Has Hans Blix Been Compromised?

[Duckster]

A REPORT declassified by the United Nations yesterday contained a hidden bombshell with the revelation that inspectors have recently discovered an undeclared Iraqi drone with a wingspan of 7.45m, suggesting an illegal range that could threaten Iraq’s neighbours with chemical and biological weapons.

US officials were outraged that Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, did not inform the Security Council about the drone, or remotely piloted vehicle, in his oral presentation to Foreign Ministers and tried to bury it in a 173-page single-spaced report distributed later in the day. The omission raised serious questions about Dr Blix’s objectivity. Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html

Now, will there be a rush to go back and reread in detail every report Blix has issued to see if he hid anything else in the fine print? As bad as whatever Blix might uncover, was this just something he missed? Or was it deliberate?

The article seems pretty damning against objectivity:
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told his fellow Security Council Foreign Ministers that the document was a“chilling read”.

General Powell resorted to reading passages from the paper out loud in the Council chamber. He pointed out that it chronicled nearly 30 times when Iraq had failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims, and 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted those claims. But his draft copy, dating from a meeting of the inspectors’ advisory board last week, did not contain the crucial passage about the new drone. (Emphasis mine.)

No, I'm not changing my personal position opposing this war. This revelation just makes it more difficult to assess the reports, be it by Bush, and now Blix.

Of course, as we approach the midnight before the first missiles strike, more and more information may start to appear. As either side scrambles for public opinion, and to gather support for their side, anything is possible now. It happens too often, in crises, even in sports as one side goes to a full court press.

But now we have an "impartial" UN chief inspector appearing not to be. Yes, buring the data, only to have it exposed now only strengthens the Bush war footing. OK, I'll deal with that. But it also begins to crack the credibility and objectivity of UN reporting and inspections; something that Bush can use to make the UN even more irrelevant.

I've come to expect member countries of the UN to play their political games, grand-standing and ego wanking. It's part and parcel of politics and diplomacy. But we now now appear to have an "objective," non-partisan employee of the UN at a very high level joining this game.

I think the slippery slope just got a spray of lubricant.

[elucidator]

His position must be damned near impossible. He doubtless wants to do a good job, but if you're a man of any kind of conscience at all and war hangs on interpreting your words....stress doesn't say it.

And the US just isn't that much of an angel here. Colin Powell keeps talking about all this irrefutable intelligence he's got about what Saddam has, but can't seem to say where exactly. Without fail he repeats his theme of being totally for sure that Saddam has all this terrible shit, but refuses to say how he knows.

Wasnt that long ago that the US was swearing up and down, Iraq is just weeks away from having nukes, we have irrefutable proof, no question about it. All bullshit.

One other thing I'm bugged about. I listened to todays reports, and the nuke inspection guy (whose name escapes me) very delicately discussed "intelligence reports" about Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa. About how he tracked it all down and there isn't any truth to it. Whose intelligence reports? Ours, by chance?

Now I have been operating under the assumption that Goddam Hussein being an evil old bugger, he almost certainly does have all this nasty shit, just like we say he does. But with all the lies and bullshit the ostensible good guys have been slinging around, I'm even starting to wonder about that. I don't think I could stand it, I'd start pulling my hair out and run screaming from the room if it turns out that the only thing the rotten bastard is actually innocent of is the stuff we're going to war over!

[Sam Stone]

Elucidator, you're just getting more and more hysterical.


Wasnt that long ago that the US was swearing up and down, Iraq is just weeks away from having nukes, we have irrefutable proof, no question about it.


Cite, please.

Look, this is pretty serious - Hans Blix made an oral presentation in which he was supposed to describe exactly what they had found. He knew they had found an illegal drone, and spraying equipment that could be used to distribute chemical weapons. He chose to WITHOLD that information from the Security Council, for his own reasons, and then bury the information in the final report. At the very least, this has to call his objectivity into question. Or his competance.

It was also stupid of him. He should have known that the information would be discovered in the final report, and that fact would be used to discredit anything positive he had to say about Iraq.

[elucidator]

Sam, you kidding me? You don't remember when GeeDubya stood there with Tony the Poodle and waved that report in the air, saying here's the proof positive, what more proof do you need? Here's the UN inspection report that says Iraq will have nukes toot damn sweet? You remember, don't you, the report that didn't fucking exist!

I got some short term memory problems maybe, due to a lifelong glaucoma prevention regimen. Whats your excuse?

[Sam Stone]

I remember the report. It did not say that Saddam Hussein would have a bomb in a matter of 'weeks'. It was a matter of a few years if he had to make his own fissionables, or perhaps six months IF he already had plutonium. They even added that there was no proof he actually had plutonium.

Perhaps your memory is the one that's faulty?

[elucidator]

Psssst! Sam. It didn't exist. It was a phantom, a chimera, a nuclear unicorn........

It was a lie.

[Apos]

As I noted in the other thread, the U.S. military has talked about how they'll need Special Ops teams to take out sites that they can't bomb for fear of releasing dangerous chemical or biological weapons into the air. If we already know where that stuff is well enough to plan around it, what is the point of what Blix doing anyway?

[elucidator]

Interesting point, Apos. Reminds me of how Colin Powell keeps repeating that we know for certain that Goddam Hussein has all this Nasty Stuff, we have irrefutable intelligence reports, and so on. But we don't know where it is, exactly. We can't tell Mr. Blix where to look, because even though we have intelligence that proves for sure it exists, somehow the intelligence doesn't specify where it is. Just that it is.

Has it ever occurred to anyone else that a really evil, cunning guy like Saddam might, in fact, find it to his advantage to comply? To actually destroy all the nerve gas, anthrax, etc. knowing he can re-make it later when we're busy with somebody else?

Our certainty that he has this shit basicly depends on the fact that hes an evil old bugger. But an smart evil old bugger would, in fact, comply with our demands. Because he's evil.

Please note the recent Newsweek revelations: about how the defector, Saddams woefully retarded son-in-law, revealed a bunch of damaging facts about Saddams regime that the Bushistas made much ado over, while neglecting to mention that he testified that Saddam destroyed his nerve/bio weapons in '91.

