Well, I sure am glad we got that straightened out.
elucidator:
If the quest for power is your definition of imperialism then practically everyone in the world (individual people, countries, corporations, etc.) are guilty of being imperialists. This includes the peace demonstrators who are attempting to harness public opinion for power over the Bush administration.
*Huh? Are you under the impression that the UN is subordinate to the US? That’s the only way the rest of your “explanation” makes sense. “The UN doesn’t care about its charter” indeed. The US only cares about it when convenient, at least under this administration.
Are you referring to Bush choosing to interpret a particular resolution the way he wants to, no matter what the body that issued it may say they meant, and select it from among many to enforce the way he wants to? Not his call, dude.
The concern is that, by refusing to allow the UN to have the authority that its guiding principles require, Bush is making it irrelevant and powerless, while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of the actions he does take in the eyes of humanity. Is that unclear, or do you simply disagree?
As an aside, there does seem to be a sharp dichotomy on the right regarding the role of the UN. Either they’re a useless, ineffective debating society with no credibility, or they’re the foundation for a new world government, complete with black helicopters, bent on destroying our personal freedoms.
For a realistic view, one has to look to the moderates or liberals.
Mr. S:
**
And I get sick of providing cites for what I say that the other side doesn’t read. And there we are.
Also love how you skip over every portion of the article I linked that doesn’t support your position. Oil is a central issue with Iraq because of France and Russia, and their economic stake in keeping Saddam and their contracts in place. Also over the world’s concern about what the U.S. might do, once it controlled Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. is on-record for what it will do. If they don’t do it, I’d imagine every nation on earth is going to howl. And I’d be as critical of them as anybody.
And this is why I’ll be bowing out after this post. Too tedious. Better things to do.
You said (of Saddam Hussein being the only dictator to attack his neighbors unprovoked on multiple occasions):
Does that or does that not indicate that you perceive that what Saddam Hussein has done is not substantially different from what other countries’ dictators have done, and even what the U.S. has done?
**
I see. You want to play semantics games. Why do three dozen nations support military action against Iraq if it doesn’t disarm, then, in your estimation? For aerobic exercise?
If you want to consider this a retraction, I can not say definitively that the leader of every nation that supports military action to disarm Iraq has used the exact same words as I did in my post on the Straight Dope Message Board.
**
My point was, the other side seems to do a lot of questioning about why the U.S. wants to do this. And U.S. officials are on television basically 24 hours a day, every day, saying why they want to do it. With specificity. Colin Powell did a PowerPoint presentation for those of you who like pictures better.
The case has been made. Cites have been given. But I’m not seeing a lot of cites and evidence from the side of the argument that you seem to support.
“The U.S.'s position that inspections in Iraq, as they are occurring now, can’t work. Bush is wrong, and here’s why.”
“More inspectors will make a difference, despite Saddam Hussein’s lack of cooperation. And here’s why.”
“This is really all about oil, and Bush getting re-elected. And here’s the proof (or strong evidence) of that.”
“This really isn’t about the threat some see from Saddam having WOMD. And here’s the proof (or strong evidence) of that.”
Patiently waiting.
Milo:
*With all due respect, Milo, it’s fairly ridiculous of you to expect other posters to locate cites you’ve posted in other threads; I’ve posted plenty of cites in other threads as well, but I don’t get my panties in a wad because you haven’t read them. If you wish to make a case this thread, you must post your supporting references in this thread as well. You may note as well that I have at no time demanded that you provide supporting citations for your claims regarding co-operation between terrorists, or between Iraq and terrorists, here. But if you feel compelled to prove this point, cite away.
If you feel that I’ve misrepresented the general thrust of the article (which, I repeat, is entitled “** Oil plays starring role in plans for post-Hussein Iraq***”), please feel free to correct me. I simply quoted those sections of the article that seemed to be relevant to the question at hand. After all, you’ve linked the article yourself, and interested parties can read it at leisure.
I’ve already conceded that business interests play a role in the foreign policy decisions of France and Russia. My only contention is that they also play a role in US foreign policy. And in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I suspect that one significant “US interest” in that region is oil. It is an economic interest, because it is vital to US industry; and it is a strategic interest, because should the US ever need to fight a major war, it will need a dependable source of oil.
