And you’re all still missing the point that Glaspie flatly denies that she said what that transcript claims, and that the only source we have for it is the Iraqi government.
You’re also missing that the transcript states that Ms. Glaspie said, “My government has instructed me to inform you that we have no interest in Kuwait”, while the State Department documents show that there was no such instruction.
Again, if the only source is Saddam Hussein, why are you giving this story ANY credence at all?
The US intends to do exactly what you think the US would do with weaponized anthrax.
The strain used in the anthrax letters was the “Ames” (developed in Ames Iowa) strain. This strain was used by the Army and distributed to research labs in the US. Now it’s not completely out of the question that it made it’s way to Iraq, just highly unlikely. Moreover, apparently the work done on the strain seemed to rule out Iraq as the originator.
The trick to weaponizing bacterial strains is to refine them to the point where they are easily absorbed. Generally wild-type bacteria are “clumpy” and not easily inhaled. If you can refine them to a fine powder which floats, you’ve “weaponized” them.
Now if I had to guess from where the the mailed culture originated, it would be my opinion that it came out of a military research facility. This is also why I believe that the mailer has not been publicly caught. I think that the US military has no intention of embarrassing itself by revealing how easily stolen are its cultures.
Oh. I hadn’t understood that this was a part of the discussion regarding Saddam’s mental health. I thought you were merely replying to Shodan’s jab, earlier. Well, gloating, actually – and gloating rather shamelessly, I might add.
But anyway, regarding this point (and not to beat the horse dead), I seriously doubt that Glaspie had any option other than repeating the official US stance, particularly if she had not received special instructions before the meeting. A diplomatic representative cannot simply declare war on another country at whim. Her statements were clearly constrained by Baker’s instructions: we have no commitment with regard to Kuwait (not then an ”ally” of the US), and do not wish to become involved in a local border dispute. IMO, this can be reasonably interpreted as ”green-lighting” a limited Iraqi incursion; or as communicating that the US will probably not react militarily if Saddam uses his troops to wrest some disputed islands, and a small strip of borderland, from Kuwait.
As I see it, she simply got caught in the crossfire; she couldn’t have responded in any other way, and she failed to understand that Saddam was informing her, obliquely, of his plans to take all of Kuwait. But after the fact, the text of the meeting became politically exploitable, and was exploited, by Bush I’s political opponents. Beagle:
Ahh, that invincible conservative teflon coating. Nothing sticks.
Feel free to italicize phrases to your heart’s content. I’ll do you one better. Bucher states flatly, “The charge that Saddam still has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is wrong.” There, a triple-whammy – italics, underlined, and bolded, simultaneously. Beat that. Sam:
Oh. Is that what we’re missing? Glaspie, according to elucidator’s source, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that:
I have yet to see Glaspie ”flatly deny that she said what the transcript claims,” especially regarding the quoted section that is the source of contention. If you have more info than I do, though, please don’t hesitate to reveal it.
I already addressed that point, above; she had general instructions from Baker regarding the official US position on the Iraq-Kuwait border dispute. Barring any special instructions, then she’s simply repeating the government’s official line. Taken on its own, her statement is not particularly damning (IMO), and I don’t see why it should be a major point of contention.
*Because it is reasonable, and could be true; and because State, in rebutting it, does not claim that the transcript is false. Think about it, Sam. If the transcript was merely a fabrication, made up out of whole cloth, then why didn’t the State Department document you cite simply say so, and be done with it?
And speaking of missing the point…what’s your take on the claims your document makes regarding Iraq’s WMDs? light strand:
I just want to say that I’ve appreciated your input in this thread. Thanks for the clarification regarding “weaponized anthrax.” It strikes me as hypocrisy of the first order for the US government to invade a country because it is supposedly developing chemical/biological weapons, when the US is itself involved in precisely the same sort of research. Do you have more info on US chemical/biological weapons research, or know where I can find out about it?
Maybe Boucher is a mindless drone, or that is what I am starting to think. How could he make that statement and yet acknowledge that there is probably a hidden program?
The only thing I can do to reconcile the two statements is to question which “charge” he is talking about? Obviously, there is almost no evidence Saddam has a functioning nuclear device. In that sense, the statement is true. But, who does not think he has had chemical munitions for decades? Boucher, that’s who. Bioweapons fall somewhere in the obscure middle between the two. How could anyone say with confidence, given what we know about the program from UNSCOM, that there are no biological weapons. Obviously, you cannot.
Well, yeah. I mean, if you’re gonna lower yourself all the way down to gloating… Its like, if you’re gonna have to walk on thin ice, you might as well tap dance.
Oh, okay – so Boucher is a mindless drone when he claims there are no WMDs in Iraq, but a reliable source when he rebuts Perot, defends Glaspie, and justifies US actions prior to the Kuwait invasion?
Do you mean that we should simply believe that section of the document that supports our preconceptions, and discard that part that we don’t want to believe?
Or is it possible – just slightly possible – that documents originating from the US State Department are ever-so-slightly skewed, so as to cast the best possible light on US foreign policies?
Just broiled, with shallots and garlic, please, and let me see the wine list.
Look, I overstated both your position and my own as regards whatever Glaspie said in her interview with the Iraqis pre-Kuwait invasion. I apologize for that.
I still don’t think she actually said anything that could be construed as “You want to invade Kuwait? Go ahead and help yourself - we couldn’t care less here in the US.”
My impression, based on what the Iraqis claimed she said, and what she claims she either said or meant to say, is that they were pestering her about their disputes with Kuwait (as I understand it, they were slant-drilling into Iraqi oil), and (as your cite of the ambassador from the late 60s makes clear) the US does not have a position on who is right and who is wrong on stuff like that. Glaspie essentially tells them that, more than once, and since they are planning on invading anyway, they pretend that the US is giving them official carte blanche to help themselves to the whole country.
Essentially, you have two parties talking at cross-purposes, along with the traditional caution of a diplomat not wanting to commit her country to a course of action before consulting with her leaders. Obviously Glaspie didn’t have authority to tell Saddam, “If you set one foot across the borders and try to shut down the slant-drillers, we will bomb the piss out of you.”
Which would make sense out of her later quotes, where she makes it clear that she (along with everyone else) never expected that a full-fledged conquest of Kuwait was what the Iraqis had in mind.
Anyway, I understand that you cited this as an example of how Saddam is not a madman, since he got permission from (or at least consulted with) the US ambassador before he invaded. I overreacted to that part of your post. Again, sorry.
I guess I can’t be sure if the Iraqis seriously believed the US would do nothing when they invaded, or if they were looking for excuses after the fact.
I still think Saddam is a madman, and I would cite as evidence his willingness to invade another country and think the US would not act based on as thin an excuse as a misunderstood conversation with Glaspie.
That having been said, I would like to ask a question.
Would you say the evidence that Saddam is hiding WMD is as strong as the evidence that Glaspie gave him the go-ahead to invade Kuwait?
It is not a trick question. I am wondering if I am being as stubborn in my position as others are in theirs.
For instance, I never thought for a minute that Glaspie really said anything resembling “Saddam - grab for all you can in Kuwait.” Your cites do not convince me, and my position on this remains unchanged - that it was a combination of misunderstanding on Glaspie’s part, possibly deliberate misunderstanding by the Iraqis, the traditional caution of diplomacy, incredible megalomania by Saddam in believing that the US was giving permission for the invasion, and the eagerness after the fact to blame somebody in the US (witness the incredibly aggressive assumptions by the reporters in your cite - “How could you do that?” and so forth).
Is that what it is like on the other side of the debate?
I honestly don’t believe that it is reasonable to conclude that Saddam doesn’t really have, and is hding, weapons of mass destruction. I would estimate that the weight of the evidence for this is close to overwhelming. Likewise the evidence that Saddam is a dangerous man.
And therefore something has to be done.
Is there more to the other side of this debate than I am aware of?
Regards,
Shodan
PS - light strand - I would like to respond to your post, which I see, but I needed to respond to elucidator in the limited time I have this afternoon. I would like to return to this thread tomorrow, if I get a chance, and follow up.
A gentlemanly response demands the same. I regret over-reacting (well, not that much, I am in fact something of an asshole…truth be known, kinda enjoyed it…) and propose we return to the same condition of cordial disagreement as ante bellum Still think you’re full of beans, mind you, but hell, that applies to several of my better friends and all most all of my kinfolk.
As to the issue of WMD’s
I think its kind of a shuck. The Bushistas have managed to change the issue from “Is Iraq a direct and immediate threat to the US?” to “Is Iraq an honorable and truthful nation”. To my mind, only the first can be used to justify pre-emptive, which is to say aggressive, war. And the bar would be set quite high on that. Clairovoyant projections about what someone might do some years hence doesn’t cut it.
Civilization entails some risks. We presume we are not going to be needlessly attacked, so do our neighbors. That is a risk, of course, but one accepted gladly as the price of being civilized. It is the essential basis of that flimsy tapestry we call international law.
But we are one of the primary foundations of that premise, we hanged Japanese and Germans for breaking the international law against aggressive war. Saddams lack of any morality is not sufficient to permit us to break that committment, the world abounds with evil men in power, any number of whom have been or are now our allies.
If we now reverse ourselves and say “Well, its ok to attack another country if you’re really sure they don’t like you” we contradict that fundamental premise of civilization and state clearly the raw power is our only determining premise: the Soviets didn’t like us either, but they had nukes.
I don’t really care whether Saddam has various forms of gases or not. He also has machine guns, but we are well out of range of those as well.
He has an agreement with the UN as to his weapons. It is up to the UN to determine the extent of his cooperation with them, and equally up to the UN to decide what to do about it. Up until the point that GeeDubya started pounding the podium and demanding war, the UN showed little urgency in the matter. The urgency was imposed by us.
I believe our leaders are fixated on Iraq to a degree that exceeds all reason. If an attack by us on Iraq does not destabilize the region dangerously, it will be sheer luck. I dislike risking lives on such dice throws.
The Admin has succeeded in conning the public into believing that the question of war depends on the whole WMD issue. It does not. MWD’s are inherently short range weapons, they can injure a power like ours, put cannot create sufficient strategic damage to stop us. We are in such a dominant position of power that no nation can effectively threaten us. They can injure us, they can enrage us, but they cannot defeat us. Next to hyrogen bombs, WMDs are piffle, they might as well be crossbows.
As to possible terrorism links, they are now a given. Al Queda isnt Saddams friend, they are his worse nightmare. If someone launches a biological attack on Akron, Saddam knows we will assume its his fault, and Baghdad will be a smoldering hole in the Godforsaken Desert by morning. Truth be told, I am more worried about an attack by someone who would be tickled pink to have us at war with Iraq. They could make the attack, and let Saddam pay the price. Win win. 'Cause you know damn good and well we aren’t going to waste a bunch of time being sure.
Sorry to usurp the response to a question you’ve direct at another poster, but I have to say that my respect for you has just increased 10-fold. I take back what I intimated earlier concerning your inability to listen to reason.
Me neither.
A slight nitpick: I think that they could have reasonably believed that she was indicating this. Glaspie asks Saddam about the troops he has massed on the Kuwaiti border; Saddam replies, in somewhat flowery language, that if he can’t keep the spoils from his Iranian adventure, then he’ll settle for Kuwait. Glaspie, not quite understanding his meaning, repeats that the US has no commitment to Kuwait, per se, but that she hopes Iraq and Kuwait can resolve their border dispute peacefully. Saddam interprets this as meaning that the US has no commitment to defend Kuwait in the event of a military escalation.
Yeah, that’s my take on it.
He’s certainly morally insane, and probably a sociopath. He seems to display a strong streak of paranoia, but in his case, paranoia is a useful survival trait. That doesn’t necessarily mean, on the other hand, that he cannot rationally calculate what might be in his best interests; I doubt he would have made it to his position, otherwise.
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re really asking here. I have personally experienced your arguments as being doggedly one-sided, to the point of stiff-necked; but that is my sense of most of the “right-wingers” here on the boards. In a thread not long ago, for example, you and smiling bandit jumped all over me for asserting something I never asserted (although I don’t remember what it was about exactly, now); it seemed to me that you were purposely misconstruing my post. So I simply didn’t respond; it didn’t seem worth the effort. Maybe I was wrong, in hindsight; but in my experience, when a patriot gets his gander up, ain’t no use trying to reason with him.
You know, the multiplicity of arguments for why we should invade Iraq is quite overwhelming. A short list of such reasons would include the fact that Iraq is in violation of UNSC resolutions; that Iraq is playing – and has played, for the last decade – a ”shell-game” with UN inspectors; that the Iraqi regime possesses chemical and biological agents; that they are conducting research on chemical and biological agents; that they are actively attempting to develop nuclear weapons (although strangely, this one has been less prominent lately); that Hussein is a madman, a modern-day Hitler; that Hussein gasses ”his own people,” the Kurds; that Iraq, with its WMDs, is a potential threat to the US mainland (or, at least, lower Manhattan); that Hussein is a threat to ”vital US interests in the region;” that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors (although, to be honest, they have not asked us to help protect them); that Iraq can kill “millions of people” with its chemical and biological weapons; that Hussein is a brutal dictator, a war criminal, who runs a cruel, undemocratic, human-rights-violating regime; that Hussein is an expansionist, and will attack his neighbors at the earliest opportunity; that the Iraqi government gives support to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine; that Iraq is connected to, cooperating with, or otherwise supporting Al-Queda; that Iraq supports other forms of international terrorism; and so on.
What an array of damning evidence! Looking at this list, one might wonder, ”How could anyone in their right mind oppose Hussein’s overthrow?” In fact, it might strike those of us who are a bit more jaundiced in our relations to Power as overkill, really. Why must the US government exert itself to such an extent to convince the public of a need to overthrow Hussein’s regime, given the historical record?
Admittedly, the list is long; but nevertheless, I think there is a simple answer to this question. To find it, we should pause to consider what isn’t on the list as well. In particular, one important ingredient is missing. Despite a decade of harsh, US-led economic sanctions, and daily bombing raids over Iraqi territory, the simple fact is, Iraq has not launched a single attack against the US. Period. We haven’t been attacked by Iraq. Nor is there even the slightest credible hint, or indication, that an Iraqi attack on the US is imminent. Period.
In WWII, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, an unprovoked act of aggression that gave us a moral, internationally recognized, and legitimate right to defend ourselves. In relation to Iraq, on the other hand, we have no recourse to moral, internationally recognized and legitimate reasons for military action. Therefore, the government has to construct some; an argument, or series of arguments, to justify the deployment of US troops in a country that has, quite literally, done nothing whatsoever to the US.
To the people who throw up their hands and wonder, “What will it take to convince those who oppose war that the US government has the right, and the responsibility, to overthrow the Iraqi regime?” I would answer, simply and straightforwardly, that the US has a right to use its military, unilaterally, only in the case of self-defense. No amount of accusations regarding Iraq’s domestic activities, however they may be construed, will convince me that we are justified in launching an unprovoked, unilateral attack on another country. I do not believe that America stands for foreign aggression. I believe that an unprovoked unilateral US attack on Iraq, such as is proposed by the current administration, is an act of foreign aggression. I therefore oppose it.
On the other hand, Shodan I sympathize with your sentiments regard Hussein. He is dangerous, in a limited sort of way; he is, in all probability, violating 1441; and, most importantly to me, personally, he is an oppressive, ruthless dictator who holds his entire country in check. He gasses women and children, for God’s sake.
But if the US is to show real leadership in this issue, then I believe it must do so by leading the international community to act. And as a member of that community, it must accept the fact that sometimes, despite the best intentions and efforts, it will not get its way. This may be one of those times. That would be moral leadership, in my eye.
Tee’s latest links seem to indicate that Bush had it out for Saddam long before he came into office, and that once in, he was simply waiting for some excuse or another to attack. That is not my idea of moral leadership. Sorry. elucidator:
Apparently, crisis brings out the best in you. I admire your tireless dedication, and wish I had half as much.
A rather poor pun due to be retired. “Digustibus non disputandum est” means, roughly, “you can’t really argue tastes, cause you cant prove anything” Disgustibus doesnt mean squat, its like, “you cant argue about what makes you wanna puke”.
Not one of my best. It outa here.
Howzabout Quod Irae Toro, Cornum Recidet “Fuck with the bull, you get the horns” Declension might be weak. But they’re all dead anyway.
PS I reciprocate your admiration, and am quite sure I would do so even if you disagreed entirely. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
Regardless at what point he had the idea to use force, the opposition will use it against him. If it was pre-2001 he was just looking for an excuse, and if it was post-2001 it was just looking for revenge. Looking at the 90’s as a whole, it seems clear enough that regime change in Iraq was on the administrative agenda in some form since the Gulf War. Gore and Bush both agreed on that even if the approaches differed.
It’s not improbable for someone acquainted with foreign policy surrounding Iraq (if my father was President I hope that I’d pick up a few things from the experience) formulated this course of action in '98 when the inspectors first left. If not before. And I’m not seeing the reason for his needing this war, for political capital or anything else. I do see the need to ensure that Saddam never acquires certain weapons and that resorting to use of force is probable…hopefully the strong and unequivocal threat of using force will be enough to enact the change. I’m not a proponent of attacking Iraq; rather, I am a proponent of overthrowing the leader of Iraq before the next catastrophe. So are most people here, I think, and it is only a question of how far we are willing to go to see that happen.
And, I might add, a point reiterated by Mr. Svinlesha as follows:
Don’t know if this is a quibble, a nitpick, or an unjustified assumption, but I remember some talk months back that the anthrax getting mailed around the US was similar to anthrax being worked on by Iraq. If this is true, and I cannot claim it has been proven in any realistic sense, I would classify this as an attack on the US, even if the Iraqis just supplied the stuff to somebody with a grudge against the US.
I would also point out that the Iraqis seem to have been involved in an attempt on the life of former President Bush. Anthony Lewis’ attempt to discredit this in his article does not seem to me to be particularly credible. Bush Sr. is still an American citizen. A direct attack on a former President seems to me a very serious action. We could argue, I suppose, whether or not a single attempted murder is enough to go to war over.
Add to that the firings on the US planes enforcing the no-fly zone, and you are starting to build a case that Iraq has attacked US citizens. Perhaps not an overwhelming case, not nearly as strong as the case Powell made that they have WMD, but add the sum totality up, and you start to see what Bush was getting at in his “Axis of Evil” speech.
Be that as it may, I would argue that the standard of “direct attacks on the US”, in the sense of Saddam setting off nukes on US territory or putting bio-weapons on an ICBM, is not the standard to be applied. Nor is this a change from previous. Even when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the USA was not “directly” threatened in the sense that Saddam was planning to invade San Francisco next. What Saddam was after in his invasion of Kuwait was her oil, to pay down his war debts, and to rebuild and expand his military after the war with Iran. The issue being, once he did that, the next step would have been an attack on Israel, or Iran, and/or a demand for concessions and extorted payments from Saudi Arabia. His ultimate goal, in my view, is a Middle Eastern empire, controlling all the oil in that region.
