U.N. says 'no sign of WMD in Iraq'

Great Debates
21

It’s becoming apparent that Bush is going to, very calmly and as diplomatically as he can, read the riot act to the U.N. tomorrow.

As in, that body was instrumental in setting up the conditions upon which it was agreed to end the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein said he would comply with them. He never fully has. Now, he is blatantly thumbing his nose re: the things he’s supposed to be doing, not doing and allowing.

And calling the United Nations response to it “tepid” would be giving them too much credit.

If you didn’t get a reminder today of why certain countries can afford to be mealy-mouthed, equivocating pussies when it comes to foreign aggressors, and the United States cannot be, then it’s probably a lesson you’ll never learn.

I have no doubt that Bush’s message to the U.N. tomorrow will be, “Given the things you as a body ordered in Iraq, and given what’s happened since, you can either now take measures to show what you have to say is meaningful; or, do what you’ve been doing, and prove you have become as meaningless as your critics say you are.”

Do we have evidence that Iraq is producing chemical and biological weapons? Yes

Has Saddam Hussein proven that he’ll use them, and other barbaric tactics? Yes

Has Saddam Hussein demonstrated that he will invade and/or attack his neighbors, unprovoked? Oh yeah

Do we know that he was working on going nuclear? Yes

Do we have any reason to believe that he would stop that process in the 11 years that he has thwarted meaningful inspections? Of course not

Does any of this matter to most people here? No.

Should it? Yep.

22

Obviously if the germ agents are useful in biowarfare the first thing they did with them is split up the samples and made more. No way to the inspectors find all of it. Sure, they would offer some up - but save some as well. Sorry, that’s just Machaevellian common sense.

BUT, I sure hope you are right about the biowarfare stuff. I don’t know anything about infectious agents except to go to the doctor.

I will never trust another leftwing source again. There is a first time for everything.

23

Milo, while I agree with most of your post, I have two quibbles.

This particular foreign aggressor, perhaps, but it’s not like Europe hasn’t had its share of terrorism.

I think it all matters a great deal to most people here–they just disagree on what the response should be. Perhaps the more accurate question would be “Does any of this cause everyone to want to take a war to Iraq? No.”

24

Well, hell, Milo, why stop there? Zip in there, whip his ass, and then…well, all those troops and planes. All ready in place. Why haul 'em all back?

Theres that tyrant Quaddaffi. Bad neighbor. Supported terrorism. WMD’s up the butt. Hates America, might very well slip a nuke to a terrorist. Might have 'em, we don’t know, but why take the chance?

Then take a firm gander at Iran, another prominent member of the Axis of Evil. Chemical weapons? Sure bet. Attack neighbors? Asked and answered. Hates America? Battling it out for second place with Saudi Arabia and Syria.

And then there’s Castro, of course. Might as well clean that up, as long as we’re cleaning house, international style.

And you know, that snotty Froggy-Canuck Chretien, I mean, where does he get off dissing the landlord like that? We have no evidence, none whatsoever, that Canada does not possess biological weapons! Some of thier beer could well be classified as chemical weaponry. Keep in mind they have virtually the entire strategic reserve of seal blubber in the Western Hemisphere!..

Suppose we have a unilateral “regime change”. Just one. Suppose we get to like it?

25

Hi, my name is Beagle.

Hi, Beagle.

I am a hegemon. It all started with some foreign aid. Sure, there were times when I meddled in another nations internal policy, but just on the weekends. Then came the covert actions.

Uh Oh!

Next thing I knew I was changing regimes left and right. I didn’t even know what country I was in sometimes. Sure, I thought I could quit – but, I couldn’t. Juntas, putschs, revolutions – man, I did them all.

Thank’s for sharing. China, you’re next.

26

Hey, look, man, that World Court judge says I gotta go to 6 more meetings, then I’m oughta here. You guys said nobody would make me say anything if I didn’t want to…

OK…ok…you want it straight! Nepal, Nepal, Nepal, alls I fuckin’ hear about, stinkin’ Nepal and that grinning gwei lo the Dolly Rammer. Look, Nepal is China, always has been, you could look it up. For Chrissakes, we’re just trying to bring a little liberation to a bunch of backward yahoos who stink like yak butter and incense, I mean, come on, gimme a break here…

Look, maybe you better talk now. Yeah, you, the spooky looking guy, can’t read your name tag…yeah, ok, Vladimir…you talk.

27

Touché, elucidator (as usual).

If we decide to attack Iraq, unilaterally and without having ourselves been directly attacked by them first, on the suspicion that they may have some sort of weapon and an intention to use it…

…then we are simply starting a war of aggression without any sort of real provocation as a basis. It’s a flimsy excuse that can be used to justify the use of force practically anywhere in the world.