Why on earth would this analysis strike you, or anyone else, as unreasonable?
*Yes, I understand.
Discretion the better part of valor, eh?
*Look: you presented a list of arguments, or reasons, for why you feel that it is necessary to use force to oust the Iraqi regime. I separated out the various elements of that list and asked you, in all sincerity, to explain to me why you felt the way you do about them. Thus, for example, you stated that Hussein “is the only ruler in the world to attack his neighbors unprovoked on multiple occasions.” Now, to begin with, that claim is historically inaccurate. China has invaded and taken control of Tibet, for example; Russia is pursuing a war of aggression in Tchenja (sp?). Israel has launched a number of unprovoked attacks against its neighbors (as well as few provoked ones); and it was not that long ago that the US invaded Panama, on the unbelievably flimsy excuse that the Panamanian leader, whom the US had essentially installed, was a drug dealer. If you’re interested exclusively in missile attacks, then perhaps you remember the unprovoked US salvo on the Sudan, which destroyed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant.
Despite this track record, you do not seem to advocate immediate military action against China, Russia, Israel, or the US. Thus, as far as I can see, your argument here is not very strong, unless you can explain to me why, when the US (or its various allies) launch unprovoked attacks or invade neighboring countries, you feel that such actions are justified, but when Iraq does so, they are not – and that therefore, even though the last time Iraq tried to pull such shennanigans we beat the tar out of it, its past actions are nevertheless a legitimate casus belli. I’ve drawn no conclusion about the equivalence of these actions other than, at least on the surface, they appear similar; and I’m asking you to explain to me why you see them as different. Dig?
If you feel that questions like the ones above are too tough for you, or too “tedious,” then perhaps you should reconsider your decision to post in a forum that promotes debate, critical thought, and the free exchange of ideas.
*To begin with, I’m not playing “semantics games.” There is a very important difference, in my opinion, between Hussein’s unwillingness to abide by UN resolutions and disarm in good faith, on the one hand, and an “act of aggression” against another state, on the other. It’s inaccurate and misleading to conflate these two qualitatively different acts.
In addition, although I know that those who share your view prefer to pretend otherwise, of the 3 dozen nations you mention, the majority are responding to various levels of pressure from the US. That certainly plays an important role in their official policies with regard to the Iraq question, even if they have other concerns as well.
*Well, look; a couple of months ago, Bush was out saying that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon, and that he had an IAEA report to prove it. Turns out, he was lying. Again and again, in fact, the evidence you so fervently believe in has been revealed as inconclusive or even misleading. And so far, no one has managed to locate a single batch of the deadly chemicals you are so certain are hidden somewhere deep within Iraq. In fact, as has been pointed out time and time again, Powell’s last presentation to the UNSC did not contain a single material breach to 1441 on the part of Iraq; and as Blix observed in his report a week later, Powell’s “Power Point” presentation was misleading, noting (for example) that the satellite pictures he revealed had been taken weeks apart. Aside from that, some missiles have been found that exceed the range limitations by a mere what, 4 miles? These are the sort infractions that you want to waste precious American and Iraqi lives on?
Meanwhile everyone on the right is screaming bloody murder, “Burn the witch, burn the witch!”
Villager 1: She turned me into a newt!
(short pause)
Villager 1: Well…I got better.
In fact, the reason why millions of people the world over are so suspicious with regard to the administration’s motives is precisely because their case for war has been so flimsy from the beginning, giving skeptics (such as myself) the distinct impression that the government has some kind of ulterior motive. Of course, ulterior motives cannot be “proven,” at least not until after all the top secret documents are released in 50 years, and historians can look back and say with relative certainty, “Well, I’ll be damned; they were really concerned about WMDs;” or “Well, I’ll be damned; they were cynically manipulating the public in the name of Big Oil.” In current events, unfortunately, ulteriour motives can only be guessed at. But the weakness of the US case for war, combined with the administration’s eagerness to pursue such a course, does make me suspicious.
Sorry you felt this was such a “tedious” debate; am I sensing some hostility here? Anyway, to be completely honest, the feeling’s mutual. Don’t let the door hitcha on the ass on yer way out.
elucidator:
Hey hey – long time no see! Nice to have you back; you were missed. Hope you had a nice vacation?
