I’m sorry too: My vote of thoughtless (and shallow) stands.
Here’s a better cite for who has “sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place”, Iraqi Armed Forces on the Edge of War. Strangely Russia and France keep popping up as the weapons supplier of choice of our friends in Iraq.
Sprinkle in a little China with their Silkworm anti-shipping missiles as a possible replacement for those ineffectual French Exocets that didn’t manage to sink the USS Stark in 1987 and it makes you feel downright cozy about the UNSC, doesn’t it?
Oh, were we talking about that link between the US and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war when we were following an enemy of our enemy foreign policy? Regrettable and hypocritical but life is tough and realpolitic of the moment is easily criticised when one can finally apply a historical perspective. So, what about the over 50 weapons systems supplied by the Russians and French to the Iraqis contained in the Center for Strategic and International Studies cite above? Wouldn’t that be who has “sold Iraq its entire war machine in the first place”? Eh? What’s that? That wouldn’t support the in vogue hypothesis that the US is what ails the entire planet? Ok, let’s dismiss those linkages right out of hand since we all know Russia and France are just worried about the children…
When we’re talking hypocrisy it’s good to at least be the one who is less hypocritical. Russia and France please carry on…
Whoa, jdavis in Great Debates. I never thought I’d see the day. Welcome aboard, Jerry!
Best Cameo in Great Debates
Best Franco-Russian Roast Post (should be considered in the Pit awards also)
On Dec. 16, 1998 the United States and Great Britain (and no one else) launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq:
If the rest of the world believes that the US hasn’t cared about Iraq’s violations for the past ten years then they haven’t been paying very close attention.
George W. Bush; during the 2000 campaign, approximately one year prior to Sept.11.
Rather prescient on Bush’s part, wouldn’t you say?
I belive that Bush and the rest of the right-wingers in the administration have decided they can kill two birds with one stone in this war, or at least knock the neighbors garbage can while they run down the kid who threw eggs on their house.
They hate the UN.
They have no interest in international law or justice: they only want to protect the US’s interests, as dictated to them by their buddies in the oil industry.
They and their party have interfered with the humanitarian goals of the UN whenever possible, and use the UN as a red herrirng to distract attention from themselves whenever possible.
So, now, they have intentionally put the UN in an untenable position: either the UN supports a war which defies historical predecence, justification, and common sense, dooming the UN to have no credibility as a peacekeeping organization and be seen (correctly) as policy instrument of the US, or they deny the war, giving the administration (and its mouthpieces like december) the ammunition to declare it ‘worse than useless’ and withdraw even further for international discourse. (In favor of direct bullying.)
Historical reminder: the GOP also buried the League of Nations as more or less a personal slap in the face to Woodrow Wilson. The selfish, bullying, infantile nature of the party seems to have a long past.
Oh, the Anthrax. That’s what Texican was referring to as a “chemical weapons.”
Would it be pedantic to point out that anthrax is a biological weapon, not a chemical one?
The U.N. supporters here seem to be operating from the assumption that the U.N. is the sole legitimate sanctioning body for force, and that it has the best interests of the world at heart.
Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. The U.S., as the last remaining superpower, is facing a revolt by other countries trying to keep the U.S.'s power in check. This whole thing is being orchestrated by France and Germany, for the most self-serving, duplicitous reasons.
Specifically, France sees itself as the center of the EU, and is cynically scuppering NATO and the UN in an attempt to check American power and also to bloody the nose of Tony Blair. It’s no surprise that these countries are also engaging in a power play in NATO.
The U.N. is filled with countries that have no love for the United States. Let’s face it - Saddam isn’t a threat to China, or to France, or to the Russians. Saddam is a threat to Israel, and to the United States. Why would the U.N. care? There are lots of countries in the U.N. (like the leaders of the U.N. human rights commission - Libya, or the soon-to-be leaders of the U.N. disarmanet commission - Iraq), which would love to see the U.S. gets its hands tied in the U.N. and be forced to go it alone. This would allow them to build a bigger coalition against U.S. power. And the U.N. is a hotbed of hatred against Israel, so what do they care if Israel is under threat from Saddam’s WMD?
Then we can add to this the fact that the major obstructing powers (France, China, Russia) are heavily invested in Iraq and have economic interests in maintaining the status quo.
The U.N. position seems to be: 1) We had inspections in Iraq for almost a decade, and they went so badly that we had to leave, 2) There is plenty of evidence that Iraq maintained and even improved its weapons of mass destruction under the nose of the inspectors. 3) Last year they were given a demand to provide a full and accurate list of the WMD programs, and they gave us 1200 pages of crap, 4) We now have audio recordings of Iraqi officers actively working to thwart the new inspections. 5) Just through sheer luck, the inspectors have already found a number of prohibited chemical rockets, and recently a complete, illegal missile program. 6) Therefore, Iraq is in ‘material breach’ of UN resolution 1441, and ‘serious consequences’ are spelled out as the remedy. 7) The U.S. has provided intelligence showing large-scale chemical weapons facilities being cleaned out before inspectors arrive.
