The US, The UN and Iraq

The UN inspectors are not supposed to be 'hunting' for WMD. Iraq is supposed to identify all they have, so that the inspectors can witness their destruction. BUT, I'm with Steve; I'm willing to wait until hell freezes over while the inspectors stay in Iraq to "inspect." That accomplishes the same thing without bloodshed. c.i.

I'll add another vote in favor of Steve's very sensible assessment. War is not necessary to the process--or rather, not necessary to what we are told is the crucial factor, the inspection process. Of course, if securing the oil reserves of Iraq is the Administration's true agenda, Blix et al cannot help . . .

Doesn't the fact that we can already get more oil from Iraq when we need it kind of knock the legs out from under the idea that we want to attack them so that we can get access to their oil???

How, tres? You mean lift the embargo and have to watch prices drop? Gettin' kind of radical there, boy.

Free oil is cheaper than cheap oil...

"How?" ??? Doesn't the fact that we are not only receiving Iraqi oil, but that the flow of oil from Iraq is responding to US need, indicate that we have access now?

Well, we pay a multiple of your price here in Europe.


timber [my response just for you ]

I honstly think that war has been planned, regardless what Blix said today. Now, it's a good chance to re-think all the logistic etc plans (e.g. which British troops should now be stationed in Northern Irland, which National Guard and Reserve troops have to be mobilzed and/or replaced ... .).
So, it all will start just a little later - no matter, what the UN or any other says or will say.

Thank you for the clarification, Trespassers. The type of weapon matters a very great deal in inspections, since designing, manufacturing, testing and maintaining nuclear warheads is nothing like cooking up germs.

From news reports today you see that the original preemptive strike policy concerned nuclear weapons exclusively:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""When Vice President Dick Cheney was defense secretary during the administration of the first President Bush, his aides drafted a document, known as the Defense Planning Guidance, which included many of the provocative themes that the current administration has embraced. The Cheney aides involved in the effort included Paul D. Wolfowitz, now the deputy defense secretary; I. Lewis Libby, now Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, and Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House envoy to the Iraqi resistance.
The draft document argued that the United States should be prepared to use force if necessary to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It argued that the goal of American policy should be to maintain United States military primacy and discourage the emergence of a rival superpower. It argued that military coalitions should not necessarily be based on formal alliances but rather on ad hoc assemblies of nations, a practice that meant Washington would not necessarily be bound by the view of its allies.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Saddam has no nukes. Still, the current logistical plan (btw, Walter, that's completed) calls for an attack to start between late February and mid-March and barring unforeseen circumstances will proceed on that timetable.

Perhaps this excerpt from George Kennan's "Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin" (1960) will shed some light on the process now underway:

"...There is [.] nothing in nature more egocentrical than the embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own war propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision.... Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side [.] is the center of all virtue. The contest comes to be viewed as having a final, apocalyptic quality.
It will readily be seen that people who have got themselves into this frame of mind have little understanding for the issues of any contest other than the one in which they are involved."

Preemptive aside to Timber: No! Kennan was no leftist! <G>

Hoft - Sorry that you can't seem to follow where I'm trying to lead you. :wink:

Iraq could actively show the world that they have no interest in developing WOMDs, and if Saddam did so, the US would have no "juice" in arguing for regime change. Period.

OK...so no one want to talk about anything but bombs...

The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days. The Pentagon battle plan aims not only to crush Iraqi troops, but also wipe out power and water supplies in the capital, Baghdad.

It is based on a strategy known as "Shock and Awe", conceived at the National Defense University in Washington, in which between 300 and 400 cruise missiles would fall on Iraq each day for two consecutive days. It would be more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of the 1991 GulfWar.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon official told America's CBS News after a briefing on the plan. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

President George Bush has been displaying increasing impatience with the pace of inspections and is eager to start the bombing. But according to UN sources he has resigned himself to the fact that the US lacks enough votes on the Security Council to wage a military campaign.

According to the architect of "Shock and Awe", military strategist Harlan Ullman, the plan would rely on an extensive array of precision-guided weapons.

"We want them to quit, not to fight," Ullman said, "so that you have this simultaneous effect - rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima - not taking days or weeks but minutes."

The main objective was not just to disable Iraq's fighting capacity but to leave the population dispirited and unwilling to support Saddam's regime.

"You're sitting in Baghdad and, all of a sudden, you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out," Mr Ullman said. "You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power and water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

800 cruise missiles to hit Iraq in first 48 hours

Tress, I think all here recognize where you are leading, and perhaps even acknowledge "there" could be a nice place to get to.
IRW, ain't gonna happen. "The Season" ends soon, Saddam's show has been cancelled, his farewell episode has been scripted, he will either play his part in the final production, or he will quit in a huff and walk off the set during these current rehearsals. He has no options to Renew The Series. Following a usual Summer Hiatus, a new show will occupy his current timeslot. The DPRK Miniseries now airing could well be expanded into a Summer Replacement, and become a Major New Fall Entry.

That's entertainment. Stay tuned.

Aside to HofT: Roger that. Kennan well marked on my charts, am familiar.
Clear, standing by.



timber

Exactly how does would they definitively prove they have no interest in developing WMD, tres?

Here's a question for all of you: What's the difference between revealing how the US got its intelligence on Iraq's WMD and how the media gets 'secret' information and their protection of its source? c.i.

Apart from the likes of Daniel Elsberg or Woodward and Bernstein, the Media's "Administration Leaks" are the product of Administration Authorized committee collaborations, in large part. Information rarely "Leaks" from an Administration, rather it is more frequently dripped intentionally from droppers labled "Highly Placed source who declines to be identified".

Sensitive Military and Diplomatic Intelligence more often is derived from individuals or other assets which could be put at real, proximate, and severe risk were they to be disclosed.




timber

timber, And some media folks don't understand the difference between newsworthy and risking our military troop's lives. c.i.

Here Ya Are. Congratulations.








timber

Pardon me if my view on this subject is limited and overly simple, but here it is:

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/explainified.htm

Uh, they, er... WHAT??? :wink:

Please skim back and check the link I provided regarding South Africa and my comments associated with same.

- TW

Lola, Only ransom notes are pasted together in that form. LOL c.i.

Timber

When you expect nothing----nothing is ususally what you get. I trust it will be some time before you bet against the Guru of football-------Jon Gruden