The one scenario that no one wants to consider is that the reason Hans Blix can't find any forbidden weapons is because there aren't any. Even the Devil can tell the truth if it serves his purpose.

[Texican]

Perhaps the reason we don't know exactly where it is is because Hussein specifically planned for that contingency. Pehaps you have read about the mobile chemical and biological labs they bought from the Germans?

The truth and evidence is out there, you just don't want to see it because it conflicts with your preconceived position.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by Texican
The truth and evidence is out there, you just don't want to see it because it conflicts with your preconceived position.
Cite?

There's the rub: the U.S. keeps screaming that Iraq has all sorts of nasty WOMD, but can't seem to produce any evidence of it. We've got all these high-tech, read-your-license-plate spy satellites, but can't seem to tell the U.N. inspectors where to find the nasty stuff we're "sure" Iraq has.

Colin Powell (who's lost a lot of my respect over the last few weeks) keeps claiming that the Iraqis are somehow preventing the inspectors from finding the bad stuff, yet the inspectors aren't being kept away from anything, as far as I can tell. Not once, AFAIK, have the Iraqis refused to let them enter any site they wanted to enter.

If we know that Iraq has banned weapons, let's just tell the inspectors where to look. In other words, put up or shut up. If we can't tell the inspectors where to look, then it's pretty obvious that we're not, in fact, sure that Iraq has any banned material. Want to make sure? Simple. Just let the inspections continue, and let our spy satellites keep watching for suspicious activity. No harm in that.

[december]

Originally posted by elucidator
[The one scenario that no one wants to consider is that the reason Hans Blix can't find any forbidden weapons is because there aren't any. Even the Devil can tell the truth if it serves his purpose. If there are no forbidden weapons, that would mean that Saddam secretly destroyed them, without allowing UN inspectors to verify. Don't forget that he was definitely known to have a huge store of chemical and biological weapons in 1998, when the inspectors left.

No doubt even Saddam can tell the truth if it serves his purpose. But, what purpose would it serve to destroy all his forbidden weapons without UN inspector verification?

[AZCowboy]

december wrote:
Don't forget that he was definitely known to have a huge store of chemical and biological weapons in 1998, when the inspectors left.
Cite? What we knew in 1998 is that there were still some bio/chemical agents that were unaccounted for. There is a big difference between "unaccounted for" and "known to have".

In fact, the UN inspectors destroyed 90%-95% of the what was known to have existed at one time. They knew of NOTHING remaining when they left in 1998. They just couldn't account for the last 5% to 10%.

For all of you questioning Hans Blix' integrity, please , oh please, speculate as to his motivations. Saddam used to accuse the UN inspectors of being US spies. Now we are suggesting that Hans Blix is an agent for Iraq? Come on...

Apparently, our administration isn't above reproach. See, "Some evidence on Iraq called fake" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html).

Great. This will help build the international coalition...

[december]

Originally posted by AZCowboy
Cite? What we knew in 1998 is that there were still some bio/chemical agents that were unaccounted for. There is a big difference between "unaccounted for" and "known to have". The cite would be Hans Blix's first report to the SC. Saddam was known to have these WMDs in 1998; they are unaccounted for now.

[AZCowboy]

december, put up or shut up. Saddam was suspected of having those WoMD in 1998, but it has never been verified.

Please show me a quote to the effect that known WoMD existed when the inspectors left in 1998.

Alright, fine, I'll do some of your work for you.

According to Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html) (PBS):


Between 1991 and 1998 the IAEA conducted more than 1500 inspections. IAEA released a report in 1997, with updates in 1998 and 1999, which it believes offers a technically coherent picture of Iraq's nuclear program.
...
The IAEA reports that all sensitive nuclear materials were removed, and that facilities and equipment were dismantled or destroyed.
...
It said that Iraq "took active steps" to conceal the [bio weapons] program, including "inadequate disclosures, unilateral destruction, and concealment activities." Therefore, the Commission concluded, "it has not been possible to verify" Iraq's statements about the extent and nature of its biological weapons program.
...
The report concludes "the Commission has no confidence that all bulk agents have been destroyed... and that a BW capability does not exist in Iraq."
...
UNSCOM was more successful in its pursuit of Iraq's CW [chemical weapons] program largely because Iraq was more cooperative with its disclosures. The final report notes that a "significant number" of chemical weapons, their components, and related equipment were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision between 1991 and 1997.


Now, if you go through that report, you will certainly find many items that "remain unaccounted for" - just what I said. But I challenge you to show where there ANY KNOWN TO EXIST!

Please quick playing fast and loose with the facts. If you can't make your case with the facts available, don't feign surprise if we don't take your word for it.

[London_Calling]

Murdoch really wants this war don't he ? Anyone ask Blix to comment yet ?

[rsa]

Originally posted by AZCowboy
Apparently, our administration isn't above reproach. See, "Some evidence on Iraq called fake" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html).

From the link:

The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

So these documents had "relatively crude errors" showing them to be forgories yet an extensive review by U.S. intelligence found them all hunky dory? :dubious:

[AZCowboy]

From the same article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html):


"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

Anyone wish to put forth an explanation of who may have created the forged documents in the first place?

And then on the now infamous aluminum tubes:


The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell's staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell's address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute's president, David Albright, wrote in the report.


It's getting ugly. And I'm not talking about Han Blix' integrity.

[GOM]

To horrribly mangle an old advertising slogan:

KICKS ARE FOR BLIX!

[GOM]

hahaha

I see I also managed to horribly mangle horrribly!

;)

::::gotta get this keyboard checked::::

[elucidator]

AZCowboy
...Anyone wish to put forth an explanation of who may have created the forged documents in the first place?
If I were going to make a wild assed guess, without the slightest suggestion that I know something you don't, I would guess Isreali intelligence, known as Mossad. They are a very sophisticated and crafty bunch of honchos and they definitely have a dog in this fight. Trouble with that is, they are way to smart to make the kind of dumb-fuck errors that gave this one away.

[Sam Stone]

Okay, here's a serious question for you who doubt that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction:

WHY did Saddam Hussein give up 180 billion dollars due to sanctions?

WHY is he risking war now, by refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed outside of the country, by not giving complete disclosures, etc?

