The US, The UN and Iraq

"....a young man ran in front of inspectors' vehicles, shouting "Save me!", and was allowed to enter one vehicle. He was carrying a notebook, which U.N. officials said was empty. Ueki said the man was turned over to Iraqi authorities."

Save me scientist

0 Replies

Oakland finally showed spark ... but Tampa's torch is in full flame.
Peace or War, Quick or Dirty, looks like I lose one to peception. Five, actually, damnit.

I note Turkey has OK'd "Passthrough" of Allied Combatants as of this AM. Powell has "Lost faith" in the Inspection Process. Blix is expected to pretty much validate Powell's despair. Bush The Younger is going to get his war, and he'll start it when he's ready.
The positioning of Carrier Battlegroups is of more relevance than the Position of any Nation re the war. France's "Refusal" appears to perhaps have a "Softer Side", more resembling coquetishness than virtue. The next six weeks will see any number of "Peace Initiatives". Some will come from major players, some will come from wannabes. New freinds and current opponents will "Join" the "Effort to Dislodge Saddam". Lots of words will be spoken, emotions will flair, and Saddam Hussein remains the most important man in The World ... for a few weeks. The only words that can change a damned thing have to come from him. I don't see him likely to say "OK, Cool, then. I'm outta here. You take it"

timber

0 Replies

0 Replies

Timber

That "five" will look good in a frame in my trophy room.

0 Replies

timber, That spark didn't produce a flame. Too bad!
France doesn't have a 'softer side.' They want be be seen as a play maker, but in fact they are just all rhetoric to protect their own interests. That's not to say, I support Bush's march to war. As with the rest of this world, we can't expose our military to death and danger until actual proof is presented that Saddam has WMD. Even then, I'm sure some liberals will be against any war with Iraq. c.i.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link, littlek.

Even that story only gave the poor Save Me Scientist a passing glance. Its like nobody cares about what happened to him.

Hubby says all govts (France, Germany) who are making such loud noise in opposition will quieten down once war commences. He says one reason they are so vocal is for their own political skins. They have to be vocal against it, because of the polls in their countries. I wonder if that does play a big part.

0 Replies

To be fair, we don't know he was a scientist, nor do we we have any more background on the fellow with three "Knives" or "Metal Pieces" or whatever they were. Who determined The Notebook was empty ... was that in fact determined, or was it agreed upon? Could those three pieces of metal have been some damning techologic artifact? Could one of the two have been merely mad, in a world of his own invention, or might they have been collaborators whose combined tale would have proved irrefutable?
How the hell did Oakland screw up that bad? We'll probably never get the answers.

timber

0 Replies

Lash, Your hubby's probably right: nobody wants to be on the losing side - especially France. Their pride wouldn't allow it. c.i.

0 Replies

Timber brought that up while I was sleeping:

from where do you know that guy was a scientist? And what kind of scientist?

0 Replies

Sorry guys, not fully read all the recent posts (ntl cable service down again), but...

Have I got this right?

1. We know Saddam has or certainly had equipment and material to produce WMD, because we (the West) sold it to him in the first place. (Ask Donald Rumsfeld)
2. After gulf war 1 the UN required Saddam to abandon any WMD programs
3. UN weapons inspectors destroyed a large amount of Iraq's illegal weapons
4. But the CIA used the weapons inspection teams to spy on Iraq
5. Weapons inspectors were withdrawn.
6. We demand that Saddam proves he has no illegal weapons, (ignoring the fact that it is not possible to prove a negative) and threaten war if Saddam does not comply.
7. Saddam produces a 12000 page report saying in effect he has no illegal weapons
8. We demand the return of weapons inspectors under Hans Blix and threaten war if Saddam refuses to let them in.
9. Now if Blix reports Saddam has illegal weapons it proves he is lying and therefore justifies an attack on Iraq
10. If Blix reports Saddam has no illegal weapons it proves Saddam has not co-operated fully (because we know he has them) and therefore it justifies war.

So to sum up, we demand Saddam give up the weapons we know he has (because we sold them to him) but which he himself refuses to acknowledge he has. We demand he proves he hasn't got something that we know he has got, and if we find any we are going to attack Iraq. On the other hand if we don't find any we are going to attack because Iraq has not fully implemented something that's impossible to do.

Is this the sort of reasoning that justifies the violent death of thousands of people?

0 Replies

Why thousands? It seems very likely to me that majority of the Iraqi armed forces personnel would desert or surrender immediately after the beginning of the U.S. invasion, thus decreasing number of casualties on both sides. Of course, I cannot prove this statement of mine, it is more intuitive than logically provable...

0 Replies

Well of course I hope you're right. I hope Saddam surrenders without a fight and no one gets hurt. But I don't think he will, and war seems inevitable now. There are many many people in Britain who are asking exactly what has this got to do with us? Frankly I wish I could give a better answer than the one I summarised in my last post.

0 Replies

Steve,

Perhaps we should argue for "Peace in our time".

0 Replies

I can just picture Chirac, triumphantly returned from a last-minute dash to a Baghdad Conference Table, standing at the platform of an airliner's boarding ramp, smugly holding to the assembled cameras the piece of paper bearing his, Saddam's, and other's signatures, which proclaims and ensures, "Peace for Our Time".
Then again, remakes of Classics rarely do much to advance the genre.

timber

0 Replies

Chirac might also choose an earlier classic and quote the great Toynbee, who wrote in the aftermath of the (1919) Treaty of Versailles:

"...we walk backwards into our future, as we walked into the War."

