The US, The UN and Iraq

Wilso, I find that very comparable to what goes on in these threads

Tartarin, quite simply, 12 years worth of containment and monitoring have brought us straight to this point. It hasn't worked, the problem continues and even grows. I appreciate the spirit in which you ask the question. I hope you'll appreciate my saying that the Anti-Saddam side of this argument is as anti-war as anyone else, and is outraged with Saddam for having forced the issue. The legal and logical "Whys" have been posted here, broadcast by the electronic media, and published by the press time after time after time, supported by facts, evidence, and reason. It is my contention that those who oppose military action against Iraq offer no substantive argument aqgainst extreme sanction, but resort to doomsaying, moralistic sophistry, and head-in-the-sand pollyanna thinking.

As to the prospect of success for containment and monitoring, apart from the fact the most stringent of such means have brought no relief ove many years, I point out that drug labs, pot and poppy plantations, and other illegal activities of much less than governmental sophistication prosper and proliferate despite concerted effort to bring them to heel. If mere criminals can thwart sophisticated countermeasures, it is child's play for an entity with the resources of a government to do so with impunity.

I will say again, I am not "Pro-War". I've been there, I've done that, and I've studied it. I hate war, and I think it the least desireable solution to any dispute. I also realize, undesireable as it may be, war can be the only solution. I can think of no better reason to stop Saddam now than to prevent him from bringing his declared and demonstrated intent to fruition in the future, and to disuade others from engaging in similar pursuits.

I don't want to see anyone, child or adult, military or civilian, die. I am saddened, no, deeply grieved, that it seems necessary some will die due to the contempt Saddam Hussein has shown and continues to show for international law and human decency.

War is yet not inevitable. However, only two possible circumstances exist; Saddam goes, or war comes. It is, and for some time longer than it should have been, has been a matter entirely in Saddam's hands. Such time as Saddam has to influence events grows desperately short.


timber

Bernard Weiner writes this:

There IS going to be a war, you know. Bush will not have it any other way. The Bush Incorporated domestic and global agenda requires it. How can you get your extremist domestic agenda passed unless a frightened Congress and populace rallies around the flag being unfurled in a Mideast desert? How can the U.S. exercise its "benevolent hegemony" of the globe (and totally by coincidence, have effective control of the world's natural resources) unless would-be upstarts get bombed to smithereens, to demonstrate to others that they'd better not make the same mistake of getting in our way? So, it's full speed to Baghdad.

Doesn't matter if the allies are opposed, doesn't matter if thousands of Iraqi citizens get slaughtered as the missiles rain down (no wonder "Guernica" was covered up when Powell arrived at the U.N.), doesn't matter if North Korea insanely is threatening nuclear war against the U.S., doesn't matter if the American citizenry doesn't want a pre-emptive war on its conscience, doesn't matter if America is torn apart by dissension and economic disaster, doesn't matter if millions are demonstrating in the streets of America even before bombing has begun - none of that matters. (Reminiscent of what Bush once told an ordinary citizen when that man deigned to criticize him at some public event: "What do I care what you think?")

Great, Timber! Thanks for the answer. But I want to ask you: You say "12 years worth of containment and monitoring have brought us straight to this point" -- what is "this point"? We've had twelve years of grimacing and swearing about Iraq and Saddam, but have we been attacked by Iraq? Haven't 12 years of containment worked? Is he actually doing anything to us?

A week or so ago, there was an incident in San Antonio. (I may not have all the details right here -- these come from media reports.) A suspected drug dealer was being watched by the DEA. They'd had opportunities in the past to pick him up, but evidently they didn't have quite enough evidence against him though they'd been watching him for quite some time. Last week, one evening at about 10, the DEA agents were sitting in their SUV's along the alleged drug dealer's street, just watching. A person came out of the house in the dark, got in the family's car parked on the street, and moved it forward to go up the driveway and into the garage. The DEA guys jumped out of their vehicles, ran up the driveway, tried to stop the car and, when it didn't stop, shot the person driving. It was the suspect's wholly innocent, terrified 14-year-old daughter. She's dead.