Is he just being 'stubborn'? If he truly had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he do what South Africa did, and completely open up all his books, invite anyone in the country to come forward and give interviews to inspectors outside of his controlled areas, and in essence just completely open up everything.

Why wouldn't he have come forward earlier to show his drone program, and his missiles, and the other things that have been found so far?

Why would he submit a fraudulent report when asked for full disclosure?

This is the stuff the anti-war crowd has never answered. The equivalent is like a guy locked up in a house, and the police claiming that he's armed. The only reason the police are there is because he's armed. He won't come out, and he keeps screaming, "But I'm not armed!". If he's truly not armed, he has nothing to lose by just letting the police scour his home. Then he can go on living in peace.

Saddam's behaviour can only be explained by assuming he has the weapons of mass destruction the U.S and Britain say he has.

[rsa]

Sam, I'm not sure that I'm part of the anti-war crowd (I'm fairly ambivalent on it), but I'll give you my opinion.

I don't know if Saddam has any significant WoMD at present. But I believe that he definitely has the means to create WoMD on very short notice (chem and bio, not nukes). It is that capability that I believe that he is trying to protect.

I don't believe that Saddam is a threat to the U.S. Add that to the lies and half truths that are being used to justify the war and I'm not so hot on it anymore.

If Bush came out tomorrow and said that we are doing this for the Iraqi people and showed convincing evidence that a majority of Iraqis were willing to accept some civilian deaths and many regular military deaths in order to get Saddam, then I would say "Go get him".

[Sam Stone]

And he's willing to bankrupt his country, starve his people, and give up all the revenue he needs to build and maintain a conventional armed force, just so he can keep the ability to make chemical weapons on short notice? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[rsa]

What doesn't make sense to you may make perfect sense to a madman. You also are assuming that Saddam cares if his people starve. He clearly doesn't considering the huge amounts of money that he pours into building palaces and mosques in his honor.

In any case, it seems to me that the capability is more important than having existing stockpiles. I suspect chem and bio weapons don't have indefinite shelf lives -- why not just produce a fresh supply shortly before executing the next "evil plan"? Even if he does have existing stockpiles, he hasn't shown much inclination to use them in the last decade. And with the inspectors around he's not likely to try anything funny.

[casdave]

The premise is that Iraq is a clear and present threat to the region and the world, not that he is a nasty dictator who opresses his own people.

If there was a UN resolution that stated Hussain must treat his population better, then this would be adequate reason to get him, but this opens a can of worms doesn't it, for Hussain is not the only unpleasant leadership in the world today.

The current situation is that military action is threatened because of a lack of compliance, not yet proven, for the last 12 years, but why the sudden need to do it now ?

Other members of the security council quite reasonably hold the position that there is no imminent danger, that there is an ongoing process and that this process might, or might not work, but after 12 years of waiting, it seems to them that allowing the inspection team more time is a reasonable thing to do.
Perhaps those dissenting UN members feel that once the prospect of success from the inspection teams has been shown to be unlikely, then it is time to consider other options.

Maybe if there was absolute and convincing evidence, instead of vague assurances from GWB and Powell then the UN would be more forthcoming.

If Hussain is such an immediate danger to the region, then why do we not see the same level of concern about this from neighboring nations such as Kuwait, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia, as these nations would be in the immediate firing line, surely these are the nations that should be bringing resolutions to the UN citing their own national security as the concern.

Nope, it is all driven by a nation that is thousands of miles away, that is not in any obvious peril, and is unlikely to be in peril for the forseeable future, and the same nation that appears to have an overwhelming desire to control strategic resources.

[Apos]

---But we don't know where it is, exactly. We can't tell Mr. Blix where to look, because even though we have intelligence that proves for sure it exists, somehow the intelligence doesn't specify where it is. Just that it is.---

But that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems that we DO know where the weapons are.

I suppose the rationale is: if we tell, then Iraq knows that we know, rehide them, and in our war (which will happen regardless of how the inspections go) will have a harder time destroying them.

It's a crazy situation.

[AZCowboy]

Sam, I can only assume that you think I am one of those who thinks Saddam doesn't have WoMD. You'd be wrong. I suspect he does. I just don't know it.

You see, the answer to your questions have already been addressed, even within this thread (mostly by elucidator).

For those of you who support the war, how do you know that Saddam has WoMD? Seems to me, that this is the crux of the issue. If we had demonstrable irrefutable proof, we wouldn't be having problems with the UNSC.

It is clear to me that the Bush Administration was confident late last year that they could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Saddam had WoMD. If they did not, why did the US agree to resolution 1441? Why did the US agree to allow the UNSC to solely determine a material breach, and authorize the use of force?

Isn't that proof of the confidence the Bush Administration had?

And when much of the "proof" that the administration has offered has been refuted, where does that leave those that think proof is a reasonable criteria?

I agree with each of your observations, and agree that they are consistent with the idea that Saddam has WoMD (except for one, I'll get to it in minute). But that is all circumstantial. Where's the beef?

In your list, you included, "Why would he submit a fraudulent report when asked for full disclosure?" Does that really support the contention that Saddam does have WoMD? Seems to me, if he did, that was a huge gamble. If the UNSC found a single stockpile of bio or chemical weapons, the gig is up! If he does, he took a gamble that the UNSC inspectors couldn't find anything. The US, in supporting 1441, took the gamble that they could.

And now it appears that the US wants to hedge their bets. They are no longer willing to accept the gamble.

Sam Stone wrote:
This is the stuff the anti-war crowd has never answered. The equivalent is like a guy locked up in a house, and the police claiming that he's armed. The only reason the police are there is because he's armed. He won't come out, and he keeps screaming, "But I'm not armed!". If he's truly not armed, he has nothing to lose by just letting the police scour his home. Then he can go on living in peace.

Boy, I lost you there. Isn't Saddam essentially allowing the "police scour his home"? So now he should be allowed to live in peace (which is exactly Saddam's position (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08359029))? Don't worry, I'm sure I misunderstood you.

