I am quite aware of this issue. But another issue is beleive it or not the good ol’ US of A is also a soverien nation and is allowed to respond to acts of war commited against it. So the UN can ask the member nations to go to war with Iraq or the US answer the act of war commited by Iraq; I believe the US can invoke NATO if they so choose to call other nations into the war.
I heard what you meant to say and that’s fine, but you continued to defend your previous statement so I addressed it.
Actually I didn’t find the reference to the Chem Rockets in you link and I asked for to quote the relevant section of a relatively lengthy article which you haven’t done.
Also if the UN inspectors can’t come to the conclusion on their own that the complete disclosure report that didn’t actually disclose everything would be by default inaccurate then they shouldn’t be in this line of work.
Well as an eligible voter I think Bush should at least care a little bit. But I guess it wouldn’t surprise me if Bush didn’t really care about the people of the US.
As for the UN, I don’t think their ready to sanction war as yet either.
Hmmm do you think them firing at our planes could have something to do with us occasionally bombing them? Would consider bombing another country and act of war? The firing is largely symbolic anyway since unless the planes were taking unnecessary risks, they shouldn’t have the range to hit our aircraft anyway.
The Iraqis are showing quite a bit of restraint considering. Nothing altruistic about this of course, they know they’ll get their ass kicked. Which is precisely my point: they don’t present a credible threat.
oops!
a snippet of k2dave’s post wound up in mine this part:"Also if the UN inspectors can’t come to the conclusion on their own that the complete disclosure report that didn’t actually disclose everything would be by default inaccurate then they shouldn’t be in this line of work. " wasn’t written by me.
Not quite the same thing, k2dave. The problem we have isn’t so much that they used a word like “felt” or “claimed” or “alleged” but rather that they attributed to a source that wouldn’t tend to be credible when there were way more credible sources that claimed this.
When I say that the inspectors felt Iraq was being uncooperative, I am saying that because I wasn’t there so I have to take the inspectors word for it (as did Clinton when he read their report). However, myself and most Americans would probably believe that, yeah, if the inspectors felt their work was being interfered with by Iraq, that is most likely because they were in fact being interfered with.
By contrast, when the media says that Iraq alleged that some of the inspectors were spies and stops at that, they leave the impression that it is Iraq’s word against the U.S. government, the U.N., etc. I mean, what American is going to believe that allegation?!? You’d hardly know that the allegation was considerably more than a silly allegation from a nutty regime. as FAIR recounts:
Get the distinction yet?
Going back to this original quote, let me ask you point blank: Did you know when you made that statement that the circumstances surrounding the inspectors leaving involved allegations of spying by U.S. members of the UNSCOM team that were later reported to in fact be true by at least three major newspapers in this country, quoting both UN and U.S. government sources?
If you didn’t, then why not? (Not that I blame you since I didn’t know this, or at least remember it, til I read the FAIR stuff either.) And, if yes, then why did you consider this to still be a “smoking gun”?
**Well, OK, although you said that “the odds are, it’s you.”
And don’t call me a horse, either. Call me a cab.
Where exactly are you getting that I was “fretting obsessively”? Since I did not say so.
I would hope there is some middle ground between fretting obsessively on the one hand, and the attitude of some members of the UN and the public, who seem to think that if all the good little boys and girls who believe in fairies will clap their hands, Saddam Hussein will suddenly begin to behave like a civilized adult. If I can phrase it that way.
You keep calling them “old” as if that meant anything. And you deny that the fact that they have weapons of mass destruction is an indication that they tried to acquire them.
They did acquire them, because the inspectors found them. They have used them.
Iraq has mustard gas. They have the shells to put it in. They have the mortars and missiles to deliver the shells. Therefore, they have WMD. This is forbidden them under the terms of the cease-fire. Therefore, they are in violation of the terms of the cease-fire. QED.
Perhaps I don’t understand the standard here. So perhaps a thought experiment would be useful.
For those of you who oppose Bush and/or the possible war to enforce the terms of the cease-fire, pretend as follows:
President Bush has promised publicly not to use, say, cocaine. He signs some notarized statement, under oath, not to do so. He agrees to undergo random drug tests. Obviously, a President on cocaine could be considered a risk to our neighbors, so this makes a kind of sense.
Now, when the time comes for a random drug test, Bush refuses to pee in a cup. He says this is a violation of his privacy. The Texas police get a search warrant, enter his home in Texas, and find a half-gram of cocaine in a desk drawer.
Would you support or oppose a call for his impeachment and removal from office? That would correspond to “regime change” in the US. Would you argue publicly that it was only a little cocaine, that it was probably left over from the last governor, and that such a small amount doesn’t really amount to anything?
Would you assume that he was really telling the truth when he says that it just slipped his mind that the cocaine was there, and that his statement not to use or possess cocaine was “incomplete” rather than inaccurate, and therefore he should be allowed to remain as President?
Would you apply the same standard to Saddam Hussein? Why or why not?
