Dr. Steven Hatfill hasn’t been arrested because there is no evidence against him.
Well, that cause he’s hiding it! He’s an evil, evil man!
Shodan:
Sure, I would agree – except that’s a might big IF, there. To begin with, as light strand has already pointed out earlier in this thread, US investigators concluded that the particular strain of ”weaponized” anthrax in question (ames, I believe) is not from Iraq. Rather, it is strain developed by the US military. See light strand’s post on page 5 for details.
I have to disagree with your assessment. As elucidator pointed out above, the US source of information on the attempted assassination was Kuwaiti intelligence, and their claims, as far as I know, were self-contradictory. Even if they were true, the story of the attempt only reveals how completely ludicrous, and inept, Iraqi cover operations are in real life.
In addition, if you feel that an attempt on the life of a head of state is a legitimate reason for war, and you are also morally consistent, then you would have to support, for example, Cuba’s right to invade the US and force a ”regime” change in Washington, since the CIA made several unsuccessful attempts on Castro’s life during the 1960s and 70s.
On the other hand, this question is worth discussing. If a country attempts to assassinate a US president, what might we consider to be legitimate, appropriate response? If the US attempts to assassinate the leader of another state, should that state then have the right to declare war on the US, with the objective of overthrowing the US government?
Well, thus far, you have 0 + 0 – which, if my addition doesn’t fail me, equals zero. But regarding the US planes enforcing the no-fly zone: to begin with, the US and England have arbitrarily moved the zone up one latitude degree, without UN authorization. But in addition, stop for a second to put yourself in Iraqi shoes. Let us say that the UN has decided to enforce a demilitarizaton of the US, and as a part of that process imposes a ”no-fly zone” over a significant portion of US airspace. Let us further assume than one particularly belligerent nation has decided to go even further and enforce tighter restrictions. Do you think, in such a case, that the US might have a legitimate right to fight back? Might not you yourself be on the front lines, trying to shoot down enemy planes, even if Clinton, whom you despise, was US president?
I would like to give you some credit for this last point, Shodan, but I can’t, really. The aggressor in this scenario, as I see it, is the US; it is hard to twist Iraq’s defense of its own airspace, overrun by US warplanes, as the equivalent of an unprovoked attack on the territorial integrity of the US itself, even if one were to argue that Iraqi actions, in this case, are illegitimate.*
No, honestly, I don’t.
Part of the problem with discussion like these is that they tend to polarize; each side claims that it is absolutely, totally correct, and that the other side has no legitimate arguments in its favor, whatsoever. I really want to avoid that, but I have to honestly tell you that the arguments you present above have totally failed to convince me that your position, at least with regard to this issue, has merit. Sorry.
Okay. Can you spell out for me what standard you feel should be applied, and why? Please think it through carefully; in particular, I need to know what kind of safeguards you would implement to assure me that such a standard would not be abused by those in positions of power.*
Even if Iraq’s only goal was the capture of Kuwait, then it is at least arguably correct for the international community to intervene. The integrity of the state system rests on recognizing the sovereign legitimacy states exercise over their territories; no state, operating on its own, has the right to arbitrarily infringe upon that right.
But more importantly, the point is that this was internationally recognized by a large group of states who, working within the framework of the UN, together expelled Iraq from Kuwait. It has been my position from the beginning that, in the case of Iraq, if we are to do something, we must do it collectively within the state system.*
You see, I just can’t understand the logic behind this statement. The UN represents ”the will of the world,” not the US. The US represents only the will of the US. In addition, the UN did act against Iraq when it invaded and looted Kuwait.
Your argument would have strength if, for example, Iraq had invaded Iran, or Syria, or Kuwait, a week ago, and refused to relinquish control over its new territory. When Iraq attempted that last, it was roundly defeated; it has not done so since.
Nor do I see the UN – to the extent that we can speak of it as a collectivity – as ”looking away on this.” But is the only option besides looking away war?*
Ahh…yet another reason to reconsider this crazy war business.
I want to quote from a statement issued by Paul Wolfowitz in 1998 before the House National Security Committee:*
It is a sentiment that echoes repeatedly in the letters and statements at this Project for a New American Century cite. The idea is that if the US continues on its present course (of arms inspections, limited incursions, and so forth), it will suffer an ”incalculable blow” to its leadership and credibility; but, if it acts forcefully, it will win the admiration and respect of other nations.
However, we see clearly now that this has been a major miscalculation on the part of US decision-makers. Instead, our current course of action has succeeded in accomplishing the exact opposite. The major news story over here tonight is of an unprecedented crisis in NATO. For the first time in its history, three countries – Belgium, France, and Germany – have refused to come to the aid of alliance member, namely Turkey. Turkey feels that in the face of the upcoming war, it requires more military protection; the three countries named do not want to provide troops, because they feel that they are being pushed into an unprovoked war of aggression by the US. According to news commentators, this has caused a diplomatic rift that will negatively influence US-European relations well after the war, and in all probability be unresolvable for as long as Bush remains in the White House.
The Bush administration has just alienated an entire continent, one that has, for the last 60 years at least, been America’s staunchest ally. American policies have not only reeked havoc in the UN, they’ve also damaged one of the most stable military alliances in human history. Now, the rest of the world views the US as a tyrant and a bully, and the “incalculable blow to our credibility” has been struck by our current leaders. Congratulations.
Shall we bomb Paris, next?
From an historical perspective, the US stocks of anthrax have proven a greater threat to Americans than Saddam’s program. A suspicious person might even think that the administration is stonewalling the investigation in order to prevent the public from demanding the destruction of our own germ stockpiles.
Or not enough to avoid the embarrassment to the government of losing the case. At any rate, there’s more reason to believe he did it than Iraq or Al Qaeda, wouldn’t you say? Shodan wouldn’t, obviously.
This is somewhat off-topic from the OP, but I had thought that the anthrax-mailing evidence pointed to Dr. Phillip Zack.
Wouldn’t necessarily say that it had to be either/or. If some terrorist group supplied anthrax to some disgruntled employee, and he used it for reasons of his own, both the terrorist group and the one using it would be morally culpable.
If that is how it went down. As I said, I am not prepared to accuse anyone specifically, as the evidence is hardly more than speculation, or, if light strand’s contention is correct, not even that.
I guess it would depend on the moral justification or otherwise of the attempt. But yes, assassination of enemy leadership is a legitimate tactic in war, in general. If the Cubans wanted to give it a shot, and they could collect the same level of international support against the US as existed after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, I suppose they could try.
No, Iraq gave up the right to complain about the US preventing them from rebuilding their military, or objecting to the no-fly zones, when they signed the cease-fire after they lost the Gulf War. Iraq, in other words, has no right to fight against the US. They lost, they agreed to a cease-fire, the US and UK decided on a no-fly zone to enforce the agreement.
Loser pays, as is often the case.
Not a twist at all.
The aggressor is Iraq - they invaded Kuwait. The cease-fire after they were driven out put an end to their aggression. Any action by Iraq in violation of the cease-fire is a renewal of aggression.
The analogy is someone is arrested for burglary. They are convicted and sent to prison. They are caught filing a toothbrush into a shank. The guards try to confiscate the shank, the burglar fights back, and is subdued.
You could hardly classify the actions of the guards in subduing the bad guy as “aggression”, simply the imposition of legitimate authority. Same with Iraq. They started a war, they lost a war, it is hardly “aggression” to stop them from getting ready to start another.
How about a UN resolution?
Which we have been doing, and for exactly the reasons you describe so aptly.
The legitimacy of the US actions against Iraq derive from the fact that they are a continuation of the morally justified actions of the Gulf War. The UN approved the cease-fire, they approved actions to enforce inspections, Iraq has been shown to be in violation of the cease-fire and its attendent agreement to disarm - therefore the actions of the US are entirely justified. And, I should add, are an implementation of the will of the world after the end of the Gulf War.
And we (the US) are trying to implement the terms of the cease-fire - inspections, disarmaments, no-fly zones - to keep Iraq from doing it again. They are trying very hard to get away with it. They shouldn’t be allowed to do so.
I suspect you are overstating the depth of the disagreement between the US and the members of the “Axis of Weasel”. As I have said before, it might be in their interest to drag their feet on enforcing the UN cease-fire and its terms, in hopes of currying favor with the Third World and allowing the US to do all the heavy lifting. They reap the benefit of a pacified Iraq, as well as the delights of blaming everything that goes wrong in the Middle East for the next fifty years on big, mean, nasty America, who had the audacity to expect the world to mean what it said.
Wasn’t it Wellington who was insulted by the French delegation by their turning their backs to him at some international conference after Waterloo? “Never mind”, said he. “I have seen their backs before.” The record of the French in deciding how to deal with terrorist dictators is not historically a strong one. Nor do the Germans have a great deal to boast about.
Leadership comes with responsibility as well as privilege, and freedom has to be defended as often as she is embraced. Even if you have to put up with a lot of whining in the meantime.
Regards,
Shodan
And right now, France, Belgium and Germany are defending their freedom. Despite your anti-French whining and jabs at the Germans.
Shodan, you’re still not facing the fact that there is no substantive reason at all to suspect Iraq in the anthrax attacks. Retreating into hypotheticals, as you have done, is a favorite tactic of the warmongering crowd, but is no more honest for its frequency.
Re the France comments, it’s also time to find ways to dismiss the stated views of Germany, and Russia, and China, and the British public too … Sheesh, how many people have to tell you you’re wrong before you have to admit the possibility?
Shodan:
I would like for you to clarify something for me. A few posts back, you asked some strange questions concerning how ”the other side” views things. To wit:
The truth is, I got the impression from these questions, above, that you were interested in considering the issues from a different point of view – to set aside for a minute, as it were, the partisan positioning and try to approach something like objectivity.
Did I misunderstand your intention? Because, if I did, then I don’t really see a point in continuing this debate with you.
We were not at war with Cuba at that time. Do you also believe it to be a legitimate tactic during peace? If it is morally legitimate for the US to attempt to assassinate the leaders of nations whom they perceive as enemies, why would it not be morally legitimate for other nations, who perceive the US as an enemy, to attempt to assassinate the US president?*
My question did not concern whether or not Cuba could attempt to do so; I’m asking you, Shodan, personally, if you feel that it would be morally legitimate for Cuba to overthrow the US government after US attempts to assassinate Castro. You seem to feel that it is morally legitimate for the US to overthrow a government that attempts to assassinate a US president; what about the reverse?*
I am unclear at the moment as to whether or not the no-fly zones are sanctioned by the UN; I was under the impression that, up to the 51st (?) parallel, they were, but that the US and Britain had extended that to the 52nd parallel.
If the no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the UN, or explicitly laid out as a part of the cease-fire, then hold to your hat, Shodan, while I spell it out for you: yes, the Iraqis are completely within their rights to defend their airspace. Without international sanction, the US has no legitimacy in encroaching on Iraq’s territory. That is my position, which is consistent with international law – law, by the way, that the US is supposedly enforcing.*
To begin with, you were attempting to make the case that Iraq’s defense of its own airspace was the equivalent of an unprovoked attack on US territory, thus providing a legitimate pretext for war. I am trying to communicate with you here, do you understand that? It is not. If you remember the reversed scenario I suggested in my last post, I ask you to tell me how your defense of your own homeland could possibly be construed as an attack on the territorial integrity of the hypothetical ”belligerent nation” I presented in the example. Even if I considered your attacks illegitimate, and as a violation of the cease-fire agreement, I could still not equate them with a military assault on the territory of the ”belligerent nation,” thus justifying a defensive military response on the part of that nation.*
Please stop wasting my time. I will remind you that as of this moment, at least, the UN has not passed a resolution declaring war on Iraq.
I asked an honest, serious question, and I am fully willing to carefully consider your answer. 1) If not exclusively in self-defense, as is mandated in the UN Charter, of which the US is a signatory, as well and supported by the common, traditional practice of international relations, then on what basis should a country be allowed to employ its military, and 2) how could such a basis (like, for example, the invocation of ”preemptive self-defense”) be safeguarded from the abuses of power?*
Please stop, rewind, and think again. The UN (led, admittedly, by the US) drove Iraq out of Kuwait. Check. The UN negotiated the cease-fire agreement. Check. The UN decided on a regime of inspections. Check. In all of these actions, then, according to your logic (and mine, by the way), the US has acted honorably, legitimately and justifiably.
The US has decided to declare war on Iraq. The UN opposes. The UN, as you noted, expresses the ”will of the world” – it doesn’t, really, but the phrase is close enough for this discussion. Guess what – the US is no longer in step with the will of the world.
