Do you readers KNOW the truth of both Iraq Wars?

Question

chrissndrl2003 in Politics & Government > Military > Question said:
The Persian Gulf war was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. The mission was accomplished. I was there from November of 90 to November of 91. I did my 1 year tour. It sucked. It was hot, the flies and fleas were bad, sand storms every other day...

MY REPLY
In November 1990, the company that I worked for secured Saddam's agreement to withdraw from Kuwait and his invasion of Kuwait was something in which our nation had no legal right to act. The only time we could legally get involved in a conflict like that was if Saddam had committed an act of naked aggression. Meaning he invaded for no good cause and his motive was for material gains or to take over another nation. Both was not the case. Saddam's action was to correct a wrong, Kuwait's violation of OPEC rules. A policing action like what our nation does many times around the world!

You people should hold Bush's feet to the fire and hold him accountable!

.

Answer 1

His loyal followers do NOT care at all about this. Listen to what they say. Here is a typical example. "It doesn't matter how or why we got into Iraq, we just need to fix it and not cut and run". It does matter to me and it does matter to millions of Iraqi's. I do think Bush needs to be held accountable.

Answer 2

Are you talking about the George W Bush or his father? His father was resposible for the first Gulf War, not W.

Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam needed money to support his war with Iran. Saddam wanted Kuwait and other oil based countried to slow production so they could raise gas prices, so Saddam could get more money out of the rest of the world, Kuwait said no. So, Saddam invaded Kuwait to take over their oil, so they could get more money that way. This dind't work, because Kuwait is a part of the UN and the UN helps each other when a non member invades them. So, we did step up and help them. Granted, we pretty much took over, but we got Saddam out.

The second Gulf War was due to Saddam lying about the WMD's. Saddam failed to let the UN inspectors in and inspect where they wanted to, when they wanted to. Saddam kept delaying and stalling, so he could move the WMD's or hide them.



Whether Bush was right or wrong, I will support him. He might not be the best president, but he is the one that was voted into office. Any other person in his position would have made the same choice or they would have too affraid to make a choice and the US might have been in a worse shape than it is now. If another person would have not went to war with Iraq again, then Saddam would still be causing trouble, Osama would probably launch more attacks on us, simply because we had a president they could walk all over. Bush made the right choice at the time. He might have not made the same choice then if he knew what he knows today, but I am sure you made many wrong decisions, but you know what, you have to live with them. Granted, your not in the position to send people over there, abd he does, but that is his elected duty to do so.



As far as holding him accountable, you are forgetting, Bush can't just attack a country on his own, he has to get approval from Congress. Congress agreed to let him go over there again, plus, there were many Americans who had no political influence in favor of going back over there and finishing the job.



Kuwait didn't violate OPEC rules, if they did, we would have sided with Iraq, and the other OPEC countries would have demanded we not help Kuwait.

Answer 3

You state:



"The only time we could legally get involved in a conflict like that was if Saddam had committed an act of naked aggression. Meaning he invaded for no good cause and his motive was for material gains or to take over another nation. Both was not the case. Saddam's action was to correct a wrong, Kuwait's violation of OPEC rules."



So...he invaded a seperate, sovereign nation because they broke a trade agreement (financial partnership). By your own words, both WERE the case.

Answer 4

You really should check your information before spouting off what other people have told you to believe. If you are just now a grad student, I assume you were still sleeping with the lights on back in 1990 and don't remember what the rest of us actually saw back then.



You have been seriously mislead if you can characterize what Saddam did to Kuwait back in 1990 as a "police" action that was justified. Look it up for yourself in a reputable source before posting more questions on Y/A.

Answer 5

I think that most people know what really happened.



There are, however, some slightly less sane people out there who spend their time going to question and answer sites trying to campaign some sort of uprising against the president. They have a pretty close-minded sense of right and wrong, and believe that all others just believe in their version of truth and justice.



Either take some sort of legal action or seek help for your obsessing.

Answer 6

Even though it came from the UN and NOT the US? Saddam did invade for personal gain and to take over the country! That was why the UN approved it!