Out of this list of facts, the U.N. has drawn the following conclusions: 1) The inspections are working (!), 2) ‘Serious Consequences’ means more inspections (!!), 3) The United States needs to be scolded for bringing all this to our attention, and 4) The U.S. is a bunch of liars anyway, while Saddam’s latest pronouncements should be taken on good faith (!!!).
December is right. The U.N. has become a farce. It’s been one for a long time in the General Assembly, which is little more than a forum for despots and dictators. Anyone remember the Durban conference on racism, which rapidly devolved into an anti-semitic shouting match, forcing the U.S. to withdraw from it? Anyway, the General Assembly has been a joke, but that’s been okay because everyone recognized that it’s more of a pretend-UN anyway, and that the Security Council was the important body. But now the Security Council is collapsing into the same nonsense.
The U.N. is a cold war relic. It doesn’t reflect the true power centers in the world today, and gives WAY too much influence to the countries that are the problem. The reason many of these countries have influence is because they were proxies for the Soviets and the Americans. It needs to be reformed, or scuttled in favor of a new organization that engages in a little house cleaning. How about an alliance of Democratic countries, led by the U.S. and Britain, where the requirements for joining include a good human rights record and free elections?
cite? 
Well, first of all, you can clearly take the ‘military threat’ off the table. If the U.N. isn’t going to sanction military action now, it never will (at least not until Saddam actually uses his weapons). Second, the sanctions are a joke. First, they’ve been completely violated by France, Russia, and China (there’s those three names again), and second, the same people who are marching in the streets against war in Iraq were marching against the sanctions, too. Plus, does Saddam care? All sanctions mean to him is that people he’d gas anyway are going to starve. His Ba’athist cronies didn’t go hungry. He managed to sink three billion dollars into his mansions during the sanction regime. Oh yeah, he’s just terrified of more sanctions…
So what’s left? Coercive inspections? Blue Helmets in Iraq? First of all, Saddam will probably never allow it. But if he does, he’ll make sure the conditions are set up to ‘protect Iraq’s sovereignity’ in such a way that he can hide is WMD anyway.
Hussein isn’t even remotely worried about the U.N.'s blathering. He’s scared of the United States, Britain, and to some extent Israel. The rest of them he figures he’s got in his back pocket - and he’s right.
Yes, Sam, of course - anyone who reaches a different conclusion about what must be done can only be doing so for crass, self-serving reasons, unlike your own high-minded moral righteous ones. Do you really think you can convince anyone but yourself with that silliness?
Yes, dears, there is only one real mechanism in existence for establishing that an action is by the civilized world, and not a self-serving one by a single nation or small group of them. It has the power and legitimacy that it is given by its members - if it has little, that isn’t the organization’s fault, but the fault of those members who refuse to give it the authority to do its job. The more powerful the member, the more influence it has and the more responsibility it carries for the organization’s effectiveness and legitimacy. If a member’s decision on what to do is not based in any way on what others think or say or have an interest in, then that’s simply making sure it’s irrelevant.
Bush made it quite clear even before going there that he was simply looking for a rubber stamp, and his course of action would not be affected by anything else. Whose fault is it, then, if it is unable to countermand or even influence him?
“It” is just a collection of nations, not a goal-setting body in it’s own right. It is the only legitimate venue for authorizring war in Iraq, in the sense that there’s no traditionally sufficient cause for war. If the US wants to throw a veil over our true intentions and call it a sanctioned action, this is the oonly place to do it.
… whereas all right-thinking people in the world know it would be a better place if the US were allowed to pursue its self-interest unencumbered by opposition.
Personally, I see the NATO actions of France, Germany and Belgium to prevent the use of NATO to bulk up Turkey as a principled stand against the subversion of the defensive alliance into another offensive arm of US ‘diplomacy’. To wit: if NATO can be used ‘defensively’ in wars provoked by it’s own members, it is de facto an offensive alliance.
AFAIK, the UN is open to all states. Whether they like us or not probably has more to do with bilateral relations than tehir UN membership.
And yet the US claims that Iraq is a threat to ‘international order’, not a threat to ‘Israel and the US’ (the latter part of which claim is tenuous at best.)
We’re going it alone anyway (except for Britain-- replacing Canada as America, Jr. [credit to the Simpsons’ writers]). How can anything that happens in the UN change that?
Again, to the extent that the UN is a hotbed of hatred against Israel, it’s because countried don’t like Israel, not that the UN is somehow more biased against them then the countries that are members. I think you may be reacting to the many votes and feeling expressed against Israel in that forum. If it seems unusual to you, that’s because it’s the only time you get to hear those voices en masse.
