PDA

View Full Version : A question answered



Raistlin
01-26-2008, 02:58 AM
The question as to why Saddam didn't cooperate with the weapons inspectors and instead allowed the world to continue believing he had WMDs has always intrigued me. Even after 12 years of defying the terms that he had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War, and after 16 UN Security Council resolutions finding him in material breach, he was still given another opportunity to prove that he did not have WMDs and avoid the war by simply complying with the requests of the weapons inspectors. But the inspectors did not receive cooperation on key requests such as u2 surveillance overflights, offsite interviews with his weapons scientists, and a full accounting of the current whereabouts or means of disposal of tons of unaccounted for WMD which they knew he had previously had. So why did Saddam choose to allow the world to believe he still had WMD if he did not?

Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam, Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml)

kds
01-26-2008, 08:38 AM
Have you ever met those type of people who say they have a huge penis, but when you ask to see it, they won't show it?
Actually, this question has always been in mind too. I await the smarter people of the forum.

Three Pointed Infinity
01-26-2008, 08:58 AM
I believe he was trying to frighten the people of the world into declaring war so that confusion and war wearieness would tear appart the world.

Just a thought

Raistlin
01-26-2008, 09:36 AM
Perhaps, but I think Saddam cared too much about keeping his power and lifestyle to sacrifice himself for that kind of anarchist ideal. I think the explanation put forward in the article I linked to is much more plausible.

Mobilus
01-26-2008, 09:58 AM
Ever heard of the Iran-Iraq 8 year war? :rolleyes:

To maintain the balance of power in the region Saddam COULDN'T say that he had de-armed because it was a show of weakness and would invite Iran to paste his ass to the wall.

Then again we all knew this before hand and many intelligent people kept trying to tell the Bush admin. who brushed this point off as meaningless. Meaningless! Saddam is the guy who would hold parades every month and takes shots with a rifle at US and Iranian flags in front of thousands of his subjects as a mandatory propaganda stunt. Maybe not so meaningless eh?

John
01-26-2008, 10:42 AM
No one has the right to police the whole world. The UN and US affiliates have their beating stick in too many places. I am sick of this. When you police the world you are just going to cause confrontations.

Raistlin
01-26-2008, 10:51 AM
Ever heard of the Iran-Iraq 8 year war? :rolleyes:

To maintain the balance of power in the region Saddam COULDN'T say that he had de-armed because it was a show of weakness and would invite Iran to paste his ass to the wall.



Yes, essentially the point of the article I linked to was that Saddam didn't want to appear weak and so he chose to maintain the appearance of having WMD even though he was obligated to not only abandon all WMD's and WMD programs but also to cooperate fully and immediately with the requests of the weapons inspectors. This does not excuse him in any way. At the end of the first Gulf War he agreed to disarm and to allow the verification of his disarmament. Those were the terms that ended the war and allowed him to stay in power. If he was unwilling to abide by those terms because they would make him look weak, then he made a critical mistake by agreeing to those terms. It's not our mistake for holding him to them.


Then again we all knew this before hand and many intelligent people kept trying to tell the Bush admin. who brushed this point off as meaningless.

I don't think the point was disregarded as meaningless, it was simply irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was REQUIRED to give up his WMD and WMD programs, and he was REQUIRED to cooperate with the inspectors whether he liked it or not and whether he had ulterior motives or not. If he didn't like that, he shouldn't have agreed to those terms.

Which brings me to the question, which "intelligent people" are you referring to? Most Democrats are on record at the time saying that Saddam did have WMD's, so you must not be referring to any of those individuals. This was also the common consensus in the intelligence communities of many countries including the United States. The United Nations also passed a unanimous resolution finding Saddam to be in "material breach" of his obligation to dismantle and disclose all WMD and WMD programs. The weapons inspectors also presented a list of the tonnage of WMD that was unaccounted for, along with numerous unexplained discrepancies in what documentation Saddam did provide amd numerous examples of Saddam's refusal to cooperate with their requests as they attempted to do their job. All of this is the reason that a coalition of almost 40 countries (even more than the first Gulf War) explicitly agreed with the decision to oust Saddam after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions attempting to resolve the situation peacefully. It wasn't because the Bush administration said "Saddam has WMDs" in the face of a world that disagreed.

unimailer1972
01-26-2008, 11:42 AM
Which brings me to the question, which "intelligent people" are you referring to? Most Democrats are on record at the time saying that Saddam did have WMD's, so you must not be referring to any of those individuals. This was also the common consensus in the intelligence communities of many countries including the United States. The United Nations also passed a unanimous resolution finding Saddam to be in "material breach" of his obligation to dismantle and disclose all WMD and WMD programs. The weapons inspectors also presented a list of the tonnage of WMD that was unaccounted for, along with numerous unexplained discrepancies in what documentation Saddam did provide amd numerous examples of Saddam's refusal to cooperate with their requests as they attempted to do their job. All of this is the reason that a coalition of almost 40 countries (even more than the first Gulf War) explicitly agreed with the decision to oust Saddam after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions attempting to resolve the situation peacefully. It wasn't because the Bush administration said "Saddam has WMDs" in the face of a world that disagreed.
Can we say black market?

