"There is not ‘automaticity,’ and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."
[emphasis added]
John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN
Well, maybe my cognitive functions are running a little light, Psuedo, but it sure looks to me like a promise not to go to war without a second resolution.
The Bushistas wanted R.1441. They craved the legitimacy that only the UN was in a position to bestow. In order to obtain that resolution, and the much vaunted unanimity, they made some promises. Promises, apparently, they had no intention of keeping.
You mean that the UN needs to maintain the stellar record it has established in places like Rwanda?
I wonder how many people screaming “UN authorization must be had” were the same people who were screaming that the UN had just become an illegitimate puppet of the USA and should be ignored when the UN authorized invasion of Afghanistan.
Yeah, really, Sam, hold your horses. It hasn’t been but a few weeks since the just infamous Nigerian uranium debacle. Such should give you pause, I should think.
But perhaps you’re just the man to answer the question I’ve been posing to the rest of the Usual Suspects. Where are all the snitches? We have made it clear that the Admin will look with great charity on whomsoever comes forth and tells us where the dreaded WMD’s are. So whats stopping them from lining up outside Army Intelligence HQ? Fear of reprisal? From whom?
Or could it just be they have nothing to sell, nothing to tell? Now, if Iraq is simply awash with nasty WMD’s, how can that be?
Good cite, Lucy. Thanks. I do believe they were playing mind-games, or at least word-games, with the UN.
In regard to the WMDs, may I ask you: since you so sure that at this moment, there are not 1500 Iraqi scientists vying to get the goodies from Bush in exchange for disclosing the exact loation of the WMDs (I’m not so sure), what humiliating consequence would you be willing to endure if it comes out that Saddam did have a WMD program?
Please make it good. Would you chug-a-lug a gallon of milk? Post a jpeg of your equipment? Adopt “I am a treacherous, weakminded ninny” for your sig? Let’s make a contest of this. I’m up for any consequence you’re willing to assume.
How would you go about verification? The signature option is obvious, but how could you ensure that they’d actually try drinking a gallon of milk at once? Even if they posted images of their “equipment”, how could you even tell if it were theirs?
Guys, I must have said half a dozen times now that I was waiting for confirmation, and that I’m treating this evidence as speculative until we get confirmation of it. I qualified my comments by saying, “IF this turns out to be accurate”.
Oh, you mean Pat Robertson and that other cretinous asshole funnymentalist who went on TV right after 9/11 and said the U.S. liberals were responsible? I remember that vividly, too.
Negroponte merely professes that the SC will “deal with” whatever violation is found to exist. Additionally, he professes that the SC will merely “have an opportunity to consider the matter” before any other action (read: preparation for war) is taken by the U.S.
My last post somehow got submitted early. Here’s the rest of it:
Negroponte’s words commit the U.S. only to allowing the SC some time to consider a course of action for Iraq. The language in that quote is so vague that he was not promising anything like avoiding an invasion of Iraq.
When he says that something may be “dealt with” in the SC, that can reasonably be read to mean something other than “to solely and ultimately resolve”. Just what does “deal with” mean? Debate, consider, receive reports? Yeah, that is a way of “dealing with” a situation – and the U.S. held back for some time while the SC was “dealing with” Iraq. But Negroponte’s quote does not preclude a U.S.-led coalition “dealing with” Iraq on it’s own.
I’m sorry, but this sort of petulant, broad-brush smearing of all opposing views is turning GD into BBQ Pit Lite™. There are a wide range of opinions on this topic and a lot of people who favored ousting Hussein simply believe that Bush followed a path that will cause more harm in the long run, and there are quite a few people (the majority of Europe, for example) who believed that the U.S. had the right to go into Afghanistan, with or without U.N. blessings, who opposed the particular policies of this administration regarding Iraq.
As an example of the same hyperbolic silliness in the other direction: Too many people have mindlessly swallowed Bush’s “you’re for us or for terrorism” lie.
Stop wondering and present names and support or shut up. Because this ain’t the forum to wonder anything.
There was a time when I despised the Soviet Union and felt that the US, with all it’s faults, was a clearly superior moral choice. The Communists were clearly unethical liars with no decency or respect for the rest of the world. the Russian campaign in Chechnia was appalling. The US if not perfect, did have some respect for truth and basic human values and would never fall so low. Sadly my views are slowly changing and I consider the policies of the USA recently as very contrary to what the USA should stand for and represent. I truly hope thigs will change soon.
Bordelond, you have a great future in the area of semiotics and deconstruction. I had not considered the words “deal with” to represent “cravenly acquiesce”. I suggest that the other members of the Security Council didn’t either. Hardly matters, soon as GeeDubya realized he couldn’t bribe or bully his way to the 2nd resolution, he decided to cut and run and blame France.
And we bought it. Damn, but we’re dumb.
But heres the rub, intelligence wise, WMD wise. GeeDubya didn’t say “I’m pretty sure, but can’t prove it.” He said, “I know for sure, but can’t show you the evidence. Trust me.” If he had proof, he would know where they are. What level of proof says something exists, but not where it is? A photograph, a document, what?
Is this "evidence’ on the same level as some of the more absurd debacles we have witnessed? Is that why he still won’t tell us how he knows? Is he just hoping to be proved right, and then backfill?
Whether or not it is finally proven that Saddam’s got a can of Raid stashed somewhere is silly. The man stood there and said “Fact”. He did not say “Maybe”.
My bet: we’ve been had. Big time, downtown. And our craven “liberal” media is too gutless to ask the tough questions.
I certainly have a love/hate relationship with Russia, mostly with the Russian government, but please keep in mind that really, even on those all too rare occasions when the Russian government has the best of intentions, it may not be able to control the actions of all the millions of Russian citizens, or even control the export of every piece of military hardware or sensitive raw materials over its borders.
Between the corruption and sheer cluelessness of a criticalmass of government officials (phenomena that aren’t so different in numerous countries, including the U.S., by the way), Russia certainly doesn’t have impermeable borders. So please take care to distinguish between official Russian government actions and the actions of individual Russians or Russian-owned enterprises when laying blame for Russian actions in Iraq (and elsewhere).
Neither had I. I think you are misrepresenting my post.
My undestanding is that a lot of the chemical and biological weapons are easily moved (mobile labs, small stores frequently shifted, no humungous warehouses, etc.). Your point does not give me pause.
Ah…a nice built in excuse. They moved them. We never actually have to find anything, we can just say they’re hidden really well. Kind of like the aliens at Roswell.
I think we already have seen that Iraq’s WMD threat was at grossly exaggerated at best, and possibly completely non-existent.
You might find it equally funny to look at the info at the Federation of American Scientists website. Here’s an article stating the North Koreans have an untested missile capable of reaching the western US. Now, there’s a lot of hype when I look around about the topic, and we’re getting off topic with this, but it’s certainly possible I’ve missed certain launch tests. If you’d care to provide a serious cite of NK’s ballistic missile capability that provides a better level of certainty on the matter, please do.
It’s not that an untested system isn’t a threat, nor is it entirely unlikely they could reach us with whatever they have in inventory at this very moment (Tenet seems to believe they can), but one should be clear that their full capability to reliably do so seems to remain in some doubt. (Again, please inform me if I’m mistaken about this. IANA rocket scientist.)
And I must say I’m with tomndebb… GD standards really seem to be slipping as of late, particularly regarding the war.
I think that real issue is that NK currently has missiles which can reach, say, Seoul and Tokyo, not necessarily Los Angeles. That’s enough of a threat to make the US tread cautiously.