The US has the ability to dislodge Saddam, probably, but I’m not sure that gives us the moral right to do so. Saddam is who is who he is, and has the capabilities he has, in large measure thanks to our foreign policies in the region and our support for him during his war with Iran. It’s like chaining up a dog in your basement, mistreating him until he’s viscous, and then using his viciousness as an excuse to kill him. Of course, the US didn’t make Saddam viscous, but we sure have given him a lot of opportunities to exploit the talents with which nature has endowed him.

And as bad as Saddam is, it scares me to read the opinions of so many people here who fail to see this for what it is – that they accept these “may have WMD” or “may use them here or there” as reasons, instead of excuses. If the US does decide to attack Iraq, we have a right, and more importantly, a duty as citizens of a free society to be privy to real justifications for this attack and a responsibility to critically inspect the evidence for and against it. Freedom and democracy require a responsible and informed citizenry, especially in a matter as grave as war, yes? I thought that was the whole point behind the democratic experiment. That’s why I find Bush’s misrepresentations earlier this week, concerning the satellite photos and so forth, to be so insulting. Seriously – how stupid does he think we are?

And just to be an asshole about it, I would like to say that I suspect that many people on these boards who so happily pound the war drum might change their tone if they (or their children) were scheduled for a front line tour of duty in our little war.

Finally, I personally suspect that unilateral action will have diplomatic consequences that heavily outweigh its advantages.

28

Point of fact, he got clean away with it, save for a certain scurillous lefty publication who will remain nameless (but who’s initials are Media Whores Online) Nobody gave a rat’s ass.

So…how stupid are we?

29

…until Saddam Hussein sends a dirty bomb into NYC via cargo container. Then, after perhaps 300-500,000 new yorkers are dying a slow, agonizing death, lets reconvene the UN. Then we can humbly ask Kofi Annan to “consider” sending weapons inspectors into Iraq. Of course, there being NO SOLID proof that Iraq was behind the attack, the UN will require “substantial proof”. WE can then wait until he kills a few more thousand Americans, then ask “one more time”.
Finally, we can request an emergency session of the UN, just in case the proof is not sufficient.
There, that oughta do it…what the hell, what’s a few more American dead?
Anybody care to dispute the proper course of action?

30

ralph:

If you think I advocate “waiting” until something horrific happens to more innocents, then you’ve misunderstood me. And it’s a mischaracterization bordering on insult to insinuate that I don’t care about “American dead,” or even dead in general, if that was your intention.

But surely even you can see that where your line of reasoning leads you. When do you stop? Hell – how do you know you’ve punished the right person in the first place? Maybe the shipment really came from Libya – or Sweden, for all you know. If we really want to nip these dangers in the bud, then it would seem necessary for us to declare war on the Entire World. But even that might not help; consider the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the shootings at Columbine.

We live in an uncertain world in which disaster can strike at any time. Those are the conditions of existence. No matter what we do, we cannot make the world completely safe for the future. And if we take out one bad guy, well, as we know, there’s always another one right behind him.

The reasoning in your post is almost paranoid – who seriously believes Saddam Hussein capable of carrying out an attack on the US mainland? Not even Bush and his war cronies have made such a suggestion. It’s a ridiculous exaggeration, and that’s what worries me about some of these discussions: that so many folks seem to take such exaggerations seriously.

But really, its little more that a rhetorical trick; an attempt to reduce a discourse of reason into one of fantasies in blood, patriotism, death, and destruction. If you want to have serious discussion, you can address or criticize the points I raised above; at the very least, please desist with this pointless mischaracterization of opposing argument.

31

ralph:

If you think I advocate “waiting” until something horrific happens to more innocents, then you’ve misunderstood me. And it’s a mischaracterization bordering on insult to insinuate that I don’t care about “American dead,” or even dead in general, if that was your intention.

But surely even you can see that where your line of reasoning leads you. When do you stop? Hell – how do you know you’ve punished the right person in the first place? Maybe the shipment really came from Libya – or Sweden, for all you know. If we really want to nip these dangers in the bud, then it would seem necessary for us to declare war on the Entire World. But even that might not help; consider the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the shootings at Columbine.

We live in an uncertain world in which disaster can strike at any time. Those are the conditions of existence. No matter what we do, we cannot make the world completely safe for the future. And if we take out one bad guy, well, as we know, there’s always another one right behind him.

The reasoning in your post is almost paranoid – who seriously believes Saddam Hussein capable of carrying out an attack on the US mainland? Not even Bush and his war cronies have made such a suggestion. It’s a ridiculous exaggeration, and that’s what worries me about some of these discussions: that so many folks seem to take such exaggerations seriously.