Regards,
Shodan
So, what? When Iraq surrendered in 1991, they agreed to diarm their WMDs and to fully cooperate with the inspectors. Iraq had a right to object to any spying, but they didn’t have a right to continue to develop WMDs or to not cooperate with the inspections.
Allow me to spare you unnecessary typing, december:
The underlined sentence was entirely unnecessary.
Stoid, jshore, et al: You can quibble about my bias or about how the inspections ended 4 years ago, etc. But, the bottom line is whether or not Iraq has an active WMD program. If they do, we should attack. If they don’t, we shouldn’t attack.
I will offer you a bet. After the US and our allies defeat Iraq (which I expect to happen very soon), we will know for sure one way or the other. Here’s my offer:
*If Iraq turns out not to have WMDs, I will post a thread saying: “Stoid and jshore were right. I was wrong. In the future I will pay more attention to their wisdom.”
If Iraq turns out to have WMDs, you will post the same about me.*
Is it a bet?
The reason that them being old is relevant is that it might show that they were aquired before the agreement. What’s also relevant is that these weapons don’t seem to be hidden at all. The mustard gas was found precisely where the UN had seen them years ago still collecting cobwebs. I’m sure Iraq wanted them they would have at least tried to hide them. This is overlooked out of date stuff. Or what the UN characterized as"not news".
And yes, since at the time of the Gulf War they had quite a stockpile (many many thousands) of chemical weapons, finding a few shells here and there hardly indicates a renewed effort or any sort of real military threat.
Actually Iraq had mustard gas. The UN has safely confiscated it now. See, the inspections work. Yes it’s possible that they might have more, that’s why we’re having inspections.
SFW? Violation of a cease fire agreement is not a proof for war. Significant violations that threaten US interests and security are a much better starting point. We haven’t seen that yet.
Perhaps you would also like to add to your analogy that GW knew months ahead of time that the police were coming, therefore would conceivably have moved it somewhere else if he knew about it. I don’t think a half gram is really comparable either. It’s more like finding an old straw with traces of cocaine underneath the seat cushions. Which I suppose might be grounds for possession (if there aren’t minimum weight limits) but may or may not indicate the intent to use.
The most unfortunate problem with your analogy is that we are not in a position to simply punish Saddam and his cronies. We must attack an entire country. The last people that will die in this war is Saddam and his party. Many innocent lives stand in the way. Is this violation significant enough for us to kill all of those people? I think not.
Violation of the cease fire agreement would be an ACT of war. As in, returning to the status that existed before the cease fire agreement was signed, which was at war. Kinda like if the DPRK rolled tanks through the DMZ.
Just to understand where each of us stands on this issue, and what we feel is casus belli, if anything would be justification for military use to dissarm Iraq.
From a BBC article about some findings of nuclear documents in a scientists home in Iraq, a scientist who was not listed in Iraq’s “cooperation” in giving 500 names of scientists who worked on their wmd programs in the past. A scientists who “worked for Iraq’s atomic energy agency until 1994”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2672825.stm
"UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said on Saturday the UN weapons inspectors did not need to find a “smoking gun” revealing Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "
The question is:
A. Do you fundamentally agree with this statement?
B. Or, You agree with it, only if _____ (FITB)?
C. Or, do youy think that dissarming Saddam is not just cause for military action, and whether he has wmd or not is besides the point?
I think that dissarming Saddam will only be done by military action. Sure there are preferable alternatives. But, none that is realistic.
Preferable Alternatives
First of all, the UN weapons inspectors would not even be in Iraq if it where not for Bush’s stance on the issue, and the threat of unilateral military action. I do not think that the inspectors job is to dissarm Saddam, nor, as is obvious with the new findings, is Saddam willing to dissarm himself. This would be preferable to war, if it were realistic.
Second, Saudi Arabia would have never dared to attempt a support for a coup in another Arab nation, nor would they even play with the Idea of asking Saddam to go into exhile without the threat of military action. Because of their reluctance, I give them a D for effort and consider it just a political ploy that would not even have the support of the Arab community, much less anything but a laugh from Saddam to be realistic.
And then we have the overthrow of Saddam by his people and generals. I admit, I am not as well informed of the possibilities on this to make a fundamental arguement, but with the mentalities of the nations and people of the region that I see, I find it hard to fathom. Revolution is not uncommon in the area (Iran), But usually it is done in the name of Islam and for religious reasons that would in no way coincide with the world’s desire to get rid of/dissarm Saddam.
Because i think that , without the military threat, none of the actions against Iraq would be taking place today. it will take military action to get what we want. Saddam will cooperate only to a certain extent. He will not be pro-active, the way the Resolution demands he be. Although, I am sure he does not desire an unwinnable war, he also does not desire peace, a peace that was agreed upon after he lost the last war. If he did, he could have lifted the “murderous” sanctions that have plagued his people for the last 10 years.