Mr. S:
I’ll await cites on your assertions about China, Russia, Israel and the U.S. And their attacks being unprovoked.
You want a cite for Saddam Hussein attacking a neighbor unprovoked? Israel had at least 40 Scud missiles launched against it in the 1991 Gulf War, by Iraq. Israel was not a combatant in the Gulf War.
Your turn.
You have asserted, or alluded to, oil being a central component of U.S. desire to intervene in Iraq. But all you point to from the article I linked are other people’s concerns about what the U.S. might do. And, importantly, what the U.S. is on-record saying it will not do. That is significantly different than existing business relationships that both Russia and France have with Iraqi oil interests, that I’ve linked previously.
That’s a concern out there? It isn’t supported by any evidence, and is counter to what U.S. officials themselves say? O.K., fine. I guess that’s that.
Milo:
First off, thanks for the link to an online atlas. Luckily I know where Israel is; unfortunately, that particular cite failed to support your claim that Israel was struck by Scuds. But never mind. We don’t have to turn this into a cite war. It’s fairly common knowledge that Iraq launched Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War, and I haven’t demanded that you defend that claim.
As far as my claims go: well, I provided a cite for the Al Shifa bombing in my last post, buried in the text. My argument with regard to this bombing is that the US launched an attack against the Sudan, and that the attack was unprovoked (in the sense that the Sudan had not attacked the US). In addition, I assumed that the US invasion of Panama is common knowledge, but if you want a cite for it, I’ll try to dig one up.
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is commonly considered an example of an unprovoked attack by Israel upon a neighboring state. (I leave out the Six Day War, because, although it is technically true that Israel initiated the hostilities, it is my opinion that in that case, the Israeli state was justified in its actions.) Another example of unprovoked Israeli interstate hostility is the 1981 bombing raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility, condemned by UN resolution 487. If I was a bit sharper this evening, I could probably come up with a few more examples, and of course, even the ones presented can be perceived from different angles. Unfortunately, it’s late up here in the Land of the Great White North; but if you wish, I’ll try to find more info tomorrow (provided I get the chance).
I also thought that the Chinese invasion and seizure of Tibet was common knowledge, but if you insist, I’ll see what I can dig up about both it and the current war in Tjechenia (sp?) tomorrow.
For the sake of discussion, if we were to agree that the examples above do constitute instances of unprovoked aggression by one state against another, how do you differentiate between those instances and Iraq’s two wars? Or would you be prepared to agree that at least that particular sub-argument, regarding Hussein’s past indiscretions, fails to hold water as a pretext for military action?
Let me give you my take on it: I think that there is serious cause for worry about Iraq under Hussein and/or his successors. I think the international community should think carefully about its options in this regard – it can’t continue to deter, contain, and sanction the Iraqi regime forever. But I also think that it is hypocritical of the US government to condemn another state for acts of unprovoked aggression when it has such a long history of similar acts itself. And I think that a unilateral US attack against Iraq – or any attack led by the US without UN sanction – would be equivalent to Iraq’s unilateral attack against Kuwait.
Obviously, if the US intervention in Iraq was motivated solely on the basis of Iraq’s oil reserves, Colin Powell or George Bush wouldn’t come out and say, “We want to steal Iraqi oil.” At least, I don’t think they would. Do you?
So here, you have me over a bit of a barrel, in a sense (no pun intended), because I couldn’t possibly provide a cite in which a US official makes such a claim (probably). But at the same time, I think your standards for “proof” are completely unreasonable. I’ll try to explain why, by means of the following counter example:
When you stop to think about it, all you’ve managed to prove with you previous cites regarding France and Russia is the fact that those two nations possesses lucrative oil contracts with Iraq. You have yet to link those contracts explicitly to French or Russian foreign policy. Or has Cherac publicly stated that the French oppose war because of their ties to Iraqi oil? Using your standard of “proof,” I could just as easily point out that your linked articles are merely certain people’s opinions of what might influence French or Russian policies.
Clearly, such an intransigent argument will ultimately prove unproductive – if your cites on French and Russian oil concessions with Iraq don’t convince me, then probably nothing will. By the same token, if you refuse to accept the opinion of experts like the former head of the CIA, then I don’t think I’ll have much of a chance in convincing you of very much, and this discussion is pretty futile.
From my perspective, both logic and common sense dictate that Iraq’s oil reserves are of major concern to the US, and this is also both what my cite and your own cite would seem to indicate. Why else would the US consider the Middle East to be “vital” to its interests, but not, say, the horn of Africa? A good policy analysis is not based solely on what politicians say with regard to their motives; it is also based on finding reasonable explanations for why they do what they do. Chirac does not state publicly that he is concerned about French oil contracts, but you seem to see quite clearly that he is, nevertheless. In fact, I agree with this analysis. Why then should we use a different standard when evaluating US motives, and blindly take US decision-makers at their word?
Sorry if the above seems incomplete, but its late here and I must close for now. Will try to reply more tomorrow.
Mr Svinlesha, a minor quibble. The attack on Sudan was not intended as an attack on Sudan, but on what was believed to be an Al-Qaeda chemical weapons facility.
You’re doing a fine job in the fight against ignorance. Glad you’re here.
Ewiser: " 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."
But the axis powers were an active alliance, whereas–“Axis of Evil” rhetoric aside–there is none but the most circumstantial connection between Iraq and AlQaeda.
There are many good reasons why Iraq should be pressured to disarm; and there is, to be sure, a theoretical possibility that Saddam and Osama might decide to put ideological differences aside and to collaborate. But when US officials try to insist that an active partnership already exists, and when they base such assertions on, for example, the recent Osama tape–they discredit themselves. That was the point of the Times editorial I posted above, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
“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.”
Um, not so fast. Your original assertion was that Saddam would “never” permit UN troops to enter Iraq as part of an inspections procedure. Now you’re making yet another assumption: that eventually disarmament will involve his removal from power. Who says so? What’s odd isn’t just that you seem to have a crystal ball; it’s also that what your crystal ball consistently is telling you is that since war is inevitable, sooner or later, it might as well be fought now ;).
“Bush is reluctant to let this situation continue because it wastes everyone?s time and makes things in the region continually more dangerous.”
I am aware of that. But very many others believe that that the inspections are working to contain Saddam, that they can work further to disarm him, and that an immediate war will waste a lot of human life and make things in the region considerably more dangerous.
“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.”
Easy enough to increase inspections manpower; U2 flights will improve surveillance. UN troops wouldl also make containment more effective. No containment is 100% secure, to be sure, but let’s face facts.
Homeland security should be our number one focus in protecting our citizenry and not nearly enough has been done there–to the contrary, we have states cutting budgets for police, firefighting and emergency health! We have seen terrorists kill thousands of US citizens with low-tech methods. We saw this morning in S. Korea how one nut with a match can kill hundreds of people in a crowded subway. There has been evidence of AlQaeda cells in Buffalo, New York, in Canada, in Germany and elsewhere. The war on terrorism is a far-flung problem and needs to be fought with brains, not just brawn.
This obsession with Iraq is about many things, but it’s partly about staging a war that seems easy to win. Yet the truth is that we don’t know what might happen to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction during the chaos of a war–or do you imagine that containment will be satisfactory while we are dropping thousands of bombs, and he is is blowing up his infrastructure, or setting his oil fields on fire, or launching biological attacks against civilians and soldiers alike.
“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.”
Once again, you have a convenient crystal ball throwing up every stumbling block to peaceful disarmament, while making war and post-war nation-building a cost-free and bloodless breeze.
France and Russia have not ruled out war; Germany seems to be moving towards a position of willingness to ignore it if not participate in it. How many lives will be lost in each scenario? How can we possibly know? As far as costs go, the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be enormous. It looks to be costing $32 billion just to get Turkey to allow the US to use it as a launching point. Do you have any idea what a war costs?
“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.”
I don’t buy the argument that France and Russia are motivated primarily by existing economic ties. If that were the case they could be negotiating for better terms in much the way that Turkey is. What you don’t seem to want to take into account is that the citizens of European countries are against this war: they support their leaders in their leaders’ calls for more time. (And as I’ve said many times, most Americans want a second UN resolution as well.)
“By your own words we should be invading now.”
Which words were those?
Surely I can’t be the only person who abhors these “negotiations” between the Bushistas and Turkey over how much “economic compensation” would be appropriate to ensure thier allegiance as our “ally”. Or perhaps the more appropriate word is “accomplice”. Is there a term with stately dignity that implies something between a whore and a mercenary? If Turkey is crapping its collective pants from the fear of living so close to crazy-ass Saddam, how come they aren’t paying us?
And whats this I hear about knuckling under to thier demands about the Kurds? Jeez, what is that, the tenth time somebody sold out the Kurds this year?
What does this kind of thing say about the “coalition of the willing”? Not much, in my book. To be sure, much of this is offset by the confidence of knowing that we enjoy the full weight of Bulgaria’s support. Regretably, this rosy outlook was darkened by the addition of Italy to the allied cause. If History is any guide, we should initiate surrender negotiations with Saddam at once. Perhaps we can get off with just ceding Mexico to him.
Well, if truth be told, the term “shaking down” did cross my mind. But in a thread in which I was principally defending the viability of the UN, I thought I’d stick to diplomatic terminology ;).
**
From Link #1 (the BBC link):
From Link #2, in the about 100 column inches on modern Israeli history, from the “atlas” link (which is actually an encyclopedia):
Reading is fundamental. But I guess taking glib but erroneous pot-shots is more fun than digging up cites, right? At least you’ve got a fan in ElvisL1ves.
I’ll await your cites, particularly the ones pointing out how the countries you described acted unprovoked. After that’s annihilated, we’ll deal with how those countries compare to Iraq in terms of being a potential security threat to the United States of America, and/or their region. Then we’ll address how those countries respond to unanimous international pressure to do a particular thing - whether all diplomatic efforts on a particular problem have failed.
You find me one that’s the equivalent of Iraq on all three points. Otherwise, quit making comparisons that are irrelevant. Or, knock yourself out.
Another drive-by from someone unable to admit he doesn’t have a case. Sad.
Elvis:
*I’m glad you brought this point up. Let me to explain my reasoning in more detail.
I’m aware that US decision-makers defended their attack on the Sudan by arguing that it was a response to the embassy bombings, and by claiming that they believed Al Shifa to be an Al-Qaeda chemical munitions plant. But I nevertheless argue that the strike was an unprovoked act of armed aggression against another state. Why? Simple: because the Sudan had not attacked the US. To understand my argument, consider the following scenario, in which the role of the protagonists in the story is reversed:
Let us imagine that there exists a Canadian citizen who, for reasons of his own, harbors an undying grudge against African blacks. He is an independently wealthy entrepreneur and has establish an underground terrorist network to fight against the influence of Africans in world affairs. One day, operatives in his network fire-bomb the Sudanese embassies in Stockholm and Paris.
The Sudanese government cannot pin the responsibility for these fire-bombings on any given state, of course, but they have information which leads them to believe that this particular Canadian has a significant financial investment in a “pharmaceutical factory,” probably a chemical munitions facility, near the coast in North Carolina. On the basis of this information, the Sudanese navy sends a warship to the US, violates US national waters, and lobs a missile at the factory in North Carolina, destroying it.
In your opinion, would such an action represent an act of unprovoked aggression against the US on the part of the Sudan? How might such an act be reasonably interpreted in the light of international law? How do you think the conservative flank of the US population would react to the attack? Is it legitimate for the Sudan to hold the US responsible for the act of a Canadian terrorist?
I argue that yes, it would be an act of unprovoked aggression against the US; that it would be interpreted as such; that the conservatives would howl for Sudanese blood; and that it would not be legitimate for the Sudan to hold the US responsible for an act of terror committed by a Canadian. If these arguments are correct, they must also apply in the reverse, real-life scenario: the US attack against the Sudan cannot be justified as a legitimate response to embassy bombings committed by an unrelated third-party.
*Thank you!
Milo:
Oh, I see. We’re going to be like that, are we.
One would be hard pressed to locate a more telling example of the relations between pots and kettles. But for the record, yes, in the “100 column inches” encyclopedia history you cited, and which I skimmed last night at about 1:30 in the morning, I failed to find that single sentence on the Iraqi attack.
Let me pause to point out that cites which support a point not in contention are actually totally irrelevant to the debate at hand. Or, in other words, what part of the sentence, “I’m aware of the Iraqi attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, and do not content their occurence,” do you not understand, bright-boy?
But, okay. You want a cite-war, we’ll have a cite war.
