Posts by Jayson

Well Simon I don't see the time yet of my edit but I included myself in the "obessive-ness class" and I said you are not the "worst by far in my opinion" so I don't see how you see this a put down to you personally. It wasn't. And I can't shut you up as this is your site. If that word insults you I am sorry and will not use it again.

It will only stop when WE stop. The trouble in the middle east (and most other places) is US ... we are the bad guys! We are the ones that create the Saddams, the Osamas, the Pinochets, the [insert puppet dictator]s. That is why the people who suffer because of them resent US.

I am not sure if you were saying "US" or the "U.S." But either way it would be great if it were that simple. I think one thing you do not understand about me is that I have said several times on this topic "There Are No Angels."

There is an Iraqi Constitution being drafted. That is a good start to a better future for the Iraqi people. Human rights globally, Civil Rights Nationally, these are the things to work for and support. (At least for me that is on this topic)

Now as for the rest Az- is right it is to nice to do this today. And it is to nice for book work which I have been doing. Time for a bike ride. Thanks for the push Az.

117

Letter from a friend in Iraq

by Yerusalyim in

ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.

here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.

it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.

Jayson

Jayson
We are not "obsessed" with anything. We just don't think politicians should get away with deceit and deception that costs many lives and not have to answer for it. No doubt they and their supporters now want to conveniently forget about the whole thing. I don't think this shows much respect for the people who've died as a result of their decisions for which they should be accountable.
Do you? Or do you care more about your own discomfort at supporting something that turned out to be fabrications rather than the lives of soldiers and civilians.

Simon I see you as very obessive on this issue. Do you think that it is impossible for you to become obessive? (However I do not think you are the worst on the issue. Not even close.) You ignore the point I made that the "lie" as you people call it was made after the US Congress approved the war. The State of the Union is propaganda and little more. The case had been made voted on and approved where it mattered the year before. Troops were on the way. At best the intel "snafu" was a mistake and not a "lie." Saddam has had nuclear programs in the past. He had other wmd's in the past and he used them. He refused to publicly disarm. What scares me is not the Bush was given quesitonable intelligence, it is that our intelligence is so poor that this type of bad information and guessing is the best we had. Again Simon this makes the case for war stronger not weaker. You say that I don't think this shows much respect for the people who've died as a result of their decisions for which they should be accountable. What about Saddam? Why is he not accountable in your mind?

I care very much that people have died in recent conflict Simon. It's very rude of you to somehow suggest that you are the only ones who cares. It is truth and your words show that it is the politics that you care about and not any relief of suffering or saving of life; And that is petty, very apathetic. The problem that makes me and others so frustrated is that you think this is about Bush and Blair when it is not. If Gore was President I would support the removal of Saddam. I am a howk on this issue. The Leader is irrelevent. I haven't forgotten anything Simon. But the 16 words in the speech? That is not why I support the war in Iraq. Only for Iraqi wmd's? That is not why I support the war in Iraq. The minutia that is so important to you just isn't to me.

I am not uncomfortable about supporting the war at all Simon. I still do as much as I did before. I was with Congress in 2002 when the war was approved. You people are being accused of trying to rewrite history. This is one example. Congress approves war in 2002. In 2003 President Bush includes bad British intelligence in his State of the Union address. Media and political rivals then claim that the war was because of that one sentence, a total of 16 words, "a lie." You ignore all the attempts to head off the war like going to the UN before the war. You ignore all the evil that is Saddam. You ignore that this man is a major reason that there is a bulk of US forces in the Middle East. The war is just. Removing Saddam was a nessesary step in stablizing the Middle East into being a good little trading partner with the USA.

You say that you want to look at a bundle of sources to get an opinion of a situation. Did you look at any of the sources that I suggested? Even one? I spent quite a bit of time looking at the BBC after our talks. I also tried to include fore Fox news to try to understand why you think that is where I get my information. Did you ever bother to look at "The Threating Storm" by Pollak? These sources that I have produced on this thread go beyond the here and now of Bushie politics. To me he doesn't matter. In one to five years he will be gone. But the Iraqi issue and the whole Middle East will be with us for decades. This Arab war was always comming. We put it off for 30 years. But now it is time to pay the price. For the policy of the last century we the USA owe the Iraqi people a stable Nation. We owe it because of who we are. It's not going to be easy and it will be paid with blood as much as dollars it always is.

Edit to add:

Since I have responded to many of the futile war threads & posts knowing that this causes tension on this forum I have to accept that there is some obessive-ness on my part as well.

117

Letter from a friend in Iraq

by Yerusalyim in

ok, i won't give his name, but he is a major with an engineer unit in iraq.

here's what he has to say on iraq, i've highlighted a few interesting points.

it has been a while since i have written to my friends about what's really going on here in iraq.

Jayson

Yeru,

Thank you for sharing your friends letter. And thank him for the service to not only his country but to those who will hopefully know freedom from tyranny.

Would you rather eat carp or dog?

by Jayson in

jw
friends

it may be a strange question but i wonder which is worse?

is it all in the spices?

i was here fishing today, i wonder which would be more fun to most of you here.

Jayson

It may be a strange question but I wonder which is worse? Is it all in the spices? I was here fishing today, I wonder which would be more fun to most of you here. Fishing under a beautiful waterfall, along your side is your son, with the sun starting to rise on another perfect day; Or, here at jwd chating about the evils in your so called life? I looked at the threads that exist today and I remember why "Iwasyoungonce" blew up and left. He did not want to become another name-calling looser in a chatroom. To bad I didn't listen to that guy. He was pretty smart. He cared about the people here. Well, any-way I was lucky enough for the people who were so worth talking to (The ones who used to post here) realized who I was and pm'ed me or sent an email. I'm glad they did. I have met a few others who actively post who are really sweeties. But the darker side of jwd just seems to be not worth it right now imo. I said that jwd is what you make of it. Just like god, just like life. But right now, well, here are the choices; listen to people use the "F" word here or run down my leaders who granted are "Fks" but so what? So are everyone elses. I'm tired of listening to threats on this site. And I mean personal ones. Life is more that posting (IT) trash. Any-ways back to the point; posting in cyberspace where there is little up side or

Or, building castles with the hope for the future?

I'll make sure that these pictures I posted can be seen they are worth it. And maybe I'll check in after the fishing season ends. Maybe after the Presidental election of 2004 things will be better. Who knows. Maybe this site won't even exist then, Maybe it will. I sure can't tell where it is going.

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/4/115657.shtml

A Critical Look at the U.N.
Steve Farrell
Wednesday, June 4, 2003

This just in: more evidence that the United States and the U.N. need to part company, forever; and the timing couldn’t be better.

The evidence comes in the form of a wonderful little book, “Inside the United Nations: A Critical Look at the U.N.,” by Robert Welch University director and New American contributing editor Steve Bonta.
Mr. Bonta’s book is advertised as a primer on the United Nations, and a primer it is. For the uninitiated in the history and purposes of the United Nations, this brief but informative work – full of nuts-and-bolts basics about the U.N., its shady founding, its flawed principles, its radical goals and its gosh-awful performance – is just the right place to begin.

The first thing Mr. Bonta makes clear is that the Founders and the founding of the U.N. ought not be confused with the Founders and founding of the United States.
The U.N., he reminds us, began with a semi-secret meeting between Roosevelt administration officials and British and Soviet delegates at Dumbarton Oaks, where plans were laid for a postwar security arrangement, built around an organization that would prevent future world wars.
Aside from the fact that a red flag ought to have been raised regarding the outrageously utopian belief that big government, especially world government, could usher in a millennium of peace and freedom, a look at the players involved should have caused alarm bells to sound, from coast to coast and border to border, that a bad idea was on the way.

Just ask yourself, “Is there something wrong with this picture: The representatives of the mass-murdering Stalinist regime – a regime that far exceeded the cruelty and criminality of the Nazi regime (murdering 21 million of its own prior to Hitler’s genocide) – are given equal footing and a free hand in establishing a pro-peace/pro-democracy organization with global jurisdiction?”
Little wonder, then, that many of Roosevelt’s aids who were sent there “were either Communists or strong Communist sympathizers. A number of them, including the now-notorious Alger Hiss (who served as secretary for the conference), were eventually unmasked as spies and traitors.”
Throw in the fact that Britain’s leader was Roosevelt’s and Hiss’ partner in betraying Eastern Europe and Asia to Stalin, and you’ve got quite a team drawing up plans to save humanity.
But that was not enough; Roosevelt made sure that Congress (the people’s representatives), the media (not as liberal as today) and representatives of the America First committee were excluded.
Was there ever really any question that the Soviet voice would be heard loud and clear, that the Soviets’ interest would be served royally in the creation of the United Nations, and that the United States, and freedom in general, would be the loser?