The last alternative to that is to let Saddam do what he wants for the sake of peace. Sure, he would not be unfettered, there will still be sanctions against him and his people. He will have to use th ablack market and under table deals to gather his resources on WMD. And I hope no one here thinks he would put up with the world condemnation andsanctions if he did not desire wmd. And we can go on as before. The US would not look like a warmongering bully. Iraqi’s would still be starving, and the arsenal of a world renown megalomaniac will be guessed at and feared until he decides to use them again. And of course, the resolutions of the UN can be as respected as they have always been by the world and those who have them against themselves. If I where Kim or Saddam, I would get a tickle every time one was issued against me.
I really hate using this abused analogy, but if the world would have enforced and taken the Treaty of Versailles seriously, I doubt Germany could have done what it did.
I don’t see how these supposed acts of war compare to us bombing them periodically when we’re supposedly in a cease fire agreement.
Can you really call it a cease fire if it includes the right of one party to bomb the other?
I forgot to add the important part from the quote from the BBC.
They do not “have the right” to bomb the other. They do, however, have the right to enforce the no-fly (as per the agreement) zone and take active measures in self to defense so that they can enforce it. Did you intentionally leave out the AA installments that are usually bombed. You know, the ones that fire upon the planes enforcing that agreement?
A. I do disagree, because the only persuasive evidence to me would amount to a smoking gun.
C. No I don’t think disarming Saddam in and of itself is a causus belli. The only thing that seems to make pre-emptive action worthwhile at all is clear and convincing evidence that he has an active and credible nuclear weapons program.
The infrastructure and economy of Iraq is so devastated, I’m not convinced that Iraq can sustain a democracy anyway. Removing Saddam may only guarantee political chaos from a new more unstable dictator, or perhaps a radical fundamentalist goverment that would provide a new launch point for terror. Look at what happened to Afghanistan after the cold war. I’m still not convinced that even today they have the stability they need to pull off a sustainable democracy. Considering the ethnic tensions known to exist in Iraq, the deposition of Saddam could lead to another Bosnia type situation which could be much harder on the populace than the sanctions.
I’ve addressed those AA installments before. But there were other previous reasons for bombing them. Such as the pre-emptive attacks aimed at alleged weapons facilities during the Clinton Administration. It’s obvious that there hasn’t been a successful cease fire there for years, so talk of violating it being a sole cause for war seems rather ludicrous.
No, because I would not be “right” if it were discovered that they have no WMDs (although I think we could safely say that you were wrong). The reason is that I have never pretended to know whether or not Iraq has WMDs. That are what the inspectors are there for.
Also, I think the question is more complicated than this. Even if we do find them to be in non-compliance, I don’t see war as necessarily the first or best option. And, I don’t think that most interpretations of the UN security council resolution do either.
We have to consider the seriousness of the breach, how great a danger it poses to the world community, and whether there are other ways to dismantle Iraq’s WMD program other than going to war.
Should have been more clear, perhaps. I mean just what you mean, you weren’t “fretting obsessively” about the evil plots Iraq might have been hatching before Sept. 12th, when the urgent crisis was announced. Nobody was. That was my point. A better way to put it might have been: I wasn’t sitting around worrying about Iraq, and I very much doubt you were. France wasn’t. Belgium wasn’t.
The whole WMD foofarah is penny-ante chickenshit. The “inspection regime” is, pretty clearly, an attempt on the part of cooler heads at the UN to provide a breathing space, hoping the Americans will come to our senses. (Fat chance). They further hope to convince America away from the unilateral course, which is fraught with peril for everyone. It is matched in disingenuity by the American approach. Bush has consistently, even unrelentingly, emphasized his determination not to allow the decision for war to be taken from his hands. Given those ground rules, it becomes clear that GeeDubya would be perfectly pleased to drape his crusade with UN legitimacy, but it is decoration only.
GeeDubya hasn’t gone to war not because of his deep seated respect for the UN and world opinion. GeeDubya hasn’t gone to war because they’re not ready yet.
What is the central issue? That Iraq has WMD’s, or that it has so illegally? If the legality of it is the issue, that tacitly states that the UN is the controlling authority: it is thier resolution that is allegedly being violated. The US has been granted no authority to determine who can and who cannot possess any given weapon. Hence, it follows that if the legality is truly the issue, then that legality is based on the UN’s authority, not the US’. I that case, it is up to the UN to make the decision as to whether a) Iraq is in defiance and b) what should be done about it.
The fact that the US refuses to accept and confirm that overriding authority makes the whole inspection routine a fatuous minuet. I have little doubt that the men concerned are sincerely trying to avert disaster. But they are impotent. If they find the “smoking gun”, Geedubya may go to war with UN sanction. If they don’t, he most likely will go to war without it: the momentum is already very great, there is little hope of heading this stampede.
Or course, they must try, and I honor even the futility of thier efforts.
I did know from awhile back even though I didn’t really link it in this thread (unintentionally). I still consider it a smoking gun because it seemed to me that these UN Inspectors are suppose to be spies of sorts anyway. It is their job to report intelligence on Iraq.