The Coalition of the Reasonable, huh?
(Re: my previous post, not John)
“the President is looking forward, not backward.”
I see this as meaning: “The UN had it’s chance, and failed. We have picked up where they left off.” I don’t see it as saying the ends justifies the means.
And the quickest, least violent way to accomplish regime change in Iraq was for Saddam to voluntarily go into exile.
The reason we went to war was that we didn’t get to make Saddam’s choices for him. And the reason we might want to consider diplomacy is that we don’t get to make Russia’s and France’s choices for them, and we aren’t willing to make war on them.
RTF:
I think we’ll get the sanctions lifted. I’d like to see the French try to veto a proposal before the UNSC. Both France and Russia have been calling for this for years.
If you do a google search on “Franch lift Iraq sanctions” it’s amazing how many articles pop up from years gone by.
I’d really rather not go into depth regarding the derivation of my handle here, but I will point out that the reference to “Cowboy” doesn’t come from the traditional form. While I am originally from Oklahoma, I’ve never broken a bronco. The reference actually comes from the football team, the Dallas Cowboys (of the Landry era, btw). In that sense, I believe in teamwork.
Are you confident that the americans will be honest about what they find, as well as competent?
Why nix Blix?
Hehe, why thank you. It is the Swede’s premier career choice you know. Blix predecessor, Rolf Ekeus, was also one of us competent and effective (yes, indeed we usually are!) swedes.
“Are you confident that the americans will be honest about what they find, as well as competent?”
Good question. There will be a lot of temptation to fudge things. I think there are enough reporters running around to keep a lid on that. Whatever one may think about the intelligence of Bush, I’d expect someone like Powell to resign if he sniffed any duplicity. So, if we suddenly find WMDs and Powell mysteriously resigns, I’ll start a thread that says “Is the US fudging the Evidence?”.
RTF: BTW, France is already saying it supports “suspending” the sanctions. Maybe that’s how they’ll save face. I’d be magnanimous enough to let them continue with that charade. Bush might push a harder line, though.
AZ, I find your posts cogent, concise, and to the point. You need no assistance from me whatsoever. Sic 'em.
Well, just one. With $200K offered for anyone who can step forward and rat out Evil Old Bugger, and lead us to the warehouse at the cornero of Saddam Street and Saddam Blvd. with its stacks and stacks of Scuds armed with nuclear anthrax nerve gas…
Yet no one steps up to pick up the goodies. Why? Nobody in Iraq likes money?
Or nobody has anything to sell?
Hi, luci,
well one anonymous scientist oviously wants some dough: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178698
obviously
It’s quite obvious that the rest of the world won’t believe a thing the USA allegedly finds, if they don’t allow impartial weapons inspectors to verify and / or oversee things.
The Bush administration knows this. Granted, my opinion of Bush is low, but even he has to know that.
That makes me wonder what’s there to gain from not inviting international weapons inspectors? Perhaps Bush has decided that winning over the world is a lost cause anyway and that it is better to have the option to tweak and streamline the facts here and there in order to silence any doubting voices at home?
Sorry, but that assumption is lacking any basis in reality. Neither the reporters nor Powell have the knowledge to discover fudging of scientific evidence. As such, it would be very easy to fudge ‘evidence’. Especially when it can be declared secret and be held from public scrutiny.
Let’s rewind a bit…
UN inspectors want to go in to confirm restricted weapons and deal with them appropriatly.
Iraq says “no.”
US says that the UN should allow millitary action because Iraq said “no.”
UN says “no.”
US attacks Iraq anyway.
UN inspectors want to go in to confirm restricted weapons and deal with them appropriatly.
US says “no.” :smack:
It’s not quite equivelant (At least on-the-ground searches are being done), but I still find it horribly ironic…
This present administration has ALREADY shown its incompetence in dealing with evidence about this very issue when it presented its Nigerian sales receipt. Because they were so sure in their belief that Iraq possessed WMD, they were unable or unwilling to inspect the document’s veracity, even though the UN experts said that it was determined to be a forgery with “no great difficulty”.
Only one of two possible conclusions can be made: 1) US intelligence is, in comparison to international intelligence, grossly incompetent, or 2) the US created the forgery itself.
I doubt its #2, but dont you think that, given that #1 is true, the US is capable of fudging or screwing up something again?
Unless massive stockpiles are found (and, with a $200K bounty, massive stockpiles would surely have been located at this point), this question will be asked, albeit outside the US only.
Ari Fleischer never answered the question asking what the downside of UN inspectors would be. Fleischer, like every president’s press mouthpiece, expertly dodges questions he doesnt want to answer.
regnad:
there is also the conclusion
- A strategic decision was made to either not look into the authenticity of the documents, or to use them although they were likely forgeries. In other words: to look the other way while others did the dirty work. A prominent feature of US foreign policy.
(3) is the most likely scenario I would say, although a more active role in the forgery as in (2) is certainly not impossible.
(1) i would restate as: “US intelligence screwed up.” Possibly because of a willingness to believe. Maybe they got the stuff from Mossad f. e., with reassurances of authenticity.
All three is possible. Either one is certainly no good merit for the task at hand. Poor credibility.
I disagree. Had US intelligence been less incompetent, they would have noticed it was a forgery. Thus conclusion #2.
The UN determined that it was a forgery with “no great difficulty”. That the US was presenting forgeries (and the UK plagarism of an outdated graduate thesis) did enormous damage to American credibility in this issue.
I cant believe, had the US done its homework, that it would have concluded “go ahead and submit this to the UN. They’ll never notice it’s fake”. You must conclude that the US didnt do its homework, thus it is incompetent in the face of predrawn conclusions when the pressure is on to produce.
The Bush administration is STILL clinging to these conclusions, and the pressure is still on.
This time, however, the UN is not invited to proof the conclusions.
Actually, the CIA warned the White House that the document was unreliable, and potentially forged. They decided to go ahead using it anyway. Which is adding insult to injury.
So (3) then.
Still the same conclusion: The US has poor merits for this job.