Yes this seems to be a “heads I win, tails you lose” deal from the hawks. First they make perfectly clear that they are prepared to go to war regardless of what the UN says. Then they turn around and invoke UN resolutions to make a case for war.
That would be a wonderful retort, were I a hawk. I just like to point out the most hypocritical positons on both sides.
*Either what Blix says matters or not, leftie.
Either disarmament matters or not, rightie.*
Neither side seems prepared to answer these questions right now. Me, I’m perfectly happy to wait and see how this plays out. As much as I would love to put a bunch of young Americans in harms way and risk the whole civilian population of Baghdad. Oh, wait. No, I don’t want to rush into that.
I am receptive to arguments that Saddam has been intentionally subverting international disarmament regimes. I guess because he has.
What Mr. Blix says ought to matter more than it does. But the Bushistas have poisoned the well. By the constant assertion that war is on our agenda regardless, the entire process is warped beyond repair.
Consider the fate of the smaller nations of Africa, like Gabon, who are on the Security Council. They are in rather a pickle. Of course, Iraq is of no consequence to them, one way or the other. They might be inclined to hesitate at the brink of war simply because war is, well, war. Left entirely to thier own wisdom, they might be inclined to oppose war on general principles.
But as US behavior towards Germany and France clearly shows, the US is in no mood for reasonable debate that might lead to an unfortunate result, such as opposition to US policy. Any smaller nation, especially one that might find itself in a position to implore assistance from the US, will naturally hesitate to piss us off. If that’s how we treat our powerful friends and allies, imagine how we’ll shit on somebody like Gabon.
Further, the US makes it clear that opposition will do no good, we’re going to war anyway. We don’t care, we don’t have to. We’re the Americans. Why should they piss off the Big Dog when there is no chance that war will be prevented? Thus, the process is poisoned in advance.
Hans Blix will become entirely relevent if America declares that it will comply with UN determinations as to Iraq policy. IF that should happen, I plan to begin carrying an umbrella as a protection from the pig flop falling from the skies.
“That would be a wonderful retort, were I a hawk”
I wasn’t addressing the remark to you but to hawks in general and the Bush administration in particular.
It’s relevant because it’s not clear that after one year of much huffing and puffing the administration has shown anything other than that Iraq is not complying with UN resolutions. In particular it’s failed to show that Iraq poses a serious national security threat to the US which would presumably be the main reason for the US to go to war.
There is little evidence of a serious link between Saddam and Al-queda. There is a little evidence of nuclear facilities and little reason why inspectors shouldn’t be able to destroy any which exist like they did in the 90’s. There is only serious evidence of biological and chemical weapons which Iraq has possessed for more than 20 years and which didn’t prevent the US from thrashing it during the Gulf War. According to the CIA Iraq is unlikely to pass those weapons to terrorists unless invaded.
Absent a serious threat all the administration has are UNSC resolution violations. But going to war just to enforce UNSC resolutions which the UNSC itself doesn’t want enforced with war is the height of absurdity.
“You don’t have to fly to get to the border, y’know. Iraq routinely stages manoevers along the Kuwaiti border”
I was under the impression that both no-fly zones were outside the effective control of all Iraqi military forces not just their aircraft. Of course I suppose the Iraqis could always send their missile launchers and troops and hope they survive American bombing.
Anyway this is moot because I just checked a map and the distance between Kuwait City and the southern Iraq border is about 60 miles well within the maximum range allowed by the UN. So your theory doesn’t stand up to the facts.
[/quote]
Kuwait City was just an example of what I’m talking about. There’s also Riyadh (and the Prince Sultan airbase where U.S. forces are stationed), Amman Jordan, Damascus, and plenty of other population centers that could come into range of the new missile.
I’m assuming that the U.N. had a reason for that 93 mile limit. If they thought it was safe for Iraq to have 140 mile range missiles, they would have allowed it. And like I said, Hans Blix himself has not just called for the destruction of those missiles, but for their destruction within 8 days, along with the entire infrastructure used to build, maintain, transport, and launch them. Clearly, he doesn’t think this is a silly little technical violation.
But you guys seem to pick and choose when it comes to accepting the U.N.'s judgement.
In fact neither Riyadh,Damascus nor Amman are within 140 miles of the Iraq border. In any case I wasn’t disputing the 93 mile limit per se but your faulty reasoning for why it might be more than a technical matter.
“But you guys seem to pick and choose when it comes to accepting the U.N.'s judgement.”
No that’s what your side is doing. If the Bush administration were prepared to accept the UN’s decision whichever way it goes I would be prepared to do the same. But it’s policy ,like I said , is one of “heads I win and tails you lose” ie. of invoking the UN when convenient and ignoring the UN when inconvenient.
No it doesn’t “seem” conflicting at all. The position of France, and of the immense majority of the nations of the world I may add, is that Iraq has to disarm but this does not mean the USA has a license to start a war. Rather, the world believes there are betetr ways of achieving that end. What is so difficult to understand about this?
That is exactly the position expressed yesterday in Kuala Lumpur by the Non-Aligned Countries meeting which represents about 2/3 of the countries on Earth. They were squarely against the USA starting a war and yet they were all against Iraq. Being opposed to the agression the USA is planning does not mean being in favor of Saddam Hussein. Anyone who feels that way has such a simplistic view of things that his opinion is worthless. And I know well that is the argument being used by many of the defenders of the agression: if you do not defend our position then you are defending Saddam Hussein. Yeah, right.
The Iraqi position seems to be eminently reasonable, considering that they are controlled by a bloodthirsty madman bent on war. They deny that thier missiles exceed the range limit, and, apparently, they don’t by much. If this is what we have for a cassus belli, it looks pretty weak.
But what happens if they comply? If Goddam Saddam want to totally pull the rug out from under the hawks he will proceed pretty much as he is. He might offer international testing of his missile capacity (he’s stalling!! Stalling! Not complying!) or, horror of horrors, he might go ahead and destroy them (after hiding some at his grandmother’s house!!). If he wants to make the US look like war-crazed meatheads, that’s what he’ll do. Kinda depends on how smart he is, I guess.
I wish I could believe it matters. I don’t. I’d bet my last dollar we’re going to war, regardless.
It is also France’s position that the UN should not start a war, despite all the Iraq violations.
My guess is that various parties will remain true to form in the missile flap:[ul][]Iraq won’t destroy them, giving some convenient excuse.[]The US has already (correctly) said that the missiles are the “tip of the iceberg.” The destruction of the missiles wouldn’t be full compliane and wouldn’t convince the US not to attack.France will not consider the non-destruction of the missiles to be reason enough to attack.[/ul]However, it is possible that the (postulated) non-destruction of the missiles might be a convenient lever to help the leaders of some other Security Council member (e.g., Russia or Germany) to change their stance from anti-war to pro-war or neutral.