It does not occur to you that a state of war is different from a cease-fire agreement, or an inspections regime, and that it is up to the UN, which expresses “the will of the world,” to decide how it will deal with breaches in such agreements?*
I view this as a major stumbling block in our discussion. I simply cannot see into the future with the same sort of certainty that you can, Shodan, or read the minds of the Iraqi leadership as you seem to be able to do. The regime of regular bombing raids and economic sanctions imposed by the UN has completely disemboweled Iraq as a military force. I sincerely doubt that any of Iraq’s neighbors view it as a threat: they certainly have not entreated us to protect them from the ferocity of Iraq’s attacks, and their populations oppose the war.
Really? Have you seen the news, yet?
Anyway, I assume that you were joking with that “Weasel” bit, but it expresses precisely the sort of arrogance and lack of respect that will eventually lead to the complete alienation of the US in the community of nations. If you don’t give a shit about what people in other countries think, or can only denigrate opposition to the will of the US as “whining,” then in the end you will merely receive what you deserve.*
Wait and see.*
Well – at least we agree on something. Although I’m not sure what Wellington, Napolean, and 19th Century French or German history have to do with our current troubles in the mid-east.
The US has support from about 19 countries in Europe besides the UK. Why should we give French and German stated views more weight than the others?
But if we did…if the arguments are so compelling, why even bother with sanctions and weapons inspections? Putting the US plans aside for the moment - the French and the Russians would like to see UN-installed economic sanctions on Iraq end. They’ve said so. Yet to some degree as members of the UNSC they are responsible for UNSCOM inspections. If Saddam is indeed guilty of nothing, has been contained, “paid his dues” and so forth…why is an ongoing weapons monitoring program ok with them? I propose that the simplest answer is the correct one - Russia, for one, feels that it benefits from Iraq weapons inspections but not Iraq sanctions. This is not a morally justifiable position in my opinion, and that is why Russia, for one, will not influence my opinion.
Mr. Svinlesha, the US led a UN-backed coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait mainly because the US (Bush) wanted to have UN backing for the action. We weren’t in step with the whole world either then, but had a coalition of support anyway.
Quite a coalition. Indeed, the Mother of all Coalitions. A ring tailed rip-snorter of a coalition with just about everybody and his cousin not only on board, not only lending their permission and thier prestige, but paying for it! With cold hard cash! Now that was a goddam coalition!
What we got here isn’t “d” for diddly squat in comparison. It isn’t an “coalition of the willing” by any stretch of the imagination. My guess is its mostly countries who have examined which side thier bread is buttered upon and decided its a Good Thing to be on the side of the Big Dog. (They may be headed for heartbreak, as the Big Dog has a short memory. Ask the Kurds) Fear of Saddam doesn’t extend that far. Fear of US is world wide. Oh, goody - We’re number one.
I’m confused by your reasoning, elucidator. You fault the US for not having taken military action against Saddam 12 years ago when he was attacking the Kurds. Therefore, you say, we should make up for this failure by not taking military action against Saddam today. 
Did I say all of that? What an economy of words! Haiku eat yer heart out!
You remind me of Twains remark about paleontology being most remarkable science, for its ability to make wholesale returns in conjecture for a tiny investment in fact.
I enjoyed that. 
So…yes, we had a coalition. The US put together that coalition. Nowadays it is claimed we are not doing that same thing. Aside from that though, I am curious to know why there is support for continued inspections (if there is among the left) within these populaces who decry both the forced regime change and the sanctions. What justifies that view.
Guys, there are some people who are just going to argue against the Bush Administration, no matter what they do. Let’s go through the litany:
-
When Bush started going after Iraq, the plea was, “You must do it with the permission of Congress!” Bush got the permission of Congress.
-
Then it was, “You need a coalition! You can’t go alone!” So Bush puts together a pretty good coalition, now totally something like 26 countries.
-
Then it was, “You need a UN resolution!” So the Bush administration got a U.N. resolution.
-
Then it was, “You’ve got to give the inspection process a chance!” So the Bush administration gave the inspection process a chance.
-
Then it’s “You need a second resolution from the U.N!”. Now it looks like the U.N. will go for a second resolution. And they’ll probably get it.
