The US, The UN and Iraq

Some people could be shown UBL's head on a stick and they would say "that's not a head---- thats a sunflower"

OBL and Saddam may not be freinds, but they share an enemy, OBL has money, Saddam likes money, both have expressed satisfaction at events unpropitious to their shared enemy. It is no stretch to imagine some level of cooperation between the two, and disingenuous to assume religio/ideologic differences would preclude pragmatism and opportunism on the part of either. FDR got on well with Stalin. So did Churchill. None of those three could be said to have been in one another's camp by any means, appart from situationally pragmatic cooperatin in a matter of mutual concern.



timber

Goodness, Perception...are you speaking about me? Moi? I-R-A "Patchouli-soaked nut job" and proud of it!

Your point is well-taken, Timber. I also think you are ignoring a point here. Saddam has not been conclusively shown to be a "pragmatic" working partner of bin Laden, nor has any irrefutable evidence been presented to show a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Absent such proof, the Shrub and crew are intent on going to war on the basis of his non-compliance with UN resolutions, but doing so with the unqualified support of the UN. This remains problematic, for however much one may contend that Saddam and bin Laden are in bed together.

Timber

You have the patience of a Saint----logic is just no match for blind denial.

I was going to reprint just an extract of today's Guardian leader but all of it is a must read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,884902,00.html

timber

True, it is no stretch to imagine a connection between the two, but the verb there is key. Setanta's argument is mine.

All would be very much different indeed were it the case that those three jets had originated in Iraq or been piloted by Iraq military pilots.

I'm having a lot of trouble getting on line this morning...when things clean up, I'll take a look at Asherman's link.

Setanta, your point is well taken too. The sleeping arrangements are unclear at best. That there is possibility does not imply certainty. That there is no certainty does not preclude possibility. I should not be surprised should evidence of direct cooperation, more explicit than tacit, in some matters come to light. I rather suspect that will prove to be the case, but I'll lose no sleep over it in either event. Neither gentleman is on my Christmas Card List, and as far as I am concerned, bith are richly meritorious of extreme sanction.

Amusingly, if not precisely pertinent, I seem to be on both George The Younger's and Daschle the Immovable's respective Christmas Card lists. Go figure.


timber.

Perception mentions a very thin line between polarized points of view, mentions the trenches, and then comes out with "logic is just no match for blind denial." Well, duh, little wonder people are hunkering down in trenches. Because not everyone here agrees with you or Timber doesn't mean they are denying logic. Nor does logical speculation prove a case. Even if Saddam and bin Laden are a***ole buddies, that still does not necessarily implicate Sadddam in 9/11. Bush and company have consistently made the case that Saddam should be taken out because of WoMD. What those who oppose your point of view here have been consistently saying is that even if he possesses WoMD, that doesn't justify going to war. You feel diffferently on this subject; but that is not a matter of your being logical and those who don't agree being illogical.

None of them boys send me cards, Boss, which is just as well, since i toss most mail without opening it.

Perception,

I think there is logic being exercised on all sides of this discussion. It's just that you each are arguing from different perspectives. Denial is a part of any reasonable argument because otherwise there would be no premise to argue about. I agree with Setanta on this......although reluctantly. We must seek to understand why the UN is not supportive of a U.S. intervention in Iraq before taking precipitous action there. It may be dangerous to delay an attack, but there is no proof that it is. And I must admit I would like to see Saddam thoroughly trounced. But many lives will be lost finding out the hard way, or in simple gratification. It seem prudent to move with caution for now. This issue is of course complicated for me because I distrust Bush and I'm suspicious of his motives (the motives of Rumsfield, Cheney, et al. old guard.) The push has the feeling of a holy war, one the Evangelical Christians would endorse. And this rings a loud alert in my head about the need for caution and a delay of impulsive action.

Oh-oh the "head" shark is back----as I check my bandaids to make sure not a drop of blood gets out. Makes me wonder though if the head shark be a hammerhead.

I'm happy to keep ya guessin' Perception . . .



I particularly appreciated this portion of your post, Boss. I would love to see Saddam and the Republican Guard get their butts kicked (the RG have always shown themselves enthusiastic in "ethnic cleansing" of Kurds, and "holy war" against Shiites). However, i abhor the thought of US and British casualties in such a venture without a damned good justification--and, no matter what the reason, if war there will be, the best efforts in the world will not prevent casualties of Iraqi civilians, who have suffered enough from their own government.

Lola

Your point is well taken and I was of the same opinion for a second---did anyone notice how quickly he began to cooperate when we put a gun to his head----what do you think will happen the second we remove the gun?

Now that we have moved all the troops into position----the world will laugh like hell if we remove the troops without a valid conclusion to this mess.

Absolutely right Lola

Bush is taking us all into a brave new and very dangerous world. I am still waiting for an answer to my question why?

perception "the world will laugh like hell if we remove the troops without a valid conclusion to this mess.

and here i thought we didn't care what the world thought about anything, we have already explained that what we do is right regardless of world opinion.

dys

Your conclusion may or may not be valid----remember our "PR" people are totally incompetent.

Only when it benefits your argument do you use it dyslexia. That's the way some people define logic. It is illogical if the other side uses it.

This includes polls, public opinion, trial balloons, and unspecified quasi facts.

Lola, I come from the same foundation that Bush cannot be trusted. His State of the Union is a good indication of why he cannot be trusted, but it seems many are taken in by nice sounding promises. c.i.

Head shark woman with teeth only marginally under control. Very funny, perception. And so perceptive as well. Laugh

I think this is such a complicated problem. It may be that our "smoking gun" is the motivation for Saddam's "cooperation". And in this sense, you may be right, perception, but.....let's see, but......... something. But we can't let world opinion force us into action that will be unnecessarily destructive. My concern with world opinion (as represented by the UN) is that when there is concern being expressed from other world governments, it's a good idea to work hard to understand why they are objecting. And to do so before we get ourselves and the entire world into dire trouble. And I think, if we're going to launch an action that may be a grave mistake we should spend some time trying to understand our own motives.

I don't trust George Bush and the Christian Right, of which he is a member, to be very concerned with his own motives. They just want what they want when they want it and prefer to explain it as "righteousness." This causes me to pause.....and pause good, before supporting pre-emptive military strikes. Killing innocent people, whether military or otherwise, is something to think about, and think about fully.