Post-Powell's Address: "Smoking Gun" Redux

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Tee:

Since elucidator answered the question you directed towards me, I’ll tackle this one instead:*

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.*

A valid question, for which I admit I don’t have a ready answer. On the other hand, that’s not really my position in this debate. But I’ll take a shot.

Regarding the sanctions, it is argued that they have had horrendous consequences on the civilian population of Iraq, while having little or no impact on Saddam’s political power. In fact, there are those who claim that the sanctions have actually had a detrimental effect: that, contrary to their intention, they’ve strengthened Saddam’s grip on the country, by severely weakening the forces which might otherwise oppose him. Certainly, commentators from both poles of the political spectrum can agree that the sanctions seem to have had little real impact on Hussein’s control of the Iraqi state. Not well-versed myself with this line of reasoning, I would guess it goes something like, ”Well, if the sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, and don’t have an effect on Saddam, then perhaps we should lift them. We can still maintain control of the military situation by means of rigorous on-site weapons inspections. And if lifting the sanctions eventually serves to empower Hussein’s opponents, well, all the better.” Does that sound like a rational argument to you – even if you disagree with it?

“Regarding forced regime change,” well, as you know, that’s war. Since I’m not sure that I feel strongly enough about Hussein’s regime to risk my life on the front lines of a war with Iraq, I hesitate to send others over to do the job. Again, the idea is that, given the horror and chaos of war, we would be wise to pursue all other possible option to their utmost before committing ourselves to such a course. If we can disarm Iraq in this manner, via inspections, without war – even though the Iraqis aren’t cooperating as fully as we would like –wouldn’t that be infinitely better than the alternative?
Sam:

Your list is the second-most boneheaded argument I’ve ever seen you post – I won’t bring up the first, so as to spare you embarrassment. I’m not going to waste my time discussing your tripe in-depth, but let’s review a couple of your points:

• When Bush started going after Iraq, the plea was, “You must do it with the permission of Congress!” Bush got the permission of Congress.*

Shocking, isn’t it! Us ”lefties” actually felt that in the United States, the world’s largest and most influential representative democracy, a declaration of war by the President should be subjected to a democratic mandate. How could we! Unbelievable that, when Bush called upon us, we didn’t simply jump up as one man and march lock-step behind him! That we actually demanded to be allowed to discuss it first, to examine the record critically, or vote on it!

I would remind you that Bush would have gladly by-passed Congressional approval, if he could have. He was actually planning to, by means of a technical legal loophole, but was finally convinced by his advisors that it wouldn’t be necessary, since support for his war could be garnered there anyway. But if a majority in Congress had been against war, I assure you he would have tried to find a way circumnavigate Congress. Ever the patriot, no doubt, you would still be here, cheering him on, had he done so. Apparently, you feel that Bush has the right to declare war without Congressional review, even in a democracy. What a strange view of the democratic process you must possess!

• 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.*

Stop to compare the coalition that ran Iraq out of Kuwait with what the administration has managed to jerry-rig together today. Sure, Sam, have it your way. How stupid do you think I am, really? So stupid as to deny the evidence of my own senses?

• Then it was, “You need a UN resolution!” So the Bush administration got a U.N. resolution.*

A totally irrelevant resolution, however, if the administration is to be believed; Bush had already declared that he would go to war without one. In doing so, he effectively negated the relevance of the UN, and managed to insult the majority of European states. But even if Bush hadn’t managed to pressure the rest of the Council into passing 1441, we’d still be here discussing the war, so the point is moot.

By the way, the current resolution is not a declaration of war on Iraq, or even an authorization to use military force. Sorry.

• And after all the excuses are done, and there are no more stalling tactics, it becomes, “No war at any price”.*

No, the issue is not, ”No war at any price.” Do you think that if Iraq invaded one of its neighbors tomorrow, or launched a nuke at Tel Aviv, that the opposition to a military intervention would even exist? Really? You don’t think it wouldn’t essentially dry up over night, and that tomorrow we would awaken to a unified NATO, while Baghdad was reduced to smoking rubble? You think I would have a problem with that?

On the contrary: the issue is, ”Are Iraq’s infractions of UNSC resolutions severe enough to merit a military response?” A question, by the way, that intelligent, rational people can nevertheless reasonably disagree on. So stop trying to paint everyone who disagrees with the war effort as an irrational Bush-hater, please.

• 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.*

This is the most crapulous pile of stupid assertions, leading to an idiotic conclusion, that I’ve seen in a long time. You’re living in denial, Dude.

Somebody call Dr. Phil!*

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.*

How quaintly Ameri-centric of you. On this side of the pond, on the other hand, we are the overwhelming majority.

So what’s your point?

Finally, I challenge you to locate a post in which I have stated, ”No war at any price.” This is not, and never has been, my position. Your attempt to paint everyone who opposes war with one brush is nice rhetorical trick, Sam, but it merely obscures the issues. You don’t seem to understand that you are debating with individuals, here. I’m not part of some vast, left-wing conspiracy, nor are any of the numerous others posters who participate in this discussion.

Get a grip.
Doghouse:*

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….Now you and Latro are just being fingers-in-the-ears, la-la-la obtuse. Diplomats never say war, especially not at the UN.*

Maybe not, but they do authorize military action. Consider the text of UNSC Resolution 678, which originally authorized the coalition to repel Iraq from Kuwait:*

The Security Council…

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660…in flagrant contempt of the Security Council…

Acting Under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1 Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;

2 Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements…the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area… *

It was this document that cleared the way for the Gulf War. It doesn’t use the word ”war,” exactly, but the text is clear enough.

Does anyone else notice a difference between the phrase ”serious consequences,” and the phrase ”use all means necessary”? Just curious.

Shodan:

I see that while I’ve been preview you’ve posted a reply. I’ll try to get back to you as soon as I get the chance.

[bordelond]

Mr. Svinlesha, IIRC, Sam Stone is Canadian, not American.

[Beagle]

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.

Fair enough. It’s just that typing “Larry King Bill Clinton interview” into most search engines would have turned up what was sought.

Now, after doing a quick scan, It was on another thread, I guess, that I posted the Larry King info about five minutes after the show ended. Sorry. It was kind of a joke about the continual battles over easily provable things.

[december]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
Us ”lefties” actually felt that in the United States, the world’s largest and most influential representative democracy, a declaration of war by the President should be subjected to a democratic mandate…I would remind you that Bush would have gladly by-passed Congressional approval, if he could have. He was actually planning to, by means of a technical legal loophole, but was finally convinced by his advisors that it wouldn’t be necessary, since support for his war could be garnered there anyway.

More precisely, he claimed that Congress had already authorized war against Iraq as a part of the rather open-ended war on terrorism legislation. He was probably right, from a legal POV. He was certainly right from a practical POV. He could have gone to war with Iraq without a second Congressional vote, and nobody would have done anything about it.

The “lefties” demand for additional Congressional approval wasn’t because of their deep belief in democracy. After all, they let their own President Clinton bomb Kosovo without any Congressional approval at all.

Bush had already declared that he would go to war without one. In doing so, he effectively negated the relevance of the UN…

No, the UN had already negated its own relevance by not following up their resolutions with action. Iraq was ignoring the UN because it was irrelevant.

…and managed to insult the majority of European states.

Well, his “insults” worked diplomatically. All but a handful of them are backing Bush; those who are opposing him have trade relationships with Saddam Hussein that they want to continue.

On the contrary: the issue is, ”Are Iraq’s infractions of UNSC resolutions severe enough to merit a military response?” A question, by the way, that intelligent, rational people can nevertheless reasonably disagree on.

I agree with you there.

[Shodan]

I too could easily compare the US to the Nazi’s as well, if you like that game.

I thought you were the one arguing that the Left was not marginalized. Why would you make so silly an analogy? What other effect could it have besides to show the emptiness of your rhetoric?

Godwin’s Law, anyone?

What country was about to launch a war of agression again?

None that I am aware of. Iraq tried it, but was defeated, which is why we are able to enforce the terms under which she surrendered.

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?

Nope, same old same old.

The people who planned the last war of aggression in the Middle East are still in control of Iraq. One could argue that he deserves hanging, but that would involve military action, wouldn’t it?

Of course, if you would like to convince the world that enforcing the cease-fire and inspections is a war crime, you are welcome to try. You need more than simple accusations, however. Try evidence.

You know, what Powell was waving around.

Regards,
Shodan

[DrDeth]

Mr Svinlesha- you asked, on page 3 of this- why the US did not “deny” the bogus quotes made up by the Iraqi’s. A cheap propaganda technique is to get someone to deny something which is clearly false. The USA is (usually) smarter than to play that game. When someone makes up an accusation which is completely baseless, you do NOT bother to “deny” it.

What was it that LBJ said: “Hell, I just want him to DENY the allegation”?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

• 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?…

//////////////////////////////////////////////

‘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.*

Hmmm…I think I understand your question, now.

As I tried to argue earlier, one’s view of whether or not Glaspie “green-lighted” the invasion of Kuwait depends a bit on how one reads the evidence. As far as the evidence itself goes, on the other hand, we have 1) a transcript released from a not-too reliable source; 2) a partial denial of the contents of that transcript from Glaspie, and 3) a State Department document that seems to avoid the contents altogether. Taken as a whole, I interpret Glaspie’s statements during the meeting as indicating that, should Iraq take a narrow strip of disputed border territory, an oil well or two, and/or a small island (these items were under dispute, if I understand correctly), then the US would not react militarily.

Regarding Saddam’s WMDs, well, I personally believe that he probably has a stockpile or two of something hanging around. I just don’t see that as a direct threat to US lives or territory. Being perhaps somewhat cynical, I suspect that nearly all countries in world have stocks of these sorts of weapons, and that many others (such as the US) even have active development programs.

But I must admit that my view is based on hearsay. Thus far the latest round of weapons inspections have not uncovered any actual chemical or biological agents in Iraq, to my knowledge. Even Powell’s speech at the UN left me unconvinced, because he could do little more than draw a few circumstantial clues together that point to the probability that Saddam has these weapons. So I’m waiting to hear what Blix has to say. Anyway, technically…I can’t answer your question, yet. It’s sort of like comparing apples and oranges.

I don’t have much disagreement about your views on the assassination of heads of state, at least not that are worth discussing. Since it’s a bit of a side-issue, let’s move on.*

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.*

Glad to hear about the hat. I felt extremely uncomfortable making the assertion that Iraq has a right to defend itself, because I don’t like taking the position that it is “okay” to shoot at American aircraft. In some quarters, such an opinion would be regarded as treasonous.

Having said that, I must sheepishly admit that I have never even seen a text of the cease-fire agreement. I once Googled after it, and got about 11 hundred gazillion newspaper articles with the phrase “cease-fire agreement” in them, but found no link to the document. I don’t even know if the cease-fire is a UN mandate, a UNSC resolution, or an entirely separate document.

You claim that the US is “perfectly within its rights to use force,” which is probably the case. But is it within its rights to enforce a no-fly zone? Was that also a part of the original cease-fire agreement, or was it something that the US tacked on afterwards? Or was it mandated by the UNSC? I would really like to see the documents, out of genuine curiosity. Do you know where I could find them?*

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.*

You suggested that my standard for legitimate military deployment – that is, the position that the use of unilateral military force is only acceptable in the case of territorial self-defense, in keeping with the UN Charter (wherein this principle is explicitly stated) – might not be the correct standard for dealing with Iraq. I ask now for the third time, if you are of this opinion, to explain to me what standard should be taken with regard to Iraq, and how such a standard can be vouchsafed from the abuses of power.

