The US, The UN and Iraq

Asherman

An attack by Iraq on Iran (or anyone) is so unlikely as to be a non-credible part of an argument. On what basis would you disallow Iran to hold nukes, but allow it of Israel? Or Pakistan?

blatham - I guess your comments about being disappointed specifically with Democrats confused me.

Iraq can't have nukes, but we'll turn a blind eye to Iran and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea. Maybe, just maybe, the US administration is made up of liars, cheats and hypocrites.

Blatham,

In an ideal world nuclear weapons wouldn't exist, but they do. Pakistan and India claim that their mutual ownership of nuclear weapons is a deterant to war. That's a strategy that kept the Cold War between the USSR and the US from turning truly hot. In the case of the superpowers, a spasm nuclear exchange might actually have resulted in Mutually Assured Destruction. In the case of India and Pakistan, a nuclear exchange would be devastating to those countries, but would have little effect outside the region if other powers stayed out of the fray. Pakistan will not divest itself of nuclear weapons until, and unless India does. If the UN truly wants to make the world safer from nuclear explosions, the Indian/Pakistani arsenals would be a good place to start.

Pakistan's arsenal is of especial concern because of its large radical Islamic population. The ISI could manage a coup, and put nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists quite easily. Pakistan is also more likely to initiate a nuclear exchange. The reason is that India's military is larger and more effective than Pakistan's. In a shooting war, India can be expected to drive deep into Pakistani territory. A Pakistani battlefield commander about to be overrun just might opt for using a tactical nuclear weapon. India would respond against the Pakistani capital. I think at that point there would be a pause, and hopefully the world community would be able to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is pure deterrent. The country is very small, and could be overrun quickly. Israel has been the target of massive aggression by its neighbors frequently since 1949, and so far has been able to handily defeat every attack. There hasn't been any overt attacks by regular military units since Israel got the Bomb. Who can blame the Israelis for maintaining a weapon that provides a shield against those who publicly want her demise? Ultimately, Israel will probably eliminate its nuclear arsenal when an effective middle-eastern peace is concluded, and Israel feels secure within her borders. She is our ally, and I have much less concern about the nuclear arsenals of allies than those who have declared themselves our enemies.

BTW, Iraq has already demonstrated its willingness to aggressively attack Iran for no good reason. Iran suffered terribly in that war, and I believe is justified in seeking to protect itself against a madman on her borders.

Wilso, Just maybe. c.i.

Can we back up for a minute? When did the above happen, and why? Why in the world would Iraq want to cancel its contracts with Russia, particularly at this point in time?

and a fun time is had by all http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,901066,00.html

If you oppose war, you support Saddam Hussein.

Are our WW2 veterans "supporters" of Stalin's regime, just because the USSR was an Allied Power? I'd love to see a new regime in Iraq -- I'd also love to see a new regime in the United States, but I'm not going to advocate assassinating Bush and Cheney to get it, because it's wrong.

Obstructing this war is appeasement, just like with Hitler.

Europe's "appeasement" wasn't not attacking Hitler, it was giving in to his demands (like annexing the Sudenland) in the hope Hitler wouldn't attack them. Who in this situation is making the demands? Who is asking the world "give in or else"? America.

Real Americans would support our President.

Even during Watergate? The President works for us, not the other way around; it's his obligation to support Americans, even those who disagree with him.

Real Americans would support our troops.

The American military exists to defend the nation against attacks by other nations; it was never intended to be a tool of aggressive political gain. It is supporting our soldiers to demand that their lives not be risked except to defend us from attack.

The Iraqis will be better off when we bring them democracy.

If Iraq had honest elections, they'd very likely end up with a Shia Islam regime very close to Iran's. The Iraqis themselves might actually consider that better than Hussein, but the Bush administration would never let it happen. So there will be no democracy for Iraq, war or no war.

The Iraqi people want to be liberated.

"Liberation" is when you push out an invading force so the people can rule themselves. When you roll in an invading force so you can pick the people's ruler, it's called "conquest". And the Bush administration will never allow the government the Iraqi majority would choose.

When America goes to war with Iraq, do you want us to win?

A close family member is planning a murder -- do you want them to succeed? The nation seemed happy enough that David Kaczynski put justice above expected loyalties.

