Jabou,
Scott Ritter may have been one of the inspectors but now his credibility is
at issue. (see this story
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030125_1256.html). Of course, this is a
conspiracy by the Bush administration to silence a dissenter.

On the issue of waiting for inspectors to finish their job, this is a bogus
argument used by France and other countries to stall any action on Iraq. If
France and other anti-action groups have their way, this "inspection" will
go on forever. These inspectors are not supposed to be detectives, as Blair
and others rightly pointed out. The onus is on Saddam to come out and prove
for all that he is free of weapons of mass destruction. The report by Blix
confirms that he has not been forthcoming. All Saddam is doing now is toying
with these inspectors and with the size of his country, if he does not want
anything to be found, it will not be found. The only way to rid him of his
weapons is to get him out of power through the use of force.

I don't believe the US is or has bypassed the UN - atleast not yet. The
truth is that it's the US that has prodded to UN to action. In every
organisation, (especially one with the size of the UN) some members need to
lead and not be overcomed by inertia that seems to be beseting almost
everyone nowadays. On the issue of peace around the globe, the UN has been
slowly pushing itself into irrelevance because of inaction - Saddam
recognized this and expelled UN inspectors in 1998 without any addtional
action from the UN. If the US had not taken the lead to liberate Kuwait, I
doubt the UN would have mobilized any force capable of beating Saddam. If
the US had not taken the lead in Korea in 1950s, the UN almost certainly
would not have pushed back the North Koreans. In both these situations, the
US took charge and the UN gave its blessing. The truth is that without the
US, the UN would not have been what it is today.

Ousman


>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: 'Human Shields' head for Iraq/Ousman
>Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:29:33 EST
>
>Well Ousman, the majority of Americans as well as the rest of the World is
>waiting for the evidence to justify attacking Iraq. The other members of
>the
>Security council are also waiting and it is pretty much agreed that if the
>evidence can be provided, then the U.S will be justified to attack Iraq and
>will be assisted by their allies. Scott Ritter, the chief  U.N inspector of
>the last inspection team in Iraq, and an American citizen says that there
>are
>no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>
>As of now, the general concensus is that the inspectors need time to do
>their
>job, and if the intention here is to contain the existence of weapons of
>mass
>distruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, would the U.S not be much more
>credible if they went along with the inspection under the U.N resolution
>which they sought and which Bush said he will abide by?
>
>The general idea here is that no one is defending Saddam Hussein if indeed
>he
>is found to have weapons of mass destruction, but that the reason for the
>attack is the possesion of these weapons, so it is  pretty much elementary
>that the evidence has to be found and presented for all to see, otherwise,
>what is the justification and the defense?Otherwise, credibility is lost
>and
>the reasons for the attack become something else by a "nation with
>conscinnce", does it not?
>
>I think the issue here is also whether one country can ignore the U.N and
>just do as they please, and whether the rest of the World is then prepared
>to
>accept the same aggression from any other nation that is prepared to attack
>them without proven reasons, and without the consent and collaboration of
>the
>international community.
>If this happens, why would we need the U.N and we certainly would not need
>any proven justification to rain bombs on any nation one chooses to.
>
>We are certainly free to defend anything we want, including unjustified
>aggression for whatever reasons we may have, but we have to be careful what
>we defend and make sure that we would hold the same sentiments if we were
>at
>the receiving end and also that we would be able to accept living in a
>World
>where there are no internationally binding checks and balances, and which
>situation would have been created by offering support to the agenda of
>those
>who feel that they can only call upon the World community when it serves
>their purpose and ignore them when it does not.That is a dangeraous
>precedent
>that the World cannot afford, espcially the poor African countries you
>talked
>about.
>
>Jabou Joh
>


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~