The US, The UN and Iraq

I'm sure you're right, George. And while it is not a certainty, I strongly suspect that Post-Invasion revelations and events will prove most embarrassing for many who opposed the venture.



timber

There's truth to this statement. The thing (perhaps the one thing) I think the Bush team has gotten right was setting up the situation so that the inspectors returned, though I think that wasn't their aim.

timber

One thing we can be certain of is that there will be post war 'revelations'. Less certain is how accurate or true they will be (Patriot missle success rates, for example, or aluminum tubes, or the satellite photos Blix addressed). And that's the big problem with telling fibs and half truths and not coming clean on actual intentions...an administration ends up with the credibility that this one has.

The above statement with it's twisted logic is the "Primo" example of the division of thought and opinion on this forum.

We are the "ENEMY" because this administration refuses to subjugate the interests of it's citizens to the will of an organization that has been on the verge of irrelevance ever since it's inception. This organization has none of the checks and balances and fundamental protections of our constitution which you same people will so vigorously defend. But yet you would yield to the will of a flawed organization. You same people who want to "loved" by the world at any cost.

The author of the above badly flawed statement and Tartarin who agreed with the author have the audacity to infer that the parasites that roost in the UN are not POLITICAL----This type of hypocritical thinking and flawed logic begs for some critical examination by the participants of this forum

Perception writes that some of us believe "...We are the "ENEMY" because this administration refuses to subjugate the interests of it's citizens to the will of an organization that has been on the verge of irrelevance ever since it's inception. This organization has none of the checks and balances and fundamental protections of our constitution which you same people will so vigorously defend. But yet you would yield to the will of a flawed organization. You same people who want to "loved" by the world at any cost.... The author of the above badly flawed statement and Tartarin who agreed with the author have the audacity to infer that the parasites that roost in the UN are not POLITICAL----This type of hypocritical thinking and flawed logic begs for some critical examination by the participants of this forum..."

We are up against two problems here -- a basic disagreement about the roles of the US and the UN, and some real anger and frustration about "you people" which doesn't, I think, originate with Perception.

I don't believe US can or should hold supremacy in the world. The UN was created in large part to provide checks and balances, to give everyone a voice, to help prevent wars which come from inequity and building resentments -- and also to provide agencies which would deal with policing, social programs, and adjudication also designed to stave off the possibilities of violence. The UN doesn't work perfectly all the time, but then neither do the US, Britain, Mexico or Japan.

Then there's a group in the US, fed by rightwing talk show hosts, who have come to believe that the UN is a threat to our sovereignty, that we shouldn't have to "kowtow" to inferior and disputatious Europe and other regions. America Firsters. Isolationists. I admit I don't really know how to answer this group, any more than I'd know how to answer someone in my town who'd like to dismantle the county commissioners' functions because he doesn't think our town or our street should have to share costs, responsibilities and perks with the rest of the county. I suspect many who believe this way haven't moved around enough to have realized that the world is a very small place, that the US, its people and its economy, depend heavily on the rest of that small world. The world is made up of interdependencies. If we were to cut ourselves off, we'd be the first to suffer. We'd have the choice of preemptively striking the rest of the world, subjugating it, bending to our will. How long would we last in such circumstances?

So rather than hammer back at Perception and those who agree with Perception, I'd like to hear from that side of the discussion how they believe we could live in the world if it were run their way, if war and supremacy were top options. What would happen to our political and personal freedoms? To our economy? To our national and personal security? How many lives are they willing to expend to create the world they seem to want?

Tartar, Well put. However, I'd only like to add this although I'm not a christian; "do unto others only what they would have done unto you" (or something like that). In other words, if we were in the same shoes as our Arab, European or Asian allies, how would we like to be treated by the all powerful US? The question is, how can we best resolve the interest of "everybody?" Isolation is not an option, as you say, because our world is tied together in too many ways. Cooperation is necessary. But more importantly, respect and dignity comes before war, death, and mayhem. Without that, we win the tree and lose the forest. c.i.

"Nothing at all good comes of war". That rather inferrs that all wars are bad. Wars certainly result in deaths and destruction. Often in the wake of war there will be famine and disease. War produced widows and orphans, and young men whose bodies can never be repaired. War entails sarifice and loss. Grief is a certainty. During war individuals must lend some of their liberty to the State, and often don't get it all back when the war is over. Hate is always present during times of war, and otherwise loving people do brutal things. Fear beats in every heart. Fathers end their sons to kill the sons of enemy mothers. Our cultural values are turned on their head in war. Ah, yes. War is a terrible thing. Much more terrible than most who have not experienced it can imagine.

That all might be pretty persuasive evidence of the truth of Tartan's remark. But is it really? Is war utterly without redeeming value? Are we wrong to honor the heros who knowingly sacrifice themselves to save their comrads. The very idea of "citizenship" springs from the willingness of the individual to serve his State in a military capacity. The ancients declared that "Those who do not serve, are not entitled to vote". If Athens had not waged war, it would have perished under the heel of Persian despotism. Rome was built as much on war as on the seven hills along the Tiber. Was Rome, and Roman Peace, without merit? Constantinople manned the barracades protecting the Eurpoean flank for almost a millin. If wars had not been fought to stem the tide of militant Islam, it is likely that the Mediterranian Sea would today be an Islamic lake. Without the wars of the Reformation, Christianity would be as dominate over its followers as Islam is today. The ideas of the Rennaisance and The Enlightenment may not have ever had a chance to effectively influence European values. If a British America ever existed, it would not be free of the Old World without one of the longest and most difficult wars ever fought on this continent. The aboriginal Indians of North America would have fled and been exterminated and quietly ceased passed out of memory. Much of the United States today would resemble Chiapas or Sonora.

War has proved to be the spur for technological invention and progress. The challenge of maintaining weapons superiority has driven inventors since before written history. Every invention is capable of both good and bad. TNT, meant to make war obsolete instead made the battlefield more lethal. Designs intended to produce a superior fighters and more capable bombers, resulted in a robust civil air travel market. Satelites intended to improve war fighting capabilities, make this internet connection possible. GPS was invented for war, but has a thousand other uses. The atomic energy was developed for war, but has numerous peacetime applications. Medicines and medical procedures have grown out of the need to treat and cure the wounded. Would you argue that none of the inventions, or technologies designed for war are "good"? Should we abandon, even if it were possible, all the products of war because you believe "nothing good comes of war"?

You might argue, that even more good might accrue if war never happened. Again, that might be true in a perfect world, one that has never existed and will never exist. War long predates written history, and has never been entirely absent for even a generation. There always have been those who crave martial glory, and unlimited power over others. Greed, hatred and chauvinism exist in every heart just as surely as charity, love and tolerance. Undefended territory is an aphrodisiac whose odor which invites invasion. Sometimes a group survival will motivate them to invade a neighbor's territory. Loss of territory, or even the appearance of weakness, can spell the extinction of any group that is unable or unwilling to go to war. Wars do exist, and they can not be wished away no matter how much opium is smoked.

But, then you may want to insist that in the existing circumstances no good can come from using military force in Iraq, or even in North Korea. That remains to be seen. Those of us who reluctently are forced to endorse military action have repeatedly laid out our rational, and drawn upon our military knowledge for in support of our opionions. We are not wildeyed homicidal maniacs, nor are the civil and military leaders of our nation. The West is not the aggressor in either Iraq, or North Korea. These are two of several states who support terrorism and whose most cherished dream is the destruction of western values. Left unchecked, these rogue States will continue to foster violent attacks upon our interests and the lives of our citizens everywhere around the world. While they exist, world security and stability are at risk, and with the passage of time the risks will only become greater. The United States is not a bully that seeks the enslavement of other peoples, we have repeatedly paid in our lives and treasure to advance the cause of Freedom. It is not a perfect world, and we must deal with it as we find it.

The United States, its military and civil leadership, is not the enemy of peace. We are the best chance there is for obtaining a lasting peace, though the path to that shining moment lies through the Valley of the Shadow.

Asherman, Nobody claimed all wars are bad. The only justification for our country to go to war is in "defense" of our national security. At this time, Iraq posses no threat to our country - or anybody else. c..

Seems to me to be a kind of 'esprit d'escalier' that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, started holding public hearings in the case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) today. Today, Iran started explaining that the USA had supported Iraq with deadly virusses and dangerous chemicals.

Asherman writes: "Is war utterly without redeeming value? Are we wrong to honor the heros who knowingly sacrifice themselves to save their comrads. The very idea of "citizenship" springs from the willingness of the individual to serve his State in a military capacity. The ancients declared that "Those who do not serve, are not entitled to vote"."

It's this linkage of war with patriotism and heroics which sustains the concept of war, avoiding the linkage between war and greed, war and cruelty, war and "blowback," war and... I won't go on. The best citizenship we can hope for is that which actively participates in our governance and makes sure that we don't elect leaders who resort to war for political, territorial, or other gain.

CI, just for the record, the "golden rule" ain't in the bible.

There's a verse that says "Love your neighbor as yourself", but that's about as close as it comes.

That's so interesting, Walter, that I went looking for a report on Google/news and all I could find was the following, an Agence France Presse piece out of a Malaysian paper:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday was to begin hearing a complaint from Iran against its arch-foe the United States over US attacks on oil platforms during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. In the unusual case, which has been held up at the court for more than a decade, Tehran claims the attacks violated a 1955 treaty between the two nations, despite the break-off in ties after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. The case comes at a potentially embarrassing time for US plans to attack Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein - who in the 1980s was the nominal US ally in Baghdad's protracted war against neighbouring Iran. Tehran is seeking damages for the destruction of three offshore oil rigs in the Gulf, which were wrecked by US forces in October 1987 and April 1988 during the so-called ``tanker war'' phase of the Iran-Iraq conflict. The first hearings in the case are scheduled to start at 3 pm (1400 GMT) on Monday. Tehran will get three days to outline its case. Then the US will present its claims, before both countries have a last say. The case is expected to last some three weeks but a verdict could take several months at least. Duting preliminary hearings in 1996, the ICJ rejected a US objection that the court had no jurisdiction over the case. The United States has since filed a counter-claim arguing that Tehran violated the 1955 treaty, which was signed more than two decades before the Islamic revolution ousted the US-backed Shah and led to the split between the two nations. Washington broke off ties with Tehran in April 1980, several months after Islamic radicals seized the US embassy in the Iranian capital and held dozens of staff hostage for more than one year. Iraq and Iran, both major oil powers, went to war in 1980. During the `tanker war'' phase in the latter part of the conflict, ships belonging to other nations came under attack in Gulf waters. In a bid to protect its Gulf oil supplies, the United States began reflagging vessels and providing them with US naval escort through the Gulf. When Iranian forces hit a reflagged Kuwaiti vessel in October 1987, the United States retaliated by attacking Iranian oil installations. In its complaint to the ICJ, Tehran says that Washington breached the provisions in the 1955 treaty for a ``durable peace'' between the countries and ``freedom of commerce and navigation''. Washington argues that Iran violated the treaty by ``attacking vessels, laying mines in the Gulf and otherwise engaging in military actions in 1987-88 that were dangerous and detrimental to marine commerce''. The ICJ, based in the Dutch capital The Hague, is the United Nations' highest judicial body for disputes between nations but has no means of enforcing compliance with its rulings. - AFP http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2003&dt=0218&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=World&pg=wo_06.htm

snood, Thanks for the clarification. Having lived in this country all of my life, and being exposed to christian teachings, religious rhetoric is not my strong suit - although nothing is. c.i.

Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.


2. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 7.12

Tartarin

The link to the court is here:

Oil Platforms Iran vs. USA

Perhaps this is illustrative of the polarization surrounding this issue. Both sides of the argument allow themselves to fall prey to hyperbole, demonization, and absolutism. Such do nothing to advance the discussion, rather they merely serve to heat it beyond reason. While both sides have valid points and reasoned arguments, the emotions at either extreme almost preclude dispassionate, objective approach. This war will bring about neither The End of Civilization As We Know It nor Global Peace And Prosperity.

There certainly will be unfortunate consequences, and likely significant diplomatic realignments, but there also will be broad benefit, particularly in regard to The War on Terrorism. The administration of Post-Saddam Iraq will be a most challenging enterprise for the entire World Community, and it is an enterprise which is not being sufficiently considered at the moment.

Even should Saddam "Go Away" and there be no war, the collapse of the Ba'ath Regime will create a chaotic power vacuum in Iraq, with attendent refugees and potential for humanitarian catastrophe. An actual shooting war will only magnify the problem. IMHO, the reality of the situation is that either Saddam leaves or Saddam gets taken out within the next very few weeks. The matter of Post-Saddam Iraq should be the chief focus of world attention. Open, vigorous planning for Post-Saddam Iraq could even benefit the cause of peace by further demonstrating to Saddam the futility of his position. As it is, Saddam, and others of his ilk world wide, derive encouragement from the divisive and irresolute behavior of The World Community. Such "Cooperation" as Iraq has shown to date has been in the face of growing threat of military sanction. It is clear, given the past 12 years and 17 UN Resolutions that further "threat" is unlikely to bring about substantively greater Iraqi cooperation and compliance. Action is called for.

War by its nature is horrible, and terrible to contemplate. It is good there there be opposition to war, but it is necessary to admit the reality of war, and of its causes and consequences. Among the consequences of the coming events, war or not, is upheaval soon to occur in Iraq, upheaval which must be dealt with swiftly and effectively or it surely will inflame the entire region. I fear The World is assisting the latter at the moment. A Post-Saddam World is a near-term inevitability. We should be planning for that.



timber

Asherman

You have eloquently stated the position that war is essential for the furtherance of that basic human need---freedom for the individual to pursue happiness.

C.I. chimed in saying that "no one is saying that all wars are bad". There are degrees of being OK with war.

Then you have Tartarin valiantly protecting the idealistic dream of many on this forum, that we must have peace at any cost.

It would appear that at this stage of human development(human nature has not been studied and changed even a smidgeon) there is no way to resolve the vast divide of these different postions.

Therefore in the interim, I propose a position that will ensure the survival of humankind until such time as Tartarin can find a way to change human nature so that his idealistic position could find merit.
My position has to do with prevention. We are all familiar with preventive maintenance to prevent a weakened part from failing at a critical time; or preventive surgery to remove a cancer or similar life threatening condition. I am proposing--PREVENTIVE WAR--- instead of pre-ventive strike which seems to offend some people. In a preventive war we remove a cancer like Saddam before the entire body becomes infected. There are so many people who recognize and abhor evil but will do anything except fight it.

"IMHO, the reality of the situation is that either Saddam leaves or Saddam gets taken out within the next very few weeks. The matter of Post-Saddam Iraq should be the chief focus of world attention. Open, vigorous planning for Post-Saddam Iraq could even benefit the cause of peace by further demonstrating to Saddam the futility of his position. As it is, Saddam, and others of his ilk world wide, derive encouragement from the divisive and irresolute behavior of The World Community."

Should indeed be a focus of world attention (not necessarily "chief" -- there are other horrors vying for top billing)! I agree with you, Timber, in all but "divisive and irresolute behavior of the World Community." I think we have seen the Bush administration do everything just short of taunting the world community, creating a situation in which it would be almost impossible to avoid war. It's this brinksmanship on the part of the Bush administration in recent months which has precipitated what could now be considered crisis. Had the US come to the UN with a full accounting of its intelligence reports of purported Iraq WMDs months ago, all of this edge-of-war stuff could have been avoided. Had you faulted the "divisive behavior" of the Bush administration, I'd agree with you 100%. Hey, maybe that's what you meant!

Tartarin, I do not exempt Bush from my list of bunglers in this debacle. He is not alone on that list, by any means. If nothing else, The Current Administration has done an abominable job of objectively explaining this war. They too have been guilty of hyperbole, demonization and absolutism. They've done neither themselves nor The World any service in that regard.



timber