Try hitting today’s New York Times.
phreakomatic’s post illustrates that being against the war seems to encourage one to soft-pedal Saddam’s sins.
december: "phreakomatic’s post illustrates that being against the war seems to encourage one to soft-pedal Saddam’s sins.
"
Nice try, december. But I’m afraid that’s a bit like saying that your last post illustrates that actuaries seem to lack the logical skills for meaningful extrapolation.
As for phreakomatic, I don’t think he’s very long for these boards.
Mr. Svinlesha, thanks for your intelligent and well presented arguments. They make a very interesting read.
Of course, some of the posters are just not going to listen to logic and facts - it is like tying to make the case for evolution to a creationist.
On the topic of the OP - I say thank god for the UN. It is the only chance we (people of earth) have of preventing a power crazed government*
- killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and
- increasing the terrorist risk to the world.
*Bush administration.
How so? If you think back to Desert Storm you may remember that Bush the Elder faced much of the same criticism over his coalition that you now aim at Bush the Younger. Keep in mind that the first coalition included countries like Afghanistan (a little irony), Argentina, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Hungary, Honduras, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, and Senegal. Do you really believe that every one of those countries was an enthusiastic and willing partner? Do you really believe that they all had “something to contribute?” (Actually they did, in the form of helping to pay for the operation, but I assume that the new coalition will offer similar help.) It may well be true that some members of the new coalition are there only as the result of a little arm-twisting, but the same was thing was true last time around.
Also I find some of your critiques of december’s list unconvincing. Perhaps I’m missing some crucial points but……
You state “none of the ME countries (Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, Syria, KSA, Iran, Oman, Yemen, Egypt), to include Kuwait, have publicly supported actions without a UN resolution.”
But your cite says that Qatar ”…would probably be the second major base for any American invasion….” while Bahrain is ”…… almost certainly a key element in any attack on Iraq…… and Kuwait “……is the strongest regional supporter of plans to topple Saddam Hussein…….” True, Qatar would ”…… prefer a diplomatic solution to be found……” and Bahrain opposes ”…… any unilateral military action……”, but that is a far cry from withdrawing from the coalition. (Note that UN sanctions are not the only way to avoid being unilateral)
You cite Japan’s request for a UN resolution but your own article quotes the Japanese as saying that they will decide their stance after studying the issues and that the “secretary general of Koizumi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party…… told reporters that Japan may support an attack even without a new resolution.”
While you may have shown that the coalition is a little squirrely (so was the last one), your evidence hardly supports a conclusion of “there is no world support for the administration’s position, and the rest of the world is, frankly, against any act of war.”
As for the contributions of France, Germany and others; it isn’t my intent to denigrate them. They did join the first coalition and they did help, if only financially, and for that I thank them.
My point is that 76% of the toops in the Gulf were American, 84% of the aircraft lost were American, 82% of the casualties were American. Take away France and Germany and Desert Storm would still have gone ahead and it still would have succeeded.
Here is UNSCR 687. Read it at your leisure. I think you’ll find that Iraq agreed to a great many things here. And they have violated many of those agreements. Let’s not play semantics.
Wrong, the first assertion is based on, but not necessarily limited to;
Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Suorce: US State Department
Yes, I believe I’ve already made the point that the US frequently acts without UN sanction. Your point about the UN ignoring these “violations” does, however, support my earlier post about the UN’s “inactions” sometimes being as important as their “actions.” (Which I thought was a pretty good point but was entirely ignored by everybody, as often seems to happen when I think I’ve made a good point.)
We probably agree on this point more than you realize, though I would suggest that bombing right outside of Baghdad and terming it a “routine mission” did constitute “turning up the heat.”
But I have never argued that Bush definitely intended to “invade Iraq” from day one. In fact, I would happily link to pre-9/11 articles discussing the disagreement which initially existed in the Bush White House on what was the best method of handling the Iraqi situation, but I’m too tired right now. I’m basically making two arguments; that Bush was determined from the outset to put an end to the situation (preferably by getting rid of Saddam) and that suggestions that Bush is only going after Iraq in order to distract from the economy or the failure to capture Osama are ridiculous and beneath contempt.
I actually agree that 9/11 was probably the deciding factor in the decision to use overt force.
His camps were destroyed and he was deprived of the protection of a sovereign nation. And knowing where he is doesn’t do us much good if we aren’t willing to do anything about it.
Well arguments on this level aren’t.
I’m sorry, I do not like war any more than you I’m sure, but I won’t be making such judgments until this administration does act without UN approval.
Diogenes:
**
The U.S. seeks to protect itself and its interests from the very real possibility of the most aggressive dictator in the important Middle Eastern region having WOMD. You know, the only guy who has attacked his neighbors unprovoked on multiple occasions.
Additionally, the one thing Saddam Hussein and radical Muslim terrorists share is a hatred for the USA and Israel. I provided a cite in the “No Smoking Gun?” thread regarding increasing evidence that states and terrorist organizations who long had nothing to do with each other, or who were flat-out enemies, are now showing signs of allying to accomplish mutual anti-U.S. and/or anti-Israel goals. Go look it up.
In that context, letting Saddam Hussein, of all people, have WOMD is ridiculous. It can’t be allowed to happen, period.
**
Am I to understand your assertion correctly - that there is no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Every nation on the U.N. Security Council said they did, and do. Are they all lying?
Here you go - annotated, and with photos:
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
Must be nice to throw idiotic bullshit out, and then have the other side do your work for you.
**
Is your point that we don’t know and can’t find the WOMDs that we quite plainly can show Saddam Hussein had? Funny, that’s George W. Bush’s, Colin Powell’s, Condoleeza Rice’s and Donald Rumsfeld’s point, too.
