And just how frightened were you a short three moths ago before this whole hoopla began? IIRC, it was a different boogeyman at the time. Or are you also curently scared of say, China, NK, Pakistan and India, just to name a few potential nuclear enemies? If so, should they be next in line for “regime changes”? Makes sense if you believe in the new World Supremacy Policy. Go on a killing spree so you can sleep better at night. If you can get them all before they can get to you of course.
Personally, what scares the hell out of me are all the warmongering madmen currently occupying the White House. They seem to be getting ready to unleash the most terrifying chain of events humanity has ever known. And way too many Americans are cheering them on.
And just how frightened were you a short three moths ago before this whole hoopla began? IIRC, it was a different boogeyman at the time. Or are you also curently scared of say, China, NK, Pakistan and India, just to name a few potential nuclear enemies? If so, should they be next in line for “regime changes”? Makes sense if you believe in the new World Supremacy Strategy. Go on a killing spree so you can sleep better at night. If you can get them all before they can get to you of course.
Personally, what scares the hell out of me are all the warmongering madmen currently occupying the White House. They seem to be getting ready to unleash the most terrifying chain of events humanity has ever known. And way too many Americans are cheering them on.
How many more times do we have to go over this old chestnut – Clinton/Allbright withdrew the UNSCOM Inspectors, they were not “tossed out”. And before you ask (as you surely weren’t going to…), yep, it’s a little strange that one nation unilaterally decided to end a UN mission but, hey, it pretty much sums up the smoke and mirrors bullshit of UNSCOM’s manipulated (by all parties, especially the US and Saddam) mission as well as its subsequent demise.
I’ll give you partial credit, London, and admit I was exaggerating. The UNSCOM mission was ordered out by Butler after Iraq unilaterally (the new word of the day, apparently) imposed new restrictions on the mission and the US began building up a military presence there and ordered its civilian personnel out of the area. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Iraq knew that the new restrictions would bring some sort of military response from the US and result in having UNSCOM pulled out.
But hey, maybe all of this could have been avoided if Europe would do something besides yammer and protect its energy ties in Iraq and Iran.
**YDNRC. If you go back 3 months on this board you will find me saying the same thing about the danger of Iraq nukes.
China’s government has been expansionist (e.g., Tibet), but not to the degree Iraq has. Also China has behaved cautiously. India is a sensible democracy. Pakistan worries me – not the current government, but the possibility that a radical group could take power and control their nuclear arsenal .
Where is the logic to your argument? Do you really believe that the existance of other problems other means we should do nothing about Iraq? Let’s try this in other spheres:
*-- Thousands of Amercans die of cancer, so we should ignore Iraq.
– AIDS is a world wide pandemic, so we should ignore Iraq.*
Or, maybe we should turn the “argument” around:
– Iraq is working to devleop nuclear weapons, so we should do nothing about AIDS*
This recent article from RAND suggests Iraq has already had enough lead time to hide its weapons by the time the UN gets there, and that the UN inspectors are not likely to be successful unless the UN is able to interview scientists without Iraqi agents being present.
It also mentions that the ambiguous language surrounding the term “unconditional” is part of Saddam’s delaying tactic.
Not so much oil, mainly natural gas reserves. But some oil. And you have to be kidding me if you think that economic and strategic resource interests don’t play a heavy part in European policy making. But please, believe that Europeans governments are only interested in lofty ideals and humanitarian concerns when they formulate policy if it helps you sleep at night.
As for Iraq. Well, they restricted the movements because they accused them of spying for the US and the Zionist oppressors.
Don’t you think it’s really the reverse? That is,* Iraq accused them of spying for the US and the Zionists because they wanted an excuse to restrict the inspectors movements.*
Well, we saw what the UN responded with: “Well, we can probably be there in six months or so…” Surely Saddam couldn’t hide his WMDs by then. And surely he won’t be continuing to develop nukes until then. And surely he won’t use the interim to try to stall and bend the rules to his favor.
