Cicero,
And how is that the fault of the current administration? I absolutely agree that the United States has often in the recent past "wimped out" and "bugged out" too quickly. Those acts of indecisiveness, and lack of Will has been a partial contributor to the current situation. Saddam, Kim and others have come to believe that we will not oppose them if there is any chance that someone will get a bloody nose. "A few bodybags and the Americans will run away and cry. Americans won't bomb a target if there is any chance that a civilian might be injured, or deprived of his dwelling."
Clinton repeatedly showed he didn't have the resolve follow through when challenged. Bush, Sr. stopped short of Baghdad because the sharply defined end goal of removing Saddam from Kuwait had been achieved. The last time an American President's words were listened to in the council chambers of our enemies was that broken-down actor who decided to build a missle defense system regardless of cost. Carter's "now let's all play nice" didn't scare anyone, and encouraged aggression. Ford had his hands full trying to piece back together the wounds left by Nixon. Nixon was listened to overseas, and foriegn leaders didn't mess around with him if they could help it. Poor, tragic LBJ. Carter was certainly the most decent well meaning man, of the lot and he was decidely the least effective leader. Actually, it would be sort of nice to see the expression on Saddam's face about 15 minutes past Zero hour.
At the end of this exercise, Kim will have to decide just how much he really is willing to gamble on keeping his nuclear program.
Asherman
I don't think it is anything like a matter of 'wimping out'. It's far more often been a matter of temporary self interest (eg the Rumsfeld/Sadaam handshake, Noriega, Marcos, the Shah, etc etc etc) Afghanistan could now go to hell in a handbasket and it would not be unusual in the history of UN foreign policy. True, this administration is not responsible (that is, Bush Jr, others here are) for such decisions, but boy I see less reason to be hopeful of this administration in these matters than pretty much any other I could imagine. As to why Bush senior stopped where he did, his own answer to this question when put to him by Frost was not what you claim.
You have a faith in decisiveness, will and resolve that I find quite understandable. You have a faith in your leaders (when Republican) that I think perhaps appropriate in a soldier, but myopic in a citizen.
please, lola, please....I don't know how long I can last without it...[size=7][/size]
I never blamed this administration for leaving after promises and/or getting involved. What I said was that I don't trust GWBush. How he handles Afghanistan and Pakistan will be interesting to wait and watch - esepcially after he starts his war with Iraq. I'm wondering what his next target will be? North Korea? Iran? So many important decisions to make before his two years is up. c.i.
Mamajuana
I was trying to give you a compliment for providing what appeared to be a very authoritative document without the usual bias.
I said that amnesty international had said the Iraqis were guilty---I know that your man said it was the Iranians or a simultaneous attack by both sides----his main point being that the chemical that killed them was a blood toxin and the Iraqis were not know to possess blood toxins----they used blister agents.
I never mentioned Dr Blix---you've got me confused with someone else----I don't mind being blindsided for something I've said but I get blamed for enough without taking the blame for something I didn't say.
I'm very sensitive you know.))))))))))
perception is "sensitive." We'll tread lightly from now on!
c.i.
Wish I had a quarter for every time I've heard "leader of the free world."
LightWizard:
More like "leader of the psychotic, powerhungry, sociopathic world".
Anon
blatham wrote:
As regards the UN...this has been discussed before too. Sure, the UN has been ineffective in too many cases as in the inspections. But the US has put it's own interests senior to world community standards (world court, treaty of the seas, kyoto, etc) and wishes to continue such exceptional status, thus keeping the UN as a body not unlike NATO, helpful when needed. Imagine if the US were to have put the time, the diplomatic and financial effort of just this Iraq campaign into building an effective UN. There will never be an effective UN until the US loses its desire to act exceptionally
What exactly are "...world community standards..." ? Who defines them? On what basis do you suggest that the ICC, the Kyoto Treaty, or the Law of the seas treaty represent "world community standards. The simple fact is that none of these treaties was accepted by countries representing even a majority of the world's populations. Nations representing a large majority of the world's population soundly rejected each one of them.
The UN is already reasonably effective in many of the activities it undertakes. However, as a representative body, it is inescapably limited in its reach and effectiveness by the character of the governments that make it up. The fact is that there is a wide range in the degree of development of the governments, legal, and economic systems of the many nations of the world. Questions relating to further dilution of the sovereignty of developed nations must wait until there is greater convergence (to use a term fashionable in the EU) in the political and economic development within the community of nations.
Snood, you don't know how long you can last for what? Would it be the drink spilled in your lap? If so, I can accomodate anytime now.
LW, Your's is a quarter; while mine would be a dime. I'd be very wealthy today.
c.i.
(Assuming your parameters are ten posts per page, Lola, click back to Pg. 168 and then forward.)
Well, I was figuring in inflation since that saying goes back to when a nickle was worth a nickle.
The fact is, this administration is giving credence to the U.N. -- they are sending Powell with the "evidence" and this can only mean they will be convince enough to issue a new, more stringent ultimatum to Saddam. It will certainly be a test for the U.N.
Well, I think now our attention is toward the shuttle disaster.
This will likely show up as a new discussion but having worked on the instrumentation of the shuttles in the past, I can just about predict that they came in an a few degrees off the prescribed trajectory. It was bound to happen sooner or later. The technology is now ancient in scientific terms.
LW, I'm glad people like you have the skills to work on such technology, because I didn't want anything to do with "life and death" decision making. Besides, those things are way over my head. c.i.
The topic should be in science although it does have a lot to do with politics. This country always has to be in a race to get anything done and much of it still comes back to bite us in the butt.
perception - when you're right, you're right. You were not the one about Blix.
I think what steamed me was the cavalier statement - as a statment of fact - that the Iraqis were to be blamed for something that turns out to be not true - or, at least, highly questionable. This was all information clearly obtainable, so why would the WH lie, except to gain their own ends. And, in the process, consider us all gullible fools, which is really quite insulting.
For Dr Blix - the thing is that only his report criticizing the Iraqis is the one quoted. The interview of him in the Times, and subsequent statement, shows quite clearly he feels he was misquoted, and selected words were used by others to inflame.
So, I, too, am senstive to this. And I think there are increasing signs of the arrogance coming from the WH in the way they view the rest of the American population - not all, but some. They ignore all demonstrated feelings and expressions, and carry on as though they alone have the word from above.. two years ago, there was a quote from Rove about wanting to make the legislative branch the single most important power. They are well on their way.
I've begun a thread based on the following startling article I received a short while ago. Those interested in exploring this new development may find the new thread at:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3690&highlight=
Saddam BodyguardDefects
Saddam's bodyguard warns of secret arsenal
02feb03
SADDAM Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal.
His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war.
Abu Hamdi Mahmoud has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited.
They include:
AN underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad;
A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea;
TWO underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.
William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is "the smoking gun".
"Once the inspectors go to where Mahmoud has pointed them, then it's all over for Saddam," Tierney said.
Tierney, who has high-level contacts in Washington that go to the White House, said the information we publish today on Mahmoud's revelations "checks out, absolutely checks out".
Should this prove out, some positions likely will change.
timber
The people in Iraq are now claiming that the US will put WMD's to be found by the UN inspectors. They've got everything covered - I think.
c.i.
Timber,
The first of many. Somehow I doubt that the most vocal opponents of military action against the Saddam regime will change their tune.
Better information from Mosad than no information at all, but damn it we should have our own effective networks in place.
