The US, The UN and Iraq

No, vendetta certainly doesn't cover it all. May not cover even the most important elements at play.

But I am still struck by the use here of the word "containment". The weaponry that we are all most worried about, have been used, and are developed to be used. They are crude but effective, like slamming a fully-loaded with fuel commercial airliner into the WTC. There isn't a hope in heaven or hell of their containability. They can be easily given, sold, smuggled, and used, anywhere in the world. Containment is a dead issue. Not possible.

And those people who believe, truly believe, that the US government is misguided, misinformed, or actually manufacturing evidence to justify some future action, were already primed to believe the worse about the US and its motivations. I can't go that far.

Sure, Bush is an asshole, and a dangerous loose canon, and I'm quite sure that the Department of State would like to silence him, but that does not change the reality of other issues at play.

Black and white thinking will get us nowhere on this one.

0 Replies

No, vendetta certainly doesn't cover it all. May not cover even the most important elements at play.

But I am still struck by the use here of the word "containment". The weaponry that we are all most worried about, have been used, and are developed to be used. They are crude but effective, like slamming a fully-loaded with fuel commercial airliner into the WTC. There isn't a hope in heaven or hell of their containability. They can be easily given, sold, smuggled, and used, anywhere in the world. Containment is a dead issue. Not possible.

And those people who believe, truly believe, that the US government is misguided, misinformed, or actually manufacturing evidence to justify some future action, were already primed to believe the worse about the US and its motivations. I can't go that far.

Sure, Bush is an asshole, and a dangerous loose canon, and I'm quite sure that the Department of State would like to silence him, but that does not change the reality of other issues at play.

Black and white thinking will get us nowhere on this one.

0 Replies

To all who sleepwalkingly declare "Saddam is not threat to us" let me introduce the next nightmare scenario.

A swarm of unmanned attack vehicles(UAV) manufactured in Iraq and shipped here in small cartons(modules in twenty pound boxes) and assembled here to fly over crowded places spraying anything that can be aerosolized.

Heck no Saddam poses no threat to us----this new threat is not only possible but to me the most probable. We already know he has these UAVs----this is what one of his murdering son's joked about-----if the US attacks we will make 9/II look like disneyland.

The al Queda could not do this alone but with Saddam manufacturing these things and providing the bios or chemicals they could.

This was on the news today not from my imagination.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

However, as expected, Iraq seems to be tossing just enough crumbs to keep the pack at bay. Reports now are that Dr. Blix is "encouraged" by Iraqi response to the most recent demands. Iraqi "Encouragement" has been going on for 12 years. Iraqi compliance has not.

It seems obvious to me that Blix has seen preventing war as part of his mandate from the start, and that trying to serve two masters he is serving neither one well. He can't effectively push inspections and honestly report his findings if he is trying--as I believe he is--to parse everything through a filter designed to prevent anyone from reaching the conclusion that war is necessary based on his assessments.

Blix should be reporting facts; pure, raw facts. Inspection teams have done X, Iraq is or is not complying fully and in what regards. PERIOD. It isn't Blix's job to tell us whether he is "encouraged" or "discouraged". It is up to the UN and the governments involved to make that call.

0 Replies

To all who sleepwalkingly declare "The US is not threat to us" let me introduce the next nightmare scenario.

A swarm of unmanned attack vehicles(UAV) manufactured in the US fly over crowded places spraying anything that can be aerosolized.

Heck no the US poses no threat to us----this new threat is not only possible but to me the most probable. We already know they have these UAVs.

This was on the news not from my imagination.

0 Replies

Tres

Wouldn't it be interesting to know if "Dr. Blix" has $10 million in a numbered account in a Swiss bank.

0 Replies

Tartarin, you point up what disgusts me most about this adminisration, and something which can likely be laid at the door of just about every administration since the days of Warren Harding, when it behooved those in power to keep the majority of their processes of policy and decision-making from public eyes. That issue is deceit. It matters not if one speaks of Teapot dome, of Pearl Harbor (no, i don't believe there was any conspiracy), of Eisenhower's naval manoeuvres off Lebanon, or the Bay of Pigs planning, or Kennedy's support of Diem, or Nixon's CREEP crew . . . i won't go on and on--deceit has become a way of political life for those in magisterial authority in this country.

How is one to make an informed choice at the polls with which one can subsequently live? Politicians all show those ads in which they nod knowingly as we see (but don't hear) moms, or cops, or just people on the street, speaking to them. We know these ads are staged. We see then shown in three-quarters view, their image superimposed on a flag--we hear them trotting out the polished phrases, the sound bites, during campaign stops or on the debating platform. And none of it, not one ounce, has any substance with regard to the true agenda, the one they have, and have had, since before their first trip in front of a camera in an advertising agency's studio.