Oh, and for anyone reading this thread that was looking for december's response to my call for a cite. Stop looking. When I saw december start another thread before responding to my post above, I reminded him of his need to respond here. His response there, was:
december wrote:
I'm sorry. The possibility that Saddam might not possess banned weapons is so unlikely that I don't intend to take the trouble to research cites on particular aspects of this question.
So, please note that december backed off his original assertion, and now accepts the possibility that Saddam might not possess banned weapons, even if unlikely. He refuses to support, as he asserted, that the original Blix report (found here (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/459/32/PDF/N0045932.pdf?Ope

nElement), btw, sorry, pdf) contained references to any known "huge store of chemical and biological weapons", because he can't be troubled with doing research.

I find his behavior exceptionally annoying, to the point of drafting a whole new pit thread for him. But then I decided that pitting december is so, so, ... passé. So I just thought everyone here should be aware of the cowardice he has shown in this thread for failing to support his arguments, or at least acknowledge his error - something I thought we expected of all posters in GD.

[elucidator]

Another plausible conjecture, if I might. (May I? Thank you)

Saddam, loveable old scoundrel that he is, has enemies. Hard to imagine, but there you have it. He may very well see an advantage in allowing people like the Iranian mullahs to have doubts as to his weapons. It gives them pause. No doubt, they have similar thought processes as ourselves. He says he ain't got 'em, we can't find them, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have them.

Like others, I am especially troubled by the Bushistas declared and unequivocal certainty that Goddam Hussein has Nasties. This would appear to be faith-based, which, to this less than humble observer, fails the certainty test.

I am certain that a sculpture of George Washington can be found carved on a mountain in the Dakotas (I forget which). I have been there, I have seen it, yeppers, its there. Further, I can, if challenged ("Cite?!") provide irrefutable evidence, and can direct you as to exactly where to go. ("Up north. In the middle, between Montana and the People's Republic of Minnesota.")

Hence, my knowledge qualifies as "certain". The Bushistas knowledge and certainty about Goddam's weapons fall far short of that. They don't know how much. They don't know what, and they don't know where.

They don't know squat.

[Estilicon]

Well Sam it does make sense to me, the greatest contribution your goverment has done for world history is to confirm something that most dictators knew, the only way to be safe from Uncle Sam is to have a pretty big stick, in that way the only possible way of negotiation is a carrot. After all, the reason why Saddam is in this mess is not because he does have nuclear weapons but because he does not.

That policy is in my opinion as dumb as the preemptive strike doctrine and in my opinion (I am the eternal pessimist) it will be the doom of all of us.

Bush promised smoking gun and he didn't show them. He says that inspections are not working and the world has seen that they do. After 9/11 he promised to form a coalition against terrorism and now he has only a small entente against a dictator that for the last 12 years has not reacted to all the provocations he has received, perhaps he is evil but he proved that he is no madman

Bush (and many hawk dopers) also claim that this war is also for the opressed Irakies, as a latin american allow me to laugh at this statement.

Saddam is coperating, he is not inmediate threat (unlike NK) and the world faces more pressing dangers. Irak is only in bush list of priorities and you wonder why the world does not support him.

[Urban Ranger]

So where is this UN report?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by London_Calling
Murdoch really wants this war don't he ? Anyone ask Blix to comment yet ?

Shades of the Bond film where the villain is a media mogul.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by rsa
What doesn't make sense to you may make perfect sense to a madman. You also are assuming that Saddam cares if his people starve. He clearly doesn't considering the huge amounts of money that he pours into building palaces and mosques in his honor.

And how many more palaces would Saddam have if he had cooperated back in 1991 and gotten sanctions lifted?
How much larger and better-equipped would be his army?
How much more money would he have stashed in Switzerland?

Face it - the sanctions have brutally hurt Saddam personally. he has permanently lost tens of billions he could have spent on himself or on his power base. The Iraqi people have suffered more, because they had less ability to withstand them, but Saddam is a considerably poorer and weaker "madman" than he would have been had had complied and gotten the sanctions lifted a decade ago.
Hell, if he had gotten the sanctions lifted, he'd probably now control Iraqi Kurdistan - more power, more control, more oil.

So what gain did he get from noncompliance that would offset the huge losses the sanctions have caused him? Perhaps that he got to keep his WoMD?

Sua

[rsa]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
So what gain did he get from noncompliance that would offset the huge losses the sanctions have caused him? Perhaps that he got to keep his WoMD?

Sua
I don't think that Saddam is hurting at all. Why do you assume that he cares if he has 1 billion when he could have 100 billion? I don't have a cite, but I saw on the news a while back about some outrageously expensive mosque that he had built. I'm sure that Fidel Castro could be bought off with cash if that was what he cared about.

For these people money is not everything believe it or not.

And a question. Where is the evidence that Iraq has any plans to attack the US? The only thing I have heard is that Iraqi agents may attack us if we attack them. This is the way that we increase Homeland security?

[SuaSponte]

rsa money is a means to power, and power is what "these people" care about. Saddam has willingly denied himself the ability to massively increase his power.
His air force is non-existent. His army is massively reduced and largely using obsolete equipment.

Why did he do that?

As for his plans to attack the US, I doubt any exist. So? WWII was the only war in US history where our opponent had plans to attack the US (ignoring the Civil War for obvious reasons).
Personally, my support for the war has nothing to do with whatever threat Iraq may pose the US.

Sua

[rsa]

OK, that's cool. If your support for the war is not tied to a threat to the US, can you explain why you support the war? Since I'm ambivalent, perhaps you can persuade me.

[SuaSponte]

There are other examples and reasons, but the most straightforward is that Hussein has committed genocide against the Iraqi Kurds and the (damn, I'm forgetting the proper name for the ethnicity), the "Swamp Arabs" of Southern Iraq. the European Parliament has, BTW, acknowledged both as genocides. Under my reading of the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, all signatories to that Convention, including the US - and France - have a legal obligation to use all necessary means, including military force, to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of those genocides.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

And, of course, IMO everyone breathing on this planet has a moral obligationn to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide.

'Never again' should not be just a slogan, but a fact.

Sua

[rsa]

I'm all for that. If our policy is zero tolerance for genocide then we should state that as our objective. I would support that. We would be awfully busy, but I think it would be a noble goal. With the caveat that innocents would be killed. I still think that the population should support our "liberation".

