“It must be noted that many of the Arab nations also fear that if Iraq becomes a democracy, their feifdom will be in jeopardy also. This is particularly true of Saudi Arabia.”
Actually, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed the Saudis moves toward democracy. They’re calling for an elected parliament within three years. The gov’t is accepting suggestions and recommendations from liberal modernists. Strange to say, but there’s actually movement on the ground. Even a mostly-free press."It must be noted that many of the Arab nations also fear that if Iraq becomes a democracy, their feifdom will be in jeopardy also. This is particularly true of Saudi Arabia"
."It must be noted that many of the Arab nations also fear that if Iraq becomes a democracy, their feifdom will be in jeopardy also. This is particularly true of Saudi Arabia"
Actually, if you were paying attention, you might have noticed the Saudis moves toward democracy. They’re calling for an elected parliament within three years. The gov’t is accepting suggestions and recommendations from liberal modernists. Strange to say, but there’s actually movement on the ground. Even a mostly-free press
the thing is that, people already had their minds made up so all this could never please them. What kind of evidence exactly does everyone need? Any evidence can be fabricated, so what is your idea of real evidence?
Maybe you could enlighten us Minega by telling us whether or not the U.S. should have stepped in, during the trouble in Rwanda. We keep hearing that we dropped the ball. What is the opinion there?
[sup]sorry for hijack, but in my book it applies tangentially[/sup]
Many of you seem to think I was not convinced by Powell’s presentation or didn’t believe the evidence. Neither is true. I was convinced BEFORE the presentation, but I’m not the audience. My only point was that I found it hard to believe that after 12 years of intelligence gathering that’s the best we could do. If we managed to capture a phone conversation of a few minor players I would think our efforts to gain intelligence were pretty extensive. I know some information is sensitive, but I just can’t imagine that we couldn’t come up with one smoking gun fit for public consumption. Tbone2, Colin Powell’s goal wasn’t merely to show a technical breach of the UN resolutions - His goal was to get the UNSC and the US people to back a war. Providing evidence of an active campaign to produce WMD’s is a lot more persuasive than presenting the minimum evidence necessary to indicate a probable material breach in the resolutions.
How about evidence of Iraqi troops massing on the Kuwati border? How about a threat by Saddam or one of his underlings to invade a neighboring country or to use a weapon of mass destruction? How about any evidence whatsoever that he is poses as current a threat to U.S. interests as, say, Osama bin Laden or North Korea, both of which are considerably more sticky wickets than Iraq? How about any evidence whatsoever that he was connected to the September 11 attacks?
Look, I’ve got no love for Saddam, and I think we are and should be at war. We were attacked and almost three thousand of our civilians were killed on our own soil. We need to go get the motherfuckers that did this to us. If there was the slightest bit of evidence that Iraq sponsored or assisted in these attacks, I’d be all for going in there and cleaning house. But there isn’t. If there was, the Bushies would be shouting it from the rooftops no matter who had to die as a result. That, IMHO, would be fine and good, because that would be a reasonable justification for war and we, as the citizens of a democracy, need that information so we can give our informed consent for our elected representatives to order our fighting men and women into battle. If Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction, why isn’t deterrence the best policy? It kept the peace for fifty years during the Cold War between two opposing forces that were roughly equal. In this situation, one side–us–would have vast superiority over the other side–Iraq. If Iraq used weapons of mass destruction, they would face instant and utter annihilation on a scale never before seen in human history. And they would deserve it. What has changed that renders this time-tested method for keeping the peace obsolete? Saddam is not a religious fanatic–he is a secular dictator. He’s not about becoming a martyr for Allah, he’s about keeping his ass in power. In fact, the real enemy–the Islamofacists–hate Saddam and he hates them. Deterrance kept him from using CBN weapons during the Gulf War, why wouldn’t it keep him from using them now? Why are we so concerned about this sideshow when the real enemy hides in plain sight in northern Pakistan? In my book Saddam is for later. Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden. Remember him?
Your post, while colorful, is not coherent. I recognize that I do not need to know the operational details of this or any other war until they are written up in the history books. I never said anything like that. What I am saying is, if there is a plain and simple smoking gun cause for war, the American public need to know about it. I outlined above some acceptable causes for war. Nothing we have seen so far rises to that level of proof. We, as Americans, don’t take things like this on faith. That’s democracy.
OK, let’s pay attention here. I’ll type this slowly so everyone can keep up…
Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, developed/obtained chemical and biological weapons in HUGE quantities over the past two decades. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, used some of same against various targets, some Iranian, some Iraqi. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, publicly admitted possession of massive quantities of biological and chemical agents.
Understand please that these are FACTS.
Understand please that Iraq has been/is in possession of large stockpiles of weapons-grade or “weaponable” agents of death.
Understand please that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, is now representing that all of those things have gone “bye-bye,” but can’t offer a shred of evidence that it’s so.
Understand please that the UNSC, knowing all this, declared that Iraq must come clean, declare any and all proscribed weapons stockpiles, and assist in their discovery and subsequent destruction, but Iraq has utterly failed to do so.
Powell went before the UNSC to point out, at considerable length and in admirable detail, that Iraq has completely failed to comply with the UNSC mandate. THIS IS THE ONLY AVENUE OPEN TO THE UN TO SANCTION MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ!!
Excuse me, but Ray Fucking Charles could see that Iraq has completely failed to comply with the UNSC mandate.
I’m tired now.
Tbone2: Sorry you’re tired.
Care to explain why they haven’t gone after the actual al Qaeda in the north of Iraq, underneath our own no-fly zone?
Also, we could, after all, simply blockade Iraq. Completely shut down their oil exports. It’s an act of war, but it’s an act of limited war, directly aimed at forcing Iraq to comply. But the administration goes directly to regime change instead. No mention of using more limited options.
Why? Because it’s not about the WMDs or terrorism. It’s about vengeance. I see no reason to advocate the sacrifice of our military men and women over Bush’s childish need to get at Saddam directly.
There is no need to be patronizing but if you should decide to be anyway then at least make a good point. Ray Fucking Charle’s dead headless mother could have seen that Iraq wasn’t complying with the UN sanctions well before Powell ever spoke. Clearly there is more evidence needed to sanction a war against Iraq than a technical breach of the resolutions otherwise France and Germany would have given us the go-ahead. If Powell had showed photographs that irrefutably proved the existence of chemical weapons or the intent to produce them, France and Germany would have been more inclined to give a greenlight. Powell was also trying to sell the war to the American public. Get you head out of the technical specs and feel how the plane flies.
If Saddam Hussein detonated a nucular bomb on the Kurds tomorrow, there would still be people trying to spin it “Well, he used the only one he had, why should we worry about it anymore?”
Fact:
The UNSC passed, 15-0, I might add, a resolution requiring Iraq to prove that they have destroyed their stockpile of WMD, a stockpile that nobody denies that they had. The alternative to that was war. Iraq has utterly failed to demonstrate anything of the kind.
France and Germany are spouting off in a display of political gamesmanship designed to remind everyone that they are important nations too. Both France and Germany have agreed to commit their troops for security at allied based in Turkey from which attacks on Iraq will be launched. Really, I honestly don’t see why this is so hard. The UN said “Do this ( prove you’ve destroyed the WMD ) or we will do that ( war ).” Iraq didn’t do this. Now it is up to us to do that or there will be no credible action possible by the UN in the future.
You’re kidding, right? France and Germany’s opinion by definition describe reasonableness, eh? Gotcha. Let’s just listen to those two then to the exclusion of the rest of Europe, since they have this whole thing knocked. Everybody else on the continent is deluded.
If there’s more evidence required, please explain why. Iraq is already in defiance of the resolution, whether you describe it as a “technical breach” or otherwise. Appealing to the authority of France and Germany ain’t gonna make the case for not proceeding to war. Please keep in mind that France already voted for a resolution that provided for significant consequences if Iraq was shown to be in breach. So what exactly does France’s word signify? Which part do they mean? I’m finding it increasingly more difficult to care even slightly about what France wants or doesn’t want.
I’ve already said I don’t need anymore evidence. Nor do I give a flying fuck about France or Germany. I was merely saying that apparently THEY need more evidence to sanction a war. There is a difference between proving a material breach and proving that breach dangerous enough to warrant a war vs. something more subtle.
I offer an alternative interpretation. You will recall, I am sure, the general surprise elicited by Syria’s vote in favor. Thier explanation makes perfect sense: they were trying to 1) slow down the US’ headlong rush to war and 2) pull the matter back under UN control. The Bushistas seek to spin this as utter and unanimous approval of the US position, but it ain’t necessarily so.
