The US, The UN and Iraq

Yes, Timber, i will concede the probity of those sources--and i will continue to mistrust quotes from Iraqwatch.

Well, here's one Australian - and is he a friend of Mr. Murdoch? - writing in today's WSJ:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Cold War doctrine doesn't apply in the age of terror.

BY JOHN HOWARD
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

CANBERRA, Australia--Critics of U.S. policy on Iraq have lately begun to employ the term "containment" to describe an alternative approach. That alternative essentially is to muddle along with endless further U.N. resolutions, which Iraq either ignores or partially obeys under intense pressure, with inspectors given "more time" to disarm Iraq. [.....]

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Well, I agree with the Prime Minister; too bad his citizens don't <G>

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_07-08/blixjulaug.asp


The good Doctor seems to have forgotten the requirement for "Full, immediate, and unrestricted" Iraqi cooperation in the matter of disclosing evidence of her having complied with the required disarmament terms.



timber

Timber

Seems, you don't want to join the "Dr.-Hans-Blix-Fan-Club"

Ultimate Hans Blix Fan Page

Setanta wrote in reply to perception:

It is hardly worth noting your scurrilous imputations about the probity and honesty of Dr. Blix--so i'll ignore what seems to be a typical position of those in favor of war: that any opposed are duped, deluded or corrupt.

Just another example of your "Double standard" which everyone on this forum has come to recognize as the "Setanta way or the hyway"

hot

I was being somewhat disingenuous in ascribing all those remarks to US diplomacy. Its the general tenor of remarks emanating from the US that I find disturbing. The French are well aware of the sacrifice American boys made in liberating their country. They don't need snide comments like "Oh what language is that French, not German?" etc

I support this government, but on this issue I believe Tony Blair is wrong to follow the American lead to war. We didn't send troops to Vietnam, unlike the Australians, and we were right not to do so.

Blair made a very strong case yesterday why the logic of the situation demands war. Fair enough. I don't doubt there is a strong case for taking Saddam out. But do we nuke him, or send him another letter? As I keep saying, peace is never in defiance of logic.

They talk about the authority of the UN being at stake. For goodness sake the authority of the UN has been compromised on this issue and many other issues many times over many years. Let Blix make his reports. It might then become clear to all members of the Security Council and indeed to all members of the UN that force is the only option. Then let the war commence. But not now. Not when Blix says according to the paper I'm looking at that "Iraq is taking 'new, positive' steps. "SUBSTANTIVE CO-OPERATION". Certainly not to fit in with Bush's re-election timetable.

Ref Blair. He was allowed to make the case yesterday pretty well unscathed. The barbed points will come today in the debate, on-going as I write.

But as Walter points out ref the Guardian article, its all an academic/legalistic/debating excercise now.

The war starts in a few weeks. All that remains to be seen is whether we have a good war or a bad war. Oh and Timber please don't assume I think a definition of a good war is victory for Saddam.

I find myself in deep and thorough unsurprise to see the (not new) attacks on Blix. Objectivity or neutrality are, after all, uninhabitable territories given a "you're with us or against us" framework. America is right, ergo, any opposing - any other -position is wrong. It's very simple, really. And we like simple.

It's what gives this president his particular appeal. Imagine, my god just imagine, if he'd studied Literature or European History or Philosophy at the Sorbonne!? Imagine how confused he'd be. He is a simple, practical man. He has Jesus and a navy. One day, he will work with the poor.

Beside him, sleeves rolled up in the soup kitchen, will be Mr. Cheney, ladling out hearty broth to the folks who have suffered a life of thrown stones. He'll be there, and we know he will, because he cares deeply. He will tilt his head, smile his warm smile, and love will pass from him to them. He is that sort of man.

Misters Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will pack a four by four with medicines and head out over the desert sands in a search for lepers of Palestinian ethnicity. Limping men and bleeding women and twisted children will pour forth from cave mouths at the distant rumble of the Hummer's engine. Names will be remembered, hands shaken, brows (falling away) will be gently kissed.

A beautiful new future is nearly here.

Steve, I apologize for my earlier implication that caused you to issue your plea regarding my assumption of your view of "Good War vs Bad War". I made an unwarranted assumption in that earlier post, and I totally respect your view, your expression of your view, and how you came by it.

I have a different view. There is no "Good War", but sometimes there is a "Necessary War". I feel this situation fits the latter case, however ineptly the need for military intervention has been presented. I feel strongly "The Saddam Question" is long overdue for resolution, and that appropriate action taken earlier would have obviated the current crisis. None the less, we have the current crisis, which offers no resolution short of military intervention. "More of the same" is simply intolerable, to my point of view.



timber

How many loaves and fishes do you think Bush will need to bomb the **** out of Iraq Blatham?

Timber - we're saying the exact same thing: Blix is a diplomat, by training a lawyer, and no expert in nuclear weapons. All I added is that the latter is irrelevant since that's not the capacity in which he's currently operating in Iraq, where he supervises no nuclear experts.

If your point is that he failed to supervise those experts adequately back when he was in charge of them, fine, but Saddam never had any nukes - that point is not in doubt - nor does he have any now. That was the point I was making; sorry if it wasn't clear.