0 Replies

That's the trick about the backwards-walking thing...no one knows when they are doing it.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Sorry guys, not fully read all the recent posts (ntl cable service down again), but...

Have I got this right?

1. We know Saddam has or certainly had equipment and material to produce WMD, because we (the West) sold it to him in the first place. (Ask Donald Rumsfeld)

Tim McVeigh bought Diesel Fuel from Gas Stations and Fertilizer from Farm Supply Dealers. I suppose the Oklahoma City Bombing was the fault of the retailers.

Quote:

2. After gulf war 1 the UN required Saddam to abandon any WMD programs

Yup

Quote:

3. UN weapons inspectors destroyed a large amount of Iraq's illegal weapons

Destroyed some, catalogued others, suspected the existence of more

Quote:

4. But the CIA used the weapons inspection teams to spy on Iraq

So Iraq alleged. There was some discussion, accompanied by US and UN denials

Quote:

5. Weapons inspectors were withdrawn.

Yup

Quote:

6. We demand that Saddam proves he has no illegal weapons, (ignoring the fact that it is not possible to prove a negative) and threaten war if Saddam does not comply.

We demand Iraq prove her compliance with orders to disclose and to cease and desist known violations of prohibited activities. Where is the requirement to "Prove a negative"?

Quote:

7. Saddam produces a 12000 page report saying in effect he has no illegal weapons

The Document omits, misstates, and obscures required disclosures. In particular, it fails to address the accounting of the disposition of previously cataloged, but currently unlocatable, prohibited materials.

Quote:

8. We demand the return of weapons inspectors under Hans Blix and threaten war if Saddam refuses to let them in.

OK ... Pretty much.

Quote:

9. Now if Blix reports Saddam has illegal weapons it proves he is lying and therefore justifies an attack on Iraq

A report of such nature would be cause for intervention, yes.

Quote:

10. If Blix reports Saddam has no illegal weapons it proves Saddam has not co-operated fully (because we know he has them) and therefore it justifies war.

No claim to The Absolute Absence of Prohibited Items is possible, as you yourself mention in an earlier talking point. What is to the point is the absence of valid evidence of compliance with Previous Resolutions and with the Inspection Process of UNR 1441 itself.

Quote:

So to sum up, we demand Saddam give up the weapons we know he has (because we sold them to him) but which he himself refuses to acknowledge he has. We demand he proves he hasn't got something that we know he has got, and if we find any we are going to attack Iraq. On the other hand if we don't find any we are going to attack because Iraq has not fully implemented something that's impossible to do.

Is this the sort of reasoning that justifies the violent death of thousands of people?

I perceive it to be circular reasoning based on an invalid premise, supported by unwarranted assumptions, shaped to conform to a contrarian agenda. But then, that's just an opinion too, I suppose.

timber

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As with the rest of this world, we can't expose our military to death and danger until actual proof is presented that Saddam has WMD. Even then, I'm sure some liberals will be against any war with Iraq. c.i.

I don't care to have a label, such as liberal, attached to me--it won't always necessarily fit. Nonetheless, i am one of those whose response to "proof" that Saddam has WoMD will be: "Yeah, so? Not a good reason to get thousands killed." (For those whose hawkishness is sufficiently aboil to ignore a simple fact, i would like to emphasize that i mean thousands as in Americans, English, Iraqi soldiers AND Iraqi civilians.) Daffy Qaddafi took power in a coup in 1969. Seventeen years later, Raygun bombs the bejezus out of Tripoli and other selected targets. More than 20 years later, Qaddafi decides to cooperate with the west, tired of being isolated, and having good reason to fear for his continuance in power, absent more or less normal relations with the west. Twenty-seven years later, in 1996, Clinton initiates a move to establish such normal relations. Adminstrations such as we have in the US in this age, constantly looking to the short term, because they want to win the mid-terms, and then to get re-elected, then to win the next mid-term--such administrations don't look at the possible long-haul solutions in foreign affairs. I remain unconvinced that the clown in Iraq is a "clear and present" danger, and i will be opposed to a war, no matter what is found. Label me as you will, no one here, and no one in the White House has made a compelling case that this needs to be dealt with right away by means of war.

LashGoth wrote:

Hubby says all govts (France, Germany) who are making such loud noise in opposition will quieten down once war commences. He says one reason they are so vocal is for their own political skins. They have to be vocal against it, because of the polls in their countries. I wonder if that does play a big part.

I'd say Hubby has got it about right, Boss. I'm reminded of the Prussian General (forget the name at the moment), who responded to the cry for reform of the Prussian state after the twin debacle of Jena/Auerstadt, by referring to the reformers and their plans as "the rage of dreaming sheep." Despite my opposition to the war, given that i think it likely to occur no matter what, my militaristic instinct is to reply to those "dreaming sheep" with: "Siddown, shaddup, you'll get yer piece of the pie. You always have, haven't ya?"

0 Replies

Setanta, My use of the word 'liberal' in this instance was the only word that popped into my head as I typed my post. You are welcome to use any adjective you wish. c.i.

0 Replies

I don't care much for the labels either, Setanta. As a matter of fact, liberal/conservativ, left/right, have come to take on the aspects of insults. They are certainly handy though. Got any suggestions?

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know