:02:26 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson