The US, The UN and Iraq

My soon to be ex- says that history is repleat with wars and disease as a population control mechanism. Cynical, sure. And I suggest no cause and effect relationship. But I spent some time working in the chemical industry - remember Bhopal? I'm with Ash on this one.....we have no clear knowledge of the consequences confronting us, if any of this stuff gets out. That is why, ultimately, we must get it and destroy it.

See, sumac, here's the thing about appeasement discussions:

As a purely hypothetical exercise suppose you're a world leader who really wants to start a war with another country. Let's say you want to have the war because you don't like the other country's leader. Let's say he might have some pretty ugly weapons tucked away somewhere even if he's shown no inclination to use them on you or anybody else who can fight back against him. Or maybe he even wanted to whack your Dad once and might, just might, have even given it a shot. Or maybe he just surreptitiously and deviously placed your oil under his sand. Well, see now, you've got a problem because most of the time people don't want to get killed or kill anybody else over weapons that most everybody has or your family situation or a natural resource that could mean a boatload of campaign contributions.

This is where the Umbrella Man comes in handy.

He can solve all these sticky problems for you in one fell swoop and turn your foe from two-bit dictator into one of history's worst mass murderers.

Well, he's back. Yes, the worm-eaten carcass of Neville Chamberlain has once again been hauled out the grave by those who desperately need an excuse to go to war and can't find one that makes even the remotest amount of sense.

As everyone on this forum already knows, Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of England from 1937 until 1940. He is probably history's most famous non-interventionist. And, of course, what makes him such a useful tool for those beating the drum for armed conflict is the way he dealt with Adolph Hitler. Faced in 1938 with Hitler's demand for the "return" of the Sudetenland, a mostly German area of Czechoslovakia and obligated by treaty to defend the Czechs, Chamberlain was faced with a war he and his country didn't want and probably weren't ready to fight. At the last minute the British Prime Minister decided to fly to Munich to meet with Hitler and negotiate. Sadly, his negotiations consisted basically of "where do I sign ?" and he quickly dealt away the territory of a country he had no business negotiating for. In the process he had dealt in good faith with one of history's worst sociopaths.

A detached, passionless man who was always pictured carrying an umbrella, Chamberlain's absurd declaration of "peace in our time" upon his return to London and Hitler's subsequent aggressions has been used by war hawks ever since in attempts to justify virtually any use of force.

Lyndon Johnson, in the process of escalating the Vietnam War, perhaps the most colossal American foreign policy mistake of the Twentieth Century, is said to have told aides that they (his political opponents) weren't going to make a "Chamberlain Umbrella Man out of me". LBJ's desire not to have the umbrella hung around his neck eventually cost the lives of almost 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese.

You would think the example of Vietnam and the Cuban missile crisis and the fall of the Berlin wall would have put the legend of the Umbrella Man to rest once and for all. Not only history but common sense dictate that every potential enemy is not Hitler and 1938 was a long time ago. But when you want to fight a war that you can't justify you use whatever tools you can, even if it's a guy who's been dead for 63 years. The beauty of using the Umbrella Man Strategy is that no facts are required. The bad stuff is all supposed to happen in the future; feel free to use the ugliest possible scenarios. I mean if you don't keep Ho Chi Minh out of Saigon that dirty commie is going to be in San Diego before you know it, won't he ?

So let's say that the majority of the UN Security Council says in no uncertain terms that there had been no justification presented for the "preventative" war against Iraq. And the following day millions of people worldwide jammed the streets of cities large and small to denounce the war that you really, really want to fight. You're getting some nasty black eyes and you need to fight back.

That's when you dig up the Umbrella Man.

So you send Condi Rice out in the snow to wave the bloody umbrella the Sunday morning talk shows. "Appeasement", said Condi, didn't work with Hitler and won't work with Iraq. "Tyrants respond to toughness. That was true in the 1930s and 1940s, when we failed to respond to tyranny, and it is true today". She didn't have to say who she was talking about.

The attempt to paint the toothbrush mustache on a small potatoes creep like Saddam Hussein may not impress the Security Council or the people who filled the streets on Saturday. But sadly, some people may still be foolish enough to believe it.

Sumac -- Why a preemptive strike right now? We've known of this possibility for years and the inspectors don't seem particularly convinced that there's an imminent threat, not in their latest report? Do you really believe a) there's an immediate problem and b) Bush is being honest about his reasons for going in NOW? Do you believe the countries which are holding out believe there's an immediate threat?

