Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

message: The article states:
In June 2006, the national Ground Intelligence Center, a Department of Defense Entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.""
The report was never released to the public. 7 pages of spin crufted from the report and designed to confuse and booster Santorums failing re-election campaign were released by Santorum and Hoekstra. The DOD denied their fantastical claims. see 1 see 2 This needs a rewrite.  - F.A.A.F.A. 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the accuracy or lack thereof concerning the WMD finds, this is an article on UNSCR 1441, the enforcement of which is not reliant on the discovery of WMDs.  Even Hans Blix said before the invasion that, according to Iraq's own paperwork, the Hussein regime was in violation of the ceasefire terms in over a dozen different ways.  Since all the ceasefire terms held equal weight and validity under UNSCR 687, with no single category being listed as having priority, it does not ultimately matter which term he broke.  The fact is, you can take your pick.  Calbeck 16 March 2007
Given that the UN source text contains the phrase "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" - is it not misleading to begin the article with "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"? This carries the implication that no further resolutions are required - seemingly in contradiction with the reaffirmation of Iraqi sovereignty. Regardless, this is the most contentious legal issue of the century and it does Wikipedia a disservice to gloss over it in this manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.95.0 (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My response is over three years later: is this a wikirecord? A "disputed" tag was inserted at the time of this discussiion  but the discussion has petered out leaving the article substantially unchanged. Without taking any view on the issue (I have no view), I am removing the tag. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 2006 National Ground Intelligence report 

message: I propose that we merge Implementation of resolution 1441 with Iraq disarmament crisis years 2002 to 2003, to avoid inconsistent interpretations of the disarmament process. This page could then simply explain 1441 in a matter-of-fact manner without detailing the disagreements. Aftermath could also be deleted since it is disputed, irrelevant, and done better elsewhere. smb 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Supporters of the US Administration have argued, however, that France's declaration of intent to veto any military action in Iraq effectively prevented the Security Council from remaining seized of the matter since at that point it could take no action to enforce the standing Resolutions.
I could make no sense of this and couldn't correct it? Could someone have a go?--Lo2u (T • C) 02:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No point of trying to make sense of it - it assumes that Tony Blair's claim that France had threatened to veto any military action was accurate. France categorically denied making any such declaration and objected to the translation Blair used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.27.28 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some help 

message: According to Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, UNSC Res 1441 is worded in such a way that while it is nice to go back to SC to get further authorization, 1441 was actually worded in a way that no further authorization was needed. (_Winning Modern Wars_ by W. Clark,  ). I don't see that in the version sourced by WikiSource.org. Any one know which passage was used to justify the use of force? -- Kschang77 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about all these diplomatese... 

message: I think it would be relevant to add some more background that includes the ultimatum that was presented by one of the sponsors -
George Bush, 24 September 2002: Press Conference, Washington, DC "And I again call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution holding this man to account. And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act..."
At the moment, the article reads like all the member states voted for 1441 because they agreed with the sponsors. Now it is a fair argument that countries like Syria didn't just side with the US out of ideological agreement but did so because a literal gun was being held to Iraq's head. Of course, that sort of an assumption, however reasonable, has no place in an encyclopaedia.
I therefore suggest that the revelant information is added so the reader can reach their own conclusions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.27.28 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You should avoid accusing other editors of "lying", which is a personal attack.  It is entirely speculation on your part that the weapons inspections would have failed to confirm that no WMDs existed.  As you are no doubt aware, while the UN Security Council had passed Resolution 1441 on 27 November 2002, they were happy to allow the inspections to continue before giving the U.S. authorization for a legal invasion.  The fact that the inspections were likely to succeed may have increased the urgency of the invasion, as other reasons were unlikely to be as credible or persuasive, and the opportunity may have been lost.  TFD (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111226173450/http://www.brussellstribunal.org:80/pdf/Extempore_Judgment_KL_War_Crimes_Tribunal.pdf to http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/Extempore_Judgment_KL_War_Crimes_Tribunal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071122132829/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060516140700/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060626061841/http://www.breitbart.com:80/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html to http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified