Iraq has missles. Those missles are, according to Hans Blix speaking to the UN Security Council yesterday, patently prohibited under Resolution 687. Iraq says the destruction of those prohibited weapons, required under the same resolution, would be unacceptable.
Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq.
And I would love to hear ideas for disarmament that do not amount to war.
Re:How much in breach?
pudge on 2003-02-16T13:13:44
1. I don't know if you imply this or not, but their existence is a breach, with or without a guidance system. Hans Blix was clear on this.
2. You apparently did not read what I wrote. Read the second paragraph again. Here it is: "Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq."
I did not say anything about war there, and, in fact, said, "And I would love to hear ideas for disarmament that do not amount to war."
Re:How much in breach?
pudge on 2003-02-16T13:37:57
Hey, but at least you got to protest before today, eh? Looks like the biggest storm in Philly since the one in January 1996 (which I was in Bensalem for)... Re:How much in breach?
jordan on 2003-02-16T13:40:08
Six miles? Where did you get your information?
The estimate is currently 24 miles. My source is Hans Blix. Here's the relevant extract from the article:
Mr. Blix has already told the Council that the missiles, with a range of about 180 kilometers, or 114 miles, appeared to be a "prima facie" case of a violation by Iraq of the range limit of 150 kilometers, or about 90 miles, established by the Council. The missiles have already been given to the Iraqi armed forces, he said. The panel did not reach a conclusion about a second missile, Al Fatah (news - web sites), but said it required further study.
Note the Al Fatah missile requires further study, but is believed to have even greater range.
This is no clerical error or simple mistake on the part of the Iraqis. Iraq has developed, and intends to develop further, missiles that violate their previous commitments.
This is exactly what inspections are there to prove, one way or the other. They have proven it, as far as I'm concerned. Also, Blix has repeatedly stated that Iraq is not cooperating as is required under Resolution 1441.
What is your criteria for complying? Why should we give Saddam Hussein any benefit of any doubt?
Re:How much in breach?
pudge on 2003-02-16T14:33:53
This is no clerical error or simple mistake on the part of the Iraqis. Iraq has developed, and intends to develop further, missiles that violate their previous commitments.
This is exactly what inspections are there to prove, one way or the other.
No, no, no. The inspections are not to prove anything. They are there to disarm Iraq, to verify Iraq's statements, to destroy the weapons. They are there to give Iraq the opportunity to prove they have disarmed, not to themselves prove Iraq has disarmed (or not).
This is the problem most people have when they say they want inspections to continue. We have found weapons, gotten rid of weapons; we can find more, get rid of more, right? No. If the inspections are not successful, after 12 years of trying, why do we think they ever could be successful? A little success here or there is irrelevant. If Iraq is holding back information -- which they indisputably are -- if Iraq is blocking the destruction of prohibited weapons -- which they indisputably are -- then inspections are not working, as defined in Resolution 687.
There is no greay area. Either Iraq is cooperating fully, or inspections are failing, and the UN must, by its own words, take further steps to effect disarmament. And once again, I am not saying that next step must be war. I am saying inspections have proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a failure, and that something else must be done to effect disarmament; I pray that something else is NOT war.
I don't want to hear anything about the this stuff except for how to effect disarmament; if someone wants to say inspections can do that, I don't want to hear it unless there's some actual evidence they can do that, some evidence that Iraq is going to completely change their tactics over the last 12 years, something they have not yet done and something they show no signs of doing (as evidenced by the recent refusal to destroy clearly prohibited weapons).
waltman appears to think I was using this latest incident as evidence we need to go to war with Iraq, that they are in breach. No. I was using it as evidence that Iraq continues to defy UN Resolutions 687 and 1441, that inspections have bneen a failure and that because Iraq is still not cooperating, they will inevitably continue to fail. Only complete cooperation from Iraq can make inspections work. This is the point.
Re:How much in breach?
waltman on 2003-02-16T16:32:03
Six miles? Where did you get your information?The second paragraph in the article pudge linked:
Aziz said the missiles exceeded the range by less than six miles and only because they lacked guidance systems. He said they do not pose a threat that would warrant their destruction.A 6 mile discrepancy strikes me as more of a technicality than a cause for war. Frankly, so does 24 miles.
There may well be good reasons we're on the brink of war with Iraq. For instance, I'm as interested as the next guy in learning what happened to all those chemical and biological weapons we sold Saddam back in the 1980's. But the discovery of these missiles is hardly a smoking gun.
Re:How much in breach?
pudge on 2003-02-16T16:47:00
waltman, and I agree with you. It is not a smoking gun. It is not cause for war. It is one thing: proof that Iraq continues -- after 12 years -- to not comply with Resolution 687. That's all Resolution 1441 is for, to give Iraq one more chance to prove inspections can work to disarm Iraq. They have proven that inspections are NOT working to disarm Iraq, and this is just the most recent evidence of that.
Blix speaks again on February 28. Unless he says "inspections are now working to disarm Iraq; Iraq is actively working to give us all the information we require, and is working to destroy all prohibited weapons," the UK and US will provide a new resolution to the Security Council declaring inspections a failure.
Even Secy. General Kofi Annan has said a new resolution is probably necessary, because inspections are failing, and there is little chance they can succeed.
There are now 34 nations that are saying inspections have failed. The Portugese ambassador chastised the German Foreign Minister for grandstanding about "lack of evidence," and told him that he was not offering any alternatives to what they all recognize as failure (inspections) and the last resort (war).
Two weeks. That's how much time Iraq has to destroy its weapons, to provide all its information, to prove that inspections can work.
It is not about these weapons being proof Iraq is a threat, it is about them being proof that inspections are not working to effect disarmament.
I have been repelled by Saddam Hussein and his regime for over twenty years, ever since he invaded Iran. I was appalled when the Reagan administration improved relations with Iraq and even began providing military aid in spite of knowledge that it was using chemical weapons. And I really think that the world would be a better place if Iraq were disarmed.
But I have to say that the present Bush administration scares me much much more than Iraq does. Perhaps there is some justification to going to war against Iraq, but currently Iraq is very far down on the list of threats to world peace. Clearly the US government is using any piece of disinformation it can dream up to promote this war. For example, Powell raised the specter of Iraq's mobile biowarfare labs. Well, if Iraq can produce effective biological weapons in mobile laboratories, their technology has advanced far past anything even the US is known to be capable of.
It's obvious that the inspections are a major irritant to Hussein. If the speech by Powell showed anything, it showed how effective the inspections are so far. Previous inspections went a long way to disarming Iraq, so I just can't see any justification for not continuing the inspections as long as possible to see how much can be accomplished. For Bush to say that he's "losing patience" or warning Hussein that "the game is up" is an awfully childish way to approach this problem.
So why does the administration want to fight a war so much? It's clear that they hope to use their power to reshape the globe in any way they please. This may be seen in such documents as Building the Bridge to a More Peaceful Future, Rebuilding America's Defenses, and the National Security Strategy. A short summary of these documents is here.
So what would the benefits be of a quick, easy victory by the US in an all-out war against Iraq? We would have a place to permanently station troops to dominate the Persian Gulf region. We could dismantle the bases in Saudi Arabia, and thus deprive Islamic extremists of the excuse that we're occupying their holy land to justify terrorist attacks against the US. We could even apply more pressure against the monarchy in Saudi Arabia to become more democratic and become a true force for moderation in the Islamic world. Wouldn't it be lovely if all this went as planned?
The only trouble with this is the chances of everything going right are very low. If the war doesn't go as smoothly as hoped, if the Iraqi people suffer enormous damage from the war, and if the US effort to rebuild the country is as lackluster as the current one to rebuild Afghanistan, Iraq may well turn into the most fertile ground for producing terrorists we have yet seen. Further, the more the US attempts to use its increasingly preeminent position in the world to suit its own ends, the more Russia and China will view the US as a threat, and the farther we will slide back into a new cold war. We may even find certain countries in Western Europe winding up on the other side.
I just hope the US has a little more to offer the world than its tremendous capacity to destroy.
Re:Why not continue the inspections?
pudge on 2003-02-16T13:13:47
"Again: inspections are for the purpose of disarmament. They are not working; they will not work. Disarmament of Iraq is a requirement, not an option. Because inspections are not working, and will not work, we need another way to disarm Iraq."
You are talking about inspections in terms other than disarmament. That is entirely inappropriate. Please stop.
And, again, I did not say anything about war, and, in fact, said, "And I would love to hear ideas for disarmament that do not amount to war."
I wish people could read, or at least respond to actual points being made.Re:Why not continue the inspections?
mudchuck on 2003-02-17T04:58:07
Aziz said destruction of the missiles "would be unacceptable" not that they would never be destroyed under any circumstances. It's too soon, therefore, to say that "inspections will not work."Re:Why not continue the inspections?
pudge on 2003-02-17T12:44:38
Aziz said destruction of the missiles "would be unacceptable" not that they would never be destroyed under any circumstances. It's too soon, therefore, to say that "inspections will not work."
That is wrong on two counts.
First: we already have plenty of evidence inspections have not worked, and are not working. This was just offered as more evidence of this, not the evidence. More to the point, Iraq must itself show evidence that inspections can work, and this situation is counterevidence of that.
Second: saying it is unacceptable for those weapons to be destroyed, blocking their destruction, even if in the end they will be destroyed, is in itself a breach of Resolution 687. Of course, their very existence is a breach under Resolution 687, but we are looking for current evidence that inspections can effect disarmament, and, again, they are providing counterevidence of that.
Re:Why not continue the inspections?
ethan on 2003-02-16T17:05:37
But I have to say that the present Bush administration scares me much much more than Iraq does. Perhaps there is some justification to going to war against Iraq, but currently Iraq is very far down on the list of threats to world peace.
By all this respect, this can't be quite true. The German health department has recently stocked up vaccine for an estimated 100 million people after it became evident that the Iraq has pox viruses at its disposal. So are you afraid that you might become a target of biological weapons used by the American administration?
Further, the more the US attempts to use its increasingly preeminent position in the world to suit its own ends, the more Russia and China will view the US as a threat, and the farther we will slide back into a new cold war. We may even find certain countries in Western Europe winding up on the other side
This is not very likely. Among the European countries, there is exactly one that has taken a more radical position: This is Germany (my country, sigh). All those others that currently seem to object (France, Russia perhaps) wont eventually keep up this standpoint. It is only tactical and doesn't have to do anything at all with a fundamental dislike of such a war.
I just hope the US has a little more to offer the world than its tremendous capacity to destroy.
I wish the rest of the world had a little more to offer than its tremendous capacity of talking. Seriously, all they are good at seems to be hesitating (as seen with Kosovo where Europe hasn't been even remotely capable of solving a purely European problem).
This should not mean that I am a particular friend of a war...but I don't see the brilliant alternatives (other than those things that have been tried for ten years without success). Sometimes the only solution is hard to stand...but so are non-solutions.Re:Why not continue the inspections?
jdavidb on 2003-02-17T06:15:48
Interesting that there are many intelligent, well-reasoning people who would disagree with the assumptions you assert are "clearly" true. Any particular reason you felt you had to imply that these are clear to everyone and anyone who does not agree with them are clearly wrong?
thus deprive Islamic extremists of the excuse that we're occupying their holy land to justify terrorist attacks against the US.
Interesting idea I haven't heard before. And how exactly would that be a bad thing?
We could even apply more pressure against the monarchy in Saudi Arabia to become more democratic and become a true force for moderation in the Islamic world. Wouldn't it be lovely if all this went as planned?
If you think the conflict over Iraq has anything to do with this, I have to question your ability to follow and interpret world events.
Stop the fear.
Turn off Fox News and chill. I'm not afraid of Iraq and I dont feel that the United States is entitled to judge any other country in terms of disarmament as long as it's "death through firearms" rate is over 100 times as high as in most other developed countries. If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.
The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld says "Who would have helped us if we had invaded Afganistan prior to 911 to prevent the terrorists attacks on New York...None". He uses this to make his point on attacking Iraq. But the logic is flawed. Bad things happen, but doing bad things to prevent other bad things, is not justified. Preemptive action lies in Gods hands (if there is one) but certainly not in Mr. Bush's. (Hint to Mr. Bush: god like rhetoric does not turn you into a god.)
You want an option to war: Make an exit plan for Saddam. Take away his power but let him keep his title (It worked with the Queen of England). Whatever you do, don't let him look bad. Let him keep his honor and he will be your friend. Maybe he doesnt deserve such treatment, but if it saves some lifes, that price seems quite low.
->malte
Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-16T17:15:43
- If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.
Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?
- The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong.
We don't need to use preemption as a reason for this war. This is just a continuance of the Gulf War. The peace agreement committed Saddam to disarm, he has not done so.
Now may be a good time to do it because it also provides preemption. We must do it eventually, or the International community loses all credibility. Mad dictators like Saddam will have a green light to develop these weapons and invade their neighbors when there are few consequences.
- Make an exit plan for Saddam. Take away his power but let him keep his title...
There's no reason to believe he would accept such an option. I believe in the taking way his power part, but the only way to bring this about seems to be war.
It's quite clear that his goal is to dominate the region. Otherwise, he would not be playing games with the inspectors and hiding his Chemical and Biological weapons. If he would go for the plan of taking away his power, why wouldn't he just throw all of his weapons away and invite inspectors to witness their destruction?
Saddam now knows that we won't allow him to dominate the region, so it's us or him. One good plan for Saddam is to give Al Qaeda the means to destroy the US. If dirty bombs go off in a dozen US cities, if smallpox rages, if Anthrax is spread from planes, we won't be able to definitely trace it back to Saddam Hussein, but it may well be that he's behind it. Prevention is best and Iraq's continued flaunting of the terms of the peace agreement gives us all the justification we need.
Re:Fear
malte on 2003-02-16T17:41:47
Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?I neither said it was easy, nor that it it could be achieved fast. (Besides id you can still drive to say New Jersey and buy your gun there bans in limited locations are pointless).
I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration put it forward?
Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-16T18:04:38
- I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration put it forward?
Did you not read what I said?
Now may be a good time to do it because it also provides preemption. We must do it eventually, or the International community loses all credibility. Mad dictators like Saddam will have a green light to develop these weapons and invade their neighbors when there are few consequences.
That's why.
Re:Fear
malte on 2003-02-16T19:05:29
There it is, the _Fear_.Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-16T19:46:24
But, "fear" is not the main point. Twelve years of Iraqi frustrating its obligations under Resolution 687 is the main point. Bush is on record saying he wanted to deal with Iraq's disarmament well before September 11, 2001.Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-17T02:11:22
Fear is a motivation we do lots of things.
Fear is why we don't allow children to play with firearms or explosives.
Fear is why we avoid viscious animals.
Fear is why we don't put our hands on a hot stove.
Fear is why we eliminate threats before they eliminate us.
No serious person really doubts that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.
No serious person doubts that Al Qaeda would like to use those sorts of weapons on the US.
What do you offer to quiet these fears? Platitudes and "give peace a chance"? That doesn't do it for me.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-17T02:35:17
The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.
Hans Blix said they have NOT found weapons of mass destruction. He said they have found prohibited missles, and that they have found evidence of weapons that has not been explained away (such as unaccounted-for Anthrax and VX), but that they did not find actual weapons of mass destruction.
Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-17T03:35:09
Hans Blix heads up the UNMOVIC inspectors. UNSCOM was decommissioned some years ago and performed the last Iraqi inspection regime before being kicked out after identifying or finding substantial evidence of many banned weapons, including tons of Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, VX nerve gas precursors. Note also the reference in this article to the fact that there is substantial reason to believe that Iraq has smallpox virus and was experimenting with weaponizing it.
Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC inspectors are not satisfied with explanations as to what has become of these materials.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-17T03:55:10
Ah, yes, UNMOVIC replaced UNSCOM as a result of Resolution 1284; I wasn't sure you were distinguishing them, and I sometimes use them interchangably.Re:Fear
kellan on 2003-02-17T15:11:00
Weapons inspectors were not "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn, at the US's request.Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-17T16:06:22
- Weapons inspectors were not "kicked out" of Iraq in 1998, they were withdrawn, at the US's request.
Thanks for pointing this out to me. You'll have to forgive me that I only heard this from ALL the media.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-17T18:25:15
It's technically true, but some would say it is in essence true that they were "kicked out," in that they left only because Iraq would not let them do their job.
And the UN ordered it.
Re:Fear
kellan on 2003-02-17T15:14:03
And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.
Its not very credible, and its not polite to do in mixed company:) Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-17T16:30:41
- And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.
It would be an Ad Hominem either way. A good way to distract from the facts at hand, but not very productive.
Is Jane's an acceptable source? The CBC? How about the Christian Science Monitor ?
This last source is particularly interesting. It goes into great depth about the challenges of performing inspections. It can take years to find anything and it's doubtful that very much would have been found by UNSCOM had Saddam Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, not defected and told us where all the Weapons of Mass Destruction were.
Inspections are extremely challenging and of questionable value. They didn't work after WWI, they didn't work in North Korea and they didn't really work in Iraq in the 1990s. This is why the Resolution 1441 should be followed to the letter and we should exercise the "Serious Consequences" at any sign Iraq is not cooperating. Hans Blix has made it quite clear that Iraq is not cooperating.
Re:Fear
kellan on 2003-02-18T00:23:46
I think it would be cool if Jane's could do one their deep, detailed articles on how these supposed mobile bio-weapons labs actually work. Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.
But we were talking about media critique. Yes, all those sources are better then Free Republic. Which was all I said.
The CBC article is surprising as they normally do a better job then that, Iraq hardly counts as a "spiritual ally" of Afghanistan, the CSM is par for the course from them, narrative heavy and fact light. Its also not contested (at least I haven't contested it) that Iraq has retained the ability to build biological weapons.
The PBS article is interesting because Ritter uses that same story to talk about when inspections started worked, once they got full support, and an increased staff.
And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-18T00:47:45
Hans Blix has made it quite clear that Iraq is not cooperating.
And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.
You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong. "Many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for." Repeat Blix's words until it sinks in. Blix has been asking for evidence Iraq is required to give in regards to those weapons -- including VX and anthrax -- for years now. Iraq still refuses.
"Cooperation" in terms of the UN inspections is not a sliding scale. It is a boolean. Inspections cannot be working as long as Iraq is withholding information, and Blix is clear that they are doing this.
Again, you can pretend that partial cooperation is sufficient, if it makes you feel better, but it is a lie.Re:Fear
jordan on 2003-02-18T04:18:48
- Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.
Why do you say this? There is supposedly detailed defector testimony as to their existence. Read this article, even the sceptical Biological Weapons specialist, Raymond Zalinkas states:
"We know it is possible to build them -- the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane -- but it's a big hassle. That's why this strikes me as a bit far-fetched."
This indicates that it is clearly possible that they exist. As to whether Iraq could build them or not. It's amazing what a few Billion dollars of 'humanitarian' oil money that's supposed to go to starving, disease-ridden children can do. Not to mention all the oil Iraq is selling through Jordan that's against the UN Sanctions.
But then, this Zalinkas strikes me as perhaps not being the most aware, or perhaps he has a hidden agenda. He says in the article:
"The only reason you would have mobile labs is to avoid inspectors, because everything about them is difficult," Zilinskas said.
Uh, how about to avoid cruise missile and other bombing attacks, short of all-out war, like the US has been doing from time-to-time for years?
- The PBS article is interesting because Ritter uses that same story to talk about when inspections started worked, once they got full support, and an increased staff.
Now, it's my turn for an Ad Hominem. Ritter doesn't have much credibility here. The UNSCOM inspectors hardly found anything before Saddam Kamel and Hussein Kamel defected and told them where it all was. Ritter is obviously being self-serving here, saying that they started working when they got the increased support, when in fact, they got the increased support because they finally had hit upon something with Kamel's revelations. It's pretty telling that the UNSCOM inspectors had actually inspected the 'chicken farm' on 3 previous occasions and came up empty before Kamel's revelations.
- And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.
OK, how do you disagree, exactly? Here's some verbatim extracts from the transcripts as they appear on the CBC (I note this appears to be the same as appears on CNN, but you didn't want the "editted" version from CNN). Tell me how this does not indicate that the Iraqi's have been fully cooperating:
Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.
And, later.
This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
From the above, it's pretty clear that Iraq is not participating in "it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts". This is what is required and Iraq is falling short.
Further...
No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms. I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted with any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.
This clearly indicates that Iraq is not cooperating in private interviews.
Please, point out how I've edited the above to give a false impression, since you seem to be suggesting that the UPI, AP and CNN summaries were so edited. I'd like to avoid their mistakes.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-16T17:27:33
You are not at all addressing the points I am making.
The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed. The UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament. Inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed.
So I won't directly address your comments about comparing Iraq to the US, because it ignores the facts above.
As to preemption: that misses the point too, but as I have not yet addressed it, I will do so now. There is nothing preemptive about this impending war. To say the coming war is "preemptive" makes as much sense as saying that the US, with thirty-four other nations at last count, is acting "unilaterally." The US is working to fulfil the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War, which called for the disarmament of Iraq, first by inspections, and if those fail, then by further steps.
This is not preemption, this is fulfilling the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (which Iraq agreed to in its entirety), section "I", measure 34.
Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table: The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed; the UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament; inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed; the UN has declared that further steps must be taken if inspections fail.
As to your option: I would love for this to happen. But you say it as though it hasn't been tried. It has. And all attempts at this, including recent attempts by Saudi Arabia to get Saddam to voluntarily give up his power, to provide safe exile for him, and even to get his own generals to overthrow him, have thus far apparently failed. The Saudis have been working on it, the US has pledged that if Hussein abdicated power voluntarily it would not seek to prosecute or capture him. But nothing's come of it.
Re:Fear
malte on 2003-02-16T17:51:31
Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table: The UN has declared Iraq must be disarmed; the UN chose inspections as the means to disarmament; inspections have been tried over 12 years and have failed; the UN has declared that further steps must be taken if inspections fail.This is he very point the world is not behind the US. You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though. Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this. We have been bombed with dumb reasons for war by the Bush administration. There might be good ones, but you know, who lied once...
I have the feeling in my gut, Mr. Bushs want the war. Then go ahead fight it. I enjoy watching CNN's war coverage, but don't expect to get anyones ligitimization for your killing.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-16T19:51:01
You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though.
If you want a serious discussion, please say things that aren't patently false.
Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this.
In every poll, the majority of Americans favor the disarmament of Iraq.
There might be good ones, but you know, who lied once...
This has nothing to do with choosing what to believe, for those who can do a little reasearch. The facts are all before us, and I clearly laid them out, and no one has even attempted to refute them, including you. I hear a lot of "yeah, but...", but no one refuting the facts of Iraq's obligations, its breach of those obligations, the purpose of inspections, inspections failing, or the UN's obligation to disarm Iraq by further steps.
So continue to throw around patently false statements about the world's support, and continue to whine about what you think the reasons for war are. Until you address the real issue, as clearly laid out, I will cease to care what you have to say.Re:Fear
malte on 2003-02-16T22:46:37
You might count 34 nations, you won't find 34 people, though.
If you want a serious discussion, please say things that aren't patently false.So, please list some countries, except the US, where the people favor a war to do the disarmament.
Even the people of GB is not behind the US on this.
In every poll, the majority of Americans favor the disarmament of Iraq.You are not replying to my statement. I did not say anything about Americans.
I believe your arguments are completely valid. Iraques behavior is indeed not acceptable; however, I don't feel Iraque is dangerous at this moment. So, there is no immediate need for war. The world should put its eye on North Korea. Thats where the real danger lies.
Re:Fear
chromatic on 2003-02-16T23:34:35
Sorry, but I get this picture of so many people saying, "Please stop making weapons, Saddam. I'm going to count to ten." and they're all up to "Eight... eight and a half... eight and three quarters... eight and seven eights... eight and fifteen sixteenths...".
No wonder he doesn't take the UN seriously. At least we're getting a good lesson in fractions.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-17T00:12:12
Well, at least NATO is mostly decided, except for France, to protect one of its members. Talk about an embarrassment to Europe.Re:Fear
waltman on 2003-02-17T04:34:42
Sorry, but I get this picture of so many people saying, "Please stop making weapons, Saddam. I'm going to count to ten." and they're all up to "Eight... eight and a half... eight and three quarters... eight and seven eights... eight and fifteen sixteenths...".No wonder he doesn't take the UN seriously. At least we're getting a good lesson in fractions.
That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from this whole Iraq mess. This is from President Bush's press conference following his address before the UN back in November.
This would be the 17th time that we expect Saddam to disarm. This time we mean it.Re:Fear
kellan on 2003-02-18T00:58:34
And the facts, as they stand now, are resolution 1441 doesn't given permission to the member states to attack and invade Iraq. That requires further approval from the UN Security Council who are currently seem unlikely to give it, despite considerable pressure to do so.Saying this is preemption simply ignores the facts. Yes, the Bush administration has said many dumb things, it has provided many reasons for war, some of them pretty dumb. But I ignore all that and look at the actual facts on the table:In the meantime, the man who is pushing this war, can't seem to get his fact straight about why the war should happen, whether its because they blew up the World Trade Center, or they've got nuclear weapons, or its because they gassed the Kurds back when his dad vice president.
Either though incompetence of deceit the Bush administration has repeatedly misstated the case for war, and that is not something I can choose to ignore, even if you can.
But then again, as I disagree with you, you'll simply decide I'm off topic and lying.
Re:Fear
pudge on 2003-02-18T01:19:54
And the facts, as they stand now, are resolution 1441 doesn't given permission to the member states to attack and invade Iraq.
It is not about permission, it is about the UN Security Council enforcing its own resolutions; the question is, if it refuses to do so, why should anyone else take it upon themselves to do so? Because it was not just the UN that was at war with Iraq, it was the US and others.
These nations were at war with Iraq, they require the disarmament of Iraq, and it is the UN's job to do enforce that disarmament. And if the UN fails to do so, those nations feel they should take it upon themselves to do it. And there is nothing -- nothing -- in the UN charter or resolutions prohibiting these nations from doing so. "Permission" is not required. By implying that it is, you appear to be grossly misinformed.
Either though incompetence of deceit the Bush administration has repeatedly misstated the case for war, and that is not something I can choose to ignore, even if you can.
Whatever you want to believe, the only constant in the case against Iraq -- 12 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, last year, six months ago, last week -- is that Iraq must be disarmed by virtue of the resolutions.
That the Bush administration keeps adding more to the list of why Iraq might be a threat, of what they have and could do wrong, doesn't change that the primary thrust of the last 12 years of dealing Iraq is, clearly to all who look at it, disarmament.
Re:they are working
pudge on 2003-02-18T00:42:41
The weapons inspections are working according to Blix and El Baradei who are actually running the inspections.
That is false. Inspections require unconditional and complete cooperation. This is absolutely clear from the UN resolutions. Please read them. If there is not complete cooperation, inspections are definitionally not working. There is no grey area. It is a delightful fancy, but it is not reality.
Nation after nation recognizes that inspections are not working. France and Germany are basically the only significant holdouts.
Even Kofi Annan, just last week, said that the UN must take additional action to disarm Iraq, that a new resolution is probably going to be necessary. He would not have said this if inspections were working. The only reason we would need another resolution is if the current resolutions -- which define the nature of the inspections regime -- are not working.
As to your alternative: it says nothing about disarmament. I asked for alternatives for disarmament. I am unconcerned with something that does not address the mandate for disarmament.
Why do you Americans believe you're soooo much better than the rest of the world?
Re:USA
pudge on 2003-02-20T12:04:04
Is that a serious statement and question? It doesn't appear to be.
It is not the US that is requiring Iraqi disarmament. It is the UN Security Council, with about a dozen or more resolutions over the past 12 years, affirming over and again that Iraq is a threat that must be disarmed. France has repeatedly agreed to this, as has Russia, as has Germany, as has Syria, as has every other nation that has been on the Security Council (except for the new ones which have not yet had the pleasure).
Also, Iraq has agreed to this. Resolution 687 of 1991, which ended the Gulf War, was a cease-fire resolution that Iraq agreed to unconditionally, which first defined the prohibitions for NBC weapons and missles that are capable of exceeding a 150km range.
It is not about believing we are better. It is about Iraq starting, and losing, a war with the United Nations forces; it is about Iraq, and everyone else, agreeing that Iraq must be disarmed of these weapons; it is about the UN Security Council working to fulfill its stated obligation to disarm Iraq through other means if inspections fail.
Feel free to whine about "disarmament" of other countries and who feels superior over whom, but without addressing the actual issues, you just make your opinions appear quite immature and entirely irrelevant. Please, get informed.
Re:USA
jouke on 2003-02-26T09:38:11
Let me make it clear that I don't agree with Bart in his comment. However I think that the way you are stressing the fact that the UN Security Council is saying things is not as simple as you make it sound.
You are clearly forgetting that some powerful nations (USA *and* others) are using their influence on other countries to push certain decisions. That's common knowledge. Like 'Hey France, it looks like you're going to vote against this resolution, but don't you think it will be rather inconvenient if we would increase the import taxes on French wines as of tomorrow. Hmm? Riiight...So you were going to vote in favour of our proposal, weren't you?'.
Of course, these kinds of things happen all the time, and they don't always work, but a resolution of the UN Security Council does not always represent 'the view of the World'. I think it's pretty clear that the USA and the UK are currently one of the very few who think the inspections are not working. Why else would the NATO and the UN be so devided on this isssue.
My personal view on the whole thing is very simple: Father Bush should have finished the job when he had the chance during the Gulf War. For some strange reason he didn't have the guts to move to Bagdad and chase Saddam away once and for all. And this has resulted in the current situation. The Gulf War was the time to decide the matter, now is not the time. If the UN, NATO and whatever country is *so concerned* about the weapons in Iraq, why don't they threaten North Korea with the same as they do with Iraq? But Collin Powell clearly stated that there was absolutely no intent to start a war there...
I know, I don't have a solution, I don't have an answer to your original question. Maybe some small and swift commando should go into Iraq and assasinate Saddam. Maybe that will do the job.
Just my € 0.02
Re:USA
pudge on 2003-02-26T13:27:31
I am not saying there are not a lot more to these things than meets the eye (in fact, I have been trying to let people know that far more is happening than any of us could possibly know).
However, two things are clear: first, you own your vote. If you vote a certain way, then you have in fact supported what you have voted for.
Second, there have been many resolutions over the past 12 years reaffirming Resolution 687. It wasn't a one-off deal. France has, dozens of times, reaffirmed its original agreement to its terms. There must be something to be said for repeated affirmation of something, even if you are not sure they meant it on a particular occasion or two.
As to what George HW Bush should have done: I think most people would agree that the US should have taken out Hussein, but it was not his decision alone to make, any more than it his George W Bush's decision alone to make now. The United Nations decided it didn't want such a breach of Iraq's sovereignty unless it were necessary, and they thought they could disarm Iraq without force. They were wrong.
And while YOU think that if we were going to forcibly disarm Iraq it had to happen 12 years ago, the UN Security Council has, again, repeatedly affirmed that this is not the case, that inspections are the chosen method of disarmament, but that further steps WILL be taken should inspections fail. I think the worst thing you can say about this is that the UN has taken too long to admit inspections have failed and that they need to move on to something else.
I don't think it is really possible to overstate the case for "What the UN says, the UN should do." The world is becoming a much more dangerous place, and if the UN is not willing to follow through on its committments -- as it has committed to disarm Iraq -- it, in a real sense, becomes irrelevant. The question was raised, "if it is the UN that agreed to this with Iraq, why should the US act outside of UN consensus?" That can be answered, in part, by asking, "If the UN is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions, why should the US not come up with its own separate cease-fire agreement the next time it is militarily engaged on the UN's behalf?" Apart from the obvious -- that countries like Iraq will not cooperate if they believe they can get away with it -- it is also true that the UN cannot be a place for countries like France, Russia, China, the UK, and the US to come together for agreement if the UN is unwilling to enforce those agreements. The next time, the US will come to a separate cease-fire agreement, because what is the point of the UN's version?
Quite frankly, I think your question about North Korea shows a lack of understanding; you say it seriously, but it isn't a serious statement. First, it has taken us twelve years to get to this point with Iraq, and you think that an equivalent action for North Korea would be to threaten them with war after a few months? That makes not a bit of sense. Second, the UN Security Council is currently taking up the North Korea nuclear issue, for the first time. The US is in very active talks with China, Japan, and South Korea. It is a process, and the process is moving forward. Maybe it will be a twelve-year process like in Iraq. I doubt it, but to draw parallels in such terms of immediacy is just nonsense.
While I am being frank;-), more nonsense is that the US and UK are part of the few who think inspections are not working. First, it is absolutely clear from the resolutions that inspections can only work with full Iraqi cooperation, and it is absolutely clear from the inspectors that Iraq has been significantly uncooperative in several areas. It is simply beyond reasonable doubt that inspections are not working, if by "working" you mean "fulfilling their objective" (and I can't see how it could mean anything else).
Second, more to the point, there are dozens of countries who have signed on to the US-UK coalition against Iraq. Even a cursory glance at the news turns up two other Security Council nations, Spain and Bulgaria. But more importantly even than that: the German ambassador to the UN has said, unequivocally, inspections are not working. He said it just this morning on NBC. The issue for Germany is not that they think inspections are working, but that they can be made to work. Even Germany, who is opposing war, knows inspections are not working. However, Germany is not willing, at this time, to follow the resolutions to the letter -- which requires nothing less than full and immediate cooperatrion -- that they can try a bit more to avert war. I can't fault them for that. I can, however, fault them for believing, against all evidence, that Iraq will ever fully comply with inspections (which is the only way inspections can work).
As to commando units: there is simply no conceivable way the United States would risk going to war if they could solve the problem by assassinating Hussein. Either they have been unable to do it, or they believe it won't solve the problem, or both. Probably both. A lot of people bring this up, and I would love to take this route if it were feasible. None of us can know if it is, but I can't see how the US wouldn't do it if it could.