As you say, the UN has sanctioned US enforcement of the cease-fire. With regard to that, it is my position that should a group of nations come together and, under the auspices of the UNSC, decide upon a course action, even military action, against a state that they all regard as a threat, then in such a case I would accept that as a legitimate exercise of military force. That means that if all the SC members agreed that it was necessary to forcefully oust Hussein, on the basis of the evidence that he was a threat to regional or even global security, or even on the basis of his human rights abuses, I would support that decision as legitimate, with one caveat – namely, if it appeared to me as if there was an unholy amount “cow-trading” going on in the decision-making process (i.e., one member buying off the votes of several others, and so).

• 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. *

Sure. I’ll buy that for a dollar.

• 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.*

Not disingenuous, really, but perhaps a bit hasty. At the moment, only 4 of the 15 current members of the Security Council favor war with Iraq. Of course, that could change, but it seems doubtful at this juncture. The point is that Bush has said that he will engage in war regardless, even if he is opposed by the majority of nations at the UN. I argue that if the US wages war without a UN mandate, it is no longer in step with “the will of the world.”

• 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.

And what they must be prevented from doing.*

I think there is some merit to these arguments, but I also think that the US cannot simply ignore the fact that it lives within a community of nations, many of whom might not agree with such an assessment. As I’ve reiterated many times in this thread, it is therefore incumbent upon the US to convince the world of the correctness of its position – a job the Bush administration has botched horribly, if you want my personal opinion – and to abide by the decision reached on this issue by the UNSC.

Once more in this discussion I want to remind you that Iraq has never attacked US territory, nor is there any reason to suspect, whatsoever, that such an attack is imminent. Just so we don’t lose sight of that issue, which is central to my thinking on this question.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
<snipped>
Certainly, commentators from both poles of the political spectrum can agree that the sanctions seem to have had little real impact on Hussein’s control of the Iraqi state. Not well-versed myself with this line of reasoning, I would guess it goes something like, ”Well, if the sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, and don’t have an effect on Saddam, then perhaps we should lift them. We can still maintain control of the military situation by means of rigorous on-site weapons inspections. And if lifting the sanctions eventually serves to empower Hussein’s opponents, well, all the better.” Does that sound like a rational argument to you – even if you disagree with it?

It makes perfect sense…but it is also one battle lost in a larger war. I was hearing that argument well before war was seriously considered. Since our beef is not with the Iraqi people I see the humanity in it, and also the political victory for their leader, and the possibility of being ‘responsible’ for the next 30+ years of Husseins-in-power, just like we are ‘responsible’ for the last twelve or more. There is no guarantee for example that ending sanctions will result in improved living conditions for everyone…he supposedly earns enough through Oil-for-Food programs now, right?

“Regarding forced regime change,” well, as you know, that’s war. Since I’m not sure that I feel strongly enough about Hussein’s regime to risk my life on the front lines of a war with Iraq, I hesitate to send others over to do the job. Again, the idea is that, given the horror and chaos of war, we would be wise to pursue all other possible option to their utmost before committing ourselves to such a course. If we can disarm Iraq in this manner, via inspections, without war – even though the Iraqis aren’t cooperating as fully as we would like –wouldn’t that be infinitely better than the alternative?

Now this gets more to the heart of my question…how is it morally justifiable to invade the country with weapons inspectors rather than troops. We’ve been focused on regime change for years using different means but never to any decisive end, war being the last resort. I understand that war is more horrific and chaotic and results in large-scale deaths - anything is better than war - but we still have options left before we deliver the force we’ve promised. Exile, a coup, whatever…I would say anything but indefinite and more intrusive inspections. I don’t see how that helps the opposition or avoids angering the militants, and most importantly it leaves the same person in charge. If we don’t threaten the worst, we are not going to see the end of him. Furthermore if certain people are convinced that SH poses no threat to anyone, why bother recommending increasing inspections? It looks futile on this side and unnecessary on the other, and harsh and meddlesome in the middle. So, no, it doesn’t look infinitely better. It doesn’t look much like a solution at all. JMO.

