Talk:Iraq disarmament crisis

This article is unorganized
The points aren't stated clearly, on the page for 1996, it says it began in 1996 with UNSCOM supervising the destruction of Al-Hakam, the major producer of biological agents. This is really unorganized, clean it up, make the information chronological, make sure it covers all sides of the issue, including the side of the issue under the Clinton administration.

I don't understand
The article says that it became a crisis in 2002-2003, in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, yet the time line spans over 13 years:

Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1990-1996 Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1997-2000 Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001-2003

Am I missing something? --James Bond 06:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the intended meaning is that the Iraqi disarmament itself lasted that long, but didn't become an acute crisis until 2002. Funny wording here, but possibly simpler than creating different articles. Kirill Lokshin 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not neutral!
It states the possibility that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair lied about Iraq's possession of nuclear, chemical, biological, or other weapons of mass destruction. This claim has no proof whatsoever and no poll data backing up the presumptous statement. it must be removed, or this neutrality policy is hypocritical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian71490 (talk • contribs) 09:39, October 24, 2006.
 * I think the article needs to be completely re-written. It does not even mention Operation Desert Fox nor Operation Southern Watch and Operation Northern Watch.--James Bond 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * actually there is plenty of evidence that Bush lied about the weapons issue. Take for example, the following article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.21.5 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal under International Law
I am suprised that there is no mention of the Kellog Briand Pact (about 1929) here. This Pact (really a treaty) prohibits signees (the US did sign with a reseveration of self defense) from using agressive war or use their military for political goals. I have see nothing in the news or elsewhere about this aspect of International Law and its applicability to this topic. 199.244.214.30 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (DMG)


 * It's a non-issue. The signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Pact have been involved in hundreds of wars since 1928. The Pact is notoriously known as a failure; every single signatory just claims self-defense or collective defense to get around it whenever they choose to enter an armed conflict. —Lowellian (reply) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate
It states that "Saddam Hussein subsequently allowed UN inspectors to access some Iraqi sites, while the U.S. government continued to say that Iraq was being obstructionist, due to the fact that there were numerous sites made unavailable for inspection." This is incorrect, as unfettered access through Iraq without exception was allowed with a single exception, including spot and surprise inspections of Saddam's palaces.

According to An Update on Inspection, presented on January 27, 2003 to the UN Security Council by Dr. Hanx Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Another source, the Congressional Research Service, in its report to Congress on the UN Iraqi WMDs inspection, stated as follows:

"Between November 2002 and mid-March 2003, UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors conducted 750 inspections at 550 sites. They conducted unannounced inspections, interviewed Iraqi personnel, taken samples, and collected documents. Although Iraq initially objected to reconnaissance flights (by U-2, Mirage 4 and Russian Antonov aircraft) and reportedly actively discouraged scientists from being interviewed in private, by mid-February Iraq acquiesced to these rights of the inspectorate. Both UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei generally characterized Iraqi cooperation as good on process and lacking on substance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.157.200 (talk) 4 November 2006


 * There were no denials of access. You are correct. The lead needs to be rewritten to reflect this. smb 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, there is plenty to support the point of view that "Iraq was being obstructionist," in the very material you cite. Blix describes it as "a game of hide and seek," characterizes Iraqi attitudes as not having accepted the inspection regimes, and states that they couldn't use U2's because Iraq "has refused to guarantee its safety." (all this can be found on http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#2). I don't know what international relations/history/internation law type stuff you folks have taken, but the education I received generally leads me to interpret that as saying: "they threatened to shoot us down."

I think that is worthy of being called "obstructionist."

Further, I think a good reading of this piece, and it was a critical piece in this series of events, must lead to the conclusion that Hans Blix very definitely equivocated here. He mentions some very serious violations (such as being threatened with violence, albeit in the very smoothest of politispeak), while at the same time trying to sound as upbeat as possible in his report. I think that any mention or citation of his report should discuss the duplicity, understandable though it may be, of the briefing.

Bluesprite (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
This page quickly wonders off into irrelevancy. I draw your attention to the subsections under Issues of Concern: Unfound WMD stockpiles > Theories on the Unfound WMD Stockpiles > Oil For Food Scandal, etc. These fractured topics are covered in detail on their respective pages. For example, the unsourced section on WMD theories is done better on WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war. Therefore I propose these and other sections for deletion, as per the cleanup-rewrite tag. smb 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

December 1998
Anyone got a problem with me beefing up the article a bit? Especially in regards to December 1998 Ryan4314 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

here is a url that is relevant to the 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html I believe it should be in there. Many people talking about the Iraq war fail to understand the destruction sanctions and periodic bombing were doing to the civilian population. While I wasn't for the war, in hindsight and in the long run, it may have a positive outcome.

12.201.62.188 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with phrasing
I would like to strike the phrase: "Bush did not remind his audience that when the Iraqi government used poison gas against Iran and the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan during the Iran-Iraq war, the US said and did nothing. Iran was considered a bigger threat at the time." It seems out of place to me. The section is discussing what the nature of the disagreements were, and is not actually directly relevant to the point being made. It might be worth mentioning somewhere else, perhaps under criticism, but it doesn't make any sense that it's under the UNSC disagreement.

It also doesn't seem to support any particular argument except that US foreign policy changes, which, frankly, is a rather obvious point that to me hardly seems worth mentioning.

above was mine: Bluesprite (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the use of "crisis" in the title a WP:NPOV?
Crisis was a word used mostly by pro-war groups in the USA. Most NATO countries and most countries in the UN never saw the issue as a crisis -- Thebuscamebyandigoton (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No. There was a crisis over the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  Whether you believe that concerns over Iraqi alleged WMD programs were genuine, manufactured or overstated, there was an international crisis over what actions to take. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq disarmament crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512001853/https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/bulletin.gb.asp?liste=20030211.gb.html to https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/bulletin.gb.asp?liste=20030211.gb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iraq disarmament crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030316065557/http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2079678/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081130173110/http://www.wsws.org/category/me-iraq.shtml to http://wsws.org/category/me-iraq.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021124113736/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020816-17858616.htm to http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020816-17858616.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030227102603/http://www.counterpunch.com/leopold02192003.html to http://www.counterpunch.com/leopold02192003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)