The US, The UN and Iraq

<<Re: Colin Powell's statement today, Feb., 05, 2003, to the UN.

Eye witness account of Iraqi use of chemical agents on prisoners tied to beds.

Eye witness accounts of mobile labs that manufacture chemical and biological weapons---both truck and rail car.

Clear proof of connection between al Queda and Saddam.

You all can remove your hands from your ears, and remove those dark glasses that filter out all truth. Have a nice day>>


perception, This all may be true. But does it give us the moral right to strike pre-emptively at Iraq? I would like to see Powell lay out what is known about what happens to the ordinary folk in North Korea, too, although I think we all know well enough. So why don't we take out Kim Jong II?

Might doesn't make right; right makes right. Why do most of the ordinary citizens of this country think we should not attack Iraq? What Tom Friedman says today is true. And Tom Friedman can make a good case for war when he tries, although the helmet of bellicosity keeps slipping off his head while he is talking. It doesn't seem to fit.

What if we had a leader who led his country with moral clarity, as opposed to political clarity, and a belief that violence is absolutely the last alternative to be used; I'll bet he would bring us along with him, joining in his vision. (Think Vaclav Havel.) And if violence were forbidden as a course of action, we would find another way. We would!

steve and trespass...how do you do that little white square with a quote inside?

Dreamweaver, the USA was defending her Southern Vietnamese ally against conquest attempts by the Ho Chi Minh's North. The objective was more or less the same as in Korea in '50s: to preserve the friendly regime that is endangered by the enemy. By the way, assistance to allies is a normal international practice.

Kara, "Moral clarity" was never part of GWBush. When he talks, it's with forked tongue. Just for clarity, let me mention some of his 'political clarity.' "Compassionate Conservative, Leave No Child Behind, Stimulus Package, and Saddam is a threat to US security." Anybody care to punch holes in these GWBush statements? If nobody wants to try, I offer them. c.i.

kara asks:

[ quote] steve and trespass...how do you do that little white square with a quote inside? [/quote]


Now remove the space I placed after the 1st [

c.i. Let me be the 1st to succeed?

Sorry Trespassers W, but I would have thought the best person to define how long the weapons inspectors need would be the UN's chief weapons inspector, Dr Blix. (At his last report to the UN security council both he and the chief of the IAEA (forgotten name) made the plea for more time to complete their work)

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed El Baradei

perception: "C-mon----you make it sound like you fought Vietnam all by youself -----I didn't see there."
would you care to reference that to ANYTHING i said, or is it just bullshit?

Kara - Good, thoughtful comments. Thanks for adding to the debate!

I understand that you disagree, but I think Bush is acting out of his perception of moral clarity. I think the fact that we have not yet attacked Iraq shows that he is trying everything else (that he believes is useful) first. I also think Bush has worked hard to "bring us along with him". (Some people are convinced, others are not. Some are open to being convinced. Others are not. Some are skeptical, others are not. Some people are blindly willing to follow him. Others are not.)

Whether I agree with Bush has nothing to do with whether or not he is acting in a way that he believes is moral. As far as North Korea goes, I think it is clear that Bush does not perceive them to be an imminent or as imminent a threat as is Iraq, and I believe his standard for this has less to do with officially recognized weapons programs than for support of terrorism and a willingness to engage in terrorist acts against the US or our interests abroad.

==

Oh, and the quote box is easily created by selecting text and clicking the "QUOTE" button above the text box in which you compose your replies. (This button is not available if you're using the "Quick Reply" box on the main discussion page.)

That's fair, but I would argue that we could theoretically conduct inspections forever. My understanding is that the inspections are not intended to find weapons, but to gauge Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions requiring it to disarm and refrain from developing WOMDs. I think the inspections have already clearly shown that Iraq has not complied and is not working to comply. Do you see it otherwise?

Kara asked

That's a good question Kara, and something that I've often wondered myself. I used to know but now it happens by accident.

However let me see if I can explain how I did it in this case. (assuming its worked!)

