The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
First a query. Before the war began what exactly was the sequence of events that led to the inspectors being withdrawn from Iraq. My understanding is that the US advised the UN to remove inspectors before a set time. But isnt it prohibited that the UN take direction from a member country? Shouldnt there have been a UN resolution authorising withdrawal? As I recall Blix claimed that his foremost concern was the safety of his staff. But why should this be the case especially since the safety was threatened by an impending illegal act by a member state? If the inspectors had stayed the US would have been in an unenviable situation in that it would have interfered with the inspector's tasks and even have killed some, collaterally of course. This would be a political disaster for the US and UK. Instead, the UN agreed to be irrelevant. Will the inspectors immediately go back into Iraq once areas are secured? Why arent they returning immediately as areas become secure? What is to prevent the coalition of the willing from planting evidence of WMD. If none are found will the coaliton of the willing abjectly apologise, withdraw, and leave the UN to run Iraq? Cheers, Ken Hanly _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk