The US, The UN and Iraq

Did you all see the cute little cartoon of Bush
where he has his list all made up & checked off
guns - checked
tanks - checked
bazookas - checked
airplanes -checked
missiles -checked
marines -checked
army -checked
navy -checked
yada -checked
yada -checked
A REASON ......................

Ooops, except for a reason, he can't seem to find one.
Just for the record - does anyone know what that
reason might be???

ehBeth

Certainly do german extremists know about that: either they are forbidden or under surveillance (which is officially known).


Lash Gosh

Taken that 'liberal' is used the way, we call it socialistic or social-democratic,
the only US-member parties of The Socialist International are ...
Democratic Socialists of America, DSA;
USA Social Democrats, SDUSA .

Blatham,

I thought your were criticizing my thought, and all along it was my awkward writing that offended you. You are absolutely right, I am aware of shortcomings in my use of the written language. I have a tendency toward the archaic rhetorical flourish which sometimes grows wings and becomes hyperbole. My writing station is in an upstairs office, and most of my reference materials are in the Library. As a result of my laziness, I don't always run downstairs to confirm precise details of spelling names, dates, etc. I pull all that information from my memory, and old memories sometimes play tricks. Most of my posts are written on the fly, and receive only a single fast editorial pass. Poor word choices that do not optimally express what I want to communicate are not uncommon. Errors do slip by me, and some sentences, phrases, that would be edited from a more formal essay find their way into publication. Sorry for all those failings that seem to bother you so much. If everyone here were to be shot for similar crimes, a battalion of firing squads could work around the clock for a year and still not get all the culprits. See there's another one of those fanciful rhetorical flights, Drat.

Here are a few interesting numbers culled from a comparison of our posts since 24DEC01. Blatham has made 420 posts, and Asherman has made 168 posts, better than 2 to 1. 64% of Blathams postings were pointedly critical of the United States, its form of government, its military policies, and its leaders. 60% of Asherman's posts had nothing to do with politics, or the military at all. I tried to maintain the same criteria in making both counts. For instance, Blatham's multiple postings of the Rules of Engagement were counted individually as not being politically pointed. However, we always should hold suspect numbers generated by a party who has some personal interest in the outcome. To counter balance any loss of objectivity I might have unconsciously fallen prey to, I've adjusted Blatham's non-partisan posts upward by ten percent, and decreased my own by ten percent. Now I ask, who has been more strident in voicing their opinions?

so i was off wandering the wild internet trying to find a basic 'political spectrum map' which was not part of some political group's online textbook (no luck yet, tho i just learned that Nixon was considered left/centre left !)

but i found this : http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
World's Smallest Political Quiz

have a little fun!

asherman, stridency has to do with tone, not volume (i.e. not # of posts).
as to the 'rules of engagement', i believe those relate to 'management' policy, not to blatham's personal rules



from the bibliophile's reference guide (the merriam-webster online)

Main Entry: stri·dent
Pronunciation: 'strI-d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin strident-, stridens, present participle of stridere, stridEre to make a harsh noise
Date: circa 1656
: characterized by harsh, insistent, and discordant sound

Lash -- Of course it is at least partially true that Hitler had pushed and uttered himself much propaganda about the Jewish population and used that as a segway. It wasn't the only thing he used. He also promoted nationalism to the ultra extreme and the stab-in-the-back of the Versailles Treaty among other ploys. I hope this adminstration doesn't go the course of using the war protestors in the same way but they've certainly let out some previous signals.

Be careful how you word things -- it makes it sound like you agree with Hitler about those lower human beings.

1) Saddam Hussein's Iraq has been in continued, open, flagrant defiance of the provisions of the 1991 ceasefire. 17 subsequent UN resolutions referrencing this are matter of record, all backed by the authority under International Law not only permitting but mandating the UN use of force to ensure compliance.

2) Iraq's Ruling Military Elite has used WMD, specifically gasses, against both civilian and military opponents

3) By Force-of-Arms, Iraq oppresses large numbers of her own people

4) Iraq has twice invaded neighbors, maintains a military with considerable offensive capability, and is a significant factor in the destabilization of the entire region

5) Iraq has stated and demonstrated that it is an avowed enemy of, and considers itself to be at war with, The United States, openly condones and encourages, and covertly supports, the overthrow of The United States Government

6) Iraq openly diverts humanitarian aid intended for her people to specifically prohibited purposes, while actively engaged in criminally violating UN-Approved trade sanctions

7) Iraq pursues Nuclear, Chemical, and Biologic Weapons, weapons which have no defensive use. They are purely offensive in nature and of no practical military application.

8) Iraq openly declares herself to be in support of the eradication of The Israeli Nation (now, you guys who know me know I'm not pro-Israeli at all. I do object as matter of principle, however, to the notion of eradicating Nations and their peoples)

9) Iraq persists in showing disdain and defiance of International Law and remains committed to her endeavor to become the dominant belligerant in trhe region.

