No, it’s a statement that you can’t take what Powell says in public at face value any more than you can take what any other administration official does. Just because he’s beating the drums in public now doesn’t mean he means it.
Some here, though, are using his credibility on other matters to support their claims that war is necessary immediately, no matter what the UN teams find, and it’s that suggestion that I’m cautioning against.
There was no whoosh, and you know it, pally.
You attempted to dismiss Milossarian’s entire argument by bringing up some ridiculous hyperbole about nuking them. I called you on it.
Hey, there goes another whoosh, buckaroo.
Or maybe you need it spelled out at a more elementary level. Milo is clearly one of those many (in a shrinking minority, mind) who have determined in advance what they want to happen, and is looking for any pretext to do it. That’s natural for those who persist in automatically believing anything Bush says at face value, despite the many occasions when that approach has proven mistaken.
The rationalization has degenerated from “Saddam is gonna get us with those weapons of mass destruction if we don’t take him out right fuckin’ away, no matter what anyone else thinks or what the consequences are !”, through several iterations involvinig cooperation sufficiently satisfying “regime change” and “The UN has to show it has balls”, to “They’re not helping us enough to find the stuff we just know is there, so we gotta take him out right fuckin’ away, no matter what anyone else thinks or what the consequences are!” You know what the logical result of that testosterone-based “reasoning” is, and it’s what I said - as you know, pally.
As the late Ann Landers used to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee.”
So, basically, you dismissing Milo’s entire argument because you don’t like Milo. There’s a name for this, but I can’t seem to remember it…
Beagle:
I think we’re on the same wavelength. Half-hearted military actions are usually a disaster (think Vietnam). Shit, Saddam invaded another country!! I like the model of Germany and Japan post WWII. We were mortal enemies then, but close allies now.
As the winter timeframe for war gets eroded, seems like our leaders are getting shriller and shriller. I don’t think Bush is bluffing with his military buildup. If, somehow, Saddam flees or otherwise case, Bush will go down as one of the greatest military strategists. I don’t think that will happen. Remember the scorched earth policy as the Iraqis left Kuwait? As I said in another thread, I expect war in February, and that it will take about 60 days after we start for us to declare victory.
How we handle the situation after the war is what will determine whether it was a success.
Elvis, I must’ve missed where Milo said any of those things in his OP. Looked to me like he was saying Iraq appears to him to be clearly noncompliant with UNSC resolutions. He also predicted that war is imminent. The implication in his conclusion was that war is the proper response. However, the hysteria you attribute to the OP is purely your invention.
Thus, a strawman.
But thanks for playing.
Colin Powell has been around the block many times, enough to know how to say no even when saying yes. We’ve seen him really take control of this whole process, even persuading Bush to go to the UN in spite of what everyone else on his cabinet was supporting, which was going in there with a coalition of the willing, and forgetting the UN. Now, Powell is rather aggressively suggesting that even he, the lone dove, will become hawkish in short order if Saddam continues as he has done. I respect that perseverance alone, but also the fact that he is a veteran, of course, and his integrity is unimpeachable. His word is as good as gold.
Bingo. I hate having to rely on military officers not following orders.
If this thing turns into a conflagration, that explains why I get sick to my stomach when I think about fighting Saddam. I’m not sure that his willingness to destroy indiscriminately is a good reason not to fight him though.
Moreover, I don’t like the concept of preemptive war. The idea that Iraq poses a direct threat to the United States in the near term seems far-fetched. Of course, proven Iraqi support of terrorism would change the equation.
If we just call it Gulf War II: Unfinished Business - that would at least make sense. Not to be overly flip, but as we have discussed dealing with Saddam longterm is not a great plan.
I agree that our actions during and especially after the war will be scrutinized both here and abroad. As they should be. Another reason to be nervous is the necessity, length, and violence of any occupation. I don’t know that anyone can truly predict what will happen.
xeno, contrast and compare:
with;
“I think one can conclude that the inspectors are doing a great job which should definitely go on… War is no alternative.” - Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister
“I think it is the opinion of most of the members that since we have started this process and there is no clear reason to stop it, that we should continue.” - Zhang Yishan, Chinese deputy ambassador to the UN
“[It is] important that the inspectors’ work be carried out within the time needed.” - Dominique de Villepin, French foreign minister
“The inspectors are there. Iraq is under scrutiny… Why the rush to war? Is it too much to invest some time in peace?” - Yahya Mahmassani, Arab League representative at the UN
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2699709.stm
I don’t feel “marginalised” as Milo claims, I feel utterly in the mainstream of UK and international opinion: No rush to judgment, let the Inspectors do their work. Anything else is a shrill rush to judgment.
Let me put it this way: We don’t need a smoking gun.
The U.N. can set greenhouse emmision standards or negotiate trade embargos till the cows come home. This is about the security of the United States. This is about 9/11. And 9/11 is NOT a top priority to the U.N. It never will be.
