This argument gets trotted out a lot by folks who would NEVER favor military action against NK. You would not be one of the disingenuous many, would you?
NK HAS nukes. We cannot strike them without starting a second Korean War: Seoul goes POOF! NK is like Iraq, sans the Gulf War. They’ve been building an arsenal since the 1950s. Ergo, NK is like an Iraq without US / UN intervention. This is an argument FOR intervention in Iraq, not against.
Moreover, nobody gives up on fighting murder - despite the fact we can only catch some of the murderers.
Is there an argument here? I see an admission, “Traces of this and that, some leftover crap,” but no argument. Try one of the two (already provided) links.
Hank, do you really think the inspectors are there to play a shell game with Saddam? If so, what do you base that on? Last I checked, the inspectors were there to monitor the Iraqis compliance, not search for hidden items in a huge nation.
The only pressure Saddam has been under started a little over 3 months ago, when the U.S. said we’d had enough. Do you think the inspectors would be there is we didn’t have troops all around him? He is still betting that we are bluffing.
Whoa, you’ve either swallowed the hook, line and sinker or the SDMB has been infiltrated.
No I would not favor military action in NK. What about that makes the argument disingenuous? You put a manslaughter convict in the chair and parole a serial killer? I am against the death penalty too but I might just bring that to your attention. Guess that would be disingenuous of me.
Certainly not an argument for war with anyone. Just demonstrates that this is not about weapons as some would have us believe.
Doesn’t compliance entail not having WMDs? Are you saying that the UN guys are just sitting around playing circle jerk? Why don’t you think for a minute there dog.
I may be the first to tell you but we bombed Iraq at least 66 times during 2002. That is just last year. What exactly
would you need to constitute pressure?
You deny that Kuwait was exceeding OPEC produciton and angle drilling before the Invasion of the country by Iraq?
I knew there would be a war, way back when Bush got elected.
With 9/11 and the War on Terror I thought; Well, “good” at least he won’t have to start one, he got one thrust upon him.
Then he goes ahead and starts another war anyway. sigh
Yes. They’re looking to see what Saddam still has, what he’s destroyed and what he’s capable of doing. If they find anything (like say warheads filled with mustard gas), they are to supervise the destruction of the warheads. So far, they haven’t turned up much, not even the written orders from Saddam to destroy the things that they know he had. I don’t see any way out of this, other than war.
I knew the same thing when Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton were elected. Oh, and anyone else, ever. Wow, it’s hard to predict war. Try Googling “war” sometimes.
The war with Iraq serves three purposes:
(a) it restores the Bush Family Honor (and how often is it you see the words “Bush” and “honor” in a sentence).
(b) we get to fight someone we can easily beat, so the loyal stay-at-home voters and war supporters will see that the US us once again a mighty leader in the world and can do what it wants.
So we pick a war against a “straw” foe, one that we are reasonably sure that even troops of the caliber of “Airman Doors” can kill (and no, I don’t mean the Canadians). We won’t fight North Korea because, well, they beat the shit out of us the last time, and fighting an enemy who might have a functioning army is not something the US prides itself on any more.
Given the general lack of courage of America, and the inherent dishonesty of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Bush administration, then yes, war is inevitable. And so is more terrorism. Why do you think the VP is digging a bunker under the VP residence in Washington?
The Iraqis are playing it about as I expected. They will account for many things mentioned in Powell’s speech and use their Franco-Germanic economic partners to run interference in the UN. Throw in the Russians - which appears to be the case - and I would say war is less than 50% likely right now. Of course, that could change.
U2s will be allowed. Now that Saddam has had a few weeks to prepare for U2 overflights I would not expect them to reveal much. The inspectors - against all odds - managed to find those chemical warheads though, so who knows?
Good, you found it. Now read the relevant parts. The inspectors are not there to conduct an Easter egg hunt / play a shell game.
I’m not following. The UN did pass 1441, right? Can we refer to the text of existing agreements or resolutions to discern UN intent, or, should we take your word for it? Does the latest pronouncement from Chirat represent the UN? If so, why not Albania? It is a predominately Muslim country without close economic ties to Iraq.
Oh, its really not all that complicated. The US says Iraq is not complying. Not our call to make. Says inspections are not working. Not our call to make. Says “serious consequences” means “war”. Not our call to make.
One minor correction, Blix did also. Even France, Russia, and Germany want to increase the inspections - presumably, in your mind, for no reason at all.
What’s next, double-secret economic sanctions?
Right. I guess our continually - over a decade - working through the Security Council just went unnoticed, eh? I’d still love to hear why it is France’s call to make, BTW.
Still waiting for anything even suggesting that 1441 says Iraq has no burden to cooperate with inspections.
Thanks for the link. I read the document, and unfortunately, it leaves inspectors undefined. It mentions them frequently, but only in terms of what is accessible to them and what powers they have of mobility. But it seems to define their mission clearly in the context of overseeing disarmament:
Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
Emphasis mine. What am I missing? Are their duties spelled out in prior resolutions?
Yes, indeed, Mr. Blix says so. He has said a lot of things, poor chap, because the weight of war is on his shoulders. Please refain from making presumptions as to my thoughts. You are not qualified. Could it be that the aforementioned three are trying to offer a way out? Might they simply be seeking to prevent a war? Because, horror of horrors, they don’t agree as to the necessity? Even, dare we think it, the US might be wrong?
Not our call to make (see above for tiresome repitition of litany)
Isn’t. See above etc.
Wait as long as you like, no such suggestion has been made, nor is it forthcoming. Only that the decision as to whether or not Iraq has cooperated is not ours. Nor is the decision as to what to do about it.