The truth is, Saddam giving us permission to conduct “unconditional inspections” wasn’t the only, or even the main ultimatum given by Bush to the UN. Frankly, the inspections in and of themselves aren’t terribly useful. Iraq’s a big place, and there are an infinite number of places to stash weapons. And if by sheer luck the inspectors happen to fall over a site that’s storing nukes, it would be a trivial matter for Saddam to move them using traditional stall tactics:
Inspector: “We have reason to believe you’re storing NBCs in that mosque.”
Iraqi: “gasp Surely you’re not suggesting we would stoop to such levels. Asking to search our sacred temples is an affront to our religion! I refuse!”
Inspectors report that Saddam refuses to allow access to a mosque. While the red tape is being sorted out, over the course of a couple days, Saddam has the weapons moved out of the church through secret underground tunnels, then has the tunnels sealed.
Inspector: “Let us in, or we bomb the place.”
Iraqi: “Well, well, no need to get huffy. If you put it that way, of course you may come in!”
Since I probably won’t have time to address every objection that has been raised against my arguments in the debate thus far, I will start by responding to those proffered by Neurotik (the aptly-named?), who is clearly the most strident critic of my position. Some of these responses, however, will be relevant to counter-arguments made by others.
Neurotik:
Regarding the claim that the US government is an unreliable negotiating partner, that’s merely an opinion I have, based on too many general examples to enumerate, and a side issue as well. You’re welcome to have the opposite opinion if you like, and I won’t even ask for a cite in support.
In response to this:
*Well, there are many well-documented and obvious examples to support my claim. The most obvious, of course, is the US-backed UN decision to bomb Iraq in the first place. As you probably know, this decision was based on the fact that Iraq had violated Article 2 of the UN Charter, which states (amongst other things):
Clearly, in invading Kuwait, Iraq violated the principles of the Charter quoted above. The US, along with the rest of the world community, held Iraq rightly accountable according to the standards of international law, and if there’s any serious disagreement concerning that, I’m not aware of it.
However, how are we to interpret US actions that are on par with those of Iraq? Let us take, for example, the US invasion of Panama, which was roundly condemned by the world community as a violation of Article 2 – something that the UN Security Council would certainly have acted upon, had it not been for the fact that the US sits on the Council as permanent member. Understandably, the US representative on the Security Council always sanctions actions undertaken by the US government, even when they clearly contradict Charter commitments. It is for this reason, quite simply, and none other – i.e., that as a permanent member of the SC, the US can always veto any resolutions drafted against it – that one can safely assert that the US has never broken a “legally-binding” Security Council resolution. Not surprisingly, we can say the same for the other 4 permanent members as well.
But at the same time, as I hope you understand, the argument that the US has never broken a Security Council resolution, while Iraq has, is a non-starter as a pretext for military action. In doing so, proponents of such action are simply using some legal technicalities, along with serious flaws built into the structure of the UN, as a kind of blanket excuse for bombing raids. As long as the US has a monopoly (along with the other Big 4) on the interpretation of the Charter’s articles, it can (and will) always interpret them in manner that favors US policies. Thus, with regard to the Panama invasion, the US representative at the time invoked Article 51 of the Security Councils mandate, which allows states to defend themselves militarily if they are attacked. By his interpretation, the US was merely defending itself militarily from Panamanian aggression.
There are numerous other examples of my point. The US bombing of Libya, and the invasion of Grenada, are two that leap to mind immediately. That’s not to include the countless covert operations that the US has pursued around the globe, all of which would qualify as violations of Article 2 if they were a matter of official policy. Now, with Bush’s latest foreign policy statement, the right of the US to strike “preemptively” against other states – in direct contradiction to Article 2 – has been pronounced as official US policy. This is clearly an example of privilege; the US claims that other states must play by the rules (the UN Charter), but reserves for itself the right to break them when it sees fit.
Since the General Assembly has no recourse when permanent members of the Security Council violate fundamental articles of the Charter, they are reduced to protesting such actions by means of resolutions that, as you and Sua have rightly pointed out, are not binding. They do, however, carry some moral authority, especially when a majority of the Assembly condemns a specific act that clearly contradicts Charter commitments. If we take the phrase “legally binding,” applied to the sphere of international politics, as relating to the Articles set forth in the Charter, then US has time and again violated such “legally binding” agreements – even though, as a permanent member of the SC, it can always get away with it.