Answer 7

There is nothing noble about our involvement in Iraq or in any other place in the Middle-East. It is now and always has been about OIL.



Our government doesn't give a hooters dam about "democracy" or "freedom" over there. They only want to protect our sources for oil....thats all.



If the agenda was to bring "democracy", the U.S. would have invaded all the countries over there that are ruled by the Princes and Emirs... What our government does is toady to them, kiss their royal butts (no pun intended) and leave them alone to run their own little tyrannies.



If our government was so concerned about "human rights" or "genocide", we would have a presence in Rwanda and Darfur and other countries where genocide has killed millions....



If our government was so concerned about "weapons of mass destruction", they would have kept an eye on N. Korea, India and Pakistan and blown their nuclear facilities to he11....



George Bush is an idiot. He is also a liar. He and his cronies are the most corrupt and vicious administration I have ever seen - worse than Nixon could ever imagine...and I'm no spring chicken. My first presidential vote was cast for John Kennedy.



He will go down in history as the worst president my beloved country has ever had....and the world will remember him as one of the worst terrorists in the world.

Answer 8

Check the previous UN resolutions and try again

Answer 9

Is there a legit link to this story or is it just some poster. Because I or anyone can pretend to be anything on Y/A.

Answer 10

Trust me - Dubya's incompetence and arrogance has not slipped past me.



I hold him and his administration responsible for all of the atrocities they have committed and allowed.



He and his cabal will pay for the lies and death.

Answer 11

Eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has been the Bush administration’s mantra since the beginning of the Iraq war PR campaign in September. If this motive is to be believed, then the question arises, what about North Korea, Pakistan, and now Iran? Particularly with regard to North Korea and Pakistan, both countries have nuclear arsenals, whereas Iraq is years away from an even-remotely threatening nuclear program. North Korea and Pakistan also have viable delivery systems for WMD. Iraq’s remaining twenty-odd Scud missiles generating enough pre-launch heat to be located and destroyed with relative ease, with an inaccurate and paltry maximum range of 400 miles, as well as its oft-cited 1952 Czech-made “drone planes” with a top speed of 160 mph and range of 600 miles, pose an imminent threat to no one save an invading army.



Even Iran and Kuwait do not fear Saddam Hussein despite their proximity to him. If the United States has a moral imperative to remove WMD from the hands of men like Saddam Hussein, then why did the US Department of Defense, up to and including the years in which Dick Cheney became Secretary in 1989, provide Iraq with satellite data of Iranian military positions despite the State Department’s acknowledgment, on November 1, 1983, that Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians “almost daily?”



The continuation of the war on terror, the second-most important and arguably the most preposterous of the Bush administration’s war justifications, is nothing less than toying with the American peoples’ post-September 11th fears. Not a single historical or rational link has been drawn between Saddam Hussein and groups such as al-Qa’eda, and even independent al-Qa’eda operatives are rarely, if ever, Iraqi. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents the bane of groups like al-Qa’eda’s existence, namely a morally corrupt and avidly secular dictatorship in the Muslim world.



Furthermore, while US military dominance may win the battle in Iraq, the anti-American sentiment it has already generated in the Muslim world is clearly a losing step in its larger war on terrorism.



Why did the Reagan administration embrace Saddam Hussein’s regime in the early ’80s?





The promotion of democracy in the Middle East, the third official motive for the US war in Iraq, begs the question, why did the Reagan administration, represented by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among others, embrace Saddam Hussein’s regime in the early 1980s for the sake of the war of attrition against Iran if the US is bound to such lofty and altruistic ideals as the spreading of democracy in the region?



After Israel, Egypt is the world’s second-highest recipient of US aid, yet Egyptian President Husni Mubarak has never won reelection by less than 94% of the popular vote. Recently, the US has been kowtowing to the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes, neither of which put up even the pretenses of democracy, in an effort to garner support for its “war to spread democracy.” The same conciliatory attitude on the part of the US toward despotic regimes can be seen in the examples of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.4



Then Why the War?





