OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

Mr Gustin for President!!! :-)

That was well put, and seems to reflect the majority of opinions that
I hear in Australia, at least in the circles I mix in of course.

Where in the world do you hail from? 'Old Europe" Is my tongue in
cheek quess. ;-) ?

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:46:48 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic facts
right, amigo.

Ah I can now see where your coming from,just because I got the units
name wrong, then whole basic premise of the UN rescuing the (insert
actual units in trouble and desperate for help) is false!,
fascinating!.

Kevin world is a scary place isn't it.


You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard the
US forces on "Day One"...

OK here goes, can you name one instance in the USA where 4 homicides
were committed where the US military bombed the local area from
helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns etc etc etc. in the hope of
citizens handing over the murderers? hell half of New York would be
flat...

Your assertions re Day one are absurd, perhaps in future discussion
you should define what everything means in 'Kevin world' to avoid you
looking like a red necked 'kill them all and let god sort them out'
fellow.

Day one means the first day of operations, this doesn't mean you can't
have all the necessary forces and supplies in place for this event,
First day of the Iraq war didn't mean the US rushing around packing
their bags ready to go to Iraq, they were there, in force, supplied
and ready to go...
What's the definition in Kevin's world?



OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-

Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.
Rabid anti US bias ;l-), What's the description you reserve for Al Qa
ida members or Osama Kevin? please tell me as your description of me
doesn't leave you much room to improve (you have to laugh don't you!!
such a patently red faced, vein popping description for someone who
only criticizes the US, )
I have cited a pro US post re the JSF, where's your pro UN one Kevin?.

I'm fine with you having your opinion, but I would like to know if
there are a lot more like you where you live?, (I'm thinking of
booking a holiday and want to avoid areas full of raving extremists)


So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.

Its all about definitions Kevin these people were defined by _your_
Government as hostile before the war, after the war, during the
first year of occupation (remember the 'debaathisation' comments
from your Government), now there's a change of policy and there OK to
join the new improved Iraq.


"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."

Do all your friends agree with you, by any chance?


But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.

Apparently the news today is the rest of Washington is coming round
to their way of thinking too, time for some fancy footwork Kevin.

Baathist to join the new Iraqi regime!!, (I know I know, these are
Good Baathists, bad baathists need not apply);-).
Hmmm. sort makes you wonder what happened to all the 'Good Nazi's'
doesn't it.



Out of time to debate this with you further at this point.

No your getting a reality readjustment, the 'US centric' view of the
world has to go through this when it actually meets the rest of the
world, In case you hadn't noticed the Internet is global (I really
should define 'global' as inclusive of outside of the US)

Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website

That's the best thing you've said!, it neatly brings us back on
topic. (My apologies to the group for filling it up OT stuff, I offer
my humble apologies, I couldn't just sit here and not try to help
Kevin get a clue to the opinions of the global village we live in)

and general
bashing of us Yanks,

You don't need bashing, but a collective 'checkup from the neckup'
might be beneficial ;-)

John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).

Ok its a Gentleman's agreement, we will mention it no more, for the
benifit of international relations and RAM.

Good day to you.


Brooks


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:58:04 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"John Cook" wrote:
See also
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j...64&n=100247763

In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military
and the ousted Baath Party.

In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics against the British had
a
significant and long lasting effect...



The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
conflicts,

They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the Ottoman
Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world might
have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....

perhaps somebody should listen to them!,

Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's doesn't
support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
empire....

T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be a
good start....

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:41:20 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

Er, that's Seven Pillars of Wisdom according to my copy.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Brett" wrote in message
...


They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the
Ottoman
Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world
might
have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....


The Arabs didnt agree, thats why there was a revolt which the
British supported after all.

perhaps somebody should listen to them!,

Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's doesn't
support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
empire....


Leaving tends to indicate they had learned the Empires are passe

T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be a
good start....


Dont hold your breath, Iraq before the Baath party takeover
was nominally a constitutional monarchy with an elected
parliament.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...


They might be well versed but how they and the French divided up the
Ottoman
Empire is the primary reason the area is still screwed up - the world
might
have been better off if they had just left the Turks in charge.....


The Arabs didnt agree, thats why there was a revolt which the
British supported after all.

The comment started with "In the 1920's a revolt instigated by Shia clerics
against the British had a significant and long lasting effect..." The Sunni
Arabs in Iraq while ruled by the Ottomans were not treated as badly as the
Shia who were considered allied to the Persians by the Ottomans..

perhaps somebody should listen to them!,

Eisenhower didn't and the way the British left Aden in the 1960's
doesn't
support the view that they learnt anything during that half century of
empire....