In 1945, the nations of the world collectively agreed that initiating war, attacking first rather than responding to an attack, is always wrong. If Iraq does not attack America, than America isn't defending itself, it's committing an atrocity. I love my country, just as I love my brother -- but if I learned my brother was going to commit a crime, I have to turn him in. Faced with my country doing evil, I'd want it brought to justice too.

BTW, It was revealed recently that Tommy Franks, US General, will be governor of Iraq until a "democratic" government can be installed. I guess many in this world will see that as a "conquest" and nothing else. c.i.

Russia blasts Iraq's cancellation of billion-dollar oil contract
Last Updated Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:26:56

Iraq cancelled the exploration contract with Lukoil on Friday, saying the company didn't move fast enough to implement the deal.
The Russian Foreign Ministry called the cancellation bewildering.
Until the cancellation, Russian oil companies were major players in Iraq's oil industry.
Members of the Russian parliament said the decision was retaliation for Russia's support of the UN campaign of weapons inspections in Iraq.
Russia has tried to strike a balance between fostering a new relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush and maintaining a friendship with Iraq that has lasted since Soviet times.
Russia worked with France to try to limit the Americans' ability to launch an attack on Iraq, but backed the U.S. in the final resolution MOSCOW - Iraq's cancellation of a $3.7-billion contract with Russia's largest oil company was blatant political retaliation, say Russian politicians.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/16/russia_iraq021216

LUKoil is just one of many Russian Oil Companies with Iraq deals ... there seems to be some argument regarding actual development and other contractual terms. The dispute is between Iraq and one Russian Oil Company among many Russian Oil Companies involved with Iraq.
http://www.sptimesrussia.com/archive/times/842/news/b_8616.htm

Following the removal of Saddam, Franks will be Military Governor, with a "Civilian Appointee" to take over non-military civil administration a soon as may be practical. The Civilian Governor would oversee the structuring of a representative Iraqi Government, among the first charges of which would be to author and adopt a new Iraqi constitution. Pretty standard stuff, really.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030221/pl_nm/iraq_usa_plan_dc_1



timber

Wouldn't be any different to the Oz government.

"Human Shields" dismayed to be posted at real targets

It would seem there are more powerplants, telephone exchanges, and government offices to be "Shielded" than hospitals, orphanages, and schools ... how odd.

Now, if one looks at the conventions regarding "Human Shields", the employment of such constitutes a "War Crime". There is no distinction made between "Hostages" and "Volunteers". Actually, civilians volunteering to be "Human Shields", thus directly aiding and abetting the crime, as well as any government which encouraged, or even permited, them to fill that function, would be "War Criminals". There really is no other logically or legally valid interpretation.



timber

A somehow 'surprising' legal definition of "war crime/war criminals", timber.



Meanwhile, while Blix seems to get more and more doubtful about Iraq, Blair hasn't even convinced his own security establishment according to the 'Guardian's' security editor:

Both the military and the spooks are opposed to war on Iraq

http://www.albawaba.com/headlines/TheNews.php3?action=story&sid=242726&lang=e&dir=



Boy, I sure hope this is another one of those "German Intelligence Leak" stories that turns out to go nowhere. Supposedly, these rockets are substantially longer-ranged than the Al Samoud currently at issue. That alone tends to stack this report with the defecting bodyguard and the mysterious freighters.

On the other hand, if those missiles ARE there, I would imagine they've already been targeted and are 24/7 real-time monitored by The US.


timber

Well, timber, this seems to be one of those reports by the 'Frankfurter Sonntags Zeitung', which you don't find in other sources besides your quotes.

LOL, you're right, Walter ... I begin to suspect that The Ministry of Disinformation is at work.

Here's anther interesting find:
http://www.albawaba.com/headlines/TheNews.php3?action=story&sid=242658&lang=e&dir=


I would hope this story doesn't disappear. Then again, I know better than to expect too much to come of it, either, even without a German connection.



timber

Well, obviously Al Bawaba is trying to become "one of the leading" news resources:

They're actually pretty well regarded. One of the most valuable aspects is that they have tabs which connect to summaries and article translations from each country of The Arab World. News from that part of the world often appears on Al Bawaba before the US or European Media have it. They do little editorializing, really.



timber