Saddam Hussein could end all of this by being honest and straightforward. Independent third parties have stated Saddam Hussein is not being honest and straightforward on the issue of WOMD. Does that give you a moment’s pause as to why?
**
God, is this assertion ever asinine.
The U.S. has exactly the same right as any other nation on the planet earth to defend itself and its interests. Saddam Hussein can defend himself, too. And lose.
Given the context of Saddam Hussein’s evasiveness on WOMD, his promises to end the 1991 Gulf War that he has never kept, etc., his actions can be seen as aggressive and against the region’s security.
As earlier noted, the idea of allowing Saddam Hussein, of all people, to have WOMD is just ridiculous to any thinking person.
The moment he was the least bit evasive about actively disclosing and disarming should have been the moment the entire world told him, “Game over.” Shame on those who didn’t. But I’ll get into that in a moment.
**
Cite, please, for where I said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Talk about red herrings …
What 9/11 did was change the U.S.'s policies and procedures with regard to perceived large-scale threats, of a variety of different types, from a variety of different sources.
The monument to wishful thinking, being inactive but hoping for the best, and thinking things like, “If they could have, they would have already” was 16 blocks of rubble and twisted steel, mixed with thousands of American civilian body parts.
I laid out the timeline in the “No smoking gun?” thread that shows a nexus from 9/11 to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. 9/11 affected U.S. policy against threats of all kinds, including those that may not have been connected to the actual 9/11 attack.
I know this point makes you and elucidator cock your heads sideways like German Shepherds hearing a silent dog whistle, but go over it a 1,000 times or so, and maybe you’ll eventually get it.
As for my “tired, vitriolic anti-Bushism” statement, I was referring to your comment about our “incompetent president,” as if Bush’s competence or intellect matters with regard to the problem posed by Saddam Hussein, that at least 36 countries on the planet earth are smart enough to recognize.
I shouldn’t have said “the rest of your tripe.” It was only some of your tripe.
leander:
**
Cute. But unfortunately, it doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny, as the original statement that I made and you doctored does.
Or, do you plan to point out the U.S.'s reliance upon Iraqi oil, and our heavy contracts for it, that is precipitating this war?
Russia, on the other hand:
Cite
There is some additional analysis in that article regarding what Russia, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein’s motivations might be. But I’ll be happy to just stick with the facts. And there they are.
Feel free to show me a similar U.S. interest in Iraq.
As for France:
www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
Feel free to show me a similar U.S. interest in Iraq.
Why can’t you trust what the U.S. president and the U.S. secretary of state have to say about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to America and American interests?
The president:
The SecState:
Those comments were from President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeline Albright, in February 1998. Cite Cite The only thing that has occurred since that time to now in Iraq with regard to Saddam Hussein’s WOMD was the U.N. inspectors leaving. Nothing else.
Where were we? Bush is an incompetent, misguided, war-mongering idiot?
I am a little late to this debate, but I have caught up and have A LOT to say. I’ll start with things I thought were funny and get serious at the end of the post.
ElvisL1ves – Be VERY careful about quoting Machiavelli, especially when you are essentially wrong. Here are some other things he said in the Prince.
- You should not rely on others to come and help you when things get bad. Your own efforts are the most
reliable and long-lasting. (Chapter 24) - You should not weaken yourself, especially by helping other to become more powerful. (Chapter 3)
- A prince must know and understand when to act like a man and like a beast, as circumstances require
both - just one is not enough. (Chapter 18)
I could go on and on with things like this, but it breaks down to Machiavelli was not in favor of being a nice person, only in being seen as a nice person. He didn’t say leave your enemies a way out - he roughly said show them a way out so they won’t fight as hard, but make sure their way out isn’t one. Also remember, surrender is a way out as long as the enemy believes you won’t kill them after they have surrendered.
It is also a point of amusement that some on this board think a disagreement with someone’s political agenda or beliefs gives them the right to belittle that person, as if the personal insults somehow detract from their position. So much for open-minded debate huh?
Another thing I find funny is all the quite heated comments about the political reasons for the US and the UK to support the war and the political reasons for France, Germany and Russia to oppose it. You all tell each other that these countries are demonically forcing their country’s interests on the rest of the world, as if this is something new and unusual. Who of you would be dumb enough to NOT protect the interests of millions of your friends, especially when your friends are paying you to do just that? The question that nobody has asked yet, or answered yet, is who’s interests are more important. Sure Saddam has the right to try to do what he thinks is best for his country (meaning himself). So does France and Germany and even the oh so horrible USA. However, that doesn’t mean that ANY of them get to do what they think is best. I think that the USA has shown remarkable patience, admirable persistence and that Bush himself has shown a lot of guts in his stance. He is being toted as a war monger because he has vocalized what everyone in the world has known for years. Countries that support terrorism are a threat to international peace. More than that, he has acted to eliminate the threat. As a US citizen, I applaud that – even as I disagree with the way he has chosen to do it. (NOTE: while I admire his stance I don’t necessarily think it is the correct one, in case anyone missed that)
Finally my answers to the originally posted question: Did the UN castrate themselves?
Answer - you can’t cut of what you don’t have. Look at the track record - any time there has been conflict they have been singularly ineffective. Their true purpose, however, is to provide a forum for peaceful resolution of conflicts and to that aim they have been remarkably effective so far. The sad fact is they have never been able to see the point at which a peaceful resolution stops being possible, so they stay in the game longer than they should. I know, I can already hear the screams “Peaceful resolution never stops being possible you war monger you!”. Unfortunately that is not true - whenever one side of a conflict is unwilling to enter into meaningful negotiation with the honest intent of fulfilling their obligations, then a peaceful solution cannot exist. As for suicide, I think that we will continue to see the UN for some time still. While flawed, it is the best we have currently and there is a lot of momentum behind it. My biggest problem with them is they pass resolutions they have no intention and/or ability to enforce.
My answer to the hijacked question of the thread: Is the USA wrong in its attempt for war with Iraq?
Answer: If all the government does is invade, kill or imprison Saddam and then call it a day - yes. If after the capture or death of Saddam the government helps build up the country (ElvisLIves - the Prince is wrong about this as the aftermath of WWI showed) and then continues with its efforts to eliminate terrorism by focusing attention of North Korea, Libya, Syria or another terrorist country then no.
Now for some replies to individuals. Sorry for the lack of direct quotes in many cases but this is long enough already. Read yours or everyone’s (or ignore them) at your discretion.
Diogenes the Cynic:
I don’t know that you merit the title “The Cynic” with the number of things you take on faith. It seems to me you just believe the French are correct. Likewise, you believe that Saddam poses no threat. However, despite these beliefs, you offer no proof to substantiate them. Maybe you think the cynical side of your natures entitles you to ask others for proof while not giving your own? The wording of the UN resolutions, which you seem to want to deal with, spells out in no uncertain terms that Iraq bears the burden of proof, a burden which they are unwilling to meet. I believe that the UN has lost credibility since they have used the threat of military force without the intent of actually using it. Worse, they did so when everyone knew that they had no intention of using military force.
As a self proclaimed cynic, you should also be well enough versed in history to know that the US is in charge of whatever they have the power to say they are in charge of. If Bush is willing to deal with the consequences of a unilateral war with Iraq (which there will be and I don’t think he will do anyway) and nobody in the world is willing to do what it takes to stop him, then he can do it. Period. Whether or not such an action is called for is a completely separate matter.
At least I agree with you on one thing - sanctions are silly. If you want to affect a change in a country do so, don’t hurt the people that don’t have any say in the matter at hand.
I am glad however that you have mastered the skill of shoe tying. I had trouble with that one myself 
ElvisLIves:
You ask if the US should flout UN actions as arguments to its validity. I say the whole world should. If the UN, by its own actions, cannot do what they are mandated too, or have mandated themselves to do, then there is no reason to support their actions - they have been proven ineffective. To add further emphasis to this point, think about this. Do you vote for someone (if you vote) who consistently says one thing and then fails to do it? What do you think about the adage, if something is worth doing than it is worth doing right? I also don’t think that it provides a rational for indiscriminate killing. However, the UN thought so or they wouldn’t have passed the resolution right?
Mkubal:
I have to say that I agree. I think that my post has shown I hold with no particular ideology (I’m registered as an independent and voted for more democrats that republicans this time around, although if things continue like this I won’t in the next election) and while I don’t think his solution is the best one possible, I believe that Bush’s plan is at least workable. I am glad that someone else here has shown they can analyze this situation without overdue consideration to rhetoric.
Spavined Gelding:
Check your facts again. The US government has gone out of its way to bring in outside countries, to work within the UN and to appeal to foreign assistance in its fight against terrorism. That is why nothing has been done about it yet. They have said, however, that if after all this effort the international community is unwilling to take the actions that we see necessary to guarantee our safety that they will act alone or with any assistance that is offered. I think that is a laudable approach.
That said, look at what you are advocating. You say that “…this administration sees any nation, association of nations or popular opinion that cannot actually impede its accomplishment of a unilateral objective as irrelevant…”. Do you then advocate stopping an action if a single nation, association of nations or the opinion of people from other countries object to what we do? If that was the case, then no action, including inaction, would be possible. There will ALWAYS be dissenting voices to ANY policy that the USA makes good, bad or otherwise. Beyond even that, if the USA has decided on a course of action and is willing to deal with the consequences (good, bad or otherwise and including those posed by the dissenting voices), and can’t stop you then for all practical purposes they ARE irrelevant.
Maybe we should add “the cynic” to you name :), and I tend to agree with your assessment of the French, if not the Germans. However, I don’t think that buying off the French will be necessary. They will jump on at the last possible second again, just as they did in 1991, because they cannot afford to do otherwise.
Jr8:
You suggest the need for the nation to see long term planning on the post Iraq war situation. I maintain (but cannot prove) that such a plan does exist. My reasoning goes something like this. Bush knows that the next election depends on the successful conclusion of the Iraq situation, which includes the success of the post Saddam government. He has banked too much politically on this situation for it to be otherwise, he and the country know it. That plan, however, can be compromised if people know about it too early. If you really sit down and think about what possible moves he could make after the war anyone can come up with ways to sabotage a newly formed government with little problem. Therefore, the plan remains a secret until it is too late, we hope, for too much serious opposition. If I am wrong, the country (probably) and I (certainly) won’t vote him back.
As an afterthought, it cannot be too self serving or it won’t be accepted and probably wouldn’t work if it were. I expect something reminiscent of the post WWII rebuild Japan/Germany plans.
Mr. Svinlesha:
Your interpretation of the Hans Blix speech is a little faulty. Blix has been very careful to walk that narrow line between the USA’s position and the Iraqi position and his speech on Friday was no exception.
As to your feeling that the blockade and the inspections are an effective enforcement tool, look again. A blockade is not effective (historically) unless it is complete, none of this food for oil stuff either. Unless the entire country is sealed and you can stop blockade runners, all you do is hurt the poor. If you do manage to completely seal the country, you hurt everyone really bad - not a politically acceptable tactic today. Inspection teams would also be effective if Iraq was working with them, not against them. Without Iraq’s desire to cooperate, or the UN’s willingness to force cooperation they are also not effective. Remember these guys are not supposed to have to search for the stuff, they aren’t trained to and we shouldn’t expect them too. Since neither of these forms of enforcement are effective, they can no longer be classified as enforcement in this case.