[asrivkin]

*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha *
**
Having said that, I must sheepishly admit that I have never even seen a text of the cease-fire agreement. I once Googled after it, and got about 11 hundred gazillion newspaper articles with the phrase “cease-fire agreement” in them, but found no link to the document. I don’t even know if the cease-fire is a UN mandate, a UNSC resolution, or an entirely separate document.
**

According to the US State Dept. (usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm), UN Resolution 686 orders the cessation of hostilities, and 687 sets up the cease-fire. In heading to the UN website and looking at the pdfs, I can’t honestly say I found any no-fly provisions, though the State Dept. site says the no-fly zones were the “coalition response” to the cease-fire. There are other provisions in there that nobody seems to dispute that Iraq has broken, but I don’t see anything about a no-fly zone. Resolution 688 was about the Kurds, but I didn’t see anything about no-fly zones in there, either…

[Latro]

Sorry,Shodan, I can make head nor tail of your last post.
It must be late on your side of the pond. Want to try again in the morning? We could also leave it, it’s not that fascinating a discussion.

[greco_loco]

Here are some links to the relevant resolutions:

UNSCR 687 (the cease-fire agreement)

UNSCR 688 (supposed basis for no-fly zones)

There are numerous arguments about the no-fly zones, but the fact is that there is no document that gives them a legal basis. Period. Neither of the above resolutions mentions the use of force by any individual state (or coalition, other than UN forces) to do anything to Iraq. At the beginning, France was also involved, but they soon withdrew their support (they later stated that the activity was “cruel, inefficient, and dangerous”).

This site provides some background on the no-fly zones, if you are interested:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm

UNSCR 1441 does indeed mention the no-fly zones, but most would admit that is simply an admission of the status quo (and, of course, put into effect 11 years after the fact). As most of the UNSC resolutions at the time (686, 687, and 688) actually include phrases addressing the Iraqi right to sovereignty, I think it logically follows that the no-fly zones are illegal, from the standpoint of international law. While they may have caused some disruption to Iraq’s development after Desert Storm, it is a mistake to assume that these no-fly zones have had any real “protective” effect on either the Kurds or the Shi’a. In fact, in this definitely pro-US and pro-military action article, even they admit that Iraq has still been able, with these zones in effect, to reduce the Shi’a population by over “75 percent” in a few years (through ground military action, and by draining of the swamps in which the Shi’a live). The same article also questions the zones’ long-term effectiveness, while admitting that the zones have met their objectives of keeping the Iraqi airspace free of aircraft in those areas.

And Mr. Svinlesha, thanks for the well-balanced posts; I always enjoy reading your contributions. Hope this information is useful.

Thanks -

Greco

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Greco:

You flatter me, but thanks for the compliment. And thanks muchly for the links as well!

[Mr.Svinlesha]

december:*

More precisely, he claimed that Congress had already authorized war against Iraq as a part of the rather open-ended war on terrorism legislation. He was probably right, from a legal POV. He was certainly right from a practical POV.*

You may be surprised to learn this, pal, but just because you think Bush’s claim was right doesn’t make it right. This is precisely the point of contention. I, and very many people along with me, believe that there is a categorical difference between a diffuse “war on terrorism,” on the one hand, and an invasion of Iraq, on the other. As is typical among those who inhabit the very far right of the political spectrum, you don’t seem to be able to acknowledge that your assertions are not the same as the facts. By your reasoning, the opinion of a significant portion of the American public should be simply dismissed, and the standard democratic institutions of the US – which are, as I understand it, part of what the US is supposedly fighting to maintain – should be ignored or set aside, just so you can get your precious little war up and running.*

He could have gone to war with Iraq without a second Congressional vote, and nobody would have done anything about it.*

The fuck you say. Wanna bet?*

The “lefties” demand for additional Congressional approval wasn’t because of their deep belief in democracy. After all, they let their own President Clinton bomb Kosovo without any Congressional approval at all.*

My “demand” for Congressional approval was based on the idea that in a democratic society, the decision to declare war must be approved by a mandate from the people. Since you would doubtless consider me a “lefty,” I guess that means your first assertion, above, is right out. In fact, I have no idea of how you and Sam square your rhetorical defense of democratic institutions with the claim that a declaration of war by a democratic society doesn’t require such a mandate. It simply doesn’t make sense. You want to defend democracy by overriding or ignoring democratic process? Your position, in that case, is incoherent.