[SuaSponte]

1. Any evidence the Iraqi population doesn't support our 'liberation'? Oh, that's right, 100% of them voted for Saddam :D

2. Which population? The population on which genocide has been committed, or the population committing the genocide? The Kurds and the Swamp Arabs sure as hell support us.

3. Zero tolerance has to start somewhere. But, in any event, I think the fact that we failed to stop the genocide in Rwanda shouldn't stop us from acting properly in the future.

4. I, too, wish it was a stated objective. But hell, I'll be happy if the result is that we punished the perpetrators of genocide. I'll take what I can get.

Sua

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I don't know about Hans Blix, but it appears that Mohamed ElBaradei (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=252080) refuses to be compromised.U.N. says some U.S. evidence on Iraq was forged
Sunday, March 9, 2003 at 07:00 JST
NEW YORK — U.N. weapons inspectors cast doubts on U.S. assertions about Iraq's weapons programs, saying Baghdad is cooperating with inspections and that some documents presented as evidence were forged.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council on Friday that experts had dismissed as counterfeit documents that allegedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago.
ElBaradei, who made his strongest statement yet in support of Iraqi cooperation, also rejected a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," he said.Truth and justice, the American way? Come on, were better than this!

[SuaSponte]

Yeah, Hentor, truth, justice, and the American way requires that we do not attempt to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide. Right.

Sua

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Of course, that should be "we are" better than this. And we should be.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Yeah, Hentor, truth, justice, and the American way requires that we do not attempt to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide. Right.

Sua I really do fail to understand this argument. That heinous and inexcusable event occurred before the last war we fought with them, correct? Shouldn't we have done something about it then, or can we simply pull it out every time we want to attack. Did you know that Japan committed massive atrocities against China? Holy shit, let's go get them!

On the other hand, I do agree that we have a responsibility to intervene and prevent genocide. Do you agree that we should begin intervention in Africa immediately?

The bottom line is that we shouldn't have to lie about our reasons for doing anything, and once we start forging evidence, we have lost our moral footing. This is a bad thing to do - worse than plagiarizing.

[casdave]

Genocide might be a very good reason for going to war, but this is not what the UN resolution is about, genocide of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs gets nary a mention.

This is about the US agenda, which claims to be about WOMD, whcih we are assured exist, but yet no convincing proof of which has been presented.

To start talking of a moral war, a war on genocide, and a liberation from opression for the people of Iraq is nothing whatsoever to do with the current impasse in the UN, and looks to me like someone here is trying to change the boundaries of the dispute because the original reason, WOMD just to remind you yet again!! has not yet been proven to exist.

If this were a criminal, trial the prosecution would be simply thrown out on the weakness of the so-called evidence.

[SuaSponte]

Um, Hentor the genocide of the Swamp Arabs occurred after the Gulf War. Indeed, it isn't complete yet, though most of the damage has been done, and the culture, as a coherent entity, is basically eliminated.

As for interventions in Africa, I am unaware of any ongoing genocides. If one is ongoing, yes, I believe we have a legal and moral obligation to intervene immediately.

Sua

[SuaSponte]

casdave

1. I was asked for the reasons why I support a potential war. I don't give a rat's ass about Bush's reasons, nor what the UN resolution says.

2. Do a search for my name and Iraq in GD. I have set forth my reasons (in much more detail) long ago, and I have consistently stated them.
Your statement looks to me like someone here is trying to change the boundaries of the dispute if it is directed at me, is both incorrect and offensive.

Sua

[FIREMAN44]

Stopping genocide IS a very good reason for going to war, the only thing preventing the halt to genocide is that outdated idea of the U.N.

[elucidator]

Sua, if you really wish to argue the issue of a moral crusade conducted by America against genocide, that's fine. We can discuss that. But your argument comes close to suggesting that these noble motives are the primary motivation for the Bushista's pounding the war drums, and thats nonsense.

That argument comes to the fore mostly because the other arguments have proven weak. Early on, GeeDubya was jumping up and down and shouting that Saddam was going to have The Bomb (hence, the disgraceful incident of The Report That Didn't Exist). A threat which apparently exists only in the fevered imagination of Our Leader.

Have you kept count of the number of lies and half-truths that have been served to us? The half-assed intelligence served up as solid gold? No to mention the flat out bald faced lies.

If you really intend to transform our nation into a nuclear-armed Don Quixote, doing battle against the Forces of Darkness wherever they may lurk....well, lets talk that over. But I don't believe for one minute an image of the Bushistas dabbing damp hankies to thier eyes as they blubber over the sorrowful fate of the Iraqi people, as the tears flow copius and crocidlian.

[SuaSponte]

elucidator, whhaaa?? As I've said a few times, I have stated the reasons I support the war. I have never said, implied, inferred, dreamt, or imagined that it is Bush's reasons.

And while others may bring it to the fore because other arguments are allegedly weak, I don't bring it forward for that reason. I have stated it, and stated it repeatedly, in numerous threads in GD, including several in which you have participated.

Here is a thread from October that sets forth my philosophy. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=138918&highlight=world+AND+policeman

Have you kept count of the number of lies and half-truths that have been served to us? The half-assed intelligence served up as solid gold? No to mention the flat out bald faced lies.
I ain't supporting Bush. I am supporting a war that will result - regardless of why we are fighting it - in the removal from power, and likely apprehension/execution, of a man who have committed numerous atrocities and who routinely violates the human rights of his citizens.

My opinions and beliefs are not based on US intelligence reports. They are based on the reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the like. Are they lying, too?

When Bush comes up for re-election, I'm voting against him, regardless of what happens in Iraq. But I don't care if Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel is currently running the show, if he is willing to go get Saddam.

I'm a 'liberal hawk,' for want of a better term. For me, about the only valid use of the military is to stop injustice and punish the perpetrators. But if injustice is occuring, we should use the military, and not weasel around.

Sua

[elucidator]

OK, Sua, that is a position worth arguing, but I honestly think it deserves its own thread, and its own thesis. For myself, I fear that the sheer number of creepy monsters who hold positions of dreadful authority would render such a crusade Quixotic, I am willing to consider such.