-
And after all the excuses are done, and there are no more stalling tactics, it becomes, “No war at any price”.
Of course, because the Bush administration HAS handled this so well, it now has the support of the majority of the public, the vast majority of Congress, 26 nations on its side, and major support by countries throughout the Middle East, including countries like Jordan which didn’t even support the first Gulf War. Hell, even Bill Clinton is saying that the Bush administration is doing exactly the right thing.
But here on the SDMB, we appear to be a haven for the 20% or so in the minority who aren’t just against the war, but think the Bush administration is evil incarnate. It’s getting tiresome.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Not a bit of it. Think the H-car is a dandy idea. Yea! George!
Yes! Lets! Though I think “litany” may be unconcious poetry, of a sort.
Well, my reaction was more like “Are you nuts!? What the hell is such a big deal here?” And yes, he did indeed stampede Congress. Pounding the war drum works. Every time. You know that as well as I, Sam, there ain’t nothing works better. But there is nothing very admirable about a deft political manuever to an ignoble end.
Ralphs’ “Pretty Good” Coalition. A real barnburner. Great Britain, Lithuania, Rumania, Great Britain, Poland and several other nations famed mostly as the exotic settings of comic operas. But including Great Britain.
That last coalition, that was a doozy, that was the genuine article. This is, well, a “pretty good” coalition. A Wal-Mart coalition. Not available in stores, maybe.
Cross my heart and hope to die, what I really think is they voted in panic, just like the Dems. You see, GeeDubya already screwed that vote by publicly expressing his contempt for the UN, by openly saying “My way or the highway.” He poisoned the well.
Let say, you’re Fredonia. You think this is a really stupid idea, but you’re nowhere near Scud range. America says she’s gonna do it anyway, whether you like it or not. You can oppose America, really piss off the biggest and richest kid on the block…and it will accomplish nothing. America will go to war and slap a tariff on importing your alfalfa flavored gum.
Then it becomes clear to you: Iraq must not be permitted to flaut the international community any longer.
Now, what I remember is hawks smugly preening back, saying “He’ll never let them in.” Oooopsy! Besides, they aren’t giving anything a chance, they simply aren’t all lined up. GeeDubya will go to war when all the pieces are in place. They aren’t yet, and that is the only reason GeeDubya permits this minuet of diplomacy to run its futile course. Sure, it would be nice to drape the UN flag over this. Kinda like draping the UN flag over the painting of Guernica
Maybe. Does it matter?
There were no stalling tactics. The forces just aren’t in place yet. We have the supreme luxury of planning our attack in plain sight and moving unstoppable force to optimum position at our leisure. Why? Because the opposition is so weak. Most likely the glorioius force that conquered Grenada and even bested Panama in a fair fight wont have much to worry about. Take your time. Why hurry? Its not like they can do anything about it.
(Gonna skip the panygeric)
Its that liberal SDMB conspiracy! Bussing in Socialist posters from out of town, that’s it! Weird thing about the right: no matter how much power they get thier hands on, they always think they’re some kind of oppressed majority. Like we sneak up in the night and chloroform conservative posters before they can hit “enter”
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! We’re the Fourth Trotskyist International! Cringe before our cunning!
Stick around. We’re just warming up.
Of course the vast majority of all right-thinking Americans were ready to nuke Baghdad at around step zero of Sam’s litany. It’s astonishing that they haven’t all expired of sheer self-righteous exasperation over all these unreasoned and unreasonable delays on America’s highway to the promised land.
I hope so. That would be terrible, if we knocked Saddam out without a struggle? Now, I really don’t understand why anyone would oppose the war. Why not attempt a democracy in Iraq right next to the theocratic yet sort-of struggling nascient democracy in Iran?
Oh, and if Bush keeps getting more and more cooperation from Iraq as he acts twitchier and twitchier - I say whatever works. If Saddam actually caves in and substantially disarms, that’s a huge improvement over the 1998 non-resolution of the issue. I would much prefer to see Saddam de-fanged and embarrassed - albeit still in power - than arming and shooting rifles in the air.
Ahhh, Sam…how nice of you to drive-by again!
Now that you’re done with your “litany,” would you mind very much answering the question I posed to you about a page ago, regarding your irrefutable State Department document?