I guess i should point out the obvious. The US hedges bets on both sides of every conflict and they have been masterfully doing this in the middle east and asia for years.

We started to court Saddam in '81 as an ally against Iran.


1981 - The US Government begins to court Iraq, holding official talks on matters such as trade and regional security.

The US is still smarting from the seizure of its embassy in Tehran and the taking of American diplomats as hostages in November 1979 following the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Attempts by Iran to export the revolution to other regions in the Middle East are also of concern. Iraq is seem as a bulwark against the spread of Iran's militant Shia extremism.

Then in '82, we start arming Saddam.


Meanwhile, Iraq's armoury receives another boost in February when the country is removed from a US Government list of alleged sponsors of terrorism. Iraq is now receiving major arms shipments from the Soviet Union and France, and the US has just opened up as a potential weapons supplier.

In '84 full diplomatic relations are resumed and we "officially" look the other way as our interests suited us.


Rumsfeld returns to Baghdad for meetings with the Iraqi foreign minister on 24 March, the same day that the United Nations (UN) releases a report finding that Iraq is using mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun against Iranian troops.

The US State Department also acknowledges Iraq's actions, releasing a statement on 5 March saying that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."

Nevertheless, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US are restored in November, allowing the US to provide Iraq with further aid to fight the war.

It is later reported that the US aid includes battle-planning assistance. According to a report published in 'The New York Times' on 18 August 2002, more that 60 officers of the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) secretly supplied Iraq with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments. Satellite photographs of the war front were also provided by the CIA.

One former member of the program is quoted as saying the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of (poisonous) gas. It was just another way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."

Honestly, it just goes on and on and on...


The US and other Western nations are drawn further into the war when both Iran and Iraq begin to attack international shipping in the Persian Gulf, threatening the flow of oil from the region. The US, Britain and France will all deploy naval vessels to the Gulf to safeguard oil shipments.

The British Government also becomes entangled in Iraq's chemical weapons programs, secretly providing a British-based company with financial backing for the construction of a chlorine plant capable of producing the precursors necessary to manufacture mustard gas and nerve agents. The plant, Falluja 2, is located about 60 km west of Baghdad. It is later reported by 'The Guardian' newspaper that the British Government, at the time headed by Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, was aware that the plant could be used in the production of chemical weapons.


My point is, we aided Osama and Saddam. We are adept at creating the "enemy." This "wag the dog" is why we are hearing all of this about WMDs in Iraq. We can blame Bush and whomever else we want for WWIII. The fact remains that not one of the people responsible for perpetuation of war for peace, and the profit therein; will ever be held responsible for their actions. And "they" will continue to direct our foreign policy as they choose.

Raistlin
01-26-2008, 11:45 AM
My point is, we aided Osama and Saddam.

There is a saying that goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". When we are enemies with the Soviet Union it is only common sense that we are going to befriend the guy named Bin Laden who is fighting them. When we are enemies with Iran it is only common sense that we are going to befriend Saddam. That doesn't mean we can't hold our former friend's ass to the fire later if they become our enemy.

John
01-26-2008, 11:46 AM
When did we support Bin Laden?

Raistlin
01-26-2008, 11:50 AM
When we were enemies with the Soviet Union and so was he.

Mobilus
01-26-2008, 11:54 AM
LMAO? UN resolutions? LMAO

Which countries have violated the most UN resolutions? Here is the list:
1. US
2. Turkey
3. Israel

Iraq under Saddam was actually about #15 on that list.

About the coalition, that was the most pathetic coalition, packed with tiny countries just to inflate its appearance. The most powerful country after the US and Britain was basically Australia.

"Intelligent people" usually excludes political opportunists, which is usually both parties. But in the cases of democrats pre-Iraq, they were fooled by the fact the the executive branch controlled what the executive agencies were reporting to Congress. (imagine that!)

Raistlin
01-26-2008, 12:53 PM
LMAO? UN resolutions? LMAO

The UN resolutions were the backdrop to the fact that he was a conquered foe who had agreed to a set of terms in order to stay in power and was not abiding by those terms. And going to the UN one last time was insisted upon by the left, so it must carry some meaning. They got what they wanted, we went to the UN and the UN Security Council unanimously voted to find Saddam in material breach and demand that he cooperate fully and immediately with the inspectors. At that point the choice was Saddam's and he chose not to cooperate.


