It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Annan: Iraq to accept inspections

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 06:01 PM
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 16 U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan announced Monday evening that Iraq had agreed to accept a new round of weapons inspections without condition. The news came as the United States pressed key U.N. members to draft a resolution setting a deadline for Baghdad to comply with its previous commitments to disarm and prove that it had destroyed all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons......

posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 09:06 PM

posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 10:12 PM
very odd.

Saddams jerking the UN around.

posted on Sep, 16 2002 @ 10:16 PM
saying you are going to do something and dooing it are to different thing's. He just needed more time to hide his stash. He has threatened american's lot's of time's isn't that enuff. He has called out for the arab's to attack anyway they can isn't that enuff?? I say blow the # out of the guy or atleast send someone inside and snipe his ass anything but doing nothing.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 08:51 AM
what a load of rubbish cherokee:

"He has threatened american's lot's of time's isn't that enuff. He has called out for the arab's to attack anyway they can isn't that enuff?? I say blow the # out of the guy or atleast send someone inside and snipe his ass anything but doing nothing."

get me one single report of hussein threatening to attack america. show me one piece of evidence where he asked any other nation to attack america. his recent rallying has been to try to drum up support for a defence of iraq during any offensive we might make. that's not attacking, that's just trying to protect yourself.

- qo.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 08:55 AM
a quote from the article MM posted:

"U.N. arms experts, in charge of destroying Iraqs prohibited weapons under U.N. resolutions after the 1991 Gulf War, left Baghdad on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing campaign launched in December 1998 over Baghdads alleged failure to cooperate with the inspections."

now, read between the lines. the inspection teams - though hampered by iraqi attempts to jerk them around - only left iraq because the UN told them to do so because the allied forces were starting there attack. had there not been an attack, they could have stayed. only AFTER the gulf war did saddam say they couldn't come back. now that's not necessarily a glowing example of international good will, but its ever-so-slightly-different to how your lovely media is putting it.

oh, as an alternative source of news, though it says pretty much the same thing, try:

they have a full articles there currently that relate to the iraqi question and current events.

- qo.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 12:10 PM
quiet one

FACT 1 The reason the USA/UK bombed Iraq in 1998 was because they weren't giving access to UN weapons inspectors.
FACT 2 The weapons inspectors left because they didn't want to subjected to Saddam's practices of taking hostages and being used as human shields.

What is the point of having them stay if they can't do their job ? The evidence of their coverups is huge. When armed soldiers stop inspectors at certain facilities, what do u think they're protecting Lupe ? baby milk factories ?
All they were was defacto hostages, just waiting for Saddam to arrest them if it didn't suit his needs.


posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 12:47 PM
From Q.O.s own link posted here

UN inspectors left Iraq four years ago
after complaining of obstruction from
the Iraqi authorities.

Since then, Iraq has refused to allow
inspectors to return.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 02:09 PM
Iraq is stalling is rubbish. What is he stalling do to? Launch an attack? He's smply defending himself from what he fears will be the end of his term if the U.S. attacks Iraq. He wants weapons inspectors to belay fears that iraq is developing weapons of mass distruction so there will be NO SUPPORT for an attack on his country. If there's no support, then Bush will either have create support or not invade. The latter seams extremely unlikely at the moment, so I am making a prediction that there will be something, an event or 'new information' that will sway the publics opinion on going into Iraq.


posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 02:18 PM
Looks like the gun toting patriots are getting a little upset now it looks like their not going to have their war.Ahhhhh

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 02:21 PM
Don't worry Papa Bush will make you one anyway.Ha!ha!ha!

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 02:50 PM
I view the Iraqi response as some sort of international game of poker. How else do you / would you play this situation?

Dont gimme democracy vs still need some form of 'buy-in' to make this # happen. maybe i am a step ahead of yourselves...

The Iraqi regime have just apparently 'folded' or was that simply a 'bluff?'

Who can know unless you are looking under a glass table staring up at the other man's cards...

However, the key question is not whether you wonna have a peek at the other guys hand, its more a case of whether you think he has an ACE stuck up his sleeve...

Here comes the kicker. If you wanna play interantional politics within a pre-defined moral framework then the rules apply. In this case the rules equal 'justification' and for the simple folks out there that means ' evidence.' i.e. he had the cards in his hand!

What fightens me is that we are not playing poker anymore...

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 07:15 PM
Aw, come on, kiddies, are you guys that new to the "word games of the psycho-dictators" game?