Steve - never mind those loaves and fishes! Timber is right that whatever happens with Blix, UN, etc, we're going ahead; pls remember the twin constraints of weather conditions (100+ degrees Fahrenheit in the shade are common in summer) and that it's impossible to maintain the current level of mobilization until the weather cools. Logistics are unforgiving. As to strategy: kindly refer to my previous post on those "cons", hyphenated for now but not for long <G>

Timber

no need of any apology. This is a place for robust debate, I can take it and give it just like anyone else.

You believe this war is an unfortunate necessity. The "logic" of the situation would agree with that. I certainly think its unfortunate, it might be necessary, but not yet.

Steve, you said in part:

Hot, Timber

If the war can be delayed until its too hot to fight, well its too hot to fight. Why not go on holiday and think about it next winter?

Blatham Wrote:

Objectivity or neutrality are, after all, uninhabitable territories given a "you're with us or against us" framework. America is right, ergo, any opposing - any other -position is wrong. It's very simple, really. And we like simple.

If you will take note of my criticism of Dr. Bliz I asked specifically that he take a position of 100% neutrality in his public comments.
His position demands absolute neutrality in his statements----is that too much to ask? He likes to comment every time someone shoves a microphone in his face. His ego has overwhelmed him.

Perception

If Dr wiz was 100% neutral, he would keep his mouth shut.

Double standard you say? In what regard? I do not ascribe venality to those who hold a different opinion than mine at this forum. I do ascribe venality to Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Shrub. I ascribe this to them based on their engagement with Saddam before he became the boogeyman, or their acceptance of Enron money in the previous campaign, or their association with the oil industry, which has been gouging us as though there were no tomorrow for two years now. I haven't ascribed it to those for whom i cannot show a justification for the charge. Timber has posted contentions that Dr. Blix was not competent, and i responded that i doubted the reliability of his sources, upon which he provided sources with which i was more comfortable--and i conceded his point. HofT has not conceded the point, as can be seen from her posts. You have now several times questioned Dr. Blix's honesty, and implied that he is accepting bribes from Saddam. Put up or shut up--if you make that charge, provide at least a modicum of support. This is not a double standard, it is applying the standard by which we are trying to operate in these fora. It is the standard which i expected of Timber, and when he met that standard, i acknowledged as much. I expect such sneers from you, you are long on ad hominem attacks, and short of substance or support for your outrageous contentions. "My way or the hyway [sic]?" Not at all--i cannot make anyone leave this site, nor would i want to, not even you.

Steve said also:



There seems to be general agreement that the world would be better off if this sadistic tyrant were not in power -- which really means "not alive. People on every side of the war debate are in agreement on that point. The whole world, including the US, would be singing from the same song book if the means existed to make Saddam vanish in a puff of smoke. (Ditto for Kim Jong Il)

But we don't know how to do that, yet. So we must either start a war or build a box around him. In my opinion, if the day comes when the box doesn't hold, that is the time to talk war.

Bravo, Kara . . .

Timberlanko speaks of a "Necessary War." I think we know who it is necessary for!

Iraq's eight-year war with Iran during the 1980s, more than 50 countries supplied weapons to both sides.

According to the U.S. Senate committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs report, written by principal investigator, James Tuite: "On Oct. 27, 1992, the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs held hearings that revealed that the U.S. had exported chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile-system equipment to Iraq that was converted to military use in Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. Many of these weapons -- weapons that the U.S. and other countries provided critical materials for -- were used against us during" the Persian Gulf War.

Financial Times journalist Alan Friedman, in his 1993 book, The Spider's Web: How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, claimed former U.S. president George Bush, future Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and current FBI head Robert Mueller were involved in arming Iraq through the Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation.

The acknowledgment by Mr. Blix that the list of suppliers would remain secret goes beyond his initial statements that only sensitive information on constructing unconventional weapons would be censored. [/size]

I came across the above in an article from a December issue of the Ottawa Citizen and wanted to post it for two reasons, although the substance has been discussed already. It shows that Blix has bent over backwards to avoid embarrassing the US, and it seems to me that it suggests additional motives for "Getting Rid of Saddam" beyond our current understanding that the US supplied Iraq with weapons...

Friedman's book also reveals a secret document dating back to July, 1986, showing that VP Bush contacted Egypt and Jordan asking them to let Saddam know that the US stood behind Saddam's invasion of Iran (ironically echoed later in the sanctioned invasion of Kuwait). Saddam is an enormous and continuing embarrassment to the Bush family legacy, the Reagan legacy, the Republican party. It wouldn't be the first time that Bush Jr. has done a smash-and-grab job. Erasing all traces of Saddam won't erase all existing documentation of Bush involvement, but "moving on to a new day" tends to diminish mainstream media interest in the why's and wherefore's of Saddam. For more documentation -- a CJR piece summarizing the problem and how the media exacerbated it: http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp

So oil, yes; militarism, yes; imperialism, yes; but a powerful gut motivation should be acknowledged -- the younger Bush in one swell foop will have virtually eliminated Iraq 1980-1992 as a source of embarrassment to his party, his funders, his father, his family, and his uncle (Neal) and his "uncles" -- Rummy, Cheney, James Baker (fellow smash-and-grab artists) and other members of the Bush 1 gang tied closely to "special" deals with Iraq. Now that's unilateralism for you -- but it sure ain't my idea of a "necessary war."

Kara

Are we still in the box building phase?