War is bad enough. But a war based on what-if, a war which will rile an entire region and may have huge blowback, a war for political gain...

Well, thank you. At least someone is up to discussing issues.

PDiddie

You are a genious story-teller!

Tartarin...addressing your side issue

I think you might stir up some hornets, in the present climate, with the direction of your last rhetorical question(s). There are some here who tend to paddle on the right or left sides of the river on key issues, who are quite thoughtful and reflective of America's oddities. But I also find there are too many (on this site or sitting in barber shops) who hold allegiances to party or national symbol and who, it seems, might asphixiate if certain cultural myths were to escape out a hole in the roof.

Demographically, my understanding is that most of us here grew up in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Academic backgrounds are various with quite a number having done graduate work (I have just a five year degree in Education) and there are quite a few who have a military background.

"Tyrants/terrorists only respond to toughness"....this gets repeated like it were some sort of heavily validated scientific hypothesis, rather than the thought terminating cliche that it is.

Oddly, the converse would seem to be, "well-intentioned and peace-loving democratic leaders respond to reasonable argument and to the opinions of others inside their nation and out" - which doesn't really describe this administration to a T, as they say.

I must admit that I grew up from the fifties to the eighties. :wink:
(Graduate work and military is okay, however.) [Although I usually say, I haven't been to the military but to the navy. ]

I "grew up" from the fifties to the seventies. Does that count for anything? LOL c.i.

Re: Bush's growing up:



http://www.msnbc.com/news/874671.asp?0dm=N22FN

Another Humble Opinion

Blatham and Walter - I am out of my milleiu (sp?) here, but am putting in my stint, as it were. I am in deep, deep conflict, here, so my views are worth nothing.

Appreciate both of your comments, and I will disappear soon. You guys can carry on...and on. May jump back in if anything occurs to me.

sumac, views are never worth nothing! Thanks!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030219/ts_nm/iraq_un_dc_17



Well, this could be a polite way of saying "Put up or shut up" to Iraq. However, it also offers Saddam some capital; he could well trade weapons and capabilities known to exist in the interest of protecting other weapons and capabilities yet undisclosed. At the very least, Saddam is offered a time-gaining negotiating position if he should be cagey enough to sieze it. He has a history of negotiations, as should be recalled.

Saddam's style of negotiating has brought wars, 17 United Nations Resolutions relating to Iraqi Non-Compliance with the terms of the original Gulf War Cease-Fire, and the current crisis. Not to say he hasn't had plenty of help, but listing who did what when does not change the fact that Saddam led that particular parade.


Lots of rumors flying over the airways ... escape plans, Iranian Military Plane Crash (not too surprising that an Iranian plane might fall out of the air, bot the coincidence of rumored Iranian Activity in Northern Iraq and a crash killing over 300 military leads to certain conclusions). US Special Ops units are currently "On Ground" in Northern Iraq as well, something which could result in unintended and premature fireworks. Continued Turkish recalcitrance will very soon force the adoption of contingency measures. Iran may well have a larger role in this war than will Turkey.



timber

273 Republican Guards died on the flight per MSNBC

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20030219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_plane_crash

As with any disaster, there is some uncertainty as to number of fatalaties even for hours after such an event. The above link references 302 military dead. The article also offers this:

It appears Turkey has a larger part in things up there than some have supposed. Developments are occurring. Bush almost certainly will get his war, but he may be deprived of the option to start it on his own terms. An exodus of extra-nationals from Iraq is not far off. Whatever else may happen, I would wager UN personnel will be evacuated somehere in the last week of February. This in itself may present a Hostage Crisis. Things likely will get much worse before they get any better.



timber

Yes, It is sad!

When I went to Russia a few years ago, the original flight plan had me going on the Russian airline, Aeroflot(sp), but I asked the travel company to change it to another airline, because I knew their safety standards were one of the worst. I went by KLM. c.i.

Good thinking c.i., be courteous - but be smart!

Listening to a rerun of this afternoon's interview with Paul Wolfowitz, I concentrated on his use of language, the little lies, the clever non-answers, the pinning of all evil on France (the next member of the axis of evil), his fellow feeling for the Turks, the tremendous sorrow he feels for the people of Iraq. A five star graduate student from Orwell U.

Tartar, What's a "five star graduate?" c.i.