[casdave]

SauSponte

Your personal reasons why Saddam Hussain should be eliminated may, or may not, be good and worthy, but we are not discussing this, and such reasons are not those being put forward officially by the US to the UN.

What I find in my day to day humdrum life is that those minority who put forward their support for war(significanity large minority I will concede) will use this as their own justification for war, and they do not understand why nations such as France, Russia et al, or folk even folk like me appear to be standing in the way.

The reason is that their premise is false, the war is not being justified to the world as a humanitarian one, though this sometimes gets a small mention in passing as a desirable outcome.

This war is being portayed as necessary for our own self protection in the face of a great danger, it is being conflated with events in Afghanistan and 9/11, and yet the evidence up to now does not bear this out in any convincing way.

I fear the reason that is is not being put to the UN as a humanitarian action is that there are many other nations in there that could see themselves as being next (and they probably deserve it too).
I wish we could have the moral courage to say enough! of world tyrants and despots, I wish we could ignore the politicking and get down to basic humanity, eliminate the atrocious regimes around the world and, Lord alone knows, that Saddam Hussain falls squarely into that category.

The reason I am against this particular war is not because I support that monster, but the basic dishonesty of our leaders, if we cannot rely on what they say to us(since their lies are transparent), then what hope have we of ever having the moral authority to bring a the world a little closer to international justice ?

All Dubya and Blair need do, in my eyes, is publicly state this horrible regime must be removed for the sake of human justice, that would do for me.

[ElvisL1ves]

They have said so, on a number of occasions - it's believing them that's the problem, given the sole focus on eliminating Saddam whatever the long-term consequences, and given the wide reason of rationales that have been test-marketed and failed before coming to that one, and given their shubbing of the very people who should be allies in such an endeavor.

Yes, it would be very nice if the regime were changed - if it were believably going to be significantly for the better, and if the change were believably going to be worth the inevitable cost in lives on both sides, and if more immediate threats were not being iignored or discounted in the meanwhile. While we can all share Sua's hope for the best, there is a saying in my industry that "Hope is not a strategy." We have to make our decisions on what to support and oppose based on what is and what is most likely to be.

Those of us who believe that Bush is not committed to a long-term goal of making the region a safer, more democratic and prosperous place, and lacks the leadership skills to do so even if he were so committed, and therefore is pulling us into a disaster no matter what, are, I believe, more realistic and responsible.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by casdave
SauSponte

Your personal reasons why Saddam Hussain should be eliminated may, or may not, be good and worthy, but we are not discussing this, and such reasons are not those being put forward officially by the US to the UN.

Um, rsa specifically asked me my personal reasons, and I provided them. rsa and I certainly are discussing them. You may choose to participate or not.
Golly, if someone tried to shut down a discussion of a reason to oppose the war, I'm sure we'd be hearing cries of censorship by now.

by Elvis
Yes, it would be very nice if the regime were changed - if it were believably going to be significantly for the better, and if the change were believably going to be worth the inevitable cost in lives on both sides, and if more immediate threats were not being iignored or discounted in the meanwhile. While we can all share Sua's hope for the best, there is a saying in my industry that "Hope is not a strategy."
Yet it appears to be yours. How many people have died because of the sanctions? The number I have heard is 720,000 - 60,000 a year. If there is no war, do you think the sanctions are going to go away? Of course they aren't - both the US and the UK have veto power.

How many lives is a war going to cost? 100,000? That's an additional 1 2/3 years of sanctions - and the sanctions will be in place long after 1 2/3 years.
If you want to claim that avoiding war will save lies, you are dead wrong.

Sua

[FIREMAN44]

Bush and Blair removing a madman with WMDs and the will and want to use them against his own people and against his enemy, is a humanitarian action anyway you put it, and maybe by reworking or replacing the UN or its mission is the best way to rid the rest of the world of it's brutal dictators.

[rexnervous]

Originally posted by FIREMAN44
Bush and Blair removing a madman with WMDs and the will and want to use them against his own people and against his enemy, is a humanitarian action anyway you put it, and maybe by reworking or replacing the UN or its mission is the best way to rid the rest of the world of it's brutal dictators.

Wow. Is it really that easy? I especially love the 'maybe' part.

[elucidator]

That argument - saving lives by war as opposed to sanctions - is a bit slippery. After all, we could both eschew war and the sanctions. Or, failing that, apply more intelligent sanctions. The utterly braindead example of forbidding the import of chlorine for water purification purposes on the laughable grounds that chlorine gas comprises a WMD leaps to mind.

Next comes the difficulty in rendering that judgement. Auguste Pinochet is worse than Robert Mugabe. Almost certainly the reverse. But is Mugabe worse than Milosevic? Tougher call.

And that isn't even to begin to consider the regime change question for China: a dreadful regime if arguably not an directly genocidal regime, but multiplied by the sheer number of people involved. Is oppressing a billion people a thousand times worse than opresssing a million?

For the sake of our sanity, if not our souls, I reluctantly recommend sticking to military methods for self-defense only. Incursions like Serbia can be justified and accepted if sufficient international cooperation can be mustered. The current situation as regards Iraq falls far short.

This should not be taken to mean I disapprove or disdain the moral imperative Sua put forth. Far from it.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Um, Hentor the genocide of the Swamp Arabs occurred after the Gulf War. Indeed, it isn't complete yet, though most of the damage has been done, and the culture, as a coherent entity, is basically eliminated.

As for interventions in Africa, I am unaware of any ongoing genocides. If one is ongoing, yes, I believe we have a legal and moral obligation to intervene immediately.

Sua Sua, do you have anything that I could read that would inform me about the post 1991 genocide committed by Saddam to which you refer? I must have missed it, but googling on Saddam Hussein Iraq swamp arabs genocide (in most possible combinations) turned up information only on those events that occurred prior to the Gulf War.

Perhaps it is already over, but the Ivory Coast was the most recent (approx. Dec. 2002) site of atrocities that I can think of. We didn't seem too concerned, except of course for the 100 or so diplomatic personnel and family members (IIRC).

[FIREMAN44]

Elvis, There are some of us who do believe that President Bush is committed to making the region safer and that by leaving Sadaam in power is having just the opposite effect. I have children growing up in this world and I hate war just as much as any one else, but how do I explain how we stood by while the Jews were led to their deaths during the 1940's and why we are standing by now.