Granted, as long as you allow the possibility that the US may have economic interests in changing the status quo in Iraq as well.
I’ll leave it to others to refute your implied assertions, but just want to remind you again that who you think is saying this is not ‘the UN’ but each nation that you feel is saying it. If they’re democracies, they’re presumably expressing the feeling of their voting publics and are acting in good faith in their countries’ best interests as they see them. You may feel they are wrong, or they may conflict with the best interests of the US, but that doesn’t make them blind or incompetent.
I think you have a valid point or so somewhere in there, but it’s so wrapped up in a nationalistic perspective that it’s hard to tell. Basically, you’re saying it was OK when the majority of coutries disagreed with you, because they didn’t have any power. But now that countries with some (nominal) power disagree with you, you don’t like it. I can understand why that’s frustrating.
Actually, it’s a PRE-cold-war relic… get your history right.
The ‘countries that are a problem’ being hoodlum nations like France, I guess. I agree that France is not a center of power, but I suspect that China and Russia aren’t high on your favites list either, and they certainly represent military power at least. So if you think the permanent members of the security council should be re-selected, you’ll still be stuck with them.
See the reminder about your chronology.
Also, some people might think that Britain (Ireland) and the US (death penalty) wouldn’t make the grade on human rights. So why not just call it an alliance of nations who will kowtow, and be honest about it?
Diogenes:
**
At last, something upon which we can agree! And shame on the U.N. for not taking care of its business.
The U.S., on the other hand, will act to protect itself and its interests, in the face of U.N. inaction (or, more specifically, ineffective action. Which is just as much of a problem).
**
Complete disregard for every U.N. Security Council resolution calling for disarmament is “petty violations?” Several thousand tons of unaccounted for chemical and biological agents is “petty violations?” Rocket engines that exceed international guidelines for what Iraq - the only nation on earth to attack its neighbors unprovoked with missiles in the past several decades, if not ever - is “petty violations?”
How do you breathe where your head is? By snorkel?
**
Cite about the U.S. not caring? For the thousandth time, Sept. 11, 2001, showed at least the U.S. government that inactivity and hoping for the best will lead to thousands of dead American civilians. Above all else, the primary function of the U.S. government is the protection of its citizens and preservation of the integrity of its borders and system of government.
Those who think like you, and a few countries such as France, Russia, China and Germany - who are operating completely out of cynical and economic self-interest, both with their dealings in Iraq and their desire to lessen the U.S.A.'s power and influence - don’t get that, or do get it, and refuse to accept it. They can go fly, as far as I’m concerned. And you can too.
The rest of your tripe is idiotic, viotriolic, partisan, tired anti-Bushism that I won’t waste my time with.
David B:
**
Is that what they said?
Seemed to me they said Iraq has made slow movements in process. But the overriding goal of 1441 - for Iraq to completely and actively disarm - is nowhere near close to occurring.
Do you disagree? Why?
xenophon:
**
According to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the “job” is for Iraq to:
- "comply with its disarmament obligations"
Has it? I ask you. You don’t “move toward disarming.” You start taking actual steps to disarm. Has Iraq done that? Where? How? I want specific cites. Good luck.
**- provide the U.N. “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems” **
Argue that Iraq did that. Hans Blix said they didn’t. Colin Powell proved they didn’t.
**- Any false statements or omissions in Iraq’s declarations will be considered a new material breach **
Quite obviously Iraq did make false statements and omissions. Hans Blix himself said so. Go refer to the transcript of his statements from his last report to the Security Council. I linked it in the OP of my “No smoking gun?” GD thread from a few weeks ago, and also pointed out the false statements and omissions.
What was the U.N. Security Council’s response to the above? Mealy-mouthed spinelessness.
- Give inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all (sites)"
Hasn’t happened. Iraq requires “escorts” with inspectors, and until very recently, impeded helicopter and U2 usage.
- "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview"
Argue that that has occured. Here is an article with Blix saying only three interviews of Iraqi scientists have occurred, because the U.N. inspectors can’t seem to get the interviews done “on our terms.” Blix also indicates the interviews have been requested, or have been occurring, with third-party Iraqi government personnel present, or Iraqi government tape-recordings of the interviews occurring.
ummmm… yeah.
**-"Iraq … will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; **
Iraq is violating its obligations. It has since the Gulf War ended. How many 30-inch posts do I have to provide full of cites? Or is that acknowledged?
There you go, xeno. You wanted to know what the “job” was. In a phrase, it’s for Iraq’s complete and active cooperation in disarming. Unspoken in that simple demand is the logic that, absent complete and active cooperation, an outside party is going to have great difficulty finding and eradicating all of Iraq’s WOMD. Absent that, Option B is to remove the uncooperative, dangerous dictator causing the problems with Option A.