It seems to me there's a parallel. We've been after Saddam for years. We've contained him. From what I understand, there have been opportunities to "take him out." Haven't done it. Nor has he done anything to us. As you say, "The legal and logical "Whys" have been posted here, broadcast by the electronic media, and published by the press time after time after time, supported by facts, evidence, and reason." But our government hasn't demonstrated and underwritten convincing evidence that Saddam is about to attack us. A majority of the UN don't even believe what they've been told. We've actually watched embarrassing lies and exaggerations being demolished, as in that Colin Powell mess. So in a very real international legal sense, we have no right to do this. No proof, no verification, no attack on us. What legal proof have you (or the media) seen?

I know we've discussed "pre-emptive attack" before but I'd like to change the fancy language and talk about my local police coming to my house and arresting me, violently, because they have reason to believe I'm going into town to raise hell. Or because they believe I have an unregistered gun.. This is something we have laws against in this country, laws to protect ourselves from what is now being called "pre-emptive strike" as though it were justifiable... If our laws are good enough for us, aren't they good enough for our leadership?

PD quote:

The total arrogance of the man, and he basically told the world to "Shove it up you ass" earlier this week!

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-02-21/cols_ventura.html
Toward an Accounting

BY MICHAEL VENTURA

February 21, 2003:

If Secretary of State Colin Powell had not testified to the
UN on Feb. 5, headlines on Feb. 6 would have read:
HIRING IN NATION HITS WORST SLUMP IN 20
YEARS -- U.S. ECONOMY HAS LOST MORE THAN
2 MILLION JOBS. If the economy was getting the kind
of media attention that war now hogs, what do you think
Bush's approval rating would be?

Which is a prime reason why Bush won't back down from
his war on Iraq.

That economic news was noted in the media on Feb. 6,
but almost as an afterthought. The big story was Powell's
testimony. He produced fuzzy photos, cleverly captioned,
of what might be a missile, a bunker, but who could tell?
When civilian surveillance satellites can read a newspaper
over your shoulder, why were the photos of our space
spies so ill-defined? Powell claimed that one photo was of
a lab for chemical and biological weapons -- a "poison
factory" he called it, run by "al Qaeda affiliates" in
northern Iraq. Three days later reporters found their way
to that camp and saw "structures that did not have
plumbing and had only the limited electricity supplied by a
generator" (The New York Times, Feb. 9). Can an
effective laboratory (much less a factory) be managed
without running water? Ask your local druggist or high
school chemistry teacher.

The day after his testimony, a congressional committee
asked Powell why a supposedly known al Qaeda camp
was still operating in northern Iraq, where American jets
have pummeled other sites? "Neither Powell nor other
administration officials answered the question," (NY Times,
Feb. 7). But Fox News is not about to repeat that fact
over and over and over.

On Feb. 7 it was revealed that the British report Powell
had quoted to the UN (praising it as "a fine paper," an
"up-to-date and unsettling assessment") was actually a
pastiche culled from academic journals, two of which
were published in 1997, "about the activities of Iraqi
intelligence in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991" (NY Times, Feb.
8). The author who'd been plagiarized, Al-Marishi, noted,
"Had they consulted me, I could have provided them with
more up-dated information."

So Mr. Al-Marishi, a postgraduate student residing in
Monterey, Calif., has access to more current information
than our secretary of state? Then, on Feb. 14, UN chief
inspector Hans Blix demonstrated more flaws in Powell's
"proofs," and did so to Powell's face; Powell merely
nodded silently. In other words, Powell's testimony was a
sham -- with not one hard fact proven. But notice that this
lie was not reported as such, nor was it the headline story;
instead, bits and pieces were reported that did not receive
the emphasis they deserved, and that were not united to
present the story they truly told: Powell shilled, hustled,
lied, and was let off.