But really, its little more that a rhetorical trick; an attempt to reduce a discourse of reason into one of fantasies in blood, patriotism, death, and destruction. If you want to have serious discussion, you can address or criticize the points I raised above; at the very least, please desist with this pointless mischaracterization of opposing argument.

32

Beagle and elucidator, do you honestly believe that we’re going to try a “regime change” in other countries? Do you have any evidence of this or are you just making a “slippery slope” argument?

33

Hey! My first double post!

Groovy!

34

Considering how many times we have attempted this in the past, do you not think we are already on the slope?

35

Considering how many times we have attempted this in the past, do you not think we are already on the slope?

36

Mr. Svinlesha:
Not for a moment am I advocating an attack on Iraq. It is just that people like you puzzle me: Iraq has thrown out the UN Inspectors, and refuses to allow them to return. His chief atomic scientist defected a few years ago, and confirms that IRAQ is acquiring enriched uranium. He (Saddam) is comtemptious of any human rights, and continues to hold his own people hostage. He has even murdered his sons-in-law, and almost murdered his oldest son. Now, the US (and to a smaller extent the UK) has been keeping this monster at bay, at considerable cost in lives and money. Do we take his (Saddam’s) speeches at face value? (Wherein he calls for the destruction of Israel) …I know, that’s just rhetoric.
You seem to think that hsi threats are hollow, and that we should somehow just “make nice” with him, and just “forget those unfortunate misunderstandings”.
It is you who are naiive, not me.

37

Hey elucidator - instead of misrepresenting both my position and the position of the United States, howzabout doing this?

Go back to every link I provided you and tell me why its all lies. Tell me how someone has surrepticiously re-worded all those UN resolutions. Tell me how Human Rights Watch is misrepresenting Hussein’s regime.

In fact, while your loitering over at www.caabu.org, why don’t you read all the United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq? Then ask yourself if they’ve been complied with in the slightest.

Then, perhaps you can discuss with us whether it is important that the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions are adhered to. Whether there are any repercussions to them not doing anything when some rogue regime thumbs its nose at them.

Then, perhaps you can discuss with us whether there is any nation on Earth that should be more concerned about aggressive, oppressive, un-neighborly Middle Eastern nations developing weapons of mass destruction than the United States of America. Hint: I can think of only one.

Did you hear Bush’s UN speech today? What parts did you disagree with, and why?

38

Er, replace “United States” with “The Bush Administration” in the first sentence above. Clearly, there are some in Congress who seem to disagree. It astounds me, but it’s true.

39

andros:

**
And my response to them would be, “Given the set of facts we have about what Hussein has done and worked toward in the past; given that comprehensive inspections have NEVER occurred since the Gulf War, and given that no inspections whatsoever have occurred now for years, what has to happen before regime change is justified?”

The position of the “no war in Iraq under any circumstances” camp seems to be that Saddam Hussein must attack somebody before his forced ouster is justified. Despite his demonstrated, unprovoked attacks on his neighbors.

To me, that’s the immoral position.

And other point that many seem to be glossing over - a great many nations went to war with Iraq because of its naked aggression to its neighbors, in the early 1990s. That war ended before Saddam Hussein was deposed, expressedly because of the United Nations resolutions that were put into place, and Hussein’s agreement to comply with them. He never has.

When a treaty that ends a war isn’t complied with, is the continuation of that war to achieve the aims that were supposed to be initially achieved not justified? Why not?

40

Milo, I’ve got no clear idea as to what you’re talking about. I don’t recall saying anything about the UN resolutions good, bad or indifferent.

Under criticism for failing to involve the UN, he toddles down to the UN and gives a speech. What of it? Did you hear him say that if the UN disapproves, he will not attack? I sure didn’t.

So the speech is merely an excercise. He would be quite pleased to have the UN’s compliance. But he will not place the UN’s power of decision above his own. So whats the point?

So that now the hawks that are cooing in his ear, whispering of glory and leadership, can answer “Well. we went to the UN, they failed to see the imperative truth of our case. So, fuck 'em”

And posters here will type with exasperation “Well, he went to the UN, what more do you want?”

He went there to tell them. Not to ask them. It was not a consultation, but an advisory, merely checking a point on the list.

He is determined to have his war, and, given the craven spinelessness of our legislators, I am convinced he shall. He knows, or at least his handlers know, that all you have to do is get it started, any incident will do.

Because he really believes it. He really believes that history has raised him from mediocrity and privilege to towering status as a statesman who stands with the giants.

Elmer Fudd is suddenly, as if by magic, Churchill.

“Be vewy quiet! I’m hunting Iwaqis! He-he-he-he-he”

It would be funny, perhaps, if it weren’t for all the blood.

We are led by a doofus who thinks he a collossus. God help us. And, of course, forgive us.