Face it, regime change in Iraq has been official United States Government policy for over four years now. Trying to conflate the issue with petty hatred of GWB is just cheap.
That is not the same as starting a war of agression. That is the issue, conflated or not.
The “petty” hate he has brought on himself by ignoring international treaties, trying to undermine the UN, bulliying other nations, spouting propagandistic nonsense and just plain lying.
And as for “the issue”: the issue is Saddam’s refusal to comply with the 1441. He has been told that he faces grave consequences–diplo-speak for war–if he does not comply fully and completely with the inspections regime. His refusal to take advantage of this last chance makes Saddam responsible for the resulting war.
If certain members of the UN Security Council retort that yes, they passed 1441 unanimously but they didn’t really mean it–similarly to your interpretation of the US gov’t policy on regime change since 1998–then this renders the UN irrelevant as an institution.
Now thats interesting. Certainly that’s GeeDubyas take on it. “The UN has already authorized war, no take-backs!” But what they said was “serious consequences”. Could have said “war” had they wanted to, couldn’t they? But they didn’t.
Now why is that, do you think? Could it be, just maybe, that they wanted an out? Some way of ensuring that the isse comes back for further consideration? Some way of slowing down Buckaroo Banzai?
I would believ this were the issue if the US had first gone to the UN and siad something like “Listen partners, we have a problem. Iraq isn’t complying with our resolution. What shall we do about it.”
But that isn’t how it went.
Bush wanted war. Allegations of links with Al Qaeda, Saddam being a mad dog and that they were close to having nukes didn’t stick. 1441 has stuck.
(Mainly because it’s true, of course, they are not fully cooperating.)
Claiming that all Bush wants is Iraq to comply with 1441, is false.
He wants Saddam’s head on a pike, allways has, with or without the UN.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Lots of people want SH’s head on a pike, myself included…I’m checking…nope, I have no secret desire for US expansion, economic stimulus, or control of oil. I think Saddam being a warmongering megalomaniacal thug is enough reason to want to see him outta there. WMD issues is a reason to hasten the process. YMV.
I’m going to assume that continuing inspections is ok with most of you, but I’m still not sure of the reasons behind that.
It is for continuing to take action, just not the action you and Bush want. War should be the last resort and if Saddam can be bullied into ever more intrusive inspections then all for the good. Some UN members believe war will decrease security, increase the pool of terrorist fanaticism and lead to WMD’s falling into the wrong hands. That does not make them turncoats and cowards.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Is this your interpretation of “serious consequences”, or of the UNSC’s intentions in a general sense? In either case, what’s the good of “continuing to take action” if no results are forthcoming?
And how, pray tell, can Saddam be “bullied” except through war or the credible threat of war? And how can a credible threat of war be maintained after handing him hundreds of ready-made, blue-helmeted hostages?
But . . . but . . . I thought Iraq wasn’t supposed to have any WMDs in the first place . . . I’m so confused. ( :rolleyes: )
HELLOOOOO, 1441 is not the issue.
The competence of the UN is not the issue, WMD’s are not the issue, the modern place of NATO is not the issue.
The issue is still that Bush wants his war.
Damn right I have my fingers in my ears!
Saddam has links with Al Qaeda…Lala can’t hear you.
Must invade now, he nearly has nukes…Lala can’t hear you.
We have the report to prove it…Lala can’t hear you.
The UN must comply to US wishes or become irrelevant…Lala can’t hear you.
Saddam has gassed “his own people”…Lala can’t hear you.
Saddam wants to conquer the middle east…Lala can’t hear you.
Saddam might possibly hand weapons to muslim terrorists…Lala can’t hear you.
France and Germany must comply with US wishes…Lala can’t hear you.
Here’s Powell coming round to sanity…Lala can’t hear you.
Look at powell’sl “proof”…Lala can’t hear you.
France and Germany must honour NATO article 5…Lala can’t hear you.
France and germany must honour NATO article 4…Lala can’t hear you.
France and Germany are bad bad people…Lala can’t hear you.
I may have my fingers in my ears but I see very clearly what is happening.
Either you, or your sources, seem to suffer delusions as to Clinton marching in lockstep with Bush on this Iraq thing.
todays news
Where’s the cite where Clinton swears fealty and says Bush is doing “exactly the right thing”? Not even Norman Schwarzkopf has gone that far overboard !
My entire reason to suspect the Iraqis consisted of no more than
[ul][li]The Iraqis have anthrax[/li][li]Iraq has a history of using poisons against their enemies[/li][li]The US is Iraq’s enemy[/li][li]The US suffered attacks using anthrax[/li][li]I read an article in a newspaper, for which I have no cite, that said that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was the same as the Iraqis had developed[/ul][/li]
No more than that, I am afraid. If this were a conventional crime, I would regard Iraq as the Boulder police seem to regard Patsy and John Ramsey - statistically likely subjects, if nothing else.
The strength of which argument being diminished a bit by the fact that it would have been almost equally applicable in Europe of the 1930s, regarding a different despicable dictator.
Sorry - here you are simply wrong. Weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, exactly the issue. If Iraq didn’t have them, Bush would not be considering war.
Now take your fingers out of your ears, you don’t know where they’ve been.
Mr. Svinlesha, your post deserves more attention than I can afford it at the moment. I will return at lunch, and have a go at it. Thanks for your thoughts.