But Powell's lies didn't get a free pass everywhere.
Russian President Putin said on Feb. 10 that Powell's
assertions did not "justify a war": Powell's claims "must be
verified by inspectors on the ground." A diplomatic way of
saying that Powell hadn't verified anything. President
Chirac of France: "There is not to my knowledge
indisputable proof that weapons of mass destruction exist
in Iraq." France, Germany, and Russia have thus far
blocked a war vote in the Security Council; and France,
Germany, and Belgium stalled Rumsfeld's attempts to
bully NATO. The administration's line, as stated by
Rumsfeld, is that NATO and the UN risk irrelevance if
they don't go along with Bush. On the contrary, they risk
irrelevance if they do. If NATO and the UN are reduced
to rubber-stamping unproven White House assertions, then
they might as well not exist. They cannot stop Bush, but
they can unmask his dishonesty and strip him of legitimacy
in the eyes of the world. That's no small service. No
superpower, not even ours, is "super" enough to defy most
of the civilized world without terrible consequences.

On Feb. 6, another news story ran without comment:
NORTH KOREA RESTARTS PLANT WITH
ABILITY TO FUEL [NUCLEAR] ARMS. But this,
according to Powell, is not a crisis. In a few days it would
come out that North Korea has rockets that could hit our
West Coast. Still not a crisis. Meanwhile, India and
Pakistan were expelling each other's diplomats (often a
gesture foreshadowing war), and India was testing new
missiles. That's not a crisis either. Nor is the ongoing war
between Israel and Palestine, in which people die every
day. Oops -- that's not even a war. It's certainly not a
crisis -- not after last spring, when for two weeks Bush
blatantly ordered Israel to pull troops and tanks out of the
West Bank; Bush's demands were just as blatantly
ignored, in the most humiliating (for America) exchange in
the history of U.S.-Israeli relations. Bush can't define that
as a crisis because he's proven himself helpless as far as
that region is concerned, a president with no policy and no
nerve.

Then Osama bin Laden checked in again. Isn't he the guy
that Bush (and all the rest of us) wanted "dead or alive"?
It's a year and a half since 9/11, and not only does Bush
not know where the most wanted man in the world is, he
authenticated and practically welcomed Osama's new
tape. The very fact that Osama is alive is a defeat for
America and the world, but this didn't faze Bush. As
Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times (Feb. 12):
"In the past, Condi Rice has implored the networks not to
broadcast [Osama's] tapes outright, fearing he might be
activating sleeper cells in code. But this time the
administration flacked the tape. And Fox, the official Bush
news agency, rushed the entire tape onto the air. So the
Bushies no longer care if Osama sends a coded message
to his thugs as long as he stays on message for the White
House."

"On message" means that Osama supports Saddam.
Except that he doesn't, and never has. He despises
Saddam, and that was clear in the tape. The clever
bastard was using both Saddam and Bush to inflame
Muslims against you and me. And we will no doubt pay
the price for that. But it was Bush who gave Osama the
opportunity. Whatever deaths will result, will be -- in
history's eyes -- on both their heads.

What a coincidence, all these terror alerts to stir us up just
before Bush goes to war. Attorney General John Ashcroft
assures us that these alerts are "very clearly unrelated" to
Iraq. And if you believe that, I've got an extra roll of duct
tape I can sell you cheap. General Ralph E. Eberhart,
described by The New York Times as "the nation's top
general for domestic security," privy to "the same
intelligence that President Bush receives," said Dec. 13
that "there was scant intelligence to suggest an immediate
domestic threat from al Qaeda or other terrorist groups."
The general: "I am not aware of a significant threat to this
nation from so-called sleeper cells."

But before you buy any duct tape maybe you should read
the Department of Homeland Security's "Guide To
Preparedness": "In many biological [and chemical] attacks,
people will not know they have been exposed to an agent.
In such situations, the first evidence of an attack may be
when you notice symptoms of the disease caused by an
agent exposure, and you should seek immediate medical
attention for treatment."

Take two aspirin and call Bush in the morning.

Or maybe you should call him now? (And how are the 44
million Americans without insurance going to manage
"immediate medical attention"?)