With regard to the Chinese invasion of Tibet, an internationally-recognized act of unprovoked aggression perpetrated by the Chinese state, go
here,
here,
here (an interesting comparison of Chinese/Tibetan relations to those of Israel/Palestine),
and, for a particularly detailed historical account of the events, [here](http://www.zeal.com/exit.jhtml; jsessionid=QPC0O2TLTDFSDLAQQA1GIMVMCCADSZ10?cid=10129765&wid=60762086&so=&xr=/category/preview.jhtml%3Fcid%3D10129765).
You know, I have to admit that I feel pretty silly defending the claim that the Chinese invasion of Tibet was an unprovoked act of interstate aggression; I thought it was common knowledge. Note with regard to this claim in particular, from the first site above, the following:
and
[QUOTE]
** [ul][li]Reprisals for the 1959 National Uprising alone involved the elimination of 87,000 Tibetans by the Chinese count, according to a Radio Lhasa broadcast of 1 October 1960. [/li][li]Tibetan exiles claim that 430,000 died during the Uprising and the subsequent 15 years of guerrilla warfare. [/li][li]Some 1.2 million Tibetans are estimated to have been killed by the Chinese since 1950. [/li][li]The International Commission of Jurists concluded in its reports, 1959 and 1960, that there was a prima facie case of genocide committed by the Chinese upon the Tibetan nation. These reports deal with events before the Cultural Revolution. Chinese Justice: Protest and Prisons [/li][li]Exile sources estimate that up to 260,000 people died in prisons and labour camps between 1950 and 1984.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
**…crimes far worse than anything perpetrated by Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait, and arguably as brutal as anything he has done to his own civilian population, or the Kurds.
And yet, China enjoys “most favored nation status” in it trade relations with the US.
Regarding relations between Russia and Chechnya (at last! I learned how to spell it!), please feel free to view this interesting timeline, or read the articles here and here. Another interesting article on the situation can be found here. Naturally, one’s perception of the situation in Chechnya depends on one’s view of whether or not Chechnya’s claim of national sovereignty is legitimate; but as you can see, Russia choose to deal with the issue by invading Chechnya, rather than via negotiations.
With regard to the US and the Al Shifa bombing, see my cite, above. I will return with more cites on Panama and related issues as time allows.
Now – I wonder if he’ll ever answer any of the questions I’ve asked him over the course of this debate?
Cute.
Mr. Svinlesha, I had not intended to debate that point with you, but I’ll be happy to indulge you. Given the intelligence that the US had at the time about the Sudan factory and its purpose, and inferring the obvious from it, that Sudan either tolerated it or could not stop it. That left it to the people threatened by it (remember the Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam embassy bombings, please) to take care of the problem. The attack would only have been an act of aggression against Sudan itself if it had led to anything beyond that against Sudan itself, or even had been intended to. Isolated acts aren’t necessarily aggressive by themselves; patterns of actions can be.
Since you ask, yes, I’d apply the same conceptual principles to the scenario you invented. But that couldn’t happen because the US would darn well know, or find out if asked, what the factory was doing ahead of time and how to tell the people who needed to know.
Care to discuss baby milk factories next?
Hey elucidator, I thought you’d appreciate this excerpt from a Times article on Turkish recalcitrance.
" In private, though, administration officials were fuming, with one senior official calling the Turkish efforts to hold out for more aid and perhaps access to oil from the Kirkuk region of Iraq as “extortion in the name of alliance.” Another said that despite a stream of aid from the United States, “the Turks seem to think that we’ll keep the bazaar open all night.”
** ElvisL1ves:**
No, I am saying that because the UN has decided not to enforce this resolution they lose the ability to enforce ANY resolution. They give away their legitimacy by not enforcing their own rulings. In other words, don’t say it if you don’t mean it and when you do decide to say something, say what you mean.
As far as Bush is concerned, he is merely attempting to make the UN live up to its claims. Nobody feels that Saddam is in line with 1441, so why don’t we see the dire consequences that the resolution calls for. Instead they need another resolution to state that he is in violation??? Come on – call it what it is.
The moderate liberals, the moderates and the moderate conservatives all seem to have a pretty good grasp of the situation, they just happen to focus on different things. It is the very small minority extremists of both sides that have the views that I feel are most out of line with reality.
