Well, there is one condition of which it is said that a person can feel no pain. I’m sure you know what that condition is.
I know I couldn’t dispute it. But what, exactly, does that say about the US administration’s true objectives? If the US had not built up the military force prior to UNSC Resolution 1441 running its course, it is likely that Saddam would not have cooperated, and that the UN would have had undeniable justification to authorize the use of force. But, with the US military force buildup beyond what could have been sustained for any length of time without invasion, Saddam began cooperating. But the US couldn’t wait.
So, was the US honest about the objective of disarmament when they sponsored 1441?
serenitynow, I challenge you to cite a single falsehood or blatant omission from Hans Blix’ UN reports. Find me a single administration statement questioning his integrity or professionalism. I note that the US supported Hans Blix’ appointment to UNMOVIC. I note that Hans Blix wasn’t appointed to UNMOVIC til 1998. I note the only criticism came about after Hans Blix failed to confirm US suspicions, suspicions that the US has still failed to confirm itself.
You seem to have your conspiracy theories mixed up. What is widely accepted is that the previous UN inspection team spied for the US, not tipped off Saddam.
And your assertion suggesting the “slippery slope” theory that allowing in UN inspectors would somehow lead to UN involvement in Iraq’s reconstruction is without basis. Frankly, with the difficultly the US now faces, it still seems like a good idea to me, but that is a debate for another thread.
Your stripes are showing!
“If the US had not built up the military force prior to UNSC Resolution 1441 running its course, it is likely that Saddam would not have cooperated, and that the UN would have had undeniable justification to authorize the use of force.”
That’s pretty creative, but I don’t think so. Remember our buddies, the French? Didn’t they say at one point that they would veto “any resulution” that aurthorized force? Or was that just politics. No, I doubt the UN would’ve aurthorized force. And had they done so, Saddam would have started “cooperating” with the inspectors again, and we’d’ve been right back to where we were in March.
BTW, I’m not using this argument to justify the war, just to explain what I think the course of events would’ve been given Bush and his philosoqhy.
John, your obviously not following the cross references in this thread. The was certainly implied by the administration, but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. To save you the time, please note:
And once force was authorized, it would not have mattered one bit how cooperative Saddam then became.
The course of events given Bush and his philosophy was determined well before UNSC Resolution 1441. That much is quite clear.
Could be. I’ll admit that I was pretty active in this thread early on, jumped out for awhile, then jumped back in w/o carefully reading all the intervening posts.
But I still disagree on this:
It took the US months to be ready to invade. Had that not happened, and the UN aurthorized force, SH would have had months to start “cooperating”. Surely you don’t think that a UN authorization would lead to an instant invasion? Remember that one of the conditions we are supposing in this hypothetical is that the US had **not[/] proceeded with the pre-war military build-up, which I postulated was the sole reason inspections started again.
I should have added, after the “cooperation” started again, that the UN, I believe, would’ve backed off of invasion plans. Maybe that’s where you and I end up agreeing to disagree.
Wouldn’t matter. No matter what happened in the intervening months, Bush could retain the UN authorization in his pocket.
The only possible alternative course, once the UN authorized force, is that a new resolution could have been introduced to rescind it. And the US has veto power.
Ah, but you are again forgetting our good friends the French. I have no doubt that an “authorization of force” would’ve been couched in some language that would allow SH wiggle room to stem the invasion by agreeing to resume inspections.
But again, we’re really in speculation territory. I respect your opinion on this, and you may very well be correct. We shall never know.
“We shall never know.”
We’re in complete agreement there.
Not perzactly.
If they stumble on to something, anything, and I do mean anything they will trumpet it to the skies and claim it accords precisely with thier “secret intelligence”, yep, knew it all along.
If they don’t, they will simply keep looking. Patiently. There won’t be any headlines “No WMD’s found!!” because that’s not news. Only if they actually find something will there be any news.
When asked, they simply say “Hey, you gotta be patient, we’re looking, could be anywhere. Next question?”
So…if they find something, betcherass we’ll hear about it toot sweet. If they don’t, they’ll just keep looking and looking and looking…
Until we go back to sleep.
And it’ll work. Goddamit! We really are that stupid!
I see I have a number of posts directed at me. Some stuff has already been answered by others. I’ll reply to John Mace here and to others later, if I have the time.
I’m not suprised, given Olof Palme stance on the vietnam war and all that stuff…
This claim is new to me, and sounds dubious until you post some cites on the subject. Especially dubious if it is supposed to hold generally. Russia, China, the US, France and the UK all hold permanent positions with veto in the security counsel. They can stop any resolution they don’t like, and i do believe all countries exercise that right from time to time.
But the country that “plays” the UN, and the world community, best - no competition - is the United States. Consider afghanistan or Gulf War I for example. Consider how the states put Iraq on the agenda this time around, got the 1441 and so on. Essentially out of nowhere.
Pseudo-arguments. The UN inspectors have technical competence, integrity, and most importantly widespread credibility around the world; save perhaps in the states.
Once again, the UN and france are two quite separate entities. Try looking at the UN as a large discussion forum for all the nations in the world, with some amount of financial, and executive power. That’s what it is. And aknowledging that makes certain statements appear in their full propagandistic ludicrousness.
Now of course: different states have more and less influence on the UN. France has some influence. But, once again, the United States are unrivaled in this respect. I doubt you could say that France has more influence than for example the UK. Since having influence over the UN amounts to having influence over other countries. And in that game the States is King, simply put.
Yep!
Well my friend this question has a variety of different answers depending on what meaning you assign to “US [being] right in invading Iraq”.
Being morally right? Being legally right under the UN charter?
Moral right. Here there have been a number of justifications put forth by those advocating the war.
(1) Saddam is a bad guy and his regime is horrible. Removing a corrupt and repressive regime is an absolute good.
(2) Saddam / Iraq is a threat; With weapons of massdestruction he poses a threat to his neighbours. They can be used in terrorist acts against the United States. Removing this threat will make the world a better place.
(3) A democratic Iraq may serve as a catalyst in reforming the middle east.
Your question is relevant only to (2). Here it would be necessary to show that Iraq had sufficient capacity and had used or planned to use these weapons against it’s neighbours or the US.
Legal right under the UN charter.
(1) Existing resolutions against Iraq, 1441 and earlier, do sanction the use of military force to remove WoMD from Iraq.
(2) Iraq is / will be involved in terrorism against the United States and the United States have a legal right under the UN charter to attack Iraq.
Your scenario would not change the status of neither (1) nor (2). If proof was found that Iraq had been involved in 9/11 that could be legal grounds for attack in self defence.
Errata:
That should have been “…and i do believe all of those five countries exercise that right…”
And BTW I don’t believe that any of those reasons for moral / legal right put forward above holds anyways 
Randy:
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I could very well be wrong in my assessment of France’s pull in the UN. Just an opinion I’ve formed from following the news over the years. And yes, I would absolutely agree with you that the US is the 800 lb gorilla. I probably should’ve been clearer about that in the first place.
hit the submit button by accident…
The 9/11 connection would be the clincher for a lot of people. I’m skeptical myself, and think that even if it were true, it would be very hard to prove.
Somehow, they’ve become intercontinental. Nuclear anthrax? Anyway, this is an OLD story. From 2000.
Nobody ever claimed there were intercontinental drones. Bush didn’t cook up the drone stories either.
I did once claim that someone could disease a major city with weapons that amounted to little more than toy airplanes–and weaponized germs, of course. I still think that’s true. Distressing, but true.
John:
But, personally, I want to know the truth about what stocks of WoMD Saddam really had, and I’d like to know what plans to use them he had. And I’d like that info to be as accurate and unbiased as possible.
Quite frankly: I trust the UN inspectors to provide this; More so than the US. For these reasons:
(1) The US is a party to this war with a lot at stake on the issue.
(2) What exist now is a military process with little to none transparency. The US can chose at will which information should be released and what should be withheld. At any time the US can chose to withhold information and sources with reference to national or individual security and have already done so.
(3) Past practicies by the US have included inaccuracies or lies, as noted above.
All this amounts to the US having motive, means and a past history of thwarting information on this issue.
The administration has been very politic in its handling of Mr. Blix, and have not called him unprofessional. They just use words like “unfortunate” and the like. They certainly took him to task for not stating in his speech to the UN that the inspectors had found drones that were a violation of UN guidelines and bombs specifically made for the purpose of using chemical weapons. If you read the report, the failure to include them in his speech was rather glaring, at least to the administration.
The former Deputy of Prime Minister of Sweden, a political and personal friend of Blix for 40 years, was not so kind, however, as you can read here.
I believe you have your facts wrong. The US and UK actually supported Rolf Ekeus. Blix was a compromise candidate, because France and Russia refused to support the American and UK choice. The election was in 2000, not 1998.
No, I don’t. The inspectors themselves noted that this was apparently common knowledge on the ground in Iraq during the early 90s. I have heard several former inspectors on TV refer to this, some of whom were not American.
I did not say it would lead to involvement, I said that the administration fears that it would lead to an attempt to gain more involvement and create a political pit that they don’t care to wallow in. Whether it is valid is a matter of perspective, but you know that the more the UN is involved, the more they will want to be involved. There is too much money at stake for it to be otherwise.
They are really more like spots, but this is not a partisan statement, it is a statement of reality that can be taken in isolation from the given facts. If you have a third person to verify or not verify something, then one of two things will happen. One, the third party will agree and from a political standpoint, the corroboration is tantamount to proof. Two, the third party will disagree in which case one of two things will happen. Either the first party will agree that they were mistaken after considering the third party’s position or they will say the third party is wrong. It is the last possibility that is politically problematic. Some will immediately believe the UN over the US, as is clear from some of the posts in this thread. Others will instantly believe the US over the UN, as is also clear from some of the posts in this thread. Others won’t know what to think, but will now have a reason to doubt the administration.
Politically, this is a no-win situation. You core will support you, your opposition will oppose you and the undecided will doubt. No right thinking politician would open himself up to that. Clinton, who was a brilliant politician, certainly would never have taken such a risk, particularly when there is nothing to be gained. If the US finds 10000 or 10000000 gallons of VX, then there are those who will still say it is a hoax planted by the Yanks. If you have third party inspectors to verify it, those same people will say “they are so crooked, they even fooled the inspectors.” In the end people believe what they want to believe. Popular opinion often has little to do with the actual facts. Let’s face it, if you don’t like Bush, it doesn’t matter what was found and when, there would still be a reason it was not enough of a justification for the war. Bush cares about the undecided, not the diehard liberals, so he is going to play to the masses, not to the left. It is the only politically viable option.
Oh, i’ll have a bite at that serenity! So nice to give me the chance to comment on some of our friendly Swedish circumstances.
That would be Mr. Per Ahlmark a.k.a. the most pro-Israelite man in Sweden the last thirty years or so. Mr Ahlmark is nowadays mostly active as a hawk debater, but from a quite marginalized political position here in Sweden i might add.
“Personal friends” is very far from the truth about the relationship between Ahlmark and Blix. Rather “long time antagonists”. They where both members of the same political party - “the peoples party” (liberal); and as such members of one of the few rightist governments Sweden has had. From everything i’ve heard they didn’t like each other back then either.
The fact that Ahlmark went out and pursuid a personal campaign against the character of Blix was here generally seen as a personal vendetta and / or another misguided political one-man war on behalf of mr Ahlmark.
What is a fact is that mr Rolf Ekeus, head of inspections pre-Blix, explained how the US put pressure on the inspectors back then to gather intelligence for them. He acknowledged that he had been involved in doing so.
So sure, no surprise that the US prefered the oh-so-cooperative Ekeus, and yep maybe some of the other nations thought he was compromised and not suitable.
(Oh btw I saw the interview on swedish television where Ekeus made these statements; quite the big news story over here, although i’m sure it was not as big in the US)
Randy , Greetings! I hope things are going well in Sweden. I hope to have a chance to visit there in the next year or so if scheduling permits.
Thanks for your insight on the situation. Since what I know of the men involved is through the lens of reporters, who I universally distrust, I will of course cede to your greater knowledge and understanding of the issues. Most of what I read about the situation was in the British press, not the American press. I do think that AZCowboy overstates matters when he implies that the US was happy with Blix and supported Blix. Begrudging acceptance is the best I think Blix has ever gotten, even from previous administrations.
Although I have not seen much about it, I have no doubt there was “intelligence” gathering on the part of the weapons inspectors. The US would have been foolish not to do so under the circumstances. When you are being constantly lied to, it is wise to try to ascertain the truth.
The comments of Mr. Ekeus do have a certain ring of truth to me, however, in the following respect. I get the feeling that Blix was more concerned about avoiding war than he was about doing his job. His reports to the UN in front of the camera were invariably very different from what he said behind closed doors. Some would call that being a politician, but I don’t think it was his job to be poitical, it was his job to state the facts in light of the mission and standards given to him by the UN. He certainly managed to irritate the American delegation, rightly or wrongly, but perhaps he was in a no-win situation. I don’t fault him for being who he is, and if he was anti-war, I would not expect for him to have acted differently. I just don’t think that his relationship with the US and UK contains mutual trust such that they would ever allow him a significant role in the current situation.
By the way, I hope that it is not in bad taste to acknowledge that you Swedes have the most gorgeous princess on the planet. 