The US, The UN and Iraq

Snood, help me here. What do we offer him as solutions? I wonder if there is a back-up point? I am encouraged that the whole world seems to be saying to GWB...Wait.

Between the opposite positions? Go in with armed inspectors and wait it out...for years, if necessary? Support and encourage dissenters in Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran?

Article in the NYTimes today about the Kurds -- both main groups --and how they are planning for what will happen.

Heard the German embassador to the US speak on t.v. today. He said there isn't that much difference between the US and German positions on Iraq. They just want to see military action as the very last option. They feel that the UN inspections are working. It's keeping Saddam contained where he can do no harm to anybody. It's preventing unnecessary killings and destruction. They want to expand the UN inspections with military support to destroy Saddams WMD's. That sounds pretty reasonable to me! c.i.

I can only write for myself, but I have spent quite a bit of time considering the likely consequences of a war with Iraq. I believe they are preferable to the likely consequences of doing nothing. I certainly support anyone and everyone continuing to explore all other options for disarming Saddam. I happen to believe that our administration has a lot of very intelligent, knowledgable and capable people who have been doing just that for a long time. It seems that they have come to the conclusion that war is the best, surest solution (or have concluded that a credible threat of imminent attack may do the job).

In the end, I'm inclined to agree with them. But that is just one person's opinion.

I forgot to add one more thing; he said helping with UN inspections is much cheaper than war. UN inspections will cost the US some hundreds of millions while a war will cost hundreds of billions. c.i.

It seems the latest poll shows Brits dissatisfied with Blair by 61 percent. c.i.

Snood?

all of those very intelligent people in the white house had Turkey all sewn up; wrong;
Dyslexia prognostication:
No ground assault via Turkey=increased airborne assault via Kuwait+urban warfare in Iraq=50,000+ US casualities.

Kara, I agree, it is so close now that I have very little hope that bush will back down.
Our only nephew is on the Nimitz, headed for the Gulf. I respect the people in the military, they are doing what they are supposed to do. What I don't understand is the unbelievable arrogance of bush and his administration. I've never seen anything like it. He is the most dismissive human being I've ever known, which is truly abominable in a position of such power. He brings a whole new meaning to the old phrase, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The only solution I can think of is to somehow convince him that it would be honorable to back down. To make a decision that would initially hurt, could well make him a hero in the history books. The only problem with that is it takes a big man, a leader with the utmost character and selfless resolve to make such a move.
Bush is not such a man. It will never happen.

From MoveOn:

"We've launched an emergency petition from citizens around the
world to the U.N. Security Council. We'll be delivering the
list of signers and your comments to the 15 member states of
the Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6.

"If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously
important and powerful message -- people from all over the
world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But
we really need your help, and soon. Please sign and ask your
friends and colleagues to sign TODAY at:
http://www.moveon.org/emergency/ "

Tartar, Are you sure this will work? There was another UN appeal that was a hoax. c.i.

Tartarin

Of course it's worth trying!
Anything that's endorsing what so many of us believe & could possibly slow down/stop the outbreak of war is worth trying.
Do you have any better suggestions at this stage, c.i.?
What was the a previous "hoax" about?

Well, that is the fact.

There have been various proposals put forward by various countries as solutions to the Iraq crisis. One only has to listen to what France Germany Russia China Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to name but six, propose, to realise its only the US UK and Australia who are actually going ahead with an invasion NOW.

As for the joyful news of the capture of bin Laden's rh man, I think you have to be very naive to discount the possiblity that the whole thing was an excercise in news manipulation. I heard an initial report on the BBC I think, which said the arrest took place some time ago, but was only being made public now. The Pakistanis said he was being held in Pakistan, and would be extradited to Kuwait. But the Americans say they already have him at a "secret location". (Diego Garcia for those interested). For goodness sake we are in a war here and have been for some time. Remember the old adage "the first casualty of war is truth".

Regarding post war Iraq, most people seem to think defeating Saddam will be a piece of cake compared with running the country afterwards. But a state of anarchy could be quite useful to an American military governorship. It would give them the excuse to set up American secure zones around Baghdad and the oil fields to protect valuable assets, saying no doubt it was "For the benefit of the Iraqi people in particular the children". If you detect a note of cynicism here you are not far wrong.

Walter, don't worry about high diesel prices. They'll come down like a stone once the fighting ends. If I were you I would take some positions in the futures market and buy forward. (Only problem..the fighting isn't going to end).

Sorry for the delay in answering, Kara. when I considered what I said, I realized that any reasonable solutions would have to fall on reasonable ears, and I have serious doubts that Bush is open to reason, in spite of what some say about him being surrounded by "intelligent, capable" people. I guess I submitted what I said as a sort of rhetorical argument. It's a shame. In any case, the argument heard here and other places that makes sense to me is that containment has worked, and that the high scrutiny of keeping inspectors there indefinitely would allow us to continue to contain Sadaam, while keeping our finger that much closer to the trigger if need be. This would not be "doing nothing", and it would absolutely solidify world support if we needed it later, once we made it clear we were committed to inspections, and not war.

By the way, I was born at Ft Bragg, and spent most of my first 20 years in Fayetteville. Where in NC are you?

Thoughtful (frightening) piece by Martin Amis today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,906853,00.html

I haven't read your Guardian link, yet, Steve, but I must comment on your post above. I have read dozens of peaceful "solutions" to Mr. Bush's dilemma. What I want to see is a plan that comes out of the Oval Office, seemingly of his own devising, (but written by wiser less evangelical and bellicose heads,) a plan that he can take credit for and which would, thus, for the first time, gather the support of this country behind his actions. We would all trot along behind him like lemmings if he presented the Bush plan for Peace.

Snood, were you an Army brat? Musta been, growing up in Ft. Bragg. I'm a stone's throw from there, in Durham.

Wow - my sister lives there. Yup, Army brat, and active duty now in Ft Sam Houston, Tx.

Wow - my sister lives there. Yup, Army brat, and active duty now in Ft Sam Houston, Tx.

The Martin Amis piece from the Guardian
Steve:

I was just going to post the piece from the Guardian by Martin Amis. Yes, it is scary, but doesn't he own a wit that he uses with surgical precision? I do love him.

"One of the exhibits at the Umm Al-Maarik Mosque in central Baghdad is a copy of the Koran written in Saddam Hussein's own blood (he donated 24 litres over three years). Yet this is merely the most spectacular of Saddam's periodic sops to the mullahs. He is, in reality, a career-long secularist - indeed an "infidel", according to Bin Laden. Although there is no Bible on Capitol Hill written in the blood of George Bush, we are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive. We hear about the successful "Texanisation" of the Republican party. And doesn't Texas sometimes seem to resemble a country like Saudi Arabia, with its great heat, its oil wealth, its brimming houses of worship, and its weekly executions?"

Kara, the essay by Martin Amis is a great piece, if you can spare 15 minutes to read it! (slowly)

Bush and a peace plan. Don't hold your breath. I'm afraid for the first time the United States has a warmonger as leader. Bush sees war as an instrument of policy, not a last resort. Its also a great way of wiping out trillions of dollars thus stimulating the global capitalist economy.

I'm beginning to put more blame on Blair. If he had stuck with France and Germany, Europe would have been united in its condemnation of American belligerence. Add Russia and China and I really do wonder if this war against Iraq could have been avoided. The war with Iraq has started, its too late to stop it. Those seeking to prevent war should be thinking about Bush's next target.