Leaving tends to indicate they had learned the Empires are passe

The way they LEFT was the issue.

T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

I always thought it was seven.... and a working Arab democracy might be
a
good start....


Dont hold your breath, Iraq before the Baath party takeover
was nominally a constitutional monarchy with an elected
parliament.

"Nominally" the British ensured the Shia had little to no say in Government
before they left... I would imagine that thought has crossed the minds of
the older Shia clerics who probably understand what could happen if they
don't control some of their younger clerics...

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:46:48 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the
US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral
decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US
friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

Are the Rangers and Delta guys Marines? You can't even get your basic
facts
right, amigo.

Ah I can now see where your coming from,just because I got the units
name wrong, then whole basic premise of the UN rescuing the (insert
actual units in trouble and desperate for help) is false!,
fascinating!.

Kevin world is a scary place isn't it.

You still are having difficulty with facts. Go back and reread Bowden. Or
you could peruse UN documents:
"After the June 1993 events, UNOSOM II pursued a coercive disarmament
programme in south Mogadishu. Active patrolling, weapons confiscations, and
operations were directed at the militia and depots of General Aidid's
faction (USC/SNA). A public information campaign was instituted to explain
these activities to the population. In support of the UNOSOM II mandate,
United States forces -- the United States Rangers and the Quick Reaction
Force -- were deployed in Mogadishu. These forces were not under United
Nations command and control. As part of the coercive programme, the Rangers
launched an operation in south Mogadishu on 3 October 1993, aimed at
capturing a number of key aides of General Aidid who were suspected of
complicity in the 5 June attack and subsequent attacks on United Nations
personnel and facilities. The operation succeeded in apprehending 24
suspects, including two key aides to General Aidid."

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2b.htm

That kind of disagrees with your posit that the US was not acting in
accordance with the UN wishes and established policies (or was conducting
what you referred to as "unilateral decisive force" operations). And I
believe if you go back and read the appropriate sections of "Blackhawk
Down", you will find that those Paki and Malaysian units would not budge
without being accompanied by US personnel (in the tracks, IIRC).




You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

What "gung ho" attitude? Any specific cites to support that? And it is
nice
to know that you have now backed away from your original plan to discard
the
US forces on "Day One"...

OK here goes, can you name one instance in the USA where 4 homicides
were committed where the US military bombed the local area from
helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns etc etc etc. in the hope of
citizens handing over the murderers? hell half of New York would be
flat...



Idiot. That construct is so preposterous, not to mention being inappropriate
to the extreme, as to be ludicrous. You are trying to equate stability and
support operations in Iraq with criminal prosecution here in the US? You
been smoking eucalyptus leaves, or what?



Your assertions re Day one are absurd, perhaps in future discussion
you should define what everything means in 'Kevin world' to avoid you
looking like a red necked 'kill them all and let god sort them out'
fellow.



That was YOUR posit. Remember? You said on "day one" the US forces should be
returned to their bases and let this strange, and undefined,
instantaneously-formed uber-force of "others" assume the security role. Only
later did you backpeddle and claim that (to paraphrase), "Well, what I
*really* meant was that the US forces would just have to stay out of sight,
but they would have to provide support (such as getting these "others" into
the theater in the first place, and of course, any *real* fighting would
still be done by US forces..."



Day one means the first day of operations, this doesn't mean you can't
have all the necessary forces and supplies in place for this event,



Your words: "...the UN _with_the Arab league should pull all US troops back
into their bases on day
one, The local police force should do patrols and only be backed up by
military forces with the police having the say on when force is to be
employed and when to back off.(the sooner the Iraqi's see an Eastern
soldier instead of US/UK forces the better)." Note no mention of a continued
role for US forces, your having established a preference for those "eastern"
troops, and note that on "day one" you are shuffling the US (and UK
apparently) forces out of the picture.

First day of the Iraq war didn't mean the US rushing around packing
their bags ready to go to Iraq, they were there, in force, supplied
and ready to go...
What's the definition in Kevin's world?

We are dealing with YOUR claims, amigo. Which have been shown to be
uproarously unrealistic--so much so that you subsequently have hemmed and
hawed that we 8really* would still have a military role when the real
fightin' has to be done... Sorry, but your view of ceding control to a token
UN force, while now you want to retain the US forces to do the actual
fighting when required, is just plain laughable.



OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-

Heck, I was fed up by the time I got to the last post, but it was so
darned
fun pointing out that your personal critique of the "strategy and
tactics"
(and where do you lump in operational art, oh-annointed-one?) was based
upon
zilch/zero/nada experience or knowledge of things military, not to
mention
reminding you of your continual and rabid anti-US bias in all things,
commercial and governmental, that I figured it would be worth staying
engaged.