Mandelstam:
There isn’t just circumstantial evidence, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence. The problem with using evidence of this nature is that at the end, your conclusions can only be tenuous. The more circumstantial evidence you gather (if it all points to the same conclusion) the lower the probability that the conclusion is in error. With the amount of evidence that has been gathered and presented, circumstantial or not, there is little real doubt that a connection does exist.
Oh, my crystal ball seems to be doing just fine so far 
Seriously, Bush won’t let Saddam remain in control of the country. He can’t. He has stated too many times that Saddam is personally evil and is personally a threat to our country, his own country and the world. If he moves this into a war, and I think he will, then the only way he can win is if Saddam is no longer in control of the country. I don’t think it matters if he dies is imprisoned or ends up on the run hiding out in the same cave as Bin Ladden.
As for my prediction of Saddam not allowing UN troops into Iraq, I was thinking more of US troops than UN troops, but I don’t think it will happen either way. Who knows though, I may be wrong.
I am aware of that too. I wish that they were correct, but I think the chances as so remote that they may as well not exist. I too am no fan of war, and am even less a fan of watching innocents die, but if I have to watch then I would rather they not be my countrymen.
Fine lets face facts. Containment doesn’t work. Inspections don’t work unless the other party is willing to drop his pants and let you look. Most of the left absolutely hates anything remotely similar to immigration controls, and so immigration laws will never be able to secure our boarders (you think I am joking but research some of the companies that the Ford Foundation gives money to and you’ll see look here for their public page.: http://www.fordfound.org/program/program_main.cfm . ) The ‘war on terror’ is many things, but mostly it is visible. We do seem to be finding the bad guys before they can unleash sarrin in the UK, so maybe there is more going on then just a preparation for war.
You ask if containment would get better and I reply it couldn’t possibly get worse.
Not so – I ask what you are willing to do to ensure that a situation like the one I described doesn’t develop. I make no claim that it will or that it is likely only that it is one of the possible situations that needs to be considered before we take your approach. I also don’t claim that a war and the post war rebuilding will be easy, painless or cheap. But we know that it will work. Look at Japan, Germany and Italy if you don’t agree. My biggest problem with the those who want peace at any price is they often fail to consider the price – and it’s always higher than you think.
You ask me if I know the cost for war and I say within a reasonable range I do. Do you know the price for peace?
I believe that France/Germany/Russia will back the war. Reread my earlier posts, I said they would then. What I am arguing is that EVERYONE knows that a war will be required to solve this, but nobody has accepted the costs of doing what needs to be done, so the costs keep going up.
France and Russia cannot negotiate openly (and we wouldn’t know if there were secretly) with Iraq without being seen across the world as delaying for economic reasons. Instead, they hold onto their billion dollar agreements. As for Turkey, telling the US that it needs to pay to use their bases is fine by me. They aren’t standing in the way of things for economic gain, they are facilitating things for economic gain. VERY different approaches, don’t you think?
In reality, however, I don’t think they are motivated primarily by money either (and I hope I didn’t give that impression). But, as in the case of the USA, it is a motivating factor. I think that an anti-US political position is the primary motivating factor. France wants to be the key figure in the EU and they see the US as a threat to that position, therefore, anything that hurts the US is political gold. The German chancellor on the other hand, just got elected because of the anti-US position he took during the election. If he backs us easily know how will it look to his country?
Tangentially, I hope that after a post like this, you don’t think that the US is motivated primarily by money. I reread your posts here and found no indication of such, so I will continue to hold to that hope.
These:
Well, he is wrong, the world agrees that he is wrong and these were your words. Like I said, they know that he is a danger, that he is in violation of their mandates and that he is unwilling to comply. They just won’t do what needs done.
Here I think we have a different perspective rather than a different opinion. I believe it is quite likely, given appropriate intelligence, and in a general sense, to have information about internal affairs that would be equivalent to action in fact. I do not say that this is the case we are dealing with, however.
Intervention to what end, however? Are trade sanctions intervention? Just to make sure we’re still talking about military force here. A clarification only.
Conceivable, but not conceived? I suppose I just wonder how far you think the UNSC should be able to probe, and if its full force extends to those same lengths, or if neither question has a clear-cut answer.