I really like your last post however. Let me ask this as a starting point for this latest shift away from topic. The UNSC, by your quote, is supposed to “…determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression…” and suggest appropriate action. What happens if they are wrong in their assessment intentionally or unintentionally? Would something like being in violation of the UN charter deter you if you were in charge and had all the “facts”?
greco_loco:
Careful with declaring all 191 members have an equal voice. Veto countries have a bigger voice, which is a big sticking point for a lot of countries.
To object to your second point, I think the OP was pointing to the lack of any action, not just a specific action as justification for its suicide. In fact, if the UN wanted to head off this war altogether it could do so with a resolution to replace Saddam in another way. If they could make it stick then no war. If, as you suggest, they are out to prevent a war than this would be the way to do it.
I do agree with your third point, but be careful not to put too much faith on the “largest demonstration in history”, since there are more people, and more freedoms (meaning more ability) than ever in history too. A pure numbers argument is pretty weak, if you could make it a percentage argument it would be much stronger (and with the numbers out protesting that may be possible).
noely:
I see no disappearing democracy in the land of the free, or a decrease in the opportunities for free speech, quite the opposite in fact. And, although support is slowly falling here, Bush still has the majority backing him (54% here according to Reuters) and though it is a fall from 64% it still is a clear majority.
Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines
Mandelstam
I don’t believe that a war against al Quida was ever called or a war against bin laden for that matter. If I remember correctly, the war against terrorism was “declared” against all terrorists and terrorist supporters.
And do you honestly believe Saddam would allow foreign troops inside Iraq to support the inspectors? Be serious. The USA has supported honest, meaningful inspections. The problem is Saddam won’t allow those to happen without the king of extreme pressure that the UN cannot bring to bear. The pattern that he is following now is exactly the pattern he followed in the pre-Gulf war period. Slowly back off to attempt to create divisions in the enemy and hope that nothing will come of it. He was wrong in '91 and I think he will be wrong here too, but you never know.
Urban Ranger:
What UN resolutions did the USA or the countries allied with her violate? I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that because (or if) the USA violates a UN mandate that it is ok for Iraq to, or are you saying that because everyone seems to follow or ignore the UN mandates at will (and convenience) that the UN is dead?
antechinus:
WHOA slow down there. Lets try to remember we’re all friends here. Even should a war with Iraq occur I doubt that it would kill hundreds of thousands (innocent or not) and I haven’t read anyone who has (if anyone has a link I should read concerning this I will be happy too though). And increased terrorism is also a stretch. While I hope that this isn’t a straight bash the USA argument, it come across that way, which kind of diminishes the impact.
Told you this was going to be long
Milossarian:
Harsh language, but essentially correct. I love simultaneous posts don’t you:)
erl:
That’s a much tougher question, and I’m not sure I can give you a fully satisfactory answer, but I’ll try.
Obviously, unprovoked interstate military aggression, such as the invasion of one state by another, is grounds for UN military action. That’s stipulated in the Charter itself, as I understand it. So, if I sat on the Council, and Iraq invaded Kuwait, and refused to relinquish the country despite sanctions and threat of military action, then I would vote to eject Iraq militarily. Likewise in the case of China’s occupation of Tibet. Likewise in the case of the US invasion of Panama, or, in the present scenario, it’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
The UN Charter is designed to “govern,” as it were, interstate relations, and is therefore very circumspect with regard to interventions based on the domestic politics of states. Here, for me, the answer gets a little fuzzier. As a bleeding-heart lefty, the strongest arguments for intervention in the domestic affairs of a state stem from gross violation of human rights – such as, for example, repression, mass murder, and genocide. In the face of such acts, were they to reach a certain intolerable level, and if I were to vote in terms of correct principle, I would probably sanction UN intervention. What the Russians are doing in Tjechenia (sp?), for example, might warrant some intervention of that sort. It’s conceivable that Iraq’s treatment of the Shi’a and the Kurds might also lead me to vote in favor of military action.
Mandelstam:
Touché.
antechinus:
Thank you!
Milo:
There’s too much I disagree with in your last post to cover all the ground. But let’s start here:
First off, since you so roundly deny the role played by economic considerations, especially oil, in US policy with regard to this issue, then I wonder if you would do me a small favor and define what you mean by “US interests,” above. In other words, exactly what interests do you feel the US has in the region, such that they justify the use of military force?
No one here denies the US the right to “defend itself,” at least in the case of an armed attack against it, but I’m uncomfortable with your rhetorical linkage between that right, and the right you claim for the US state to “defend” its “interests” – which, you might note, are not the same thing. When and under what circumstances do you feel that the US has a right to aggressively defend its “interests,” and which “interests” should it defend?*
*Well, in that case, if I’ve understood your views on international relations correctly, Hussein was completely within his rights to invade Kuwait, in defense of his “interests;” and, by the logic of your own argument, the US-led coalition that kicked him out was, in fact, illegitimate.
Or do you simply mean that might = right?
Ewiser:
Welcome to the SDMB! Sorry things are a bit messy around here; this Iraq war is fraying on everyone’s nerves.
:shrug:
I don’t disagree with you there, except that Blix did say that the satellite were not indicative of Iraqi response to inspections. He noted that the two photos Powell presented were several weeks apart, and could just as easily be explained in terms of standard military munitions movements. In general, Blix’s statements have been interpreted over here as failing to support the US line on this issue, even if they were delicately, diplomatically phrased.
I don’t, but as I tried to point out, economic sanctions and inspections are not the same as doing nothing, which is what many accuse the UN of. It would have been difficult, 10 years ago, to predict the outcome of sanctions, and so to my knowledge, they were at least worth trying. I disagree with your argument on “total sanctions,” however, because that would cause even more suffering for the civilian population. Do you suggest we starve out the people of a given state, just because we disapprove of that state’s leadership? Can’t see that as feasible, myself, morally or practically.*
God, I don’t know. Look – it’s not my job, man!
But I do understand that the US lives within a community of nations. For a country that supposedly values democracy so highly, many there seem surprisingly willing to set aside those values when the will of the community contradicts the will of the US. In the US, there are several laws that I do not like, even though they represent the democratic will of the people; do I therefore have the right to simply disregard them?
Clearly, I can argue for my case, I can try to build up a network of support, and I can try to influence decision-makers to favor my cause. But the fact that I may be against abortion (I’m not, by the way; this is just an example) does not give me the right to drive around fire-bombing abortion clinics. Living within a democratic system requires compromise. In the same manner, I submit that even those who feel strongly that Hussein must be dealt with militarily must accept the fact that they are constrained by US treaty agreements, and in particular by the UN Charter. Arguments that the world needs to do something about Hussein are one thing; arguments that the US needs to go it alone, that it has a “right” to protect its “interests,” on the other hand, are really little more than justifications for imperial expansion.
Ewiser, the point of raising Machiavelli as a guide for strategic advice was ironic - the arguments in favor of war, the UN be damned, are essentially based on naked power politics (sometimes called “national interest”). If one wants to claim to be operating in that realm, the full package comes with it - if you’re going to play that game, you do have to recognize its rules. That includes leaving your adversary a way to back down, as I stated.
Your other reply, the only one anyone has offered so far to the question of the inanity of the US flouting the UN in order to support the credibility of the UN, also doesn’t apply. The UN is made up of its member governments. It cannot flout them or it would be defying itself.
The difference is that this time I dissent. I dissented in 1965, too. It didn’t do me any good then–“pick up your gear, get your platoon on the plane and shut up.” This time I have an option other that a smart salute and an about face. This time I get to blather on this board.
Ewiser, welcome to the debate.
“I don’t believe that a war against al Quida was ever called or a war against bin laden for that matter. If I remember correctly, the war against terrorism was “declared” against all terrorists and terrorist supporters.”
I don’t understand this comment, perhaps because there’s a typo somewhere. I also don’t understand why it’s been addressed to me. Did you disagree with the Times editorial I posted in which the the Times asserts that the Bush admin loses credibility when it grasps at straws to establish credible “partnerships” between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
“And do you honestly believe Saddam would allow foreign troops inside Iraq to support the inspectors? Be serious.”
Under the right circumstances, absolutely. It may be the only chance he as to avert war, and I do believe that he has will continue to seek to avert war after his fashion. In any case, the option should be tried. If he refuses then he refuses and then it is much easier to assert with sincerity that peaceful options have been exhausted.
“The USA has supported honest, meaningful inspections.”
It would be more accurate to say that, pressured by public opinion in the US and outside of it, the Bush administration has consented to an inspections process that it has openly regarded as an all but meaninglesss but politically necessary prelude to legitimizing the preemptive military action that is its true ambition. Under these circumstances there is room for Saddam to exploit the manifest differences between the official US position (not necessarily the position of the US public, mind you), and that of those allies who favor peace. There is no question that whereas the former are hellbent on war in the name of immediate disarmament, the latter are content with serious containment as a prelude to a disarmament process that may not be quite immediate–so long as the bar of containment is seen to be met, and progress is seen to be made.
Yes, Saddam can exploit those differences. For some hawks I that in itself is intolerable as though this were a locker room pissing contest and it’s just unbearable to see Saddam to be allowed to continue to piss at all when he can be “taken out” (as the favored phrase goes) with just a few thousands bombs. But neither the world nor the majority of Americans is prepared to support such a move unconditionally, and so the game of peace must be played. (Or the US must face the consequences of its patent disregard for public opinion.) That doesn’t mean that the game of peace can’t be played to win as the hawks seems to fear.
" The problem is Saddam won’t allow those to happen without the king of extreme pressure that the UN cannot bring to bear."
Where have you seen me say that extreme pressure by the hawkish won’t in all likelihood play an important part?
“The pattern that he is following now is exactly the pattern he followed in the pre-Gulf war period. Slowly back off to attempt to create divisions in the enemy and hope that nothing will come of it. He was wrong in '91 and I think he will be wrong here too, but you never know/”
The analogy between now and before the Gulf War is way too simplistic: much has changed. If he is wrong, he is wrong and there will be war. But if there is war there should be war b/c he is wrong and the world agrees that he is wrong: not because the weather is right for war and the world be damned.
Mr. Svinlesha:
**
Does that mean that you do see oil as the key reason the U.S. is so interested in Iraq?
I provided cites above detailing exactly why Russia and France have an interest in Saddam’s regime staying in power. Where are your cites that this is all about oil, from the U.S.'s perspective?
What part of the U.S.'s national security interest in not allowing Saddam Hussein to have WOMD is difficult to understand?
I’ve outlined what the national security interests to the U.S. are in my earlier posts. Read. The U.S. has a national security interest because Saddam Hussein is the most aggressive dictator in the Middle East. He is also probably the most America-hating. He is the only ruler in the world to attack his neighbors unprovoked on multiple occasions.
Additionally, I’m sure the U.S. doesn’t want to see one of the world’s most important commodities held hostage by someone of Saddam’s ilk, armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - even if it isn’t even close to a primary source of oil for the U.S. Additionally, I’m sure the U.S. doesn’t want to see the threat such an armed Saddam would obviously pose to the only democracy in the Middle East, and probably our closest ally there, Israel. Those would be the U.S.'s “interests.”
You agree that Israel has a lot to fear from a WOMD-armed Saddam Hussein, right? If not, perhaps you should look up “Gulf War 1991 Iraq Israel Scud” on Google.
**
If his interests were legitimate, yes. They weren’t. He attacked a sovereign nation, unprovoked. (This goes for the earlier comment somebody made about China having a right to invade Taiwan, too, that I didn’t see until now. If Taiwan posed a legitimate security threat to China, it would have a right to defend itself. It doesn’t.)
Is the argument of those raising these kind of points that a WOMD-armed Saddam Hussein should not concern the U.S.? Why not?
You make it sound as if Saddam Hussein was this evil, aggressive bully in the events leading to the Gulf War, but that he then turned over a new leaf, and should be cut some slack now. The events that brought about the Gulf War, and what’s happened since, have occurred as a continuum. Do you disagree? Point out where that is incorrect, please.
Milo:
Let’s start in the middle, and work our way around.
I’ve only seen one other post by you in this thread, and to be honest, I can’t find a definition or explication of US national security interests in it. But I see now that you provide a list below.
*There are many aggressive dictators in the world. Why is Saddam so dangerous to “US national security,” in your view? Why not Mugabe instead, for example? He’s pretty ruthless. What makes Saddam so dangerous, especially in relation to US interests? What “US interests” does he threaten?
I doubt that, but even if you are correct, why would his hate make him such a threat, or justify military action? Do you feel that the US is justified in declaring war against any state whose leader who might “hate” it?
Not so. The US has a long and vulgar history of unprovoked aggression against neighbors, especially in Central and South America. Africa is full of tin-pots having a go at each other; we don’t seem all that interested in invading them. So what’s so special about Hussein?
Oh, I see. So it is about the oil, after all! At least in part. And here you were chastising leander, earlier, telling him that his statement didn’t stand up to “critical scrutiny.” Shame, shame.
Hm. I was not aware that Israel had been attacked by Iraq since the Gulf War, or that it had appealed to us to help protect it from Iraqi aggression. Can you present a cite of such an official request, directed either to the US government or to UNSC, please? That would certainly tip the debate in your favor.
Or do you mean that we are not only there to protect our own interests, but also to assess and protect the interests of other states in the region – even when they don’t request our aid?
Now, to backtrack a bit:
The part in which it is claimed that the US is justified in unilaterally attacking a state that has not launched a single attack against US territory or citizens. You see, I understand the role of the US military to be primarily defensive; it is there to protect us if we are attacked. We have not been attacked by Iraq. Iraq does not constitute an imminent threat to the continental US; hell, it doesn’t even constitute a threat to its neighbors at this point. Therefore, the US has no justification in launching an attack against Iraq.
If, on the other hand, the UNSC decided that Iraq constitutes such a grave threat that military action is necessary, as it did in 1991, then I would probably view the action as legitimate. I concur that many of the members of the council are pretty self-serving, and only looking out for their national strategic and economic interests; but I don’t think you can exclude the US from that cynical group of players, or seriously characterize it as being somehow more moral or less self-serving. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way international politics works. Democratic processes are always flawed by the self-interest of the community’s members.
I’m not so reductive as to link the motives of US foreign policy to one single factor, but I think it’s naive to assert that oil doesn’t play a very important role in the thinking of everyone involved in that region of the world, even the US.
Well, here’s an old link, from the Washington Post, and the article may no longer be available, but – how about this one?
Regarding the question of a nation’s right to defend itself and its interests, and especially Iraq’s right to invade Kuwait, you write:
So what, exactly, constitutes “legitimate” interests, in your eye, and can be used to differentiate Iraq’s actions towards Kuwait from US actions towards Iraq? In both cases, let us remember, the attack is “unprovoked.” Iraq has not attacked the US, ever.
No, I think the issue is how far the US should be allowed to go in addressing its concerns regarding a WOMD-armed Hussein.
No, that’s certainly not my contention, and yes, I agree, these events are part of a continuum, at least as far as I can see.
I see now that the link to the Post article is broken; you’ll just have to trust that I lifted the quote from an article there.
Mr. Svinlesha -
**
My apologies to everyone for having to do this, and having to continually repeat myself and produce 40-inch posts. By the above, I hope you can understand why it is apparently necessary.
Here’s a cut-and-paste for you, by me:
You contend that Iraq’s firing missiles at neighbors it is not at war with is not substantially different from what has occurred in other countries. I’m afraid I’ll have to see specific cites for that. Also for whether any of the examples - which I don’t think you can get - could be discerned by anybody as posing the ongoing security, WOMD threat Iraq poses.
Back to your words:
**
The U.S. government believes it would be the most likely victim of any of Saddam Hussein’s WOMD (could be second-most-likely after Israel, in my opinion). Many, many other people agree.
Three dozen Western nations see Saddam Hussein’s blatant evasiveness on disarming, which has been called for basically by the entire world, as an act of aggression. Especially in the context in which it occurred. The 1991 Gulf War - which basically the entire world supported - would not have ended the way it did, were it not for Saddam’s promises to disarm. Which he has never kept.
**
I’ve acknowledged the role that oil plays as a tangential motivation for wanting Saddam Hussein to not be able to hold that vital region hostage.
The U.S. and U.K. governments have asserted that the far more significant (to them) motivation is the potential national security threat of Saddam having access to WOMD. They’ve made their case, and provided cites.
If you think they are lying, prove it. If you think they are wrong, prove it. That’s how debates work. And you can’t.
