The US, The UN and Iraq

Not really, Roger (and c.i., i wasn't trying to beat up on you for that). The term liberal derives from liberalis, a free man. To put that term in opposition to conservative would imply that the conservative is not a free (-thinking) man (or woman). This would be unfair to a degree which i would find unacceptable, for however much i get frustrated with those with whom i argue here. For many conservatives, the name means they wish to preserve all that is good in our society. Even were we to disagree with the choices made, or even the principle, that would not suffice to cast slurs on those who think that way. The terms left and right derive from the point of view of the President of the Assemblée Nationale after it was lodged in the Ménage in the Tuileries Palace in October, 1789. As the Right were the constitutional monarchists, and the Left were the Dantonist (constitutionalists who wished to abolish the monarchy), the terms excluded the extremes at both ends--reactionaries who supported monarchy had mostly already headed for the border to join the Austrians and urge a military solution; the blood-thirsty among the revolutionaries sat behind and above the Right and the Left, and were known as "the Mountain."

Perhaps both speakers of English and of French leapt upon the terms right and left, because there is no easy way to describe the dichotomy, no simple terms which will not sooner or later (and usually sooner) be corrupted into epithets. Perhaps this is the knottiest topic we could debate here.

The Inspector's Report has been delivered, The Talking Heads are now casting their impressions of what was meant by what was said.

The report was not laudatory of Iraqi performance in the matter.


The Iraqis of course claim vindication.


Others will dispute the Iraqi claim.

Bush The Younger and the rest of The Breach Boys may be expected to write a few new songs before going on tour.


One might expect The Tour Bus will haul a few more Roadies than were in The Crew yesterday. A larger backing chorus should be evident in future performances.



timber

I knew you weren't, Setanta, and I'm sure it will be clear when you do. Yet, there ought to be a term for those that strongly share or oppose an entire set of viewpoints.

I believe "Partisan" is a word that might suit, rog. How it is prefixed is immaterial, how it is implemented is pertinent.



timber

Yeah, but for me, partisan always brings up those nasty conotations of someone with a rifle, sniping at you from behind a tree . . . but, now that you mention it . . .

Well, you asked for an opinion, and I offered what I think was a reasonable, thoughtful one. Your reply seems to amount to "I didn't offer any substance because I was responding to someone else who likewise offered no substance." As I wrote, you can write whatever you like within the reasonably wide bounds of decorum here. I just assume you want to bring something of value to the table, and take something of value away. If not, that's cool too. :wink:

Timber
Thanks for re posting my post, glad you agree with most of the points I make. When you say "I perceive it to be circular reasoning based on an invalid premise, supported by unwarranted assumptions, shaped to conform to a contrarian agenda", if that's your summary of the pro war arguments, I think you hit the nail on the head. If it wasn't, perhaps you could make your position a little clearer.

The guy from the IAEA gave Iraq 9.5 (out of 10) in my judgement. Blix about 6. But both asked for more time. Are you going to deny the inspectors the time they need to do their job or are you going to start the war soon before it gets too hot? Are you really going to go to war because you don't like Saddam's attitude? As for making the analogy of Chirac with Chamberlain, how about Bush with Hitler if you insist on irrelevant comparisons.

The majority of people in this world looking at this issue with Iraq still wants the US to follow UN mandates. That should be reason enough for GWBush to understand what he needs to do. c.i.

Steve, all I can say is you and I must be looking at different ends of the critter if we're describing the same cow.



timber

Both are trying to avert war first and gauge Iraq's compliance second. [I](My opinion.)[/I] You may agree with their choice to try to serve two masters, but they were put there to serve one.

Blix should not be concerned with what is done as a result of his report, yet it is clear that he is. He and his team are there to assess Iraqi compliance, period. That compliance is clearly wanting. Period.

By the way, if anyone would like to take a look at how Iraq should be conducting themselves, consider this information:
South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program: An Annotated Chronology, 1969-1994
Read from September 1989 on down, to see how a regime that is committed to giving up WOMDs conducts itself.


You can read a detailed history of how the SA government worked to show the world that it was abandoning its nuclear weapons program, rather than challenging them to prove it was continuing same.

This is what the UN resolutions require of Iraq. Do you think they are doing as SA did?

(BTW, you will find Hans Blix named in the footnotes, though the document noted no longer seems to be available on the Web.)

One of the conditions to end the Gulf War was to require Iraq to give up its building of WMD. It's been 13 years since the end of the Gulf War, but Iraq is still "not in compliance." The question is, how much longer should the UN give Iraq to comply? c.i.

Cicerone - the WMD abbreviation means in Iraq's case bacteriological and chemical. Not nuclear. The distinction is of some importance as can be seen from Trespassers' post >>>

>>> Trespassers: you conveniently omit the crucial "regime change" in South Africa occuring between the September 1979 joint Israeli/South African nuclear test

http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1997/nd97/nd97albright.html

and the arrival of the first black government in that country, which obtained massive international assistance as a tradeoff for giving up nuclear weapons. Mandela needed the money, and had no hope of continuing the program anyway, so it was an easy trade.