Well, they don’t deny they had them, they deny they have them. I don’t trust them any more than you do, but how, exactly, are they supposed to prove they destroyed them? Offer a Certificate of Destroyed Stuff? Signed by who? So far, our take on it seems to be if we see them, we gotcha, and if we don’t see them, you’re hiding them so we gotcha. Heads we win, tails you lose, if it lands on edge, its a do-over.
Not quite. The alternative was “serious consequences”. They left themselves a trapdoor, they almost always do. The Admin likes to say that everybody knows what that means, but ask yourself this: why doesn’t it explicitly say “war” rather than “serious consequences” Clealy, the US would prefer that wording, if that wording is not there, what does this say about claims of unanimity? I suggest that it means that if “material breach” is determined, the issue is to go back before the UN for deliberation as to what “serious consequences” are called for. They are trying to take the trigger out of US hands and put it in their own.
And how would they have done so, absent the aforementioned Certificates? How would you go about proving you are not in possession of a pink unicorn? Where are you hiding it?
There is considerable doubt, shared by myself, that UN credibility is the actual point of US policy. The US has already stated that it will proceed regardless of UN acquiescence. To my mind, it is blatant hypocrisy to demand UN legitimacy for predetermined actions while denying the authority on which that legitimacy rests. To put it more simply, if the UN says “No, no war with Iraq today” will GeeDubya say “Well, I disagree, but you’re the boss”? The US has already made it clear: the answer will be “Screw you, we’re going to do it anyway”. In what way can this be construed as supporting UN “credibility”?
Look, we don’t need to make this a major point, but there is no other reasonable inference to be made from your post. You were not merely observing what those countries said, you were assigning a value to their assessments, whether you intended to or not. If you don’t give a flying fuck about France or Germany, then don’t make statements like this:
**If you don’t give a flying fuck about France or Germany, then don’t refer to their opinions at all. Then we can both avoid pointless exchanges about positions you state but don’t seem to really hold when questioned on them.
[quote]
Well, they don’t deny they had them, they deny they have them. I don’t trust them any more than you do, but how, exactly, are they supposed to prove they destroyed them? Offer a Certificate of Destroyed Stuff? [/wuote]
Yes, that is exactly what is required. We’re talking persistant chemical and biological agents, you can’t just put them out in the trash with last weeks chicken bones and newspapers, for Pete’s sake! Disposal of such munitions requires complex and detailed processes, and Iraq has not shown any evidence of having done so. I find it amazing how many of you are quick to point out that your take on the U.S. government’s case is that they are saying “Trust us, we have evidence” and that that’s not good enough, in spite of the fact that they are presenting evidence, while at the same time are totaly willing to accept Iraq’s word that they have destroyed their WMD without any evidence at all! That is, to put it bluntly, insane.
As to Germany and France, as I noted in my last post, they have agreed to start providing troops for base security in Turkey. This is the first step. Honestly, what they are doing is political grandstanding to make their point that the U.S. is not the only large nation in the world and can not act unilateraly. They protest, diplomats negotiate, and F and G can say that they had influence over the decision to go to war. Excuse me, influence over the “serious consequences”.
Nope, it’s not. You stated that France and Germany’s opinions and actions mean, by their very existence, that more evidence is required before there’s any move toward war. This is not terribly ambiguous in your wording. It’s silly, mind you, but it’s clear. I’ll accept that you didn’t mean to convey that even if your words suggest otherwise, and we can move on, if that’s what you’re trying to say now.
I’m pretty sure your (or my) authority to begin a war in Iraq is not at all in question, but thanks for clearing that up.
I would find that amazing as well. You can, of course, back that up? You have a quote from someone, one of the “many of you” who say that? Myself, perhaps? Otherwise, this kinda looks like one of those blanket accusations with no real basis in fact.
On the other hand, if Iraq comes forward with a piece of paper, or several pieces of papers, that says “on October 3, we disposed of x lites of anthrax in the Godforsaken Desert” this would impress you? Why would this be evidence of anything?
Just five posts ago you seemed to find Iraq’s claim not to posess WMD credible because you said:
Clearly indicating that you think being asked to prove they’ve destroyed WMD is akin to asking Iraq to produce a pink unicorn.
Why yes, it would be, assuming that UN inspectors were then allowed to travel to the Godforsaken Desert and confirm that Iraq had indeed dumped out x litres of anthrax there. WMD don’t just disappear like a dry twig in a campfire. The fact is that Iraq hasn’t even shown a piece of paper showing anything verifiable at all. To claim otherwise is willful blindness.
[sup]sorry for hijack, but in my book it applies tangentially[/sup]