Senior officers of the British Royal Marines of 3 Commando at their command post in the Kuwait



What would motivate the United States to be willing to fight its war on Iraq unilaterally if not world security and the spread of democracy? Critics are quick to cry “oil,” and indeed with the US relying on imports to meet almost 60% of its oil needs, a figure that is expected to only go up in the next few years, and Iraq’s being second only to Saudi Arabia in untapped oil reserves, it is tempting to dismiss the war as a war for oil.



But getting the booty will require money – and lots of it. The Bush administration has been extremely reticent when it comes to the cost of its war in Iraq, while independent estimates reflect a huge range. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments gives an upward figure of $688 billion if we include long-term occupation and rebuilding. Yale University’s Prof. William Nordhaus factors in the impact on oil and the world economy to reach a high-end estimate of $1.92 trillion.5



Who exactly will foot the bill if the US pursues a unilateral approach remains unclear. To hedge the price of war against income from Iraqi oil reserves fails to take into account the large amounts of money and time that are needed to revive the country’s devastated (and soon to be more devastated) infrastructure. To reach the ambitious production goal of six million barrels of oil per day will require an additional $20 billion of investment and upwards of ten years. None of these figures takes into account Iraqi debt, estimates of which range between $60 and $140 billion.6



Enter Production-Sharing Agreements (PSAs)



Only the world’s largest private oil companies can afford to restore Iraqi oil production and establish the infrastructure to access untapped oil. Rarely approved by oil-rich nations due to its exploitative nature, a PSA establishes exclusive oil rights for private oil corporations at the cost of a fixed profit tax for a 30-year contract. Once a PSA has been established, the foreign corporation is awarded a dispensation from its home country and is subsequently not bound by domestic environmental, tax, and safety laws. A decade ago, under the pressure of UN sanctions, Iraq acquiesced to Russian and French PSAs, even though the same sanctions prevented the carrying out of the contracts – convenient enough for US interests. Now the tables have turned, and American and British oil giants are poised to gain exclusivity to Iraqi PSAs, much to the chagrin of France and Russia, incidentally the two most vehement opponents to the war in Iraq.7



The Stranglehold







For over half a century, the US government has understood the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf and the oil that it provides. Until the early 1970s, the US relied on Britain to protect its regional oil interests, followed by the Shah of Iran. With the rise of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the threat that it posed to US oil interests, the Carter Doctrine of January 23, 1980, was issued: “An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”



One may ask, but how much of a threat to US interests does today’s Saddam Hussein actually play; wouldn’t a policy of containment be easier and cheaper while still guaranteeing US access to Iraqi oil? Not if the “outside force” stated in the Carter Doctrine is taken not to mean Iraq, but rather China, Russia, and the EU. The Saddam Hussein regime awarded $1.1 trillion in oil contracts to China, Russia, and the EU.8 These same nations are concerned that the soon-to-be puppet government established under US auspices will not honor the pre-war contracts. In fact, the Bush administration has portentously stated that it “has not decided whether such oil development contracts would be accepted by the United States in a post-Saddam government.”9



In 1990, Dick Cheney testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the nation that controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil maintains a “stranglehold on the economies of most of the other nations of the world.”10 Syllogistically, if the US can position itself to control the flow of Iraqi oil, then IT maintains a stranglehold on all other economies, particularly the three economies that pose a threat to US economic hegemony, namely those of China, Russia, and the EU.



With the death count climbing daily in the Palestinian occupied territories, and no long-term solution in sight, the US is apt to free itself from its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, a nation that has and will use its influence to pressure the US and its pro-Israel policies. With the world’s second largest oil reserves, Iraq represents the only viable alternative.



But Oil is Only Half the Story





The US does not plan to leave Iraq.



