Originally posted by Toad
The idea that the current Iraq has anything at all in common with the Iraq that those resolutions mention is simply laughable.
Which makes your entire line of reasoning here laughable as well.
Well for starters:
1. They're spelt the same so the name that appears in the resolutions are the same.
2. They have the same borders and occupy the same place.
3. It's mostly the same people.
4. They use the same languages.
5. They have the same religions.
6. The government of Iraq is still called the government of Iraq so the name that appears in the resolutions are the same.
On a less frivolous note - find me the bit in any of the UN resolutions that says "if you get rid of Hussein, we'll let you off".
Originally posted by muckmaw
This is silly, Dead.
Your arguing semantics.
There is no Iraqi government to reply to a UN request for information.
The Iraqi government does not exist at this time. It is simply a country managed by an occupying army.
Don't you have something with more meat than this?
This posts sounds like an argument a third rate attorney would put forth.
You need to watch the news more - Iraq's first president after Hussein was Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and they have a 25-member Governing Council (they're going through the whole council alphabetically to share the presidency). If they're a bit too puppety for your tastes there's always L. Paul Bremer the U.S. administrator of Iraq.
Of course it's semantics - all law is down to meaning of the words.
It's semantics in the same way that the issue of the contentious "unaccounted for" WMDs was arguably semantics. No one in the UN actually knew how many WMDs Iraq had or had produced, so the figures were, for the most part, estimates. Thus if Iraq did not reach these estimates - even if it was because they hadn't produced that much - the UN would hold them in material breech.
It's semantics in the same way that Bush justified the invasion as being what was meant by the "serious consequences" in paras 12 & 13 of resolution 1441: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
So I'll stand by this "third rate attorney" reasoning because it raises an important question: Why didn't the interim government/US government let UNMOVIC in? What's the big problem with letting them in - if it's all as you suggest just semantics or as Toad suggests - laughable?
The nonsubmission to this "formality" in turn raises some rather scarier questions:
Is this perhaps a handy "get out of democracy free" card for the US, should the US disapproves of the Iraqi people's choice in any future election? Will they, if seriously upset by Iraq's choice, cry "Material Breech" and reinvade?
Or is it to allow the US to plant WMD evidence without the embarrassing prospect of some independent expert seeing through such a subterfuge and blowing the whistle?
Given some of the venal and devious foreign policy episodes in the US's recent past, these are questions that should be asked.