Rabid anti US bias ;l-), What's the description you reserve for Al Qa
ida members or Osama Kevin? please tell me as your description of me
doesn't leave you much room to improve (you have to laugh don't you!!
such a patently red faced, vein popping description for someone who
only criticizes the US, )
I have cited a pro US post re the JSF, where's your pro UN one Kevin?.

Where have you cited it? You made a claim, but did not provide a cite to
back it up. I went through three years of your posts and found nothing that
could be taken as anything but anti-US whenever the subject arose. Where is
that cite?


I'm fine with you having your opinion, but I would like to know if
there are a lot more like you where you live?, (I'm thinking of
booking a holiday and want to avoid areas full of raving extremists)

In your case, you should probably avoid the US as a whole, given your
demonstrated proclivities.

Enough of this. You can have the last (undoubtedly anti-US again) word. You
have proven that you are really quite clueless when it comes to military
tactics, strategy, and for that matter common sense, so it is hopeless to
try and make you understand reality. Have a nice day.

Brooks




So you equate being a member of the Baath Party as being de facto proof
that
they are known hostiles? Quite a leap you are making there.

Its all about definitions Kevin these people were defined by _your_
Government as hostile before the war, after the war, during the
first year of occupation (remember the 'debaathisation' comments
from your Government), now there's a change of policy and there OK to
join the new improved Iraq.


"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

LOL! There is *always* criticism--even internally, within US forces, no
doubt. Par for the course. So what? My favorite Patton quote went
something
like, "If everyone is in agreement, then someone is not thinking."

Do all your friends agree with you, by any chance?


But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

No, YOU are anti-American, by dint of your past tirades; they just
disagree.
Even you should be able to see the difference.

Apparently the news today is the rest of Washington is coming round
to their way of thinking too, time for some fancy footwork Kevin.

Baathist to join the new Iraqi regime!!, (I know I know, these are
Good Baathists, bad baathists need not apply);-).
Hmmm. sort makes you wonder what happened to all the 'Good Nazi's'
doesn't it.



Out of time to debate this with you further at this point.

No your getting a reality readjustment, the 'US centric' view of the
world has to go through this when it actually meets the rest of the
world, In case you hadn't noticed the Internet is global (I really
should define 'global' as inclusive of outside of the US)

Go back to your
"Typhoon is Great, and All US Aircraft are Turkeys" website

That's the best thing you've said!, it neatly brings us back on
topic. (My apologies to the group for filling it up OT stuff, I offer
my humble apologies, I couldn't just sit here and not try to help
Kevin get a clue to the opinions of the global village we live in)

and general
bashing of us Yanks,

You don't need bashing, but a collective 'checkup from the neckup'
might be beneficial ;-)

John--it was more entertaining than this misguided
foray of yours into "strategy and tactics" (neither of which you ever
specifically critiqued...).

Ok its a Gentleman's agreement, we will mention it no more, for the
benifit of international relations and RAM.

Good day to you.


Brooks


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Yes, Kevin.

No, Paul--you need to read the remainder of what I wrote instead of
snipping
it away...

I did. Can't help it if you don't like the reply.

snip

Oooh--all gone now! I guess in Paulian Speak that means I get a point or
two?

Sure. Take five gold stars, declare yourself the winner, tell us all how
reliable and trustworthy the New Iraqi Army is, point to the stable peaceful
utopia that the US has established there, and for an encore nail some jelly
to the ceiling.

--
Paul J. Adam

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:18:53 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:41:20 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

The British are well versed in this sort of thing, due to many many
conflicts, perhaps somebody should listen to them!, T.E.Lawrence's
'twelve pillars' is still relevent even today.

Er, that's Seven Pillars of Wisdom according to my copy.

Ooops, yup, I'm getting biblical stuff mixed up with bibliography
stuff. my apologies.

Mary

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Jukka O. Kauppinen" wrote in
message ...

Iraq is unlawful invasion, with no
United Nations backing. So it was an error in first place to even send
forces to Iraq, which they are now correcting.


The resumption of hostilities in Iraq was sanctioned under U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1441.

It doesn't sanction a "resumption of hostilities", only further
inspections, and those only by the IAEA and UNMOVIC. It is silent on
the consequences of Iraq's failure to comply, however, the last
paragraph, "[The Security Council _decides_] to remain seized of the
matter.", implies that the consequences are something to be determined
at a latter date (something the French and Russians prevented). From
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

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 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) of 2 March 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
United Nations 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.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)