In addition, the very attempt to classify Clinton as a “leftist” is ludicrous in the extreme, and only serves to reveal once again the intellectual bankruptcy, if not downright partisan dishonesty, of the extreme right. Clinton cannot be seen as anything further left than “moderate,” by any reasonable standard. With regard to his foreign policy initiatives, he could even be viewed as fairly conservative.

I don’t know much about the bombing of Kososvo; I was living abroad during the Balkan War. But I wonder, is your point really relevant at all to this discussion, or just another partisan red-herring?

• No, the UN had already negated its own relevance by not following up their resolutions with action. Iraq was ignoring the UN because it was irrelevant.*

You know, I’ve read your anti-UN screeds on these boards with a sense of bewildered wonderment. Judging from your posts, it seems clear that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and, in addition, have no desire whatsoever to educate yourself.

The UN, december, is not some sort of disembodied, bloated, free-floating bureaucracy, hovering mysteriously and ineffectively over the world; it is a forum in which nations gather to try to iron out their differences. The international system is essentially one of anarchy, and membership in, as well as co-operation with, the UN organization is strictly voluntary. That’s probably a good thing; would you prefer that the UN actually had the power to implement all of its resolutions, or that it dictate US foreign policy? I seriously doubt it; y’all are mighty leery of that one-world-gubmint thang, I have been given to believe. So your arguments generally are of the “heads I win, tails you lose,” category. You castigate the UN on one hand for being weak, ineffectual, or irrelevant; at the same time, you promote US foreign policies that weaken, and make ineffectual or irrelevant, the UN forum. This argument is the equivalent of stabbing someone in the back, and then blaming them for getting in the way of the knife; or of arguing that we should eliminate the US Court System, since it failed to convict O. J. Simpson.

As an organization of states, the UN is effective only to the extent that all member states work together within it. We say the UNSC passes resolution so-and-so, for example; this is simply shorthand for saying that the representatives of a certain number of states sat down, discussed an issue, and came to a certain conclusion. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why all the commotion? The UN is powerful, effective, and relevant only to the extent that member states grant it those qualities. If you feel that the UN is ineffectual, and that something should be done about it, then your own logic the US should abide by, and work within, the mandate of the UN Charter. If the US did so, the UN would be considerably more effective than it is today. This far is too obvious a point to belabor, and if you can’t see it, then you’re simply being obtuse.

• Me: On the contrary: the issue is, ”Are Iraq’s infractions of UNSC resolutions severe enough to merit a military response?” A question, by the way, that intelligent, rational people can nevertheless reasonably disagree on.

december: I agree with you there.*

And yet still you castigate the UN, because some member nations rationally disagree with official US policy in this question? How much sense does that make?
Dr. Deth:

• A cheap propaganda technique is to get someone to deny something which is clearly false. The USA is (usually) smarter than to play that game. When someone makes up an accusation which is completely baseless, you do NOT bother to “deny” it.*

C,mon, doc: you don’t actually buy that lame-ass argument, do you?
Shodan:

I’m curious to hear your response to greco-loco’s argument, and would also point out that no less a worthy that the UN Secretary General, Koffi Annan, has declared that Iraq is within its rights to fire at US warplanes that invade its airspace. As far as I can tell, the US is alone in the interpretation of 687 and 1441 you seem to promote.

[Shodan]

Not sure what Kofi Anan thinks, or why he thinks it.

UNSCR Resolutions state:

On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations.

Cite.

And UNSCR 1441 states rather clearly:

Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution.