After 9/11 President Bush stated that this was a war on global terrorism and that it would not be simple, quick, or easy. Well guess what that means kids? It means that its going to involve such things as destroying the anti-US, terrorist supporting regime of Iraq. Why? To help prevent the deaths of more Americans at the hands of terrorists.
What would Iraq have to do to prevent a war? Oust Saddam, denounce international terrorism, and pledge support in the US’s fight against it. Somehow I don’t think they’re going to do any of those.
So guess what else? We’re going to make them. At the threat of a bayonet to their neck if necessary.
Is this totally self-serving and pro-US? You bet your ass it is. That’s what our government and in particular what our military is for. And September 11th does not make it imperialism, it makes it self-defense and self-preservation.
Gulf War II, exactly. On the whole, though, I do not like the idea of going to war in Iraq. I think it will make us more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism. I “pitty the fool” terrorist who has to get his weapons from Iraq. There are much better and easier places to get them (hint: Former Soviet Union). Gee, I hope I haven’t accidentally given Osama some advice…
Kind of a funny stance to hold. I believe we can justifiable invade Iraq, but I still don’t think we should do it. I will support our troops, though, once the firing begins.
Elvis, I can listen with an open mind on this subject. If you take issue with the points raised by Milo then I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. Your (and Milo’s) arguments will stand or fall based on their merits. Ad hominem attacks or outright dismissal of the opposition’s stance sheds no light.
Grim
London Calling, I took Milo’s point to be that US and British administration actions are about to make our opinions, however mainstream, rather moot. I agree with him, about that. (I just think it makes our respective governments resemble the “rogue nations” we so despise in our rhetoric.)
I don’t like the concept either. But the support of terrorism, depending on how much weight you give to the anecdotal evidence out there, reverses the equation outright to one of self-defense. I have more trouble disbelieving reports of terrorist links than I do believing them (without hearing much of anything from the administration itself) so I guess I’ve been sold for a while.
Now I’m busy hoping the Saudi plan of regime change gets rolling at the eleventh hour, and we don’t have to go through with it. That’s a strange position to hold too.
Sorry I was gone most of the day.
London Calling:
**
Your “rooting around” comment indicates to me that you see these inspections in the light that I, apparently wrongly, assumed all were in agreement the U.N. inspections were not to be.
Could you please answer this question?:
Because I don’t know how anybody can honestly look at what’s been going on - the facts of what has transpired as cited by Blix and Elbaradei, not Bush and Rumsfeld - and reach the conclusion that inspections are working and Iraq is complying with 1441.
Has Iraq been forthright and proactive in its disclosures, as spelled out by Blix and Elbaradei today? Those two men seemed to say, “they haven’t been cooperating, but we are hopeful that they will see the light, and become so.”
Bush is saying, “Give me a break! Saddam has a track record decades long; and is not about to change.”
Bush can put up a whole lot more evidence for his position than Blix and Elbaradei can.
If inspections do continue, and Iraq is not found not to be fully forthright and proactive in disclosures, what do you propose then, London Calling?
Some would dispute that 11 years = a rush to war.
And one person’s “shrillness” is another’s fact-after-fact outlining Iraq’s lack of compliance.
As Colin Powell said today, “The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark. It is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and to come clean. And the answer is not much more time. Iraq’s time for choosing peaceful disarmament is fast coming to an end.”
(Full transcript of Powell’s remarks today, in light of the U.N. presentation.)
xeno:
Thank you for both my defense in my absence from Elvis L1ves’ … well, from what Elvis L1ves likes to do. And for exactly clarifying what I meant about the ‘marginalized’ comment.
But I have indeed seen the “no war at any cost in Iraq” crowd’s argument shift as the sand shifts beneath their feet. If you’d like, I’ll dig up all the “where’s the evidence? where’s the evidence?” statements from not very long ago. U.N. officials provided evidence today. They provided evidence of material breaches by commission, and by omission.
Now the argument by this group seems to be, “Well, yes, they are violating 1441. But that doesn’t justify a military action.”
I recognize that some don’t see a threat posed by Saddam Hussein having this stuff. Or they see it as a contained threat. Others, including me, profoundly disagree. What Blix and Elbaradei had to say today made me more concerned about the questions on WOMD that Iraq can’t seem to answer. Not less concerned.
And re-read the wording of the resolutions. Saddam Hussein gets no benefit of the doubt here. These are not passive inspections. Iraq was to be proactive in disarming itself. Not only is it not being so; it is playing the same games, telling the same lies, making the same obfuscations as it has for more than a decade. It is, once again, thumbing its nose at the U.N. What’s the U.N. going to do about it? The U.N. can marginalize itself and not do anything, if it so chooses. The USA, on the other hand, which feels a higher degree of concern over this, has the capability to take care of it itself (well, with a “coalition of the willing,” as they say). Some say this will greatly damage the U.S.'s credibility in foreign diplomacy. I’d say the ones whose credibility is being damaged are Russia, China, France and Germany. I guess time will tell.