(not to anyone specifically)
Do you “no war, no matter what” folks hear Colin Powell’s words when he speaks them? Or do they go through some “I hate Dubya” filter that renders them jibberish? What part of it aren’t you people getting?
Iraq is supposed to immediately, completely and actively disarm.
Iraq had a whole bunch of chemical and biological weapons. That’s a known fact.
Iraq hasn’t accounted for what happened to thousands of tons of the above weapons.
Iraq was required by, essentially, the entire world to account for the above weapons that it isn’t accounting for.
Iraq has demonstrably not fully and actively cooperated in its disarmament. Not only do the U.S. and U.K. governments say so, but the independent, U.N. weapons inspectors themselves.
The Security Council unanimously told Iraq in November that failure to cooperate would result in serious consequences. Iraq isn’t cooperating. Where are the serious consequences?
What of the above don’t any of you get?
“We don’t want war, because war sucks. War is harmful to children and other living things.”
Well, no shit. War does suck.
Do you know what happens when nations aren’t resolved against people like Saddam Hussein?
Read a history book.
Can any of you UN brown nosers please define for me what the fuck “very severe consequences” means in the UN resolutions against Iraq? Does it mean that if they do not comply they will subjugated to the inhumane penalties of gasp even more inspectors that they hide shit from?
And for those that seem to think they are in the know. most of us don’t hate the UN, but rather find it pretty pathetic and contemptable when it refuses to enforce it’s own resolutions to the extent of even blockading the members that have the balls to do so.
Hey everyone. I just signed up on this orum, and this debate is mighty intriguing. Please, can someone sum up this debate in 30 words or less so i can join in?
jdavis, for the record, it is not news to me that France and Russia also sold weapons to Iraq. IIRC Britain also gave Iraq weaponry for free. And let me add, for the record, that I’m not in the least interested in holding the US uniquely accountable for every ill on this earth; nor for insulating other nations from criticism.
Sam: “If the U.N. isn’t going to sanction military action now, it never will…”
I don’t see how you can possibly justify that statement. Recall, the majority of American people favors waiting, and favors UN support, rather than rushing headlong into war. If the Bush administration has not managed to convince the American public that war must fought now, how can we assume that other countries’ appeals for more time are not sincere?
“So what’s left? Coercive inspections? Blue Helmets in Iraq? First of all, Saddam will probably never allow it. But if he does, he’ll make sure the conditions are set up to ‘protect Iraq’s sovereignity’ in such a way that he can hide is WMD anyway.”
But most of the world seems to think that there is an obligation to give such options a chance. War is not a small thing.
In addition, there are good arguments to be made that containment would be sufficient to curtail the threat Iraq poses, at least for a time; and that disarmament–if it must come in the form of precipitous and non-UN-sanctioned war will be more harmful to the US than it is worth. I don’t see how the latter assertion can be ignored.
“Hussein isn’t even remotely worried about the U.N.'s blathering. He’s scared of the United States, Britain, and to some extent Israel.”
Well let me ask you something Sam. If Saddam is so scared of the US then why isn’t he rushing to comply? Indeed, why isn’t he seeking asylum in Paris right now? I’m sorry, but your assumptions about Saddam’s motivations don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Bear in mind, I do speak as one who thinks that the Bush administration deserves some credit for having taken a hard enough stance to enable the improvements we’ve seen thus far; and I would certainly advocate “blue helmets” in Iraq as a way to make sure that inspections continue in an earnest fashion. Disarmament is a legitimate goal, to be sure. But the big picture right now is terrorism, particularly where it originates in militant Islmamic fundamentalism. Regional stability in the Middle East is crucial for that goal; as is a commitment to working through international channels such as the UN and NATO.
“The rest of them he figures he’s got in his back pocket - and he’s right.”
I’m sorry Sam, but that kind of claim does your argument no justice. Why not leave the petty insults to Rumsfeld? 
Elvis:
**
Well, it’s OK to look for a rubber-stamp, when the U.S. policy is the only logical conclusion in the face of the evidence.
If you disagree, please explain the logic of being pleased with Iraq making slow movements forward on some processes, and in calling for more inspectors and airplanes, when only a few months earlier, the U.N. Security Council essentially told Iraq “completely and actively disarm, or else?”
Blix has no smoking gun, or cooperation. France, Russia, China deal with Iraq. US says “go away Saddam.” Coalition of willing says, yes! UN says this, that, other thing. fnord.
It’s all about keeping the media fed and the people happy. You know Bush wants to storm in there and kick some serious iraqi ass, but he canr because of the people. Spyplanes? Inspectors? No matter what each of those finds, we’re still going to war. Justified or not, thats what’s gonna happen
Gee Beagle, I hope you never end up moonlighting for Cliff Notes ;).