10) Iraq is not the only problem, nor perhaps the largest of the problems, facing The World Today. Never the less, Iraq is among the major problems. Iraq refuses to respond to ammeliorative diplomatic efforts. History reveals the folly of suffering tyrants in the puruit of peace. Saddam must be stopped sooner or later. He by rights should at the latest have been stopped a dozen years ago.

Stopped now, he will not inflict the inevitably greater horror he declaredly and demonstratedly intends on those in opposition to him. Whether or not US blunders aided in or exacerbated the situatiion is immaterial. Saddam is a clear, present, and continuing danger to peace. Having allowed or even assisted his previous transgressions in no way alters the fact that Saddam is an International Criminal and Iraq is a Rogue State, contemptuous of human rights, the Soverniegnity of her neighbors, and the just and legal demands of The World Community. Iraq was required, at pain of sanctions not excluding force to ensure compliance, by UNR1441 to produce independently verifiable documention of the disposition of all prohibited weapons systems and related facillities. Iraq has not only failed to do so but has been resistant to mandated verification proceedures, including but not limited to Inspection Teams.

It is not a petty matter of oil, or of power, or of religion, or of money. It is a matter of principle and moral imperitive. If we allow Iraq to achieve the culmination of her desires, we will bear the guilt for the resultant attrocities our inaction enabled. There are other tyrants, there are other problems. Neither are valid objection to the use of all available means to resolve this problem at this time and move on to other problems.

I have said before that Saddam has heard the order, "Halt or I will shoot!" Saddam has several options. Civilization does not. If he does not halt, we must shoot to prevent inestimably greater harm. The time to do something is now; Saddam is held at gunpoint and there are other badguys to deal with. Delay and indecision afford unacceptable risk.
Its up to Saddam. We would prefer not to pull the trigger. That would be better all around for everyone. Don't blame The US, The UN, or Bush or Blaire or Cheney or Rumsfeld. Saddam started this and Saddam decides how it ends. Exile, submission to International Justice, or death in a bunker ... one way or the other, it ends and it ends soon for Saddam.
The World is about to move on, with him or without him.



timber

Please explain for me how I have twisted the truth.

I did not "twist" anything. I simply tried to show by way of an example from our history that the information you provided--that many are unhappy with the US--does not necessarily mean that we are doing the wrong thing. (Just as my showing this does not necessarily mean we are doing the right thing.)

Lash, You said billions with a "b." When I asked, "where's the beef?," it depends greatly on "how" that money was spent. Just giving money only enriches the people in charge. Ever hear of Marcos? Imelda purchased thousands of shoes, and the people kept suffering. c.i.

In this country? What? This makes no sense.


It suggests no such thing. It points out that people can dislike you for many reasons, and that whether or not they like you--by itself--is not a reason to change your policies or actions.

And I'm sure I don't need to list all of the countries that are not free and whose government controls their media and uses it to push propaganda. (This would be completely off point, but they clearly do exist.)

timber, Other countries, notably Israel, have broken UN resolutions. Iraq used WMD, so did the US of A. How a country oppresses it's people is not limited to Iraq. One of those invasions by Iraq was supported by the good ole US of A. As for your #5, there are more countries than just Iraq that wants the US to fail as a superpower. #6: So many countries that diverts humanitarian aid, where should we begin? #7: If Iraq uses any WMD for offensive purposes, they can kiss their rear end goodbye from this world as we know it. Their closest enemy is Israel. Israel will nuke them in a second. #8: That's Israel's problem. #9: It's not only Iraq. Ever hear of North Korea? You still have not justified why the US needs to go to war with Iraq. Quit talking about what Iraq did in their past. Most countries we now consider 'civilized' have at one time or another did some dastardly things. We are talking about today and tomorrow. c.i.

He and his administration have given their reasons, you simply don't accept them. That you don't accept them is fine. That you pretend they have none seems a bit disingenuous.

tres, It's funny who you're calling the kettle black. The reasons this administration has given to pursue it's war with Iraq has changed from the very beginning. If this administration has to keep changing the reason for this war, they may eventually find one that'll stick. I think the last reason given was that Iraq broke the UNR1441, because the inspectors found some chemical warheads - without the chemicals. Do you really think that is reason enough to start bombing Baghdad? Some of us don't. It does not justify killing innocent Iraqi people because of a 'smoking gun.' c.i.

c.i.-- We awarded Africa a little over a billion. Are we supposed to spend it for them as well? It seems as though you have a convenient double standard. We are to hold hands with Africa and teach them how to run their country, yet in your disagreement with timber, you say the fact that Israel is threatened with obliteration, " is Israel's problem."

