The US, The UN and Iraq

"In the last few weeks, however, administration officials have concluded that a resolution with a weak majority would still have authority.

The United States has often been on the other side of an uneven vote, and has exercised its veto." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html?

You seem to take joy in the fact that the age group under 15 doesn't meet the 50 percentile. Since you have such low regard for Iraqi children that represents over 9.5 million, and the potential death for many of them, I no longer wish to discuss this issue or any other issue with you. The fact that they represent over 40 percent but not 50 percent is lost on you. Your sense of inhumanity towards children leaves me with no more arguments that I wish to exchange with you.

LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion -- thus:

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.

Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore --

Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.

This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.

From: "The Wrap": THREE WEEKS TO WAR?

War in Iraq seems to be creeping closer. The Mail makes the most
startling estimate: it splashes "21 days to war" across its front
page, and says George Bush and Tony Blair have "decided to go for the
kill by March 14 at the latest".

Elsewhere, there is less certainty about the exact date, but the signs
of conflict are everywhere. The Times reports that Hans Blix, the
UN's chief weapons inspector, is to set up to 40 questions for Saddam
Hussein "that could form the basis for an ultimatum", while the
Telegraph leads on Iraq breaking several of its promises to cooperate
with the inspectors.

The Independent picks up on what many see as the next stage - a
security council resolution authorising military force that Mr Blair
and Mr Bush agreed in a 30-minute telephone conversation would be
tabled next week. "Talkin' bout a resolution" is how the Mirror
headlines its report of their conversation, as part of its rather
musical take on today's talk of war (more of which later).

Tariq Ali in the Guardian describes a second resolution as the "soft
underbelly" of the anti-war movement. He disputes the notion that an
attack on Iraq would be acceptable with the sanction of the
international community - because the UN charter has often been
breached, its resolutions ignored and the security council turned
into a venue for trading a "share of the loot".

The Telegraph reprints a speech by Norman Mailer accusing Mr Bush of
being a "purveyor of false morality" and arguing that the president
needs a war because America needs an empire. Mikhail Gorbachev,
another big name in today's papers, tells the Times that the US needs
"a dose of perestroika" to move away from idea of "governing the
world by force".

A 37-year-old British father of two was shot dead yesterday in Saudi
Arabia. The Independent says there is no known motive for the
killing, but it has raised fears over the safety of westerners living
in the Middle East.

* Defiance on missiles could be trigger for war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,899967,00.html
* Independent: Blair and Bush set to force UN vote over Iraq
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=380173
* Times: Bush and Blair will reap whirlwind, says Gorbachev
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-585258,00.html

c.i.

IMHO, war per se is inhuman.

As the U.S. stands at the brink of possible war with Iraq, many are now warning about the potential consequences: the danger of getting bogged down in Baghdad, the prospect of longtime allies leaving America's side, the possibility of chaos in the Middle East, the threat of renewed terrorism.

But the Bush administration insiders who helped define the "Bush Doctrine," and who have argued most forcefully for war, are determined to set a course that will remake America's role in the world. Having served three Republican presidents over the course of two decades, this group of close advisers -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and perhaps most importantly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein is the necessary first act of a new era.

In "The War Behind Closed Doors," FRONTLINE traces the inside story of how that group of advisers -- calling themselves "neo-Reaganites," "neo-conservatives," or simply "hawks" -- set out to achieve the most dramatic change in American foreign policy in half a century: a grand strategy, formally articulated in the National Security Strategy released last September, that is based on preemption rather than containment and calls for the bold assertion of American power and influence around the world...

A nice sentiment, but human history is replete with wars - in every continent and in every century. There was hardly a moment in the 20th century in which there wasn't a war, of some kind, going on somewhere in the world. And there were two sides to each of these conflicts.