As for your assertion that the U.S. may only want to get its hands on Iraq’s oil, here is Colin Powell and other U.S. officials saying that isn’t true, and that Iraq’s oil will be held in trust for the Iraqi people. Given the scrutiny they will be under, it appears to me that their assertions are valid.
**
The world community’s opinion can go a long way in helping to determine what is of legitimate concern and what is not. The views of governments, looking at the same evidence, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or other means exist that forestall war.
The whole point here is, the entire Security Council has acknowledged the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his WOMD. Read 1441, for Christ’s sake. Then check out what the vote was on approving those words. And who voted.
Diplomacy, sanctions and other means haven’t worked with Saddam Hussein. Not for 12 years. It’s a demonstrable, proven fact.
Another point is that a large number of nations see the aforementioned facts, and see the threat. The few who don’t can be shown to have very large financial stakes in Saddam’s regime. Whether that’s their prime motivation or not is up to individuals to conclude.
France, of all nations, telling the U.S. it need not be concerned about Saddam Hussein’s WOMD, while wanting to continue on with inspections despite the fact that Saddam Hussein has not complied with what was demanded of him in 1441 is ludicrous. The U.S. will, ultimately, determine when it is threatened, and how best to respond, keeping in mind what the rest of the world thinks and has to say. The fact that this didn’t occur immediately following most of the mission being accomplished in Afghanistan is pretty decent proof that what the world’s governments have to say is of some concern to the U.S.
A few nations, with their own dubious motivations, do not “the world’s governments” make .
Which makes me all the more baffled as to what you think should be done in the face of Saddam Hussein clearly not cooperating with the disarmament obligation placed upon him by, essentially, the entire world.
You want to play hide-and-go-seek, but with more players?
Sorry for what seems to me to be a hijack of your thread, december. FWIW, I agree with you. Regardless of your position on attacking Iraq, the U.N. Security Council unanimously told Saddam Hussein to actively cooperate in disarming, and don’t lie or omit, or else.
He hasn’t actively cooperated. He’s lied. He’s omitted. And some members of the Security Council don’t want to hold him accountable for that.
The net result is the lessening of the influence and believability of the Security Council.
Mr. Svinlesha:
Thanks for the warm welcome, although I have been here for years (I just rarely post).
I think I may have failed to adequately define my objection to the UN sanctions, which may have caused some confusion.
First, I am not advocating in any way the use of total economic sanctions against Iraq and thought I said so in the last post. I am simply stating that when you consider the empirical evidence you find nothing less than total sanctions are effective. So called ‘sloppy’ sanctions merely hurt the poor and since the poor rarely run the country, this type of sanction rarely works.
My objection is the use of threats that aren’t in fact threatening. Look at it this way, if you object to something I am doing and tell me that if I don’t stop you are going to boycott the grocery store where I occasionally shop, I am not going to stop. Same with Iraq. The UN told him that if he didn’t comply with their demands than they were going to starve his people, and since he doesn’t care about his people, the impact of the threat is diminished.
I agree, it isn’t mine either. The point I was trying to make is that we may be in exactly that situation now. EVERYONE has interests in that area, including the multi-billion dollar oil deals that the Russians and French have with Saddam. Neither the US/UK case nor the French/Russian/German case stems from wholly moral/national security issues. At the end of the day you just have to ask yourself which side you think is the correct one that throw in there.
Careful with the rhetoric. If the US doesn’t annex the place or call it a colony then you can hardly call it imperial expansion can you. As for going it alone, that argument is just about dead. Even if only the UK comes with us we aren’t alone. However, as I mentioned in my last post, I don’t think that will be the case.
The situation is fundamentally different from the gulf war in 1991. Most countries don’t feel that they have a direct connection to Bush’s war against terror and so feel little need to get involved. I expect that when everything shakes out the most of the world will tell the US/UK that while they don’t necessarily approve of the means, they aren’t going to do anything to impede the solution since it finally will be a solution.
I still find it incredible that you have a problem with this war due to the oil objection. Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico are the countries that the US imports most of its oil from (US DOE site). Iraq doesn’t appear on the list. However, if you look at France and Germany, you find billions of dollars of oil imports and Russia has billions of dollars of investment capital tied to the region.
** ElvisL1ves:**
Huh? If the US decides to move without UN support or at least tact approval then that will be the case. The US won’t be defying the UN unless they expressly say “Don’t Do It”, they will simply be violating a charter which history has shown they (the UN) don’t care about. However even if the US were to “defy itself” it still doesn’t invalidate my argument. You are always judged by your actions whether or not you are a single individual or a multinational organization. The UN cannot be considered a valid entity unless it can deliver solid results (which I believe I have discussed previously). If they say they are going to do something and then don’t do it, they have not delivered results. There is an old legal term called selective enforcement which says that if you pick an chose which law, resolution (or which instances where a law or resolution applies) you decide to enforce then your ability to enforce any law or resolution (or instance of the same) may be challenged. I hope that was clear enough, but please tell me if it wasn’t and I’ll try to do better (no sarcasm, I mean it). Essentially if the UN fails to enforce a resolution because it is not popular or not convenient, then their ability to enforce any resolution may be challenged on the same grounds.
Spavined Gelding:
I understand, but that doesn’t change the fact that my objections, along with your, are for all practical purposes irrelevant. Bush has decided that this must be done and so he is going to do it.
Mandelstam
Thanks for the welcome.
I believe that my objection is to your attempt to discredit the effort based on a move from Bin Laden to Saddam. Think of it this way. In WWII the allies weren’t just attacking one of the axis powers, they were attacking all of the axis powers. The war wasn’t over until they were all defeated collectively. The same is true here. Bush designated specific countries as “terrorist countries” and until they stop their support, this won’t be over.