Why do we owe Africa so much, and Israel nothing?
And you didn't say what we should do? Its incredibly easy to criticise. Do you have a better idea?

What do you mean we are doing nothing for Israel? Three to five billion every year to Israel is nothing? As for Africa, we need to engage politically. This administration also needs to engage politically over the Israel-Palestinian problem. Our over-emphasis on Iraq is plain stupid, but that's to be expected from this administration. c.i.

If we just give money without any expectations, that's just plain stupid politics. c.i.

If we can't keep track of the money, don't give it. There are many people in this country that can use that money. c.i.

c.i.--
I didn't say we don't give Israel nothing. I noted your sentiments that we should 'do more' for Africa; and your comment to Timber that Israel's problems "are their problem".

I wanted to know how you reconcile that the billions in aid to Africa are not a good enough effort, yet Israel's survival is none of our business.
-----------
I edited and saw your explanation about the money, and I agree. I'm sick of us sending money we need to countries that misuse it.

We do have political connections to Africa. C. Powell has taken trips and met with officials. But, what political steps would you suggest? PS--The Dems were the ones screaming for the bucks to Africa. Glad you disagree with that measure.

Israel is currently in non-compliance to one extent or another with a number of UN Resolutions on a variety of matters. Israel is not, as is Iraq, in defiance of a "Final Demand of Compliance on Pain of Force"





The US employed two Nuclear Devices against a declared enemy in the prosecution of war. The enemy was warned of certain and dire consequence of continued resistance and chose to accept the risk. Despite numerous opportunities and provocations, real or imagined, The US has refrained from the use of further Nukes, and has not employed any other WMD since The First World War. Iraq employed Poison Gas, prohibited by International Law, against not only military but civilian targets. That it was condoned or overlooked alters the crime not in the least.


To be precise, Iraq went to war with Iran, perceiving Iran, due to her confrontation with The US, to be easy prey. Right or wrong, The US did not object very strenuously to Iraq's hostile intention toward a nation with which we at the time were in de facto hostilities. That does not excuse that Iraq belligerently invaded a Neighbor State and employed weapons prohibited by International Law.

Of course there are, and not all of them are necessarily allies of Iraq. So what? In the matter of Iraq, other nation's ill-will, however motivated, is of no significance. This is about Iraq.

How 'bout we start somewhere. Iraq is as good a place as any to start.
If we don't start with one, we'll never start with any. THAT would be truly inhumane.

First, there is no defensive use for WMD. Second, regardless of consequence to Iraq from the use of WMD it is unacceptable to place any nation at risk of Iraqi use of WMD.

No, that is The World's Problem, and of more immediate consequence, the problem of millions of innocent civilians, Israeli, Iraqi, and otherwise.

The DPRK situation is yet succeptible to diplomatic resolution. It is a grave matter under intense negotiation both public and private, among numerous parties. The military option of course is on the table, but so are many other options. Iraq has kicked over its table and stomped from the room. The DPRK has been known to do that too, and may yet, but to date has not.

I believe I have done so quite clearly. The points I have made convince me. Obviously, we draw different conclusions from mutually available evidence. I see no moral or ethical obstacle to using, as promised, all available means to bring Iraq into compliance with International Law.

I cannot justify forgiving Iraq's past crimes. I cannot justify the risk of future such crimes in view of Iraq's demonstrated past performance and current pronouncements. I AM talking about Today and Tomorrow. And I am advocating a proactive approach Today to enable a secure Tomorrow.



timber

Lest start with the last issue: We must learn to forgive countries for their past crimes. Unless we do, the likes of North Ireland and Israel will never find peace. Justification for war: I find it interesting that most people in this world today, including here in the US does not want to start a war with Iraq, but rather would like to see a peaceful resolution. If NK is "succeptible to diplomatic resolution" why not Iraq? If there's no "defensive" use for WMD, then why does the US have so many? The world's problem is not only Israel. You can blame this administration for doing very little to nothing to help the Israeli-Palestinian problem. I call it negligent. "Iraqi use of WMD" is a loss leader. There are many countries in this world with WMD. Until they use it, any fear of its use is not justification for war. Otherwise, we would pre-emptively strike all countries with WMD's. When Iraq invaded its neighbor, they paid dearly for it. If they attack their neighbor again, they'll pay again - not before. No significance? Only with Iraq? Why? Have they attacked us? Are they a threat to us? Who says so? How and when will they attack us? The big boogy man is under your bed. Better not go to sleep tonight. Until the UN weapons inspectors finds any WMD, you can't keep saying they'll use it. That's like trying to prove there's a god. You can't prove a negative. While the inspectors are doing their jobs, there is very little chance, if any, Iraq will be using any WMD's. If they do use it, all bets are off, and they'll know it. The majority in this world will support a war with Iraq. c.i.