On Feb. 11 Powell told a congressional committee that
war on Iraq will be conducted thusly: "It will be done in a
way that will be seen as surgical." Will be seen as. The
lies must be getting to him. Or he just slipped and told the
truth: "will be seen as." Many harmless people will die, but
what will be seen will be clean, "surgical" -- as in the first
Gulf War, when European news agencies confirmed that
tens of thousands Iraqi civilians died, though this went
virtually unreported in the United States.

As the world demonstrations on Feb. 15 and 16 proved, I
am only one of many serving notice that we see what's
happening, and we refuse to affix our names to the next
bloody page of history. We write, we speak, we read, we
listen, we learn, we make ourselves heard, we take our
stand -- for we must make clear that this government is
not acting in our name or with our consent. We do this for
the sake of our personal honor and dignity; we do this in
solidarity with peaceful people everywhere and in the frail
hope that we may change this nation's terrible course; and
we do this to leave a record, to bear witness, toward the
time that will inevitably come, when an accounting will be
demanded and must be given, an accounting to the world
and to history, for the gruesome sin our leaders are about
to commit.

It's the economy, stupid (and politics and legacy)

and oil, and arrogance, and revenge, and sure-fire re-election unless any one of a dozen different scenarios go horribly wrong

First, I want again echo Timbers in saying that to favor military action is not the same thing as being pro-war. I believe that Timber, George, Tress, Steissd and Perception are combat veterans who know directly and personally the face of war. Though I didn't see combat while in the military, I also know the face of war and hate it with all my being. Not one of us as a group have ever said anything here, on any thread, that would lead anyone to believe that we relish the idea of dying, or killing enemy soldiers. Even less should anyone believe that we are unmoved by the possible death of others, especially children. We all know that many will die, the innocent along with those who need killing, and we regret the necessity. That is the key word here I think for us, necessity.

Why not containment you ask. This is Cicero's mantra, and I believe the reasons have been amply stated a number of times. However, lets try again. Timber has already pointed out that Saddam has failed to fulfill any promise he's made, or to meet any of the conditions imposed upon him by the UN twelve years ago. He was supposed to disarm in under a year, and twelve years later he not only failed to disarm, he has continued to build his arsenal of forbidden weapons. Containment has failed to bring about disarmament. Has containment kept Saddam from sponsoring, financing and arming terrorists? The association between Saddam and Bin Ladin that can be discussed openly may be thin, but there is do doubt whatever that Saddam financially supports terrorist activity inside Israel. There is no doubt whatever, that Saddam has covert agents inside Jordan and Kuwait. There is no doubt whatever that Saddam put out a "contract" on an American President. Saddam Hussein HAS remained a clear and present danger to his neighbors and to the world at large. That is the proof of the past.

Saddam has only made a pretense of cooperation since a credible threat of military force began to assemble on his borders. He laughed at the impotence of the UN when he kicked out the inspectors and nothing was done. He has stopped laughing, but seems still convinced that he is immune because the pacifists of America and Europe have gotten a lot of television coverage. France and Russia will be his shield so that they can benefit from his oil reserves … HIS oil reserves, not the oil reserves of the Iraqi People --- Saddam's oil reserves. He believes all he needs is time, and the UN is giving that to him.

He may be "contained" now, but appearances can be deceiving. What would happen if the American and British military forces were to leave the region? Someone might suggest that we maintain our military forces in the region indefinitely. There are at least four obvious reasons that cannot happen. First, those military forces can only be maintained as an effective force for a brief time before their capabilities begin to dull. Second, the cost in dollars and the strain on national resources would become ruinous in very short order. Third, we cannot afford tying up a significant part of our military might in Southwest Asia while North Korea is threatening war in East Asia. Fourth, the presence of our forces will become an ever-greater strain and irritant on the host countries.

The day the combined forces leave the region does anyone seriously doubt that Saddam will revert to the behavior that has made him a danger to the world since his attack on Iran? He kicked out the inspectors once, why wouldn't he do it again? Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam will destroy the large stockpiles of forbidden weapons if he isn't forced to? What would keep him from increasing those stockpiles, and improving their capability if there isn't a gun to his head? Why wouldn't he increase his efforts to obtain nuclear weapons? Saddam has been claiming victory in the Gulf War for 12 years, what do you think his public pronouncements would be if at the last minute we folded our tents and skulked away in the night? Don't you think that terrorists everywhere, and all those who would like to see the West destroyed, would be dancing in the streets? Those who support terrorism would regard Saddam's survival as a Great Victory, and their efforts to destroy us would increase ten fold. No, a hundred fold. Kim Jong-Il would sit back and say to himself, "if they can be scared out of Iraq, how far will they run to avoid the risk I might explode a nuke over Tokyo"?