Iraq under Saddam was actually about #15 on that list.

The US, Turkey, and Israel don't have 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions stacked up against them. There is a distinction between Security Council resolutions and general assembly resolutions which have long been a platform for political statements against Israel.


About the coalition, that was the most pathetic coalition, packed with tiny countries just to inflate its appearance. The most powerful country after the US and Britain was basically Australia.

If the coalition was pathetic, what can you say about the much smaller group that did not support ousting Saddam?


"Intelligent people" usually excludes political opportunists, which is usually both parties.

Then I ask again, which intelligent people were you referring to?


But in the cases of democrats pre-Iraq, they were fooled by the fact the the executive branch controlled what the executive agencies were reporting to Congress. (imagine that!)

a) The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence committee looked for evidence of this and didn't find it.

b) Since many of the Democrats' statements about Iraqi WMDs were made before the Bush administration made their case, believing that they were influenced by the administration would require a belief in time machines.

PocketRevolution
01-26-2008, 02:20 PM
the inspectors did not receive cooperation on key requests such as u2 surveillance overflights, offsite interviews with his weapons scientists, and a full accounting of the current whereabouts or means of disposal of tons of unaccounted for WMD which they knew he had previously had.

On that last one I have no idea. Maybe he sold some of them off illegally and didn't want to admit it?

If I were the leader of a country, and I still had some notion of my own independence or sense of my own dignity, I might not be too keen on giving up sovereignty over my airspace and scientists. Surveillance flights reveal a a lot more than just "wmd" locations - like your entire military and civilian infrastructure. Secondly, I might be a bit paranoid about having my weapons scientists interviewed by agents of a foreign power...I mean, the whole purpose of doing weapons research is to keep it secret from the people who might want to attack you. It wouldn't do to have your scientists lounging around with the enemy, smoking cigars and drinking cognac.

It's like Saddam consented to a search of the house and the property, even let them look through his pockets, but was finally like "No. Under no circumstances are you looking in my ass."

Think on this - were any WMDs deployed by Iraq during the invasion? Any found since? So clearly they weren't in fact bristling at the teeth with weapons. Seems they were in fact pretty well disarmed. Yet they are still getting their country reduced to rubble even now. Doesn't make a very good case for voluntary disarmament does it?

Raistlin
01-27-2008, 06:54 AM
On that last one I have no idea. Maybe he sold some of them off illegally and didn't want to admit it?

Exactly, the inspectors also had no idea. Saddam was required to explain this and then cooperate with the inspectors while they attempted to verify that his explanation was in fact true.


If I were the leader of a country, and I still had some notion of my own independence or sense of my own dignity, I might not be too keen on giving up sovereignty over my airspace and scientists.

If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have agreed to abide by those terms.


It's like Saddam consented to a search of the house and the property, even let them look through his pockets, but was finally like "No. Under no circumstances are you looking in my ass."

They didn't want to look "in his ass", that implies some kind of unreasable nature to their requests. What the inspectors were requesting was perfectly reasonable and within their mandate of verifying his disarmament.


Yet they are still getting their country reduced to rubble even now. Doesn't make a very good case for voluntary disarmament does it?

Your logic is rather astounding. It is not us attacking the Iraqis, it is extremists intentionally targetting Iraqi civilians while they attempt to defend themselves with our help. The fact that this is happening doesn't somehow mean that we would have attacked Saddam even if he had complied with his required disarmament, as you are implying.

Mobilus
01-27-2008, 10:14 AM
As for security council resolutions, the list is still:

1. Turkey
2. Israel (there were a lot of resolutions passed under Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter)
3. Serbia



Iraq under Saddam was still far down that list. Please do tell me why the hell a mere disobedience to a resolution warrants war when we reward Israel with 12 billion dollars a year for breaking UN resolutions?

Belphegor
01-27-2008, 10:22 AM
The question as to why Saddam didn't cooperate with the weapons inspectors and instead allowed the world to continue believing he had WMDs has always intrigued me. Even after 12 years of defying the terms that he had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War, and after 16 UN Security Council resolutions finding him in material breach, he was still given another opportunity to prove that he did not have WMDs and avoid the war by simply complying with the requests of the weapons inspectors. But the inspectors did not receive cooperation on key requests such as u2 surveillance overflights, offsite interviews with his weapons scientists, and a full accounting of the current whereabouts or means of disposal of tons of unaccounted for WMD which they knew he had previously had. So why did Saddam choose to allow the world to believe he still had WMD if he did not?

Interrogator: Invasion Surprised Saddam, Tells 60 Minutes Former Dictator Bragged About Eluding Capture - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml)Simple.