The United States has not discussed an exit strategy from Iraq nor considered the possibility of a containment and/or deterrence policy in the country simply because it doesn’t plan to leave. The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy Report, released on September 20, 2002, points out the need for a permanent American military presence and domination around the world, particularly in the Persian Gulf.11 And while some may consider this aim reasonable from an American perspective after the events of September 11, 2001, a similar sentiment is reflected in the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” report of September 2000, written by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think tank established in 1997 and headed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), and Jeb Bush. The report reads, “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American military presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”



Five years ago, PNAC initiated the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which set the legal impetus for the military operations in Iraq over the past few years that are only now reaching crescendo. The committee delivered a letter to President Clinton in 1998 reproaching him for not fully implementing the Act by driving troops in Baghdad. Incidentally, PNAC is chaired by Bruce Jackson, an ex-vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, while PNAC-cofounder Dick Cheney’s position as chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton Petroleum and its subsidiary, Brown & Root, is a well-known fact. During Cheney’s chairmanship, Halliburton did $73 million worth of business with Saddam Hussein, and the company has recently been awarded the exclusive contract to extinguish burning oil wells and prepare them for service once war in Iraq starts.



Brown & Root, after winning the $300 million contract to build the holding cells for Camp X-Ray detainees in Guantanamo Bay in 2002, has been awarded a major share of the $900 million government contract to rebuild the basic infrastructure of post-war Iraq.12 PNAC’s stated goal is nothing less than the establishment of a “Pax Americana” through an imperialist agenda of global military and economic hegemony. A permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf, the aforementioned stranglehold of all major national economies, represents a crucial step in the realization of American world dominance as advocated by the committee.13



And Let’s Not Forget Israel!



As Democratic Congressmen from Virginia Jim Moran explains, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.”14 There is no denying the fact that many hawks in the Bush administration are Zionist, most notably PNAC-cofounder Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and coauthor of the report “A Clean Break.” The report was prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a right-wing Israeli think tank with ties to Benjamin Netanyahu, and in it is stated, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.”15



If, for the sake of argument, one assumes that Saddam Hussein does have chemical and/or biological weapons, his short-range delivery systems pose a threat, and a weak one at that, to no regional power save Israel. Ironically, it is Israel’s weapons of mass destruction that stifle UN Resolution 687, which advocates the disarming of Iraq through inspections. Article 14 of the resolution threatens Israeli nuclear dominance of the region by calling for a general disarmament of the Middle East.16



Domestic Concerns



While economic, hegemonic, and strategic concerns govern the war’s objectives, its timing is strictly a domestic factor. With its policies that infringe upon domestic privacy rights and arguably human rights, the Bush administration’s Homeland Security Department’s Gestapo tactics demand a foreign crisis to distract the American public’s attention.



Operation Atlas, the New York Police Department’s war-time security intensification, calls for the deployment of multiple heavily-armed elite police units to patrol the streets of the city in addition to constant air patrols and surveillance, all at the cost of over $5 million per week.17 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg dismissed the unprecedented measures saying, “We will have plenty of opportunities to express to the public that they should feel comforted when they see additional police protection on the streets. It shouldn’t be scary. Quite the contrary.”



Furthermore, the ramshackle US economy, its high unemployment rate, and the recent tax breaks that favor a privileged few, necessitate a quick victory in Iraq to garner public approval for President Bush before the presidential election season starts. Though the Bush administration could strategically delay its war in Iraq for perhaps years on end, it has opted to hasten its military operations, much to the dismay of the United Nations, in order to pave the way for a reelection victory. The same goes for the congressional elections of 2002, about which political activist Prof. Noam Chomsky points out, “Iraq wasn’t brought up as a matter of immediate significance until September of this year, when the election season started.”18



It is clear that the stated motives for the US-led war in Iraq were conceived to cruelly play off the collective fears of the unquestioning masses. Our ability to challenge the altruistic façade put forward by wholly bellicose policy makers who have highjacked the democratic process stands as our secret weapon in this “war of terror.”

Answer 12

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,



Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,



Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,



Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,



Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,



Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,



Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,



Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,



Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,



Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,



Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,



Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,



Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,



Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,



Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,



Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,



Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,



1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);



2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;



3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;



4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;



5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;



6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;



7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;



-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;



-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;



8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;



9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;



10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;



11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;



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;



14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.