As a seasoned veteran would have expected, "unfettered" doesn't mean exactly it might mean to most folk. In this case, it means unfettered access only to military installations. Of course, all the stuff the weapons inspectors would be looking for is to be found in schools and hospitals and other civilian places that wouldn't be hit by an airstrike, but hey! What's important is that the inspectors get to go back in and drive around in those cool U.N. LandRovers!
Don't be pathetic saps like Koffi Annan, wake up and smaell the Arabic blend coffee.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 08:46 PM
the US is pushing hard for removeal, so of course this is a kinda set back to the Bushies. Iraq letting inspectors back in not only buys Iraq some time it puts the the Bushies in a postion they were trying to foot-dragging by certain member states with interest in Iraq. i expect something big to happen in the next few weeks. i don't think Dubya will go away as quitely as he's got the support and soon the vote of the congress, who has said they advocate regime change already. i don't think there will be a new resolution and it'll be a few weeks before inspectors can enter Iraq. so somethings gotta give that will sway international opinion. since they were forced to go that route.

Iraq is also asking for sanctions to be lifted. that would go a long way in proving that the world doesn't want war, but a peaceful Iraq...i expect the US to be totally against this, stating he will have means to build up WMD, never mind the fact that he has been selling oil illegally, and they claim he already has WMD, that's why we must murder folk, right? she's laughing out loud folks.... why the lie? just tell the truth, you want to keep Iraq weakend economically. you want Iraq cut off from the world as far as trade, which hasn't happened because there is no such thing as the united nations. i guess, if you tell a lie long enough...

don't like where this is headed...i wish he would have refused inspections, i'm glad he allowed them, but if he hadn't the Bushies could have got what they wanted without committing treason...again. i better be careful, i don't want to be called outta my name i am, after all a sensative female.

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 09:05 PM
Darlin' did you not read the above posted explanation of why the "inspections" mean nothing? The creature in control of Iraq is still a threat to you, to me, to our loved ones, and is still causing the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Besides that, you piqued my curiosity; why would we want Iraq out of the world trade market? Being the maniacal capitalist and classical economist, I'd see Iraq's re-entry to the world economy as a good thing. OPEC's "legalized" cartel is obviously a bad thing, but itr's not worth going to war over. Or is that what you think we are going to do?

[Edited on 18-9-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Sep, 17 2002 @ 09:54 PM
Does anyone think the inspections have helped? It's been a JOKE. Saddam has never let them go around where they wanted to go. Inspectors have been detained and shot at. They've flown U-2 planes over to-be inspected sites to see hundreds of trucks leaving the sites, removing the contents of the site.

Future inspections will be a joke as well.

posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 07:18 AM
Interesting everyone seems to be ignoring what would seem to be a much simpler explanation for Iraq offering to readmit Weapons Inspectors, they're scared.

Or at least realistic, Saddam knows that he would not stand a chance against an attack from the US (almost certainly with some form of assistance from other western nations), even if he managed to kill many of the attackers, that will only make the demolition of his nation (and his government) all the more thorough.

Much of this bluffing and posing is obviously for his domestic audience, he has to be a strong leader to hold his grip on the country. How long would a democratic leader stay in power if they were seen to kowtow to other nations demands first time every time?

Why is it so unlikely that Iraq is just plain #scared of the threats that GWB seems so keen on repeating over and over. They have experienced firsthand what its like trying to stand up against the strongest military in the world, and know they have no chance.

posted on Sep, 18 2002 @ 06:24 PM
Kano, i think it was beyond Saddam's control. he had to let them back in to avoid a war with the US, which like you said he doesn't want...but he's running out of time, options, and friends so maybe he's a little scared too.

TC, it has always been the policy of this country to economically isolate countries we are at odds with such as what has been done to Cuba and Iraq. denying the people of that country economic growth and restricting trade in goods, information, technology, and medicine is what one means when one talks of sanctions. but, with Iraq it's difficult because of the oil situation--thus, oil for food-this way he sees no economic growth from trade. this tactic has a double edged effect on the population, they could blame the sanctions (UN/US), or the dictator, or both for the lousy situation they are forced to live within.

OPEC is an underground international government administration. hahaha, they are given their rights by our governments, recognized by our governments, they can only do what our governments allow, by law. OPEC isn't to blame for anything. when we war/murder for resources it's for our lively-hood, our way of life not because of OPEC. so if the Bushies take the reports and advice from OPEC and decide to war/murder in the middle east or Africa or anywhere's not for OPEC it's for their jobs and industry and basically what can be seen as the overall good of a country whose very survival is dependant upon a scarce natural resource.

top topics


log in