You also conveniently omit the fact that nobody suggests Saddam actually has any nuclear weapons, ever had any, or has the wherewithall to produce even a single one. At most he has several hundreds tons of nerve gas, and missiles with a range of 100 miles.

These facts are not in dispute. As far as compliance with nuclear weapons inspections you would have done better to pick any of the ex-Soviet republics - which didn't want the damn things on their soil anyway and fell all over themselves in their efforts to dismantle them. I've no expertise in bacteriological / chemical weapons so will not address that issue other than to note that assuming weaponisation (a BIG assumption) the missiles range poses a threat to the immediate neighbors only, and not one of them is planning to fight Iraq.

The entire maskarovka would have delighted our late unlamented buddies the old Sovs <G>

January 27th - one of the rare moments, HofT meets my complete unqualified approval
:wink:

BTW: having looked at the petrol prices here this evening, it seems that war wont start shortly (lowest Diesel price in 'pre-war' times).

Unfortunately, the exchange rate gives a better reason for this (€ in $= 1,0856)

You put your finger on it HofT. The regimes that disarmed did so because they wanted to. I don't deny Saddam would like to hang on to any illegal weapons he has. But whilst the weapons inspectors are in place his regime is being constrained. It might be like pulling teeth slowly as far as Saddam is concerned but the inspectors' presence

-prevents re activation of any wmd programs
-is going down the right road to elimination of illegal weapons
-stops Saddam attacking anyone
-stops USA attacking Iraq.

We should strengthen the weapons inspectorate and keep them in Iraq for as long as it takes. Saddam is I believe mortal.

timber

Perhaps you can 're-examine' by reading the text again?

(If you don't have the link, here it is:

AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION )

HofT - I did not "conveniently omit" anything. Why or under what conditions SA did as they did has nothing to do with how they did it. I offered the information as a indicator of what a country can do to show the world it is eschewing WOMDs, and as a sharp contrast to Iraq's "catch me if you can" attitude. You also make much ado about the type of weapon, when the point of my post is the type of effort. We could be talking about cheese graters for all I care. The type of weapon is not the issue; the level of willing, proactive compliance is.

Off the subject of WMD, but still on-topic:

Facing its most chronic shortage in oil stocks for 27 years, the US has this month turned to an unlikely source of help: Iraq.

Weeks (Days?--added by PD) before a prospective invasion, the oil-rich state has doubled its exports of oil to America, helping US refineries cope with a debilitating petroleum strike in Venezuela.

After the loss of 1.5 million barrels per day of Venezuelan production in December the oil price rocketed, and the scarcity of reserves threatened to do permanent damage to the US oil refinery and transport infrastructure. To keep the pipelines flowing, President Bush stopped adding to the 700m barrel strategic reserve.

But ultimately oil giants such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell saved the day by doubling imports from Iraq from 0.5m barrels in November to over 1m barrels per day to solve the problem. Essentially, US importers diverted 0.5m barrels of Iraqi oil per day heading for Europe and Asia to save the American oil infrastructure.

The trade, though bizarre given current Pentagon plans to launch around 300 cruise missiles a day on Iraq, is legal under the terms of UN's oil for food programme.

But for opponents of war, it shows the unspoken aim of military action in Iraq, which has the world's second largest proven reserves -- some 112 billion barrels, and at least another 100bn of unproven reserves, according to the US Department of Energy. Iraqi oil is comparatively simple to extract - less than $1 per barrel, compared with $6 a barrel in Russia. Soon, US and British forces could be securing the source of that oil as a priority in the war strategy. The Iraqi fields south of Basra produce prized 'sweet crudes' that are simpler to refine.

The Observer

Crikey! Like petrol isn't already pricy enough in Europe!

Walter, I followed the broadcast of Dr. Blix's presentation, and I have studied the printed transcript. I note that Dr. Blix:

1) Reaffirms the "Final Opportunity" presented by UNR 1441

2) Acknowledges that while there is sense of Iraqi compliance, there are serious deficiencies of substance, and indications of intentional deceit. Numerous illustrations of complaint are given in clear specific.

3) In no way indicates Iraq has met with its obligations pursuant to UNR 1441, and remains subject to dire consequence.

4) Sets a 2 week further reconsideration date, with notice of urgency and decreasing patience.

OPINION (just for you, Walter )
My immediate assessment of the situation is that Iraq has once more purchased time. I suspect regardless of amount or nature of Saddam's available capital, he more sooner than later will find that market closed. I anticipate a further two weeks of swirling events and spinning interpretations. Tomorrow's Israeli Election is tomorrow, and its outcome must be considered an undetermined variable in the equation. Speculations on the part of TV analysts at the moment include possible imminent US release of "Hard Evidence". Jordan appears to have more or less offered the US/UN a tender of purchase for Post War Iraq, and there are other Arab and non-Arab "Peaceful Resolutions" being bandied about. I do not infer any "Date Certain" for a war, nor do I see any rejection of war as a consequence of continued unsatiscfactory compliance on the part of Iraq. I see no reason to imagine Iraq might now behave in any manner inconsistent with 12+ Year Past Practice.


Now, what's your take?



timber