It is easy to dismiss the Gulf War as “only about oil” - “No Blood for Oil” and all that. The danger with such thinking is that in the world economy as it runs today, oil is money, and money is power, and Saddam Hussein is a man who has shown that he both wants, and will misuse, power. And nothing he has done since the end of the Gulf War shows that he has changed his motivations a whit. He is still trying to obtain weapons that he can use against his neighbors, in furtherance of his imperial ambitions.
In other words, we are still fighting the Gulf War, and for the same reasons.
Which is why the UN cannot be allowed to look the other way on this. If they are not willing even to enforce the will of the world in saying that one nation cannot invade and loot another, they have no relevance at all. The US, and Bush and Blair, are trying to keep the UN from degenerating into another League of Nations - a hot air society.
The US is the world’s only superpower. If we allow it, the UN will do nothing.
And I suspect the rest of the world knows what is going on. What they are doing is to allow the US to take all the risks, and all the flak, while they benefit from the removal of an obnoxious dictator, and the added satisfaction of currying favor with the Third World. This way, all the problems can safely be blamed on the US, and the French can step in to a pacified Iraq and begin negotiating oil contracts. “Wouldn’t you rather sign with us? The Americans just finished bombing you - why would you want to do business with them?” And every time they lose a contract, they can whine that the Americans are looting Iraq.
Good greif, Shodan this is positively embarassing.
Your first paragraph is an inaccuracy to bolster an assumption to lend credence to an innuendo. “I can’t claim this is true, but if it were, it would Prove Something.” Piffle.
As to the alleged assassination attempt, might it be that you have confused Anthony Lewis with Seymour Hersh? Mr. Hersh published an article in the New Yorker casting doubt on those allegations, pointing out that, in essence, we are taking the word of Kuwaiti intelligence that it is so. The same unimpeachable sources who foisted the entire Iraqi-babykiller Bushwa on our willing ears. I remain skeptical.
As to these dreadful missile assaults on our warplanes, why, they number in the hundreds! Clear proof of malice! How dare anyone resist the clear authority of the United States, as mandated by the United States, with the full sanction and approval of the United States! How much worse it might have been if they had ever actually hit anything!
Having expended all this ammo, you then advise us that it doesn’t matter anyway. Not the standard to be applied. You fall back on firmer ground, the “Saddam is an evil, evil man” and share with us your international clairovoyance. You peer into Saddams mind and reveal his intention, his plan, much like GeeDuvya is pleased to announce his capacity to look into the soul of “Vlad the Impaler” Putin and inventory the contents thereof.
I hasten to suggest that you would not approve of a trial by such means. “Your Honor, the State calls Ms. Cleo”.
Dare one suggest that he might want these weapons to protect himself against these selfsame neighbors? Such as, say, Iran, who has just announced its intention to proceed in the nuclear direction? Does Iran have WMD’s? Likely. Hates Iraq’s guts? Most assuredly. Would they find a weakened Iraq a tempting target? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Cannot be allowed? When, exactly, did the UN become our bitch? When did it devolve upon us to determine what the UN may and may not do? GeeDubya demands that the UN show “backbone” but in the same breath asserts that if the UN does not meekly comply with our demands, we’ll simply ignore them. How, pray, can this be intrepreted, by any stretch of the imagination, as seeking to empower the UN? How does one prevent the UN from becoming irrelevant by declaring it irrelevant? This does for hypocrisy what Stonehenge does for rocks.
Your last paragraph is a smally symphony of suspicion, dark intentions lurk even amongst our allies. Lets turn the tables on them! Lets not do it! That’ll show 'em!
Lumped up, your entire case, or at least that part which is presented here, is comprised of innuendoes, allegations and clairovoyance. You wouldn’t bet 10 dollars on such as this, yet the lives of thousands of innocent people can be put at risk on the basis of twaddle.