Terrorist attacks everywhere would increase, and the demand for effective action would increase. Defeated once, the President might hesitate to stand up to North Korea. The support for terrorism in Iran would become more open, and exported more widely. The government of Pakistan might fall, as the ISI mobilized the already radicalized masses. That would increase the danger of a nuclear confrontation with India. The Saudi's would probably be forced by popular sentiment to ask for our forces to leave, and the little Gulf Kingdoms would have to knuckle under just to survive. The Palestinian cry for the destruction of Israel would become shrill and terror attacks on that country would increase. The Israeli government might well become more brutal in its response to terrorist attacks, further increasing the potential for violence. The whole region would be further destabilized. This is what we fear would happen if the Saddam is permitted to claim a "victory" in this emergency.

Now, if Bush had not taken the initiative to defang the most obvious national threat to peace in Southeast Asia, perhaps the stakes would not be so high. He did take the initiative, and probably sincerely believed that Saddam had to be dealt with sooner instead of later. We can't go back now and try some different line of approach, but must deal with the situation as it now exists. Saddam and his government must go. He has a few days left, but the longer he waits the more certain that our forces will act.

BillW.



I totally agree with you! Saddam's total arrogance in telling the world to shove it up our ass for the last twelve years, is unmitigated gall. He's brought this sorry situation not just on himself, but upon his people and the whole world. I'm glad to see you are finally putting the blame where it belongs.

Gosh, aren't we funny today - as usual Asherman you write brilliantly but all the writing contains not one word or phrase to go beyond PEACE. There may be a day, but today is not that day!

The thing is, Asherman, I don't think it's reasonable, moral, safe(god help us) or wise (in terms of international politics) for us to insist on war on the basis of "what if." "What if" American and British troops were to leave in the future, for example.

Containment at this point is working. It isn't giving us dramatic results, but it's working. Saddam is not bombing or poisoning us, nor have we established that he is able to. Doesn't matter if we don't immediately find the weaponry we think is there, as long as we prevent him from using it. I can see beefing up inspectors and adding a contingent of military to the overflights -- that would make sense in particular if they find viable weapons. We wouldn't have to tie up much of our military -- we have the UN.

The last thing I think we should ever do is go to war to save a president's face -- a president who acts stupidly and precipitously without cause -- no matter what his party or last name. Our prospective opponents know we're strong and fast and, furthermore, they are very aware that Bush does not have full support within his own country. They would not be affected by a step-down by Bush except perhaps positively -- to the extent that they (and the rest of us) would respect the president more for taking a wise and courageous step.

I'd be glad to respond line by line to the specifics of your response if you'd find that valuable.

Peace is won by sacrifice, and courage. The cost of peace unfortunately is blood. This is the sort of peace that men died for in WWI, WWII, and WWIII. Mostly they were ordinary people faced with extrordinary challenges. They died that others might live, and that the world might someday live in peace. Some died on the back roads of Mississippi so that their children might vote, get a decent education, and have peace.

There is another sort of peace. The bully may leave the children alone today if they give him their lunch money, but tomorrow he'll be back wanting more. There may be a temporary "peace" that the murderer will grant his victim while he cocks his pistol. The peace of the unburied dead whose faith in the mercy of the tyrant was misplaced.

True peace is not the mere absence of war. Peace is when no one is threatening to kill you. I want peace for myself and my grandchildren, and their grandchildren. That peace is threatened by international terrorism. The peace, security and stability of the world is threatened by Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il. They must go. If there must be violence, then they are responsible for it, not those who would be free of their threats.