**
I can’t see anything Saddam Hussein has done in more than a decade that warrants “economic and social engagement.” Can you explain it to me?
According to the U.S. State Department,
BTW, those statements were made in 1999, under the Clinton administration.
Some people seem to make the mistake of thinking those who think military action is necessary “like” war. I am extremely concerned by the stance being taken by Russia, France, Germany and China. If there is no meaningful consequence from doing what Saddam Hussein is doing; if the world shows it doesn’t have the fortitude to go to war if necessary to quash a threat; I think it sends a dangerous signal to despots and terrorist sympathizers out there. The message is to hide, delay, lie, obfuscate, play public relations games and hide your soldiers among civilians and your weapons under hospitals and orphanages. Your enemy doesn’t have the stomach to do anything meaningful about it.
I and many others reject the notion that America or any other nation is bound to wait until innocents are attacked in order to take action, in a case such as Iraq’s. It has a track record; the world has told it what it expects; it is not complying; and it is obvious.
Hail Ants said
A demand like that would seem to be contrary to UN resolutions(it’s in most but from 1441):
Demanding a change in government and to follow US foreign policy don’t exactly reflect a commitment to Iraqi sovereignty.
Milo – I think I can respond to your post in one go:
Look Milo, let me say this; I think the game is over for Saddam. I think he won’t wriggle out of this and that’s no bad thing. What I am absolutely convinced of, however, is that we have to do what we do by the book. That is; legally and through the UN - to do, and be seen to do, as per UN Resolutions. Here’s why:
I think Saddam knows the game’s over for him and his goal now, if it must be, is for him and – this is important - his country (the big screen version, if you will) to become martyrs; a rallying point against the invading capitalist, Christian, crusading Infidels, for …whoever; radical Islam, disenfranchised countries looking to blame the greedy first-world. He wants to point up the injustices, the bullying, the rape of developing world resources, the disrespect and abuse of Islam, etc., etc. All of that can be represented by mullah’s across the world if we charge into Iraq with unnecessary haste – they can use that for decades to radicalize the uneducated and impressionable: Iraq will be a rallying call like the friggin’ Alamo.
I don’t want to have to deal with decades of potential suicide bombers if more patience * right now *can avoid that possibility: We’ve not seen an entire country martyred (before) as he’d like to do Iraq.
And it’s not about radical individuals, we also need to try and retain the respect of countries sympathetic to Saddam’s views – and there are many: Like with 9/11, you don’t have to support the tactics to believe in the cause: Saudi, Pakistan…I guess the list is reasonably long
So, for me, it’s about getting the end game right because if we don’t, we face an unnecessarily complicated and riskier future.
Of course, Bush sees it differently. He wants it over, to boost the economy and get a second term – it’s Bush who’s on a tight timescale here and I’m deeply unhappy at risking a safer future for him.
I say it’s a time for cool heads and a long game.
One can make a case against war, but one cannot use the word “rush.” Saddam has been playing games with the UN since he surrendered in 1991 – 12 years ago! That’s not a rush; it’s a crawl. Where would we be if the allies had waited 12 extra years before taking up arms against Hitler? You’d be speaking German, and I’d be gassed to death.
All other things being equal, everyone would prefer to “do what we do by the book. That is; legally and through the UN - to do, and be seen to do, as per UN Resolutions.” In order for this to happen, the UN has to do what it needs to do, and authorize action. As the OP so eloquently points out, Saddam is in multiple material breech of Resolution 1441. In the past the UN has tried additional resolutions and sanctions. Neither has worked. It’s time for the UN to move.
Unfortunately, the UN will not authorize the next step, except under enormous pressure from the US. And, given France’s veto power, they may not authorize military action at all. If they fail to do so, either the US and its allies must act outside the UN or the world must resign itself to a nuclear Saddam. Two ugly choices. I prefer the former.
Saddam Hussein’s government is more of an occupying power right now than the US would be if we removed him and took over. We could (and would) do more to promote true Iraqi sovereignty (i.e. of the Iraqi people) than Saddam has done in 30+ years of dictatorial rule.
And again, regardless of what the U.N. thinks, any govt that cheered the actions of 9/11 recinded its right to sovereignty.
L_C - Fair enough.
However, you appear to be assigning the worst possible motives to George W. Bush. And you imply that you are aware that Saddam Hussein is playing a game with these inspections. But you want the world to stay the course, to go at it longer, to … what, exactly?
You said:
**
Here is U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.
Iraq has failed to comply with it. I’ve outlined how, with specificity. If you disagree, I would appreciate if you would do the same.
The U.N.'s credibility wanes with every “really, really, this is the final and last chance Iraq has to comply.”
This tends to indicate Saddam Hussein might not be a very effective martyr:
I grant you that the primary cause of their communique is to avert war. But there is an acknowledgement that Saddam is not following the U.N. resolutions.
But if the U.N. Security Council won’t make Iraq comply with the U.N. Security Council’s resolutions, and the United States sees it and its interests jeopardized by this inaction, what can and should it do?