Unfortunately, one of the stipulations will be his removal from power and at that point, what does he have to lose? Trying something that you know won’t work just wastes everyone’s time.
Well read my last post concerning inspectors and economic sanctions. They don’t work unless you are willing to get REALLY nasty, and nobody now is (for reasons I wholly agree with). Bush is reluctant to let this situation continue because it wastes everyone’s time and makes things in the region continually more dangerous.
I can’t believe you used that term. Do you really think that with the forces that were initially in the area, the constraints put on them and the willingness of the French/Russians to impede any further movement in the area that “serious containment” can exist. What about the reports showing that they have moved missiles out of country despite inspections and sanctions? Even ignoring that, you would have to completely cordon off the country for serious containment to exist and that leads to the same problems that we are trying to prevent. It also doesn’t stop development of new weapons inside the country, which can easily be hidden from inspectors who have too much to look at and not enough man power to be effective.
An impotent threat isn’t a threat. What kind of pressure would you/France/Germany/Russia be willing to use? How much more will that cost and how many more lives will be lost of the next 20 years of sanctions, inspections and containment. Finally, what are you willing see happen to ensure that containment is total. Your route is harder, costs more, kills more and takes longer.
We know he is wrong. We know he is in violation and only slowly moving to comply. We know he hasn’t accounted for his weapons, that he condones torture, politically motivated execution and genocide. Practically the whole world agrees with that already. They are just too tied economically to do anything about it and fear they will lose the money to the US should an invasion occur. By your own words we should be invading now.
Milo:
Not to beat the horse dead, but I did read your post earlier. It was precisely this formulation – “The U.S. seeks to protect itself and its interests…” – that led me to wonder what you meant with the terms “US interests.” To be completely honest, I’m still not sure what you see as “US interests” in the region. I thought you had provided a list in your last post, which I tried to deconstruct. But it doesn’t matter, really. I think in part we’re talking past each other, but I think in part as well that you know precisely what I’m getting at; you’d simply prefer to downplay it as much as possible, if not ignore it completely.
I have to admit that I haven’t read the article you linked to in the other thread, as it is not my habit to go chasing down other posters’ links in other threads. Sorry if that ruffles your feathers, or if I fail to be impressed by what you seem to believe are unshakable arguments. I am skeptical to claims that al-Qaeda and Iraq are working together, though; bin Laden denounced the Iraqi regime in his last recording, and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam.
*I have no idea where you got this last from, and to my knowledge, at least in this thread, I have not made such a contention. In fact, I don’t know what you mean by this claim at all.
Can you clarify?
*Unconfirmed belief of the sort you refer to here is not a valid pretext for military action, by international standards.
If Iraq suspects that the US is about to launch an attack on its territory, is it within its rights to attack first? Can Egypt launch an attack on Israel because it feels that it would be “the most likely victim” of Israeli WMDs? Your standard is indefensible, because any given state can be plausibly perceived as a threat to any other state.
*I would like to see you back up this specific claim – that is, that three dozen nations equate Hussein’s evasiveness as “an act of aggression” – with some sort of cited evidence. Otherwise, I would like to see you retract it, and admit it to be false.
*I can’t argue with that, but it’s not much of point, far as I can tell.
If the role is so “tangential,” then what is that makes the region so “vital?” Lemon-aide, perhaps? Let me quote from your own cite, entitled “Oil plays starring role in plans for post-Hussein Iraq,” which you ironically use to support these bizarro assertions:
Note the use of the word “centrally,” rather than “tangentially.” We continue:
In short, the entire friggin’ article supports the argument that the administration’s war is centrally concerned with access to cheap crude and profitable drilling contracts. As for Mr. Powell’s “trusts:” well, let’s just say that I’ll believe them when I see them. After the invasion, I expect a kind of big oil feeding frenzy, me, but maybe that just the cynic in me.
*For the record, I believe that US policy-makers are also worried about Hussein’s chemical and biological programs; these two factors, WMDs and oil, aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. But just because you’re convinced by their evidence does not mean that I am. Apparently, however, my opinion carries no weight in this discussion, since, as you assert, “they’ve made their case.”
*Well, thanks for being so open-minded about it, anyway.
I’ve never accused anyone of lying thus far (in this thread), and I’d really appreciate it if you would quite sticking words in my mouth.
*Ah, at last. I agree. Yet many who support US actions do not feel that the US should submit its concerns to the court of world opinion.
*I would like to submit the situation to the UN, and allow the community of nations to wrangle over it until they decide upon a suitable course of action.
*If the UN chooses to give the inspections more time, I would support that decision.
You demanded a cite from me concerning the centrality of oil in US policy-making, and I provided one (even though, admittedly, you provided a better one yourself).
No retraction, yet?
Returning to the OP. In order to check whether the UN is now deceased, let’s look at the serious problem of North Korea. This is a heavily armed, totaliarian, nuclear power that is threatening other nations. It’s an obvious threat to world peace.
Does anyone want to argue that the UN alone can deal with this problem? Should George Bush and Roh Moo Hyun refuse to negotiate with Kim Jong Il? Should they simply dump the problem in the UN’s lap? Does anyone believe the UN would solve the problem?
Sounds like a joke, doesn’t it?
When Mark Twain excoriated the Administration of his time about “imperialism”, it was indeed about control of territory and colonies. As such, its previous popular definition, as reflected by your argument, has been anachronistic.
“Imperialism” in our time is expressed as control of power, not territory. Why control and police an colony as long as your have overflight rights? Why not loan them the money to buy the weapons to protect themselves against your enemies? Why not engage in brisk international dialogue if you know the tone of your correspondent will be imploring?
The modern imperialist regards territory as just so much dirt. But power…well, thats almost better than money, isn’t it?