Sigh, I know that you are likely to say that only the Shrub is making threats, and that Saddam and Kim are just being picked on by the big, bad United States. You are apparently convinced that this President is personally responsible for all the world's ills. Your crowd will believe the Saddam and Kim, before your own people. You condemn anyone who doesn't agree with your almost pathological hatred of Bush. To you, it seems, we are the enemy bent only on war. Sigh.

<sigh>

Meant to add, Asherman, that many of us perceive that the "necessity" you refer to did not exist before Bush brought it into being. Saddam has been there for years, raging against us and impotent. Bush decided to give him new life. I think there are two reasons for that: 1) He was hurt by the criticism his father took for (sanely and correctly) not exceeding the UN resolution which took us into the Gulf War, and 2) He floundered as he discovered he couldn't get bin Laden and turned his attention to a new devil and to endless (and failed) efforts to find a legitimate connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

Tartan,

Who will contain Saddam and prevent him from doing all the ill he's shown himself willing to do, if our military forces were withdrawn? Who will pay the cost of containment? If our military forces are needed in East Asia, who will replace them in Southwest Asia? How do you propose to easy the burden on Iraq's neighbors who must host the containment forces? How do you expect to maintain an effective fighting force under "containment" conditions for another twelve years, or more?

The "what if" rational is admittedly based upon probabilities. The level of probability that Saddam would do all the bad things he's capable of if not forcibly disarmed and removed approaches certainty. There isn't a single shred of evidence that Saddam, left to his own devices, will not continue to foment terrorism and seek to dominate Middle Eastern politics by force and threats.

I must not have been clear. This action is not to save President Bush's face, it is to deny our enemies a victory that would have terrible consequences in the future. We have gotten a bad reputation internationally for not sticking to our guns. We encouraged the Shia and Kurds to overthrow Saddam and then abandoned them to his torture squads. Iraqi military forces were ready to stage a coup against Saddam, but the lack of resolve in Washington led to failure and the murder of more anti-Saddam people. We can not cut and run every time the going promises to get rough. It is that unwillingness to risk casualties, that has continually encouraged our enemies. The Kim Dynasty has survived fifty years on threats.

We clearly disagree about the necessity, and what motivated the President to finally take a strong stand against an international outlaw.

You asked for my opinon, you've gotten it. The rational on which my conclusions are based can be found in numerous varieties sprinkled among dozens of posts. You disagree. All right, that's the American Way. If you want to demonize American leadership, and promote the wellfare of our enemies, that's your right. I'm sure you are sincere, and have been convinced that you are correct. Perhaps you are correct, and the rest of us are wrong ... only time will tell. Perhaps all the terrible things you and others predict will happen as a result of the coming action will come to pass. I don't think so, and I sure hope not, but it could happen. Are you so certain that your beliefs are the ONLY possible reality? Can't you imagine that Timber, George, Tress, Steissd, Perception and I might be just as rational, just as sensitive and caring as the mob demonstrating in the streets? Time will tell, and soon.

I expect that events will bear out the expectations of Timber, George, Tress, Steissd, Perception and myself. If you are correct and the sky falls we will all certainly be disappointed and saddened. What will your position be if events prove you wrong? Will you be disappointed that more civilians didn't die? If Kim backs down and no war has to be fought on the Korean Peninsula, will you be upset? If the incidence of terrorism decreases, how will you explain that in light of your current certainty?

Kara

re Frontline....I'm terribly sorry. I read the introduction and simply assumed the other links were the transcript...duh. I guess you'll have to wait until the 25th when you can watch it online. I'm assuming they will do as PBS has done before, which is to make the transcript available online at the same time as the piece is available to watch. Sorry.

You probably checked everything already, so know there is even now a fair bit of information on the site.

Asherman

Thanks for those two brilliant posts in response to Tartarin. Though you have made a valiant effort I see little chance that you have been successful in penetrating the state of mind that creates such a distorted perception of current reality.

Sorry if I was unclear. My point is that I think that if France and others want to put their economic interests before anything else, we should send them exactly the message you jokingly suggest by ensuring they get nothing from their existing contracts if we topple Saddam without their help.