Do you see my point?
With regard to this:
*Its no news that Iraq is “worse” than Israel, and I can’t imagine who would disagree with that. I never claimed that Israel had violated international law by not ratifying the NPT. I agree completely that violations of the NPT are serious and should have consequences – this point is not in dispute. Rather, the question here is – what sort of consequences? Do violations of the NPT justify military action?
Yes, yes, we all hate the French (probably because they are so much like the rest of us, only more so). If we uncover semi-solid evidence that the French have violated the NPT, do you think we should bomb them?
*As an aside, I would just like to assert that had I stated “Iraqi weapons programs are a primary incitement for other countries in the region to develop their own nuclear arsenals,” as one in a series of arguments justifying action against Iraq, I seriously doubt you would have raised an eyebrow. That an aggressive weapons research program in one state tends to drive other states in the region to pursue similar programs, as a matter of self-defense or for the purposes of strategic advantage, is of course so self-evident that I find it difficult to believe anyone would seriously question it. We certainly don’t question such statements when they are made in relation to official enemies – so why the demand for extensive documentation when they are made about official allies?
*I am absolutely not saying that. The CDI report cited above, for example, also notes:
*My assertion is merely that when considering this issue, it would be hypocritical of us to ignore the effect Israel’s nuclear weapons programs on the power balance in the region, and lay all blame for the situation at the feet of the Arabs (or Persians).
In reference to this:
This is of course an important consideration, and many people interpret the cease-fire agreement in this manner. I assume, considering your expertise in these matters, that you have read the terms of the agreement yourself, fully understand the implications of the agreement within the context of international law, have literally hundreds of cites at the ready to back up your interpretation of these facts, and are merely waiting for me to ask. Just out of curiosity, what provisions are made, within the agreement itself, for consequences should its terms not be met? No doubt you can answer this simple question in your sleep.
Naturally, we do not take into account violations of the agreement that might have been perpetrated by our side. Which clause in the agreement give the US and Britain the right, for example, to expand the no-fly zone from the 31st to the 32nd parallel? Inquiring minds want to know.
To my knowledge, these points are not relevant to the question at hand, namely in what sense it can be asserted that the US has supported the indigenous democratic movements within Iraq.
*I assume that’s a swipe at the democrats. Swipe away. Daniel Pipes, writing in the Wall Street Journal in 1991, lists some reasons why it was considered strategically unsound at that time to continue with military operations. Noting that Desert Storm had been a limited venture from the beginning, he argues that:
*Such was the state of official US policy thinking in 1991. My how times change, don’t they?
If this was the UN response, our action could be to ask them if they didn’t hear what was said. The UN enforcing its resolutions promptly is vital for that body to be relevant at all. You seem to imply that since this response, if it were actually ever made (and you didn’t provide a cite), doesn’t suit, the only action is for us to start the bombs.
So what was the “main ultimatum?”
I have never conducted an inspection for nuclear manufacturing capability, and I suppose you haven’t either. However, I’ve been around a few factories. My guess is that someone who is experienced at atom bomb manufacturing technology doesn’t have to actually see a bomb to know whether or not the capability is present.
“B” movie scenario. Maybe even “C.” Fanciful hypotheticals just won’t advance the discussion.
It looks to me like GW’s dilletante nature has come to the forefront. A year ago it was all (paraphrased) - * We’ll get bin Laden dead or alive. We’ll go anyplace to root out these terrorist cells. They can’t hide. The war on terrorists is our main job. * However, that has turned out to be a really, really hard program to carry out and it requires constant attention to niggling details. So what does a dilletante do? Well, when this job palls, you switch to that job. An army using artillery and bombs is effective against a centralized government like the Taliban. It isn’t worth a damn against a scattered and clandestine opponent like al Qaeda. What’s the answer? Well, Hussein and his government form a centralized government against which an army is effective. We have an army all waiting and ready to go. Hussein is also an easy target since he is an easy guy to dislike and foment a prejudice against. The next step is as easy as ABC.
I’m reading this on my break at work right now, and I’ll have a more substantial reply later tonight after I get home and eat dinner (mmmm…ribs). This quote just happened to catch my eye.
