The US, The UN and Iraq

I just hope Bush has enough patience to wait until something is found that can be classified as WMD. If the world community still doesn't agree to military action, I will personally feel the US is justified without their support. It only means the world community is two-faced, and cannot be trusted to act on their own UN resolutions. c.i.

george

If you are still kicking about here, take a look at PDiddles quote from Novak, of all people. Apply what he is speaking of here to Baruma's notion of 'idealism' and the justification of means toward and end.

Blatham,

I am familiar with Robert Novak's views on the subject. I don't agree with the hypotheses that underlie his argument, and therefore don't share his conclusions.

We know that Saddam Hussein has invested heavily in the development of the isotope separation and shaped charge triggering methods required to produce a nuclear weapon. We know that he has the ability to produce ballistic missiles with which to deliver them. We know he exercises absolute control over his country and is therefore not particularly subject to the inducements and persuasion that even a modicum of popular democracy might bring. We know that if the sanctions are lifted the oil wealth he will rapidly accumulate will quickly enable him to fill whatever gaps may remain and do more dangerous things as well. We know that he has started two bloody wars with his neighbors and has the skill and bloodymindedness to prevail over them if there is no one to stop him. In short he is a potential Kim Jong I unconstrained by poverty and the lack of hard currency and posessed with much greater operational skill and experience. That is more danger than the world community should endure. All the rest about inspections and the rest is a reductium ad absurdem required by least common denominator in the UN Security Council and acceptable to those who cannot endure the prospect of decisive action or who will not believe what is before their eyes. There is no reason for any nation that has the means and the will to tolerate this danger.

I do not believe that ends justify means in any systematic way. In particular I do not believe that there is any single theoretical political or economic formula for justice and the minimization of human suffering. Indeed I believe that most of the injustice and human suffering of the 20th Century (and others too) was a result of Marxist and other like zealots who were sure they knew what was good for the people of the world and were all too willing to kill them to get it.

My objection to Baruma's piece was that it was so muddled, inconsistent, and replete with self righteous judgement and inaccurate assertions as to be laughable. It was all cast in the language of liberal political correctitude with enough sly references to oil men, country club Republicans, and true believers to create the illusion among like minded gullible consumers that it had meaning. But it did not. You apparently will not look again and see that. Too bad.

c.i., The Media has given the public a misperception of the role of "The Inspectors" ... possibly due to their being called "Inspectors"

1) Iraq is required to fully disclose all WMD related information she possesses, including particularly, but not exclusively, independently verifiable documentation of the disposal or other lawful disposition of of all known WMD related assets and production capability.

2) The Disclosure Document contained glaring ommissions, including but not limited to specific previously known and cataloged assets and capabilities. It WAS there. No record of its destruction or lawful diversion has been produced. Where is this stuff and what happened to it? This alone validates the allegation of "Subsantial Material Breach".

3) "The Inspectors" are to oversee Iraq's full compliance with the disclosure requirement. Their job is not to "Discover" anything, but to provide on-site observation of compliance and cooperation, and confirmation of Iraqi claims to have fullfilled the requirements of UNR1441. To date, "The Inspectors" report less than satisfactory Iraqi participation. This alone validates the allegation of "Substantial Material Breach"

Public opinion has latched on to the idea the Inspectors must "Find Something". This simply is not the case. To this point in time, "The Inspectors", who should probably have better been termed "Monitors", have established at least two and possibly other "Substantial Material Breach" conditions to have been met.

Public Polls, Media Opportunities, and "Authorized Leaks" often differ from Official Position, Private Diplomacy, and authorized action. Iraq currently is by law in Substantial Material Breach of UNR1441. Iraq yet has opportunity to remedy this. Time to take that opportunity dwindles. Expect another "Revalation" or so. Be p[atient; none opf this is in our hands. It is strictly up to Iraq, and we await her decision. We no doubt will, at the end of this month, join with the UN in announcing sternly to Irag that there will be yet another, and very possibly final, deadline. Should Saddam still not have departed by the expiration of this next deadline, I would imagine Saddam, and lots of other folks, will be surprised by the number of dogs we bring to the fight.



timber

timber, I think most of us are aware of the requirements imposed on Iraq to produce their WMD's to the inspectors. Lacking their cooperation, it behooves us to find something before we declare them to be in noncompliance. The world must have hard evidence to show that Iraq has lied. Only then will we know whether the world community will stand by a UN coalition to disarm Iraq with war. Just to say they have WMD is not enough. c.i.

C.i., In that they have failed to account for previously cataloged assets and capabilities, THEY ARE IN NON-COMPLIANCE.


It really is a matter of law, not of "Public Opinion". By law, The Iraqi's are currently in Non-Compliance. Should they remain so, they will suffer the consequences, at or soon after some yet-to-be-presented deadline, and if delivered, the consequences will be delivered by a broad consortium of nations. "The World" may well "Want to see WMD", but The Law requires only that Iraq account for previously known stuff and desist in her effort to further develop, produce or acquire WMD. Iraq has not done so. Iraq is currently in Non-Compliance ...regardless of Polls. That's The Law.




timber

So let's go bomb the crap outta Baghdad right now, timber.

I mean, what are we waiting for?