Hey Beagle, “doing the right thing now” is NOT the same as the Sam’s far broader claim that Clinton feels Bush is doing “exactly the right thing”. Lots of reasonable people feel that pressuring Iraq is a worthwile project, yet still have concerns about Bush’s headlong rush to war. It’s disingenuous to claim that these people are in **EXACT ** sympathy with the president when there’s still so much apparent disagreement on how we should proceed. Or are you willing to claim that Bush is taking “pains to repair a growing rift with allies Germany, France and Russia over the need for war.” ?
On a side note:
Please drop the big letters. What you say isn’t so important or earth shattering that you need to assault our eyes. GD would look like a sunday cartoon page if everyone resorted to such gaudy tactics. Is that what you’d prefer, cartoons of debates ? It kind of **LOOKS ** that way.
Suuuuuure you will. Methinks it’s the logic, not the sarcasm, that you’re unable to face. Uh . . . but . . . GeeDubya is bad! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
And Latro: thanks for the time you’ve saved me by making it abundantly clear that you’re incapable of rational dialogue. I’ve never seen a clearer case of trying to reason with a person out of a position who did not use reason to get there in the first place.
‘You’ = generic ‘you’, those who oppose military action against Iraq. I am trying to get a feel for how much partisan position affects one’s view of the evidence. Mine as much as anyone else’s, which is why I wanted the comparison between what I consider Glaspie “really” said and what the evidence “really” shows about Iraq’s WMD.
I am trying to figure out whether more evidence would help, or what it would take to convince those who are still holding an open mind but are leaning against war.
If I am not making myself clear, sorry - feel free to disregard.
Now, as regards the Iraqi attempt on Bush Sr. vs. the CIA attempt on Castro -
Yes, under circumstances where it would be morally legitimate for the US to assassinate the leader of another country, it would also be legitimate for the other country to try to assassinate our leaders. That is to say, any party who is in the right in some moral dispute between nations can, under the right circumstances, use assassination. I am speaking morally here, not legally, as I understand the US has ruled out targetted assassination attempts as a tool of policy.
In other words, if it is morally legitimate to go to war, it can be morally legitimate to assassinate. There are even circumstances when it is OK to assassinate but not to declare war. For instance, declaring war would lead to widespread destruction, but a quick assassination would end the threat of war. The classic example is always Hitler in 1936. The principle of doing the least harm would say that a bullet to Hitler’s head would have been better than WWII.
Since the attempted assassination of Bush was likely motivated by a desire for revenge, and since the revenge was instantiated by the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, it was not morally legitimate for Iraq to try to kill Bush. In other words, you cannot start an unjust war, lose it, and then try to get revenge on those who defeated you.
Whether or not the attempted assassination of Castro was morally justified or not, I do not know. I don’t know enough about the circumstances. It could have been motivated by a desire to prevent further Cuban missile crises, in which case it might be justifiable. It could also have been motivated by a desire for revenge for the Bay of Pigs, in which case it would not.
The shorthand version is that assassination is legitimate in a good enough cause. It is much more difficult to decide absent a consideration of the motivations, circumstances, and desired and actual outcomes of the attempt.
My hat remains secure. Iraq has no right to “defend its airspace” against US action to enforce the cease-fire. The international sanction you request has been given, by the UN ratification of the cease-fire agreement, and the commitments Iraq gave to disarm. The US is perfectly within its rights to use force to compel Iraq to comply with the terms of the cease-fire, and to compel Iraq to allow inspections.
Iraq has no right to object when the US uses force to get them to do what Iraq agreed to do - disarm, and to prove that they have disarmed. Iraq has done neither.
The UN ratified the cease-fire agreement. They have passed resolutions authorizing the US to enforce that cease-fire, and to compel Iraq to live up to its terms.
Sorry if I am wasting your time by reminding you of the terms of the cease-fire. It is, however, still in force. I am sure Iraq would prefer to pretend otherwise - indeed, we are now in possession of considerable evidence that this is exactly what they have been doing.
The trouble with your reasoning lies in the space between the first paragraph and the second.
If the US acted honorably, legitimately, and justifiably in establishing a cease-fire and imposing a regime of inspections, they are acting honorably and so forth in continuing to enforce the cease-fire and imposing inspections. If Iraq has shown that they are doing everything in their power to thwart this, they are not acting either honorably, legitimately, or justifiably.
And I think it is more than a little disingenous to say that the UN opposes war with Iraq. Or I will ask you for a cite of the UN resolution forbidding any coalition of member nations to consider such a step.
Their actions seem remarkably consistent. They want WMD to be able to impose themselves on the rest of the world.
I see no discontinuity between what they intended when they invaded Kuwait. I see no discontinuity in who the leader is.
The same leader, acting in the same way, for the same reasons.
It doesn’t seem that hard to me to see what they are up to.
At least twice I’ve heard the ‘argument’ that those anti-war are becoming a minority. Suggesting it is good to jump off the bridge with the others. Hell Even Clinton is now, supposedly, joining the jumpers. How can we still resist?
At the same time, when the shoe is on the other foot you post this:
At one point we are silly appeasers the other moment we are equated to the Nazi’s.
I too could easily compare the US to the Nazi’s as well, if you like that game.
What country was about to launch a war of agression again?
The adoring, brainwashed population cheering them on.
Didn’t the people who planned that last big one got hanged for it?
Hmm, sure puts Bush’s refusal for an international warcrime institute in a different light, doesn’t it?
hehehe
Oh and dog you didn’t even see those lines for what they are, did you? They are not reason nor are they rational.
You, Sir, are the prime example of a brainwashed person.
Methinks it’s the logic, not the sarcasm, that you’re unable to face. Uh . . . but . . . GeeDubya is bad! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
hehehe