So very far from declaring a free-fire zone on anyone they please, Iraq seems to have been specifically enjoined not to fire on those attempting to enforce the regime of inspections.

The UNSCR warns Iraq of “serious consequences” if it fails to comply.

[greco_loco]

Shodan, I clearly stated that UNSCR 1441 included the only mention of the no-fly zones, and that was an admission of the status quo; I think it is a mistake to claim that the zones are legal, when there are also comments that expressly state Iraq’s right to sovereignty.

And the no-fly zones were never put in place “to enforce the regime of inspections”; how do they do that, pray tell? The US and the UK have stated that UNSCR 688 was the basis for the establishment of the zones, and that resolution deals with the necessity to assist the Kurds and the Shi’a (though it doesn’t permit unilateral action, nor does it specify military action on anyone’s part); if you checked my other cite, you will also notice that the no-fly zones have not been particularly effective on that score.

Reading the quote you provided, the assumption there is that Iraq cannot take hostile action towards UN, IAEA, or member country that is upholding UNSC resolutions; if the no-fly zones were not part of any resolution, how would Iraqi action against US/UK aircraft in those areas meet the criteria of non-compliance?

There is still nothing to prove the legality of the no-fly zones, and the latest resolution actually goes against the earlier resolutions in this regard; I should think it is fairly obvious that the UNSC was forced to adopt language providing some kind of justification for the zones during the round of “compromise” that took place in November last year when the resolution was adopted. In fact, this part still remains from the earlier resolutions:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Sounds like some of the “Member States” have decided to be a little shy on the commitment thing, huh?

Greco

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Shodan:

*On the wider issue of air operations in Iraq, both fixed-wing and rotary, Iraq will guarantee the safety of air operations in its air space outside the no-fly zones. With regard to air operations in the no-fly zones, Iraq will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations. *

That’s a bit of a strech, Sho’, don’t you think? This sentence is not taken from the text of the resolution, but from an attached letter written by Iraqi General Amir H. Al-Saadi.

Are you trying to pass off a letter written by an Iraqi General as some sort of official pronouncement from the Security Council?

:dubious:

For the Secretary General’s take on the issue, go here.

P.S. Thanks once again for the links, greco.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

D’oh… Scratch that last. I misread the letter, which is from Blix and ElBaradei. My bad.

Nevertheless, the quote is not found in the text of the Resolution, and seems to be merely part of the practical arrangements for transporting inspection teams.

[RandySpears]

Some “European” takes on this discussion

I. There is widespread opposition to the war in most European states. Even in a state like Spain, where the government supports the US policy, 87.1% of the public still oppose military action. In Italy, another state supporting the US, 90 % of those surveyed opposed war against Iraq. In Britain, the US strongest ally, there is still a (slight) majority opposing the war. The same for France. In Russia 53% against, 26% for. In Canada the majority is anti-war. Germany likewise. Etcetera.

Is the reaction to these feelings by the American public really to dismiss the rest of the world as wimps / weaks / ill-informed / pro Saddam?

II. Neighbouring states of iraq neither asks for, nor supports, US intervention, but in fact opposes it.

III. The matters at hand, viewed in the light of past US foreign policies, suggests that guaranteeing access to iraqi Oil, as well as consolidation of political influence in the area, for the same reason, is at least one (of many) motives for an intervention. In my view, it being one motive is bad enough. No matter how many altruistic anti-dictator, pro-democracy motives also comes with the bundle. Add to this the suspicion (a speculation for sure, you decide) that the conflict with Iraq has an impact on US domestic politics, and the next presidential election.

IV. Head of CIA, George Tenet, recently characterized Iraq as posing no major security threat to either the US or its neighbours.

V. None of the “evidence” brought up by Colin Powell even comes near of constituting a material breach of resolution 1441. Prove me wrong, please!

VI. Why not supply information concerning Iraqi attempts to dupe inspections directly to the inspectors, so as to ease their work? Maybe that material had a greater rethorical use…