Actually, how dare the Iraqis resist the clear authority of the US to enforce the cease-fire imposed under the authority of the UN, with the full sanction and approval of the UN, etc.
He wants anthrax to defend himself against Kuwait?
Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The last time Saddam had a powerful military, he used it to attack Iran and Kuwait. But this time, it is all purely defensive. Uh huh.
We didn’t determine this - they passed the resolutions themselves. Including the ceasefire agreements, specifying that Iraq does not get to have WMD.
How does expecting the UN to be serious about what it says translate into “being the US’ bitch”?
Um, dude, all reports on the anthrax investigation are focusing on some disgruntled ex-employee at Fort Detrick, not Iraq. Dunno why he hasn’t been arrested yet - that area is ripe for speculation.
You cant have it both ways. If it all rests on UN authority, then it is up to the UN, at its discretion, to determine the extent of Iraqi compliance and, more importantly, what to do about it.
There a two crack houses in the block next to yours. Are you permitted to call the police and instruct them as to how the law shall be enforced? “Ignore the green house, they’re pretty good folks, UN resolutions doesn’t apply there. Send it SWAT teams on the other one, thier non-compliance is intolerable. No need to take handcuffs, they won’t be needed. Wait, never mind, I’ll take care of it, but give me that badge. If you don’t, I’ll make a citizens annihilation. Arrest. Whatever. Hand it over.”
Shodan, if you look at some of my previous posts you’ll see that it is very unlikely that the anthrax letters were anything but domestic, you’d have to be quite a conspiracy theorist to believe otherwise. In fact it was probably the Army’s own anthrax that was used. Here’s a good site that gives a bit more depth: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxmatchesarmyspores.html
Also the “no fly-zones” are not UN mandated. That was a decision made by the US and the UK as protection factor for the Kurds who we thought might be useful later on. However, they have shown themselves not to be very useful. Democratic; yes. Useful; no. So we’ve decided “fuck 'em” and have given Turkey permission to occupy Kurdish territory.
No, the no-fly zones are not specifically mandated by the UN. Action by the US to enforce the cease-fire, and to enforce the disarmament of Iraq, is. Same as if the Iraqis opened fire on an inspection team which happened to have Americans on it. The US is enforcing UN decisions.
I’ll assume you are not arguing that Iraq is perfectly justified in firing on planes that are enforcing the no-fly zone, or in firing upon inspectors who are attempting to find WMD. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Well, if there were two crack houses on my block, and I called up the police and complained that the crack dealers had already burglarized another house in the area, and were known to be trying to buy guns on the street so they could do it again, and the police said, “No, we don’t feel like enforcing that law. It is too much bother, and by the way, you better not try to do anything about it either”, I would be justified in deciding that the police weren’t all that relevant to the situation. I am, in other words, no longer under the rule of law.
Which is what we need to decide here. Is the UN a serious institution, or not? They passed the cease-fire, and resolutions that Iraq to disarm, and inspections. Do they want to do this, or not?
Which UN resolutions are seriously meant, and which ones were just hot air, and how do we tell the difference? Is there a difference?
The UN passes a resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, and for the Palestinians to stop killing Israelis. Neither side does. Which part is safe to ignore, and which should be enforced? Why that part?
All this reminds me of Joseph Heller’s line about “dealing with evil by growing faint in its presence”. If the UN did not really mean anything by what it resolved, why should anyone care what it says? If it is not going to enforce the will of the world in preventing further invasions and attacks by Iraq, why do we waste time with it?
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All talk and no action makes the UN a stupid waste of time. If they don’t mean what they say, they shouldn’t say anything.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. The UN doesn’t seem to want to lead, and we are having a dickens of a time convincing them to follow. If that fails, get out of the way - the US and UK will show you how civilized nations deal with real threats. Hint: preserving believability by following up on what you say is a good big chunk of it.