[casdave]

We could easily get into a situation where we are holding Iraq against the wishes of the population, and then find we are stuck in an ongoing urban war where fundamentalists from all over the Moslem world see it as a great opportunity to take out one or two of the 'Great Satans' troops.

Far from making the world safer it might just do the opposite.

If we find our soldiers are being taken out one by one, by car bombs, suicide bombs, snipers etc whilst patrolling the newly liberated Iraq will be be so keen to remain there and ensure the nascent imposed democracy is not stillborn ?

I sincerly doubt that at street level in the Arab world, our supposed reasons for invasion are seen as anything else but an attempt to exert US power in foreign lands.

Vietnam was one thing, but to have ranged against you millions upon millions of Moslems, who are totally committed, from a region stretching from Morrocco, right around to the Phillipines and Indonesia, well, that sure is something, and its something that we had better be prepared for.

[elucidator]

Fireman I'll take your words at face value, but nonetheless there is no chance, zero, zip, nada, that this war will make the Middle East safer. GeeDubya paints a lovely picture, but it is a fantasy, a fever dream.

Lets just take one aspect of it: the delusion of "democracy" for the Iraqi people. We mean no such thing. Do you honestly imagine that we will allow the Iraqi people to vote for whomsoever they choose? Even if they wished to install an Islamic Republic along Iranian lines? Suppose they wanted Saddam back? A most unlikely scenario, to be sure, but it illustrates my point. We will permit the Iraqi people to choose between a slate of acceptable candidates, candidates who reflect our dream of a liberal parliamentary Iraq.

And that presupposes the unlikely prospect that a united Iraq can exist at all. The Kurds want no part of it, neither do the Sh'ites of the south. Most likely the Kurds will be delivered unto the tender mercys of the Turks. God protect them - for we most assuredly will not.

Iraq exists as a unified country (such as it is) only because of the iron fist of Saddam. When the last American airlifts out, the likelihood that all hell will break loose approaches certainty.

And so we won't. We cannot. You have children now? We'll still have soldiers stationed in Iraq when they are off to college. Bet on it.

[FIREMAN44]

Elucidator, as you gaze into your crystal ball, what if, heaven forbid, they actually made a go of demacracy, and, heaven forbid, it also made Washington happy. Would that be real, real bad?

[Avalonian]

I think SuaSponte's reasons for supporting war in Iraq are honorable, and I might be swayed to agree with them as general principle. Now, Sua and I may disagree on this part, but I feel that it isn't the United States' job to make the decision about genocidal regimes alone. That's the world's business, and would be the job of the United Nations and NATO. It is not the US' task to determine which regimes are committing genocide and commit our military alone to the task of overthrowing them. The task of being the "world's policeman" belongs to the world, not just to the United States. We have neither the mandate nor the need to protect everyone from those we see as evil. It should be done by agreement, not by unilateral action. This is the purpose of the United Nations. While I agree that it could, and should, be dealing pro-actively with such situations, I do not feel that the U.S. should try to police the nations of the world itself. If we are a part of a global community of nations, then it cannot work that way.

However, I respect Sua's take on the current war. I don't agree with it completely, but I respect it, and he has, at least, been consistent on this point. If only the Bush Administration had been so consistent.

See, the very real problem the U.S. is facing right now is that, in the last several months, the Bush Administration has changed its story several times. It hasn't presented a clear, justifiable, consistent case for why it wants to go to war.

For instance, on "Meet the Press" this morning, when asked about the fabrication of some of the documents hald up as "proof" of Iraq nuclear capabilities, Colin Powell basically said "Fine. That doesn't change our argument."

It doesn't? Their argument (the newest one, anyway), is based entirely on the idea that they have credible evidence of Iraq's capability for mass destruction. And yet, much of the evidence Powell himself presented to the U.N. has been shown to be either massively outdated, plagarized, or fabricated. How does this not change their argument? If I made a case and my evidence was shown to be inaccurate, it sure as Hell would change my argument.

If the United States were to have presented a clear and reasonable case from the beginning, then perhaps it would be making some progress with the UN. As it stands, the US looks like a bully, just looking for a reason to fight. The fact that its reasons keep changing doesn't help it one bit.

In short, I guess I'm saying that people like Sua should be the ones making decisions. Unfortunately, our current leaders seem to lack something of his forthrightness and consistency.

[FIREMAN44]

By the way, demacracy = democracy. (When my uncle was fighting in Korea in the '50's, he didn't think we would still have troops there now).

[FIREMAN44]

Avalonian, does it matter at all that Iraq has not complied completly with any of the UN resolutions mandated since the first Gulf War?

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by FIREMAN44
Avalonian, does it matter at all that Iraq has not complied completly with any of the UN resolutions mandated since the first Gulf War?

Yes. Does it matter at all to you that the U.N. inspectors are making progress?

And by the way, the "UN resolutions" rhetoric is just the latest party line on the matter of Iraq. It doesn't change anything I said in my previous post, which I note you completely failed to address. Can I assume you agree with it?

[elucidator]

Avalonian Well said and closely reasoned. Precisely what I should have said, but didn't.

As to Mr. Powell's remarks - well, really, what else could he say? "You're right, we're full of shit, but we are going anyway"? He put the best take on it he could. Lipstick on a pig.

I am perpetually surprised at my own credulity. I really thought CP was a man of honor and integrity. Taken in by his military bearing and air of command, I guess. I honestly believed that if he confronted the kind of evidence that has surfaced lately, the sheer totality of thundering mendacity, he would stand down and let the Bushistas twist slowly in the wind, as they richly deserve.

Fuck me for stupid.

[Sam Stone]

Let's apply occams' razor here.

Hypothesis 1: Colin Powell, who has built up a reputation for honesty and seriousness throughout his entire life, turns out to be a mole for the Bush administration, a closet hawk who kept that fact hidden for several decades.

Hypothesis 2: elucidator is wrong.

You do the math.

[elucidator]

That won't do, Sam. Whats your premise? All those reports, which we have all reviewed to exhaustion, they are all fabrications made up by devious and cunning liberals to embarass the good and the noble?