Why would my comment be a swipe at Democrats? And what would something someone wrote in 1991 have anything to do with what I was talking about?
Let’s try it again:
See, I’m referring to 1998. So some article written in 1991 really has nothing to do with anything and will henceforth be disregarded. Second, since I am referring to 1998, the president was a Democrat named William Jefferson Clinton. And the political party making it difficult for him to take on various foreign policy initiatives without having dog-wagging accusations made against him was…gasp…the Republicans.
In fact, I was making a swipe at Republicans (well, Clinton, too, but let’s face it, there wasn’t much difference between them). But that wouldn’t fit your carefully constructed image of who I am, would it?
You do know what a cease-fire is, don’t you? It is not the end of hostilities, but instead a truce. Under a cease-fire, so long as the parties act in accordance with the terms of the cease-fire, the parties is forbidden to resume hostilities. However, if a party breaches the cease-fire, the cease-fire is null and void, and the parties to the cease-fire become belligerents again.
And that is the difference between Iraq and Israel. The UN has never said to Israel, “do X, Y, and Z, or we will kick your ass.” Thus, there is no basis in international law for the UN to kick Israel’s ass.
Just to be obnoxious, I’ll point out that he’s easy to dislike because he’s a fairly despiccable person. I wouldn’t call this a prejudice, by any means – he’s being judged for his actions, not pre-judged. He has very few goals other than the increase of his own authority. He admires notable Western military leaders greatly – Winston Churchill is apparently his idol. He doesn’t seem to have any particular ideology, other than “I am a great man, and I will prove this to the world.”. He’s a crappy military strategist, yet likes to get involved with these things.
He comes off to me as a hobbyist that likes to play strategy games, and managed to amass enough power to play them out on a grand scale. His lack of skill is both an advantage to the US (when he’s actually being attacked), and a danger (in that his poor decisions have often cost lives, and likely will continue to do so).
I don’t doubt that inspectors could look at a site that was once used to make nukes, for example, and has since had all equipment removed, and say, “Yup, there’s a good chance that this may have been a nuke factory.” And then what? We bomb the place based on an educated guess? Can you imagine the backlash if we did that? And then Saddam goes and makes a children’s nursery look like it may have once held nukes, and we bomb that, based on the same premise? There’s no realistic and diplomatic way to go about these inspections with a person who we know is actively trying to screw us.
Simmons:
Good idea. We’re not done with al Qaeda, so we’d best put the rest of the world on hold until we are. We better hope that we don’t need our military for the next couple centuries while we finish making sure that there’s not a single terrorist cell anywhere in the world.
I’ve heard from so many quarters that we ”should have finished when we had the chance,” i.e., during the Gulf War, that I misread your statement as a another version of that old chestnut. Sorry, my bad.
Just out of curiosity, what event are you referring to, in 1998?
Well, that was certainly a sharp observation. Cite?
Where’s a little devil smiley when you need one?
*I honestly haven’t constructed an image of who you are – after all, I don’t know you from jack. On the other hand I admit that, as a preliminary assumption, I placed you somewhere on the right of the political spectrum, because this debate tends to divide along that line – with right-wingers being pro-war, and lefties against.
But to be honest, political affiliation in this issue isn’t a particularly central concern of mine. As an ex-pat, I don’t participate in the polarized culture of US pop politics these days, and in fact, it’s been many a long year since I last did. I only get a taste of it here on the boards, when Dems and Reps start slinging shit at each other, and I find it to be a rather sterile pastime in general (although you’ve gotta admit, Bush provides a pretty target rich environment [if that’s the right phrase] for us lefties. He must be a real drag for the right to deal with. We’re talking major damage control unit here.).
Enjoy yer ribs; I await your response with interest.
I’m surprised that no one mentioned that Saddam’s ‘unconditional’ inspections turned out to have a whole bunch of conditions attached after all. No inspections of palaces and personal residences, inspections ‘that respect Iraq’s sovereignity’, inspections that ‘do not compromise Iraq’s need for security’.
How many more times do we have to do this song and dance before it becomes clear to everyone that this guy is playing a game?