The US, The UN and Iraq

OK...this thread has clearly become a discussion on 'American hubris'. If someone wishes to bring this up as a separate thread, I'll play. But I don't know that there is any more I can speak to as regards the Iraq problem.

Wow ... as I type, this thread has over 900 replies and nearly 7500 views. Whether or not any individual has anything further to say, an appreciable bit has been said ...


blatham ... great idea for a thread. I nominate you to undertake the job.

Without objection, I propose we stipulate a second to the motion, consider it carried by unanimous consent, and continue with the business at hand. Are there any "Nayes"?



timber

c.i.

I'll give rerailing the topic a shot with this excerpt (link at bottom):

I was in Dubai recently and met an elderly gentleman who admitted to being 90 or around that age. He was a Bedu of unspecified origins, saying only that he "belonged to the desert before there were borders." I spent some time in his company and of course the coming war was one of several topics we discussed. He said, "War is the violent rejection of words in favor of weapons. It eliminates debate and negotiation by offering only death and submission. War is the tool of weak men to make themselves appear strong."

His reasoning of America's impending war on Iraq was based on a combination of factors that he believes are the drivers of current American politics. "How is it that this fellow Bush, ignores the Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israel while preaching about freedom loving people in need of release from the evil Saddam? Surely the violence between these two is as evil as anything in Iraq. Yet he chooses to focus on a starving and weak nation. Why? Because this is not a war about terrorism, or Al-Qaeda, or even oil. This is the opportunity to create a foothold in the Arab world and establish control of first one Arab country and then another. To influence the politics and economies of all the Middle East in order to bring about the elimination of the Muslim establishment, and to expand the power of both America and Israel over all Arabs. The benefit package that comes with this is the control of oil, the threat of nearby military intervention against anyone who objects, and the beginnings of American colonization for the benefit of the empire of the United States."

(It is important to understand that here, Arabs from various countries are as different as American Southerners are from New Englanders, but in the end, an American is still an American, and an Arab is still an Arab. It is understood that Arabs from Jordan do not care for Arabs from Saudi, and Saudis do not care for Arabs from Yemen etc.; but the bottom line is that a war on one Arab country will become a war on all Arabs sooner or later.)

Arabs see a double standard by America. As my elderly friend pointed out, "Your American media covers government protests all around the world, except in your own country. America says it is about freedom but it ignores its people who are against this war. How can we as Arabs expect to be treated fairly when you do not treat your own citizens fairly? Your government calls Saddam an evil man, yet it was America who gave him the weapons of mass destruction and turned a blind eye when he killed the Kurds. Which by the way is an inaccurate statement to say that he killed his own people. The Kurds were his enemy. How many dictators has America supported over the years, despite its constant refrain of freedom and democracy?"

Comes A War

It being stipulated that the motion is seconded and approved, "No comment" seems the only appropriate comment.

No comment.

Pdiddie,

Thanks for a very interesting post.

I mostly agree with you about the Israeli matter. Our policy has ignored the legitimate rights of the Palestinians of the West Bank - a region Israel has occupied militarily for almost 35 years, populated by a people to whom Israel has conceded no political, economic, civil, or property rights for all that time.

I do not subscribe to the all-to-common Arab notion that Israel should be annihialated. However I see no reason why the plan proposed by Saudi Arabia last year ( a return to the pre 1967 border and universal recognition of two states, one Palestinian and one Israeli) should not be endorsed and forcefully advocated by the United States. The core issue there now is not terrorism: it is the suppression of the rights of the Palestinians. The terrorism is a consequence. Climbing back off the weak limb will be difficult, but the consequences of staying will likely be worse.

It is interesting to note that your (very intriguing) Arab interlocutor assumes that the world should tolerate and respect a monolithic "Moslem world" - a notion that has more foundation in the wishful thinking of Moslems than it has in fact. The world has long since left such notions in the dust. If it isn't the United States that penetrates this mostly illusory shell, it will be the WTO or some other force.

Forgive me for being geographically challenged. I was looking for Dubai on a map. I found something called "Dubayy" in Iran. where where you, diddie?

Dubai is in The United Arab Emirates, snood.

Click here for more on Dubai and The UAE



timber

Off track, snood, but wait till you try to find Djibouti. The d is silent and you won't find it in the index under 'j'.

tough one, rog. I found "mibouti", but can't find "Jibouti".

Djibouti on the Red Sea, across from Yemen. Most famous for not knowing how to spell their own country.

Djibouti



timber

Another left-wing wacko heard from:

"I can't imagine that anybody would say, 'We're going to war because there are 11 empty warheads', probably left over from 10 years ago. These warheads are not the nuclear weapons we've been warned about. They travel about 12 miles.

"But this is being used as a pretext for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq. It has nothing to do with, boy, we're -- we are really worried about these little chemical warheads that's going to cause a holocaust in the Middle East.

"Most disturbing thing is that Secretary of State Powell, a lot of people were relying on to keep some sanity, played the good soldier this week and said that at the end of the month, there would be more evidence. If there's more, if there's evidence, why not put it out now?

* * *

"But the last thing that the hawks inside the administration, and their friends outside the administration, want is a coup d'etat that would replace Saddam Hussein. They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East.

"There's no question that the last thing they want is Saddam Hussein put on a plane and taken away.

* * *

"Talking to a senior official, and he said to me, he said, 'Well, if we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit?' And they -- it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world.

"Listen, I just feel that this potential -- this war, I just trust it comes off easily. But I have trepidation that it won't be easy, and there's going to be a terrible consequences from it."


--Robert Novak on CNN's 'The Capital Gang', 1/18/03

11 Ain't enough, huh? OK, HERE!



timber

Can somebody explain this logic to me? If the US claims Iraq has WMD, and Iraq is not cooperating to identify where they are, but the US wants to disarm Iraq by going to war with Iraq, how does that eliminate the WMD's? c.i.

After the US military kills hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iraqi's, and no WMD is found, is GWBush and company just going to say, "oooops?"
c.i.

Well, that's it, isn't it, Timber. Eleven here, four more over there, and how many other little lapses of memory are out there that we may or may not discover.

Okay, thirteen chemical warheads might not have great destructive potential, depending on their size, but the issue is one of noncompliance, and documents furnished by Iraq are not accurate. Had she known the first eleven were going to be found, she would have surely either declared them, destroyed them, or moved them. Is there still a question about why US intelligence on other weapons has not been made public?

Roger.
ASK ME! ASK ME! (Hand raised and fidgeting in seat.)

Because it will tip our hand in the depth of our intel, and may lead directly to our source, who is probably in the inner circle in Iraq or a scientist, who has been able not to be detected, yet.

I bet Bush etal are frothing for the public (and the world) to know what they know. And, I'll hazard another bet that the knowledge will draw a deep, sustained silence from detractors when it is shared..

Sorta agree, Lash. I expect there really is a pretty convincing smoking gun, and right now the Administration is just peddling for time, hoping Saddam chooses to move before he is served with his eviction notice. There are yet undispatched assets to reach The Operational Theater, and intracacies involving other nations are being sorted out. Time is good ... and cheaper than bullets. Should Saddam decide to wait for The Sheriff to knock on his door, he will discover The Sheriff brought a bunch of Deputies.



timber