The US, The UN and Iraq

I know I'm not innocent of this myself, but think personal disputes are better served by Personal Messages than by being etched in electrons out here for everyone to see. "If you're gonna do that, GET A ROOM!" :wink:


Just my opinion.



timber

Sorry, but I think my comments there are spot on. EB did in fact paint those who disagree with him as "craving" war. In no way did I misrepresent his statement. I did use his particularly overwrought language ("No amount of arguing or facts will dissuade") to help highlight how ludicrous his statement was. That is not a misrepresentation. Call it poetic license.

Now, contrast that with his claim that I and others "crave" war. Where's the basis for that claim? It's nowhere. Precisely where the basis for most overwrought rhetoric can be found. :wink:

Look guys. I have just about had it up to my cupcakes with the level of too many of these interchanges. If the purpose of your attendance here is to score debating points for the sake of your ego or your party, or if you are not prepared to do some research and careful appraisal of often complex issues, and if you are not prepared to apply some logical rigor to your posts, then perhaps you ought to be elsewhere.

There ARE people here who provide information, definitions, links to valuable viewpoints and analyses and who take admirable care in thinking and writing carefully. They are helpful to the general enterprise. Not everyone here is right now.

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=60679#60679

Well said, Walter.



timber

Back to the subject ... has anyone seen the clip of The Iraqi Science Advisor or whatever he was? I detected little of substance to his contentions ... but noticed perhaps a bit less bluster ... not exactly chastened, but not quite so brash as we have come to expect. Is it possible much talking and considering is going on behind highly-placed closed Iraqi doors?




timber

This just in: It seems Turkey has agreed to provide extra parking for about 37,000 ... I'll look for a link, but if somebody finds one right away, please go right ahead and post it ... I'm easily distracted, and I'm headed out onto The Web by myself ....




timber

I've also heard that Blair is sending an additional 26,000 troops to the gulf area (no link--NPR radio news). This would be about division strength with requisite support troops. Seems the boys at the top are goin' in, come hell or high water.

All I've found so far is similar to this:

Yahoo 37000

MSN 37000

No sightings of confirmation of Turkey development, or of Blaire's announcement. So far, these seem to be broadcast media only.

I'm goin' back in.

timber

I second the "startling generalities" opinion. We'll take this up on a topic about the mid east one day but the short rebuttal to this is that you are displaying selective memory. Sure Israel has agreed to the notion of a Palestinian state, but they also have rejected it. The Likud passed a motion to deny this and the standing PM wrote in his book that the Palestinian state should be Jordan. Some want the state, others reject it and dream of greater Israel. The ones who do not want the state complicate the matter to the point that I consider your generalization absurd.



Still not censoring. I'm not trying to vindicate anyone's comments to you, simply pointing out that you are not being censored. But this is a logomachy, my post was meant to reassure and not rile.



So you accuse him of misrepresenting your postition by an equally misrepresentative comment. Thus the stones/glass house proverb that Walter quoted.

blatham, with respect, I see nothing in this exchange that is outside the normal range of passionate discourse. I may not always make my points gently, but I am always making a point.

I am watching a live net cast of Tony Blair before House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs.

Blair is getting a grilling from 20+ members, with no chance of running away or aides to his side whispering answers. 2 hours so far.

Now apart from the fact that he doesn't have to put himself through this, and that I couldn't imagine Bush or Putin or Chiraq doing something similar, he said some interesting things.

1. In general although he was particular in saying "should it come to war" it is abudantly clear that war is on its way UNLESS Saddam surrenders/runs away first.
2.Phase 2 is more important than phase 1. That is rebuilding Iraq is more important than just getting rid of Saddam
3.He is getting a wealth of intelligence reports that indicate Saddam is rattled. Thats why it is so important to keep up a credible threat.
4.Blair thinks it vital that issues such as palestine/israel are tackled and SEEN TO BE tackled in parallel with military action against rogue states and WMD. Israel is the only party not signed up to the two state solution.
5.The territorial integrity of Iraq is sacrosanct after any conflict
6.Its clear that most of the thinking as opposed to planning is going into phase2, phase 1 is sorted.

Thats only a tiny bit of what he said.

These questions were not put to him by rookie journalists but hard bitten politicians and parlimentarians. Does any other country do this? Makes me proud to live in this democracy.

(Meeting just broken up, they left the microphones on by mistake. Just seen Michael Mates (conservative) go up to Blair and heard him say well done)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2678179.stm

No, Steve, this is not done in other nations--but then, Blair is the party manager in the House, as well as the head of government. Some states have a head of state, such as the German President, who is not a political manager. Our head of state is also not a political manager, but that refers to his natural incompetence, and not the system. I've never been very much impressed with democratic institutions in England, but you're absolutely correct in saying this is something unique, and, indeed something to be proud of. Although posing and preening for the camera go on in both your Parliament and our Congress, there is a lack of lively debate here that is rather disappointing. Those Speakers of the House, and those Vice Presidents acting as Presidents of the Senate who have displayed wit, and kept business moving along briskly have been sufficiently rare as to provide the exceptions which prove the rule of a rather dull process.

Normally in America, the President is responsible to the people and his voice and questioning come through Press briefing. Bush is inept at putting thoughts into words and therefore refrains from discourse through questions and answers because his handlers haven't had a chance to tell him what and how to say things - yet!

France to Mobilize E.U. Members Against Early War in Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-france.html

France and Germany have said any military action would require a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force, whereas Washington and London, while not ruling out a new vote, say they already have sufficient legal authority.

No. US Presidents never get hit with tough questions. :wink:

Certainly US Presidents get hit with tough questions, but they have a good deal more "squirm room," and use it to the uttermost.

That's probably quite true in some cases and not in others. I would prefer all our politicians to be more candid, but then they wouldn't be politicians, they'd be leaders.

I believe this is a predictable result of the ambiguity that existed when the last Security Council resolution was concluded. Even then France and others asserted that additional Security Council action would be required before hostilities could be authorized, while at the same time U.S. representatives claimed that the matter was concluded. I suspect this is just a French marker restating their original claim. I doubt that it is either unexpected or that it will materially change anything.