OK, i'm done being depressed by this subject for the afternoon.

0 Replies

perception

Do you

a) question Dr. Blix' doctorate (the quotation marks could be read such),

b) presume, he might have got bribe-money?

0 Replies

Walter

Did I say that?

Tres is correct----Blix is supposed to report the facts----giving his opinion is not in his job description. It is the job of the security council to interpret the facts he presents and form conclusions. He has seriously overstepped his authority.

Blix should not be conducting a press conference between meals and during meals as he has been doing. He seems to think he is film star.

0 Replies

perception

Could you please verify

Quote:

He has seriously overstepped his authority.

?

If you are not sure about his job, you may have a look here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/

0 Replies

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

Mark Twain,
"The Mysterious Stranger"

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

And none of it, not one ounce, has any substance with regard to the true agenda, the one they have, and have had, since before their first trip in front of a camera in an advertising agency's studio.

Gotta agree with that. It is certainly something to be accounted under the prices we pay and the taxes we bear.

timber

0 Replies

Dreamweaver, re your post of earlier this afternoon:

A few days ago, in the Raleigh News & Observer, a reader's letter says:

Your Feb. 9 editorial "War Drums" talked about war against Iraq and posed the question "Would action against him (Saddam Hussein) prompt terrorist retaliation against America, in America?"

What perplexes me is how an unprovoked attack against people thousands of miles from our shores is considered a war, even a justified war, and a reponse to that attack is classified as terrorism.

(Signed) Tariq Butt, Raleigh

0 Replies

Kara, to my mind, a significant difference exists in both the target and the method of attack. A legitimate military employs directed force at the offensive capability of its armed and activily opposing enemy, while excercising caution to limit collateral damage, human or otherwise.

"Provoked"or not, a wanton, indiscriminate attack on non-combatants, particularly civilian non-combatants, is an atrocity whether it is Manhattan or Tel Aviv which suffers the attack.

Impotence and desperation do not excuse warcrimes.

timber

0 Replies

From the "Argument" in tomorrow's/today's "Independent":

Quote:

War is always an admission of failure. Saddam Hussein has been a threat to peace and security in the region, and to his own people; the question is whether today, with a strong UN presence in the country and with a formidable deterrent in the shape of Western forces in the region, Saddam poses a clear and present danger to his neighbours. With an even stronger UN force in Iraq, as Jacques Chirac, the French President, suggests, he would be even weaker. Set that against the destabilisation of the whole region from Palestine to Pakistan and the upsurge of terrorism that would ensue if we went to war. An effectively neutralised Saddam is what we have now. It is what Mr Blair and Mr Bush want. The world does not want a clash of civilisations. There is no need for war.
Argument INDEPENDENT

0 Replies

sumac, the Iraqis did not fly a plane into the WTC. Terrorists are difficult to find and impossible to "contain." They must be taken care of by other methods. In many cases, we must kill them before they kill us, because life means nothing to them, expecting as they do to live in some heavenly place of reward. (But even for the committed WTC terrorists, some of the newbies were spared the truth of their fate, that they were going down with the plane; they were told that they were involving themselves in an ordinary hijacking.)

Saddam, however, is being contained. So, apparently, is North Korea, if we are generous enough with our aid.

For reasons that have never been clear, and keep changing, our government will wage war against Iraq. Our government believes that waging war is an acceptable means to achieve desirable ends. To me, it is a failure of the imagination. It is also a failure of the moral authority we used to have in the world.

0 Replies

Well, this likely puts to rest conjecture over whether Saddam intends to savage his own oilfields.

STRATFOR wrote:

SITUATION REPORTS - February 25 2003
20:33 GMT - Baghdad confirmed Feb. 25 that an oilfield fire broke out in the northern city of Kirkuk. Iraq's information minister said the fire was accidental and dismissed reports of sabotage. Kirkuk residents reported earlier in the day that a huge explosion occurred overnight in an oilfield.

timber

0 Replies

Walter, was that Robert Fisk?

0 Replies

Quote:

Kara, to my mind, a significant difference exists in both the target and the method of attack.

Timber, I knew the analogy limped when I posted it, but I do not agree with your riposte, either. I do not consider our coming attack on Iraq to be "legitimate" no matter how our leaders choose to euphemize our actions. We are making a pre-emptive unprovoked strike against a sovereign country to get rid of its leader.

0 Replies

Not sure, Kara, it's actually the Leading Article and not signed.

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know