Our intelligence knows of Saddam deflecting terrorists from localizing in Iraq, simply because they don't follow his regime. How many terroristic groups and organizations did Saddam have to defend Iraq from on a daily basis, for not aiding and embedding them. The easiest way, is to have better firepower of course.

Raistlin
01-27-2008, 10:55 AM
(there were a lot of resolutions passed under Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter)


And if you look beyond those to modern-day resolutions?


Please do tell me why the hell a mere disobedience to a resolution warrants war when we reward Israel with 12 billion dollars a year for breaking UN resolutions?

Mere disobedience to a resolution might not warrant a war, I don't know. We're not talking about mere disobedience to a resolution, we are talking about a war which came to a conditional end by means of Saddam agreeing to certain terms which were then broken while 12 years and 17 resolutions passed in an attempt to get the situation resolved peacefully without having to resume hostilities, leading up to a "final chance" resolution which Saddam still did not comply with. In addition you are displaying some amazing moral equivocation by comparing Israel with a regime that used WMD's on its own people, had governmental rape rooms, and was a state sponsor of numerous terrorist groups.

John
01-27-2008, 02:04 PM
LMAO? UN resolutions? LMAO

Which countries have violated the most UN resolutions? Here is the list:
1. US
2. Turkey
3. Israel
I call bull****. Replace US with Morocco.
Here is the list:
Resolution 252 (1968) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.
262 (1968) Israel
Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.
267 (1969) Israel
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
271 (1969) Israel
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.
298 (1971) Israel
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.
353 (1974) Turkey
Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops from Cyprus.
354 (1974) Turkey
Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353.
360 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus "without delay."
364 (1974) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
367 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
370 (1975) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
377 (1979) Morocco
Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara.
379 (1979) Morocco
Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara.
380 (1979) Morocco
Reiterates the need for compliance with previous resolutions.
391 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
401 (1976) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
414 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
422 (1977) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
440 (1978) Turkey
Reaffirms the need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus.
446 (1979) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."
452 (1979) Israel
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.
465 (1980) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.
471 (1980) Israel
Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.
484 (1980) Israel
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
487 (1981) Israel
Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
497 (1981) Israel
Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.
541 (1983) Turkey
Reiterates the need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn.
550 (1984) Turkey
Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may "not to facilitate or in any way assist" the secessionist entity.
573 (1985) Israel
Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.
592 (1986) Israel
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
605 (1987) Israel
"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."
607 (1986) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
608 (1988) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
636 (1989) Israel
Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.
641 (1989) Israel
Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.
658 (1990) Morocco
Calls upon Morocco to "cooperate fully" with the Secretary General of the United Nations and the chairman of the Organization of African Unity "in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara."
672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.
681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.
690 (1991) Morocco
Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory.
694 (1991) Morocco
Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."
716 (1991) Morocco
Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus.
725 (1991) Morocco
"Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan."
726 (1992) Israel
Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.
799 (1992) Israel
"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."
807 (1993) Croatia
Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas.
809 (1992) Morocco
Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum.
815 (1993) Croatia
Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807.
822 (1993) Armenia
Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."
853 (1993) Armenia
Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.
874 (1993) Armenia
Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.
884 (1993) Armenia
Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.
896 (1994) Russia
"Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia."
904 (1994) Israel
Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."
973 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara.
995 (1995) Morocco
Calls for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum.
1002 (1995) Morocco
Reiteration of call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.
1009 (1995) Croatia
Demands that Croatia "respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave, or return in safety."
1017 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates the call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts and to cease "procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum."
1033 (1995) Morocco
Reiterates call for "genuine cooperation" with UN efforts.
1044 (1996) Sudan
Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists.
1054 (1996) Sudan
Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044.
1056 (1996) Morocco
Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara.
1070 (1996) Sudan
Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054.
1073 (1996) Israel
"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."
1079 (1996) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia.
1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus
Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending.
1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step toward a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending.
1120 (1997) Croatia
Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls on Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct this right, and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin.
1145 (1997) Croatia
Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin.
1172 (1998) India, Pakistan
Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.
1185 (1998) Morocco
Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force.
1215 (1998) Morocco
Urges Morocco to promptly sign a "status of forces agreement."
1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.
1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending.
1264 (1999) Indonesia
Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign.
1272 (1999) Indonesia
Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps.
1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251.
1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251.
1319 (2000) Indonesia
Insists that Indonesia "take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor." Stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia.
1322 (2000) Israel
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.
1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions.
1338 (2001) Indonesia
Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319.
1359 (2001) Morocco
Calls on the parties to "abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict."
1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.
1402 (2002) Israel
Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.
1403 (2002) Israel
Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."
1405 (2002) Israel
Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.
1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus
Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus.
1435 (2002) Israel
Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

Mobilus
01-27-2008, 11:20 PM
In the first list I posted I was including resolutions from the overall general assembly, but you are right about the security council and Morocco.