Help! I'm writing an article and I need to remember my facts

[Selwynn]

Right as I was typing this, I suddenly remembered that I think cooperative research has an Iraq time line that might help me. But here is my question anyway:

I am writing and article - this makes an argument that some will probably disagree with, but I'd like you to set that aside for now if you can, because my question is simply about facts. The main thesis of my article is: while nothing excuses the horror, mismanagement, tyranny and lies of this Administration, our current occupation of Iraq has eschewed a larger problem: the utter ineffectiveness of the UN. My argument is not that the UN is bad in theory, nor that we should pull out of the UN, nor is it an argument for unilateralist imperialistic US action. However, I point out the problems inherent in "multilateralism" as well as the ways in which the UN has not lived up to the dream - and I place blame for that in many places, some on the US (for vetoing practically everything) and some elsewhere.

The facts I want to know are these: the UN's stance prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The way I remember it, when Bush was making the case for action against Iraq, the United Nations wanted to pass a new resolution outlining specific standards that Saddam Hussein had to comply with, pertaining to weapons inspections primarily (was there anything else?)

The way I remember it, at first the Bush Administration said it would support a resolution that included an ultimatum - consequences for non-compliance with the resolution would be the authorization of military force. I seem to remember that that element was rejected by others who wanted a resolution first, then a separate resolution authorizing force if there was agreement that Saddam was in continued non-compliance. And then the Bush Administration refused to go along with that and went alone.

Am I remembering that basically correctly? Any links to specifics?
Thanks!
Sel

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. You have the broad outlines of events correct.

I'm sorry, but I don't have any links for you.

[BostonTeaParty04]

2. Definitely READ Resolution 1441

But also keep in mind that the ONLY reason a resolution was brought before the security council was because the US forced a resolution to be brought before the security council.

Had the US not pushed this....everything would have stayed the same as it was a year prior.

I think I am reading this correctly.

But read the actual resolution.... I don't believe it said anything about military actions... it said 'let the inspectors back in... Saddam better provide a full report of all weapons in existence and documented info in re to the destruction of any WMDs. It said.. IF Iraq failed to comply, that there would be consequences. I could be wrong, but it did not say MILITARY intervention.

so, what happened?

Saddam let the inspectors in. He toyed with them. They got pissed. They went back in with greater carte blanche authority for surprise visits. They came up with nothing. What happened? The US kicked the inspectors out, and we invaded.

Also, Saddam provided an 800 page report about weapons. The US took it BEFORE anyone else saw it..... classified a BUNCH of it.... and then let the security council see it. We are to take the US Administration's word that the classified pages are justified? I think not.

Frankly, the only article that should be written about the UN as not fulfilling its goals is that it is simply a convenient, use-as-necessary political body for the use and enjoyment and pleasure of the United States. It SHOULD be removed from US soil to create some distance from Washington, IMO


ON EDIT: If I were writing this article, I would research how much money and benefits the USA gives Security Council members. I would do a history of it. See how much of a bribe factor there really IS since the UN was created, since many countries are rotated on and off the council. Do they get more US Aid when they sit on the UN Security council>???

[Selwynn]

3. A couple clarifications for you:

First, yeah I don't think 1441 included any threat of force. I'm saying Bush WANTED that in the resolution, but didn't get it.

The report Iraq provided wasn't 800 pages, it was I believe over 2000 or maybe over 1600 - 800 pages was all that was left of if after the US classified the rest. HOWEVER, the FULL REPORT WAS LEAKED in the UK - and it basically was a pretty comprehensive account of what where and when Iraq had what.

You're suggesting about "following the money" will be something for a larger, more involed writing project outside the liminted scrope of what I'll be writing now. But it would be very interesting to do what you've described.

[Selwynn]

4. Further clarification:

I'm reading that the report was much, much larger. I found a print article from a year ago that said 8,000+ pages were classified. Clearly, I'll have to look into it more carefully.

The facts have slipped my mind, all I remember is that well over half of the document was classified, and that the full document leaked in Europe and the context of the classified material was a detailed account of all the weapons we sold to Iraq. :)

[Selwynn]

5. Got it! 8,000 of 11,800 pages censored.

From Alternet:

3. US Illegally Removes Pages from Iraq UN Report

Source: The Humanist and ArtVoice (March/April 2003), first covered by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!

Story three is the shockingly under-reported fact that the Bush administration removed a whopping 8,000 of 11,800 pages from the report the Iraqi government submitted to the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The pages included details on how the US had actually supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons and the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction. The pages reportedly implicate not only Reagan and Bush administration officials but also major corporations including Bechtel, Eastman Kodak and Dupont and the US Departments of Energy and Agriculture.

In comments to Project Censored, Michael Niman, author of one of the articles cited, noted that his article was based on secondary sources, mostly from the international press, since the topic received an almost complete blackout in the US press. Referring to his first Project Censored nomination in 1989, in which he went into the bush in Costa Rica, he said, "With such thorough self-censorship in the US press, reading the international press is now akin to going into the remote bush."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16784