This was not Philadelphia in 1787!

The second thing Bonta makes clear is that the U.N. was never intended to be a peace organization. He quotes constitutional authority, J. Reuben Clark Jr., former undersecretary of state and U.S. ambassador to Mexico, who made this observation at the time of the drafting of the Charter:
“The Charter is a war document not a peace document. … [It] makes us a party to every international dispute arising anywhere in the world.”
The United Nations “[will] not prevent future wars, [but make] it practically certain that we shall have future wars,” he predicted.

It would do something else, as well:
“[A]s to such wars, it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.”

In other words, the real purpose of the U.N. was to exploit incessant, orchestrated cries to “keep the peace,” “save the environment,” “free the indigenous peoples” and “feed the poor” – in order to erode national sovereignty and impose global government over a disarmed world.
Fortunately, blatant calls for world government are usually flat-out rejected. Unfortunately, while conservatives think they’ve secured the front door, the globalists are busy busting down the back door, raiding the kitchen and hot-wiring the house for implosion.

Wrote U.N. proponent, Council of Foreign Relations member Richard Gardner:
“If instant world government … [does] not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? … [T]he ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault. … [F]or political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system.”
This booming, buzzing confusion Gardner proposed, this end run approach of specialized arrangements brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, is the WTO, the ICC, NATO, NAFTA, Bush’s FTAA and his proposed Free Trade Zone of the Middle East, as well as many other similar groupings.

Gardner’s booming, buzzing confusion also refers to the ABC NGOs (so-called “civil society”) which, propaganda tells us, represents a wide variety of people and natural associations when, the truth be told, most NGOs are fringe groups, artificially propped up, legitimized and shoved in our faces, thanks to government and leftist foundational grants.

And, by the way, these NGOs have a habit of calling for one and the same thing – world government solutions.
As for the WTO, ICC, NATO, NAFTA, FTAA and the Free Trade Zone of the Middle East, Bonta notes, few realize that these entities are recognized as regional arrangements under the U.N. Charter, and that they have written into their founding documents a submission to the will of the United Nations Security Council – or, in other words, submission to the central institution of the U.N. system, where the only real power lies.
Indeed, if Bonta’s analysis is correct, the Bush administration’s call for a Free Trade Zone of the Middle East is, in fact, a subtle reversal of the administration’s supposed “Keep the U.N. out of Iraq!” policy, and likewise, not a call not for free trade, but a call for managed trade, consistent with the laws and principles of the United Nations Charter.

And what of the U.N. Charter? This is Bonta’s next point; the Charter is not modeled after the U.S. Constitution, as is too often advertised. He notes:

There is no true representation at the U.N.; all the officials are appointed, not elected.

There is no separation of powers, or checks and balances; all power – legislative, executive and even judicial – resides in a worldwide Security Council of 15 individuals (five of whom possess absolute veto power).

There is no limited government; the Charter outlines all of its powers in sweeping, vague, open-ended language.

There are no God-given inalienable rights; the U.N.’s Declaration of Rights reads like a reprint of the old Soviet constitution, with every human right being subject to revocation when exercised inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter (whatever that means – and that’s the point). Bonta hits on many of the other great fallacies regarding the U.N. as well, and he provides reasonable answers.
For instance, to the worn-out claim that “nations need a place to air their grievances; thus we need something like the U.N.” – his answer is simple and inspired: “Quiet diplomacy has always been preferable to diplomacy on the stage.” Citing former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson, Bonta notes, “A ‘forum’ for airing grievances publicly is about as effective as a bickering couple involving the entire neighborhood in their problems.”
What happens in such a case? Neighbor is divided against neighbor and relative against relative, when the original dispute was merely between husband and wife. Holy Writ invites us to settle our disputes with others “between him and thee alone,” whenever possible. This is the moral, smarter answer. Bonta agrees.
The U.N., of course, does not; and that is but another reason why the U.N. is bad medicine.
In the end, Bonta believes that the U.N. ought not be and cannot be reformed. It was born and bred pro-communist and anti-American, and it will stay that way. He leads his readers to more literature on the subject, invites them to join up with GetUSOut.org to fight the good fight, and suggests we solicit our congressional representatives to support Ron Paul’s American Sovereignty Restoration Act, H.R. 1146 (recently re-introduced in Congress).

All of them great ideas, found in a great little inexpensive book, a book that ought to be purchased, read and shared with friends and family, congressmen and pundits

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/2/222011.shtml
WMD Threat Legitimate
Christopher Ruddy
Tuesday, June 3, 2003

Many leading Democrats, including Sens. Robert Byrd and Bob Graham seem to take delight that terrorists may soon attack America.
These same folks are also gleeful that, so far, the U.S. has not found significant evidence of weapons of mass destruction in liberated Iraq.
Sad, isn’t it, that such high-ranking elected officials enjoy scoring political points at the expense of our country.
Now we are told constantly by the liberal media drumbeat – and they are good at drumbeats – that somehow Operation Iraqi Freedom was for naught, because no evidence has been found.
To prove their case, one media pundit even went to the extent of slightly altering a quote by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz to make it look as if the issue of WMD was one giant ruse by the administration.
Any honest appraisal of the cause of this war would show that WMDs were a legitimate, priority item.
The war was not fought because we knew for sure that Saddam Hussein had nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
The war took place precisely because we did not know for sure what this maniac was up to.
We knew that based on his previous activities (using chemical weapons against the Kurds), his own wild statements against the West and the statements of many defectors, including his chief nuclear bomb maker – Saddam posed a tremendous threat to the United States and her allies.
Saddam made his intent clear: If he did obtain such weapons, he would likely use them.
But again, we did not attack Iraq because he was developing these weapons. We attacked Iraq because he did not allow us to verify this fact. It is a subtle but important distinction.
Saddam flouted one U.N. resolution after another for well over a decade.
Had he given the U.N. inspectors unfettered access, and all had been kosher, he would have been free to do as he pleased.
But Saddam wouldn’t go for that.
This situation could be compared to evidence of a man illegally building a bomb in his own home.
Let us suppose that the police are informed of this development by the man’s neighbors, family and friends. Some have even seen bomb-making equipment and heard this man’s threat to use the bomb.
When the police ask the man to voluntarily agree to a search, the man refuses.
When the police get a legal search warrant and the man refuses to accede to the court order, the police are justified in breaking down his door. If he violently resists, they can shoot him.
If, hypothetically, the police were to do just that and ended up killing the man to conduct the search – and then found no bomb or evidence of the bomb in the house – are they at fault?
Most reasonable people, and certainly the man’s neighbors, would agree that the police a) did the right thing in searching for the bomb-making equipment; b) unfortunately, the man paid a price for not agreeing to the court order; and c) the man probably had likely hid the bomb-making material after so many people had testified to its existence.
Similarly, Saddam could have saved himself by agreeing to wishes of the international community and to agreements his own government had signed to.
Instead, Saddam forwent an estimated $100 billion in oil revenues that he lost due to U.N. sanctions – precisely because he did not allow U.N. inspectors unfettered access.
While it is certainly fair for critics of President Bush to question his strategy in dealing with Saddam, it is unfair for them to question the justness of his cause or his motives.
Whether or not WMDs are found, President Bush has greatly reduced the potential threat of such weapons, not to mention other serious threats Iraq posed, including helping terrorist nations.
Democrats, so intent on capitalizing on the “lack of evidence” of WMDs, will never credit President Bush for his courageous stand.

865

WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon in

now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

Jayson

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03032011.htm

International Security | Terrorism
20 March 2003

State Department Details Saddam's Defiance of U.N. Resolutions

Says Iraq has violated over 17 resolutions over past 12 years

The State Department's Bureau of International Organization Affairs issued a fact sheet March 20 detailing Saddam Hussein's defiance of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) over the past 12 years.

According to the fact sheet, Iraq has violated over 17 UNSCRs, remains in material breach of disarmament obligations, and has sought to circumvent economic sanctions.

Following is the text of the March 20 State Department fact sheet:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
March 20, 2003
Fact Sheet
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of UNSCRs

Over the past 12 years, Iraq has violated more than seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) and remains in material breach of disarmament obligations. The Iraqi regime has also sought to circumvent economic sanctions. The UNSCRs required that Iraq declare and divest itself, under international supervision, of weapons of mass destruction and related programs, delivery systems and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; not commit acts of international terrorism, or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory; account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and end repression of the Iraqi people.

Saddam Hussein is in violation of the following United Nations Security Council Resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations.

Gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply.

Demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days.

Demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections.

Decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach.

Recalls that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."