1. select "quote" top rh corner at the post you wish to quote from.
2. the entire post appears in the reply box. Edit it until you've got the bit you want.
3. select Quote button (opposite message body) and bracket the bit you want with "quote".
4. put a source reference before the first quote marker (in this case "Kara asked")
5. write your comment.
6. select submit.
7. go and get a cup of coffee
8. see how many agitated replies you generate!
9. good luck.

Kara

By the tone of your question I think it matters little what I say in response but I will try----I'm glad you mentioned North Korea---we are trying to prevent Iraq from becoming another North Korea---since we don't really know if NK has the two nukes that everything thinks they MIGHT----we must use a great deal of caution in using military force to remove Kim Jong Il. First you have the reality of 10 million people in Seoul South Korea immediately across the DMZ from about 11000 artillery barrels.
If you want to take military action against NK you must either evacuate 10million people or watch thousands of them die---perhaps hundreds of thousands......very tough decision.

The connection was made between Saddam and al Queda----He has probably already given chemical and biological weapons to al Queda agents and trained them in their use. Does anyone actually think that if we don't strike Iraq---Saddam will say OK guys don't strike the US until they strike me? Really?

The world is an extremely dangerous place today----the question is ---should we sit back and say we know it's coming but let's just wait and then react------after perhaps thousands or maybe millions of people are gassed----or killed by anthrax or ...........

I think it is best to keep them off balance by attacking first instead of waiting to react.

tres, What you say is true, the inspectors are not supposed to be there to find Iraq's WMD. However, since we all know that Saddam and his regime are in violation of UN Resolutions, and they keep repeating that they do not have any WMD, it's up to the UN to find them before any military strike is engaged by the US or anybody else. We must not change the policy of allowing a preemptive strike on the basis that Iraq "might" have WMD. That's a very dangerous road to follow. As long as the UN inspectors are in Iraq, it will keep the peace. That is more important. Let's let the UN inspectors do their jobs - whether it takes several months or several years. Peace is the ultimate goal, not war. c.i.

Carpet bomb the middle east and keep going till we reach the Pacific - what a grand peaceful idea!

Extremely out of line and extraordinarily rude.

Moderators?

Gauging compliance supercedes regional stability? Another way to see it? Pointing at beligerence is just a red herring. First UN violations were the issue, now it's gauging compliance?

BillW

I didn't know your side advocated that))))))))))

Jimmy Carter had moral clarity, and was a foriegn relations nightmare. I doubt anyone would argue that Nixon ever thought twice about the morals or ethics of what he intended to do. There is no clear relationship between a President's moral insightfulness and his ability to be an effective leader.

The existing problems didn't just magically appear when the Shrub took office. Underlying causes might be traced back to the 14th century (tip of the hat to Setanta), and proximate causes date from the fall of the Soviet Union, if not before. These aren't a matter of partisan politics within the American polity, but real and serious threats to world peace and stability. This administration was forced to look outward by the events of 911, and it has acted with a resolution and determination that has far too often been lacking since Vietnam, the Gulf War excepted. The fears of those who expect the worst, has not swayed the administration from doing what it believes best to secure the United States. There should be no policy of appeasement, no temporizing. If surgery is necessary, then do it quickly before the wounds become gangernous. Those expect the sort of nuclear exchange that could only have happened at the height of the Cold War, are not being realistic. Those who predict that terrorist attacks against Europe and the United States will follow, are probably right. On the otherhand, the probabilities of further terrorist attacks is already far too high, and the coming actions may well reduce the severity of those attacks.

Might does not necessarily make right, but right without might and the willingness to use it is a prescription for defeat. Be thankful that the United States is mighty, and that North Korea and Iraq are not. Rogue regimes unable to equal us on the battlefield, seek their victory instead by supporting terrorism and winning the "hearts and minds" of the Free World by doubt and fear. It would be nice if regimes like those in Iraq and North Korea were reasonable and could behave in a civilized manner, but they won't. They have been given ample opportunity to avoid violence, but have chosen instead to believe that the Free World hasn't the stomache for war.

Dys

Do you think I was being rude?