There really was a high-tech bio-weapons lab, but those crafty rascals turned it into derelict buildings before the reporters got there? In one day?

That guy we got doing our nuclear inspection stuff, he doesn't know anything about aluminum tubes and thier use in uranium enrichment? But Colin Powell does?

When he praises the British brilliance in the matter of international weapons intelligence, he doesn't know that its a load of plagiarized crap 12 years out of date? Shouldn't he? Wouldn't you think he has some responsibility to know the truth when hes urging WAR!. Why, yes, I rather imagine he does. Perhaps you disagree, and regard a casual acquaitance with the truth as sufficient.

Occams Razor jo momma! The math says yours truly is right and Conan the Canadian is full of it.

[Flying_Monk]

>Saddam used to accuse the UN inspectors of being US spies.

Isn't that because we planted spies in the inspection team, and the intelligence gathered by them was used in the bombing after we withdrew the inspectors? Seems to me, if the tables were turned, we'd be a bit suspicious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/301168.stm


>And, of course, IMO everyone breathing on this planet has a moral obligationn to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide.

Good point, but I hardly think the US government is qualified to make decisions about this...does anyone remember East Timor, or any of the other countries around the world in which we've sold weapons to madmen & looked the other way when they used them on innocents, just like we did with Saddam before Desert Storm? If we're going to punish war criminals, we don't have to go very far...of course, I doubt there is a country which hasn't committed evil acts, but some sense of perspective is in order...

Also, that link to the original Blix report didn't work...can someone supply another?


"The lack of objectivity, as far as foreign nations are concerned, is notorious. From one day to another, another nation is made out to be utterly depraved and fiendish, while own's one nation stands for everything that is good and noble. Every action of the enemy is judged by one standard; every action of oneself by another. Even good deeds by the enemy are considered a sign of particular devilishness, meant to deceive us and the world, while our bad deeds are necessary and justified by our noble goals, which they serve. Indeed, if one examines the relationship between nations, as well as between individuals, one comes to the conclusion that objectivity is the exception, and a greater or lesser degree of narcississtic distortion is the rule." - Erich Fromm

[AZCowboy]

With regards to the link to Blix report, goto www.un.org, click on 'Welcome', then click on 'The Situation in Iraq', then look for the dropdown box of Blix Reports.

Sua's arguments make perfect sense - as the case to build worldwide consensus to take out Saddam.

But going in alone to right the wrong of Saddam's genocidal behaviors has to assume that we have the mandate of the international community. Otherwise, we are simply vigilantes.

[London_Calling]

Fwiw, I’m pretty much of the same view as Sua – notwithstanding the lies, the hidden agenda’s of the protagonists, my personal distaste for this (US) administration, the false evidence, etc, etc… Saddam has to go: And in the bonus pack we also have the encouragement and support for Kurdish democracy and the liberation of an oppressed people from a non-idelogue dictator.

That’s where I imagine Colin Powell is and probably Blair, also – neither of those guys share much (if anything) with Bush save that one single goal: Realpolitik: ‘The end justifies the means’ … cliché, cliché, cliché …

So I’d like us to move on. Accept that the WOMD don’t exist but that the fact that they’re non-existence cannot be proved is providing ‘us’ with the (artificial) pretext by which to get rid of a particularly nasty piece of work and the potential threat said nasty piece of work presents …

Also, I think we should work on accepting there won’t be a ‘war’ – not that I think any two people anywhere in the world share a definition of what that might actually mean in relation to Iraq. Saddam will go, but Saving Private Ryan 2 it ain’t going to be.

God even sharing the same views as this US administration makes me feel very dirty, and not in a good way …

[elucidator]

Quibble the first:
...the encouragement and support for Kurdish democracy... That was last week. This week we are fervent supporters of Iraq's "territorial integrity". In a fit of Kissingeresque nostalgia, we have sold out the Kurds yet again. Last time, we sold them to the Iranians, this time the Turks. Under no circumstances whatsoever would we sell them out to Saddam. That would be wrong.

Quibble the second:
So I’d like us to move on. Accept that the WOMD don’t exist ....potential threat said nasty piece of work presents …
I hasten to point out that in order to do this we are using the 101st Airborne as a lynching party.

Also, I think we should work on accepting there won’t be a ‘war’ –...
Perhaps. But war is chaos made manifest, a roll of very dangerous dice where snakeyes is an odds-on favorite. It might be badda-boom, badda-bing, bury Saddam. It might also be a bloody house to house horror show through Baghdad. I won't pretend I know, and I won't pretend you do either.

But you wanna talk realpolitick? Howzabout images of Iraqi widows and orphans streaming out of every TV in the Muslim world? Should get some excellent "shock and awe" shots of missies crashing into.....well, we'll say a command center, Al Jazeera will say orphanage.....who do you think they're gonna believe?

Werewolf of London, you are usualy such a sensible guy, this line of thought surprises me. I'll put it down to a temporary aberration brought on by morbid contemplation of British cuisine.

[Tee]

Originally posted by Flying_Monk
>And, of course, IMO everyone breathing on this planet has a moral obligationn to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide.<

Good point, but I hardly think the US government is qualified to make decisions about this...does anyone remember East Timor, or any of the other countries around the world in which we've sold weapons to madmen & looked the other way when they used them on innocents, just like we did with Saddam before Desert Storm?

If only the madmen would let us know their totalitarian/genocidal tendencies up front. Why don't they do this, it would save so much trouble.

Mugabe (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/067/nation/Bush_freezes_US_property_of_Zimbabwe_government+.shtml) is our next victim...

[pantom]

I'm in the same place as London Calling, reluctantly aboard. However, I'm not too optimistic about the aftermath. Kind of reminds me of how everyone was so happy when the Berlin Wall came down and all that, and there was even this chatter about the "end of history". On FNN, an investment channel that predated CNBC, they had an old guy, Ed Hart, who said (from memory, but this is pretty close I think): "This idea that everyone will be happy and live together peacefully is fatuous. They can now stop hating the Soviets and go back to hating each other."
As it turned out, both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia disappeared, one peacefully, the other less so.
How Iraq turns out is anybody's guess.