How many times have we heard mainstream and even left-leaning pundits scoff at the suggestion that Bush wants a war with Iraq regardless of what is proven about Iraq's weapons program?

Many of them simply can't believe that this administration could be so cold-blooded as to sacrifice the lives of young American soldiers in order to make a point (point being that we can whip anyone's ass on the planet so you better shut up and do what we tell you to do).

Well, Robert Novak, hardly a leftist, anti-American, "objectively pro-Sadaam" pundit seems to believe it is true...

George you say

We know that Saddam Hussein has invested heavily in the development of the isotope separation and shaped charge triggering methods required to produce a nuclear weapon.

Do we really know this? I'm willing to bet he has, but is this fact or speculation?

For me, the penny dropped last Friday when I heard someone say Israel will not wait until Saddam has missiles pointed at Tel Aviv, but will strike first as soon as they know he has nuclear weapons.

Thus we are having a conventional war now to prevent a nuclear war later. This seemed to make a lot of sense.

PDiddie, we're following the law. Iraq isn't. The next "date certain" on our calendar is Jan 27. The UN Report on Iraqi Compliance is The Next Step. I imagine that will be rather a negative finding for Iraq. The result will be another Deadline.
We don't go in "Guns Blazing" now because we sincerely wish to avoid war. There are diplomatic means to hand, they are being pursued with all possible dilligence. Saddam has many options to prevent war. The US/UN really have none. Saddam and his militarist, belligerant, band of thugs have brought this on themselves, and only they can direct the course of action.

We don't "Go In Now" because we don't want war. We are ready for it ... credible threat and all ... but we don't want it. Its not a matter of public opinion, it is a matter of law. We obey the law, Saddam doesn't. We just happen to be The Sheriff.




timber

Wrong. Their lack of cooperation is itself non-compliance.

And as Timber, I, and others have pointed out ad nauseum, the inspectors have already found "something", many things, in fact.

Tress, there are folks who would think a mushroom cloud rising from the center of Tel Aviv or Riad insufficient evidence of Iraqi threat.



timber

PDiddie--

I see reactions of liberals similar to this one all over the Board and all over the TV.

First, they try to say that Iraq is not in material breach.
Then, when it is proven Iraq is in material breach, they get shrill and say "Well, let the bombs drop- that's what you want, isn't it?

This very conversation has happened on this thread two or three times by different anti-war people.

You must think the posters who understand that the war may be necessary, are rabid, pro-war types.

Speaking for me, and I believe the adminstration, it is up to Saddam Hussein to decide on exile or war. The US administration has been very patient in their wait, their warnings and their appeal to other nations to persuade Saddam to disarm. No one is bomb hungry. If we had wanted to drop the bombs, they'd have been dropped.

I think Bush has moved through this mess with restraint.

timber

Naughty naughty exaggeration.

Good point blatham ... let me say that it would take those mushroom clouds to satisfy some folks. It is unfair to allege they would require further proof ... that was hyperbole. I hope.



timber

Agree with timber. There are many voices of dissent, whose only motive for dissent is taking the opposite stance of the American gov--and nothing more. I don't think they're actually considering the dangers of Saddam With The Bomb...they are too concerned about hitting the political talking points of the liberals to think of ...reality.

When you begin with that motive, you have to twist and turn through a thoughtful dialogue in an attempt to grasp for credible answers and statements, while dodging the relevancy of Iraq with nukes. Pretty soon, you end up with "Why don't you just bomb them?"

Answer: Because we don't want to, but will if we have to.

Let me add again that which it is to be is a purely Iraqi choice. Its up to them.

Breaking news at the moment ... Iraqi Press Conference on TV ... gotta watch that. I don't expect a pardigm shift though ... probably more bluster, whining, posturing, threats and obfustication. More later.



timber

Without commenting on your assertion that we, as a nation, are law-abiding, i'd like to know when we ran for and were elected global sheriff. Will we get to wear cool uniforms and mirror-shades? Will we have to work swing shifts? So many questions.

As "We", Setanta, I mean "The UN". I do not support, nor do I expect, Unilateral Action. This sweater is still being knitted.



timber

timber's quote: "Saddam has many options to prevent war. The US/UN really have none. Saddam and his militarist, belligerant, band of thugs have brought this on themselves, and only they can direct the course of action."

timber, That's all well and good, but guess who will suffer the most from any military action from the US? "Ooooops" is not an option in my books. Military action becomes more viable only after we have hard evidence. Rhetoric is nice, but most people in this world wants to see that hard evidence before any military action. It's not a poll: that's the reason why it's difficult to prove murder by just "perponderance of the evidence."

As the only superpower in the world, we should have the patience and good sense to make sure any action taken "is" supported by the world community. Most Arabs do not trust the US; what better way to prove to them that Iraq has lied all the way through this problem? How will the Arabs/Muslims continue to support Saddam? Most educated, well informed Arabs/Muslims will understand the difference. They are the one's that needs to shift their thinking on this problem. The US also needs to engage more in the Israel problem, and be "fair" in its dealings with the Palestinians.


c.i.

The US wants a Palestinian state.
Israel supports a Palestinian state.
Palestinians want the Jews to disappear from the face of the earth.

Hhhmmm. Who needs to change their stance?