"Let the inspections work" petition

Sozobe- It's a lovely idea, but I am afraid that it will not come to pass. Saddam is a pathological liar, and I would not trust him as far as I could throw an elephant.

Sadaam being a liar is a pathetic excuse. All governments lie.

I agree, Craven.

Incidentally we still lie about our WOMDs (the chemical and biological ones).

I'd hate to see lies become a precedent ffor war or we would be prime candidates.

This was the text in the email I got -- I don't see that on the site:



Link to the ad page:

https://www.moveon.org/nytad/

Note -- I checked snopes (nothing) but still don't know if this is genuine, so I personally don't feel comfortable contributing money. But wanted to include that info.

I hope that the movement gets off the ground, but I do have to say that I am skeptical. Who the hell wants a WAR?

It appears that many in the American government want war. That is how it sounds if you follow the media from the rest of the world.

It looks that way everywhere. This has been stated in as many words.

That

a: the inspections are a disraction
b: the goal is regime change
c: the goal is not simply to disarm Iraq (only Powel said this was a goal, he said a disarmed Iraq would be a regime change because the nature of the regime would have changed).

Rumsfield and Cheney have made it more than clear that regime change is their goal. And nobody (despite Powell's play on words) think regime change will be wrought peacefully.

People who want war will find a way to provoke it. Or to make it appear as if they were provoked. It will take very cool heads to prevent a war.

Cool heads exist, cool heads with leverage don't. It would be a terrible idea but the US can flout the UN and get away with it.

"Although Saddam Hussein's record on human rights and the brutal treatment of his own people is well down to the standard of terror and atrocity by which his chosen mentors, Stalin and Hitler, held on to power, Pollack's book makes it embarrassingly clear that the determining factor in the reaction of governments to Saddam Hussein has always been their own interests. If Saddam Hussein was the worst of tyrants in a nonstrategic part of the world, it is unlikely that he would arouse much serious interest or outrage among governments-a few admonitory resolutions in the UN perhaps, but not much more."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15911

about 30 mins ago i listened to Hans Blix (sp?) state that he wished the Bush Admin would stop making statements about what is expected to be found and let the inspection team do its job.

I think much of the world wishes the Bush administration would just sit down and be quiet for at least a minute or two.

Craven, i don't think the verdict is entirely clear on what the U.S. can get away with.

Anti-War Petition
I think the anti-war petition is naive at best and intellectually dishonest.

First, Saddam Hussein only allowed the inspectors back in to Iraq after the US credibly threatened him with war. Saddam is a brute and brute force is the only thing he respects. He obviously does not respect the inspectors, considering all the games he has played with them in the past.

It also seems odd for the UN to exclude bullets and missiles fired in hundreds of engagements over years by Iraq at the forces enforcing UN rules as evidence of hostility. Firing surface to air missiles seems awfully hostile to me and glaring evidence of bad faith by Iraq. The UN seems to be saying that Iraq is acting in good faith if you exclude all the instances of it acting in bad faith.

Blix, the head of the inspectors, does not inspire confidence. His subordinates have complained in the past that he too willingly accepts the Iraqi position until proven wrong. One subordinate complained that Blix reprimanded him from contesting an Iraqi officials statement that you could not detect nuclear bomb development from refuse. Blix said that you should not insult the Iraqis by disagreeing with them. Huh?

Even worse, Blix's past inspection attempts have failed to find Saddam's weapons and pronounced the country in compliance, only to be embarassed by intelligence provided by defectors that pinpointed the locations of the WMD. Saddam can hide his weapons better than Blix can find them.

The petition also seems to suppose that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a false assumption. In that sense, the petition seems to be a delaying tactic intended to stop American from taking action while imposing no restraints on Iraq, all the while falsely posing as a peace measure.

The petition also formulates a false position for the Bush administration, that it is not allowing the inspections to proceed. In fact, the inspectors would not be in Iraq were it not for America. The Bush administration is not stopping the inspections from progressing, as the petition implies. It appears that the writers of the petition wrongly interpret Bush criticism of the Iraqi regime as interference in the inspections. This is false. Bush is quite fair in saying that shooting at US jets and issuing belligerent statements is evidence of Iraqi opposition to the UN position and inspections.

Last of all, this petition just does not pass the smell test. This entire situation has been provoked by Iraq, which is an aggressor nation prone to savage wars of conquest. It has only been restrained from repeating its aggression by being strapped down by two No Fly Zones. Even so, it is willing to give up billions of dollars in oil revenue to build more weapons so that it can return to its evil ways. It launches terrorist attacks on America and supports others who do. Calling America the aggressor simply turns the truth on its head.

Tantor

sigh

Tantor - "His subordinates have complained in the past that he too willingly accepts the Iraqi position until proven wrong."

Isn't that the basis of justice? Even witha pathological little weiny on trial....?

Who is calling America the aggressor?

The no-fly zones are allied missions and the UN cares little about that.

I agree that the assumption that Iraq has no WOMDs is false but would not like the assumption that the declaration Iraq made is a lie (it was called a lie, which it probably is, before the declaration was made) to be the casus belli.

Please provide sources for what you said about Blix. I am very curious as to how this slipped past the news sources I read over the last few weeks.

It's very true that the inspections are only happening because of the administration's position, but I also think the administration was dissappointed that Iraq accepted and were doing their best to make it so that they wouldn't accept.

Beligerent comments have nothing to do with inspections. You can't expect them to bend over and thank us. You should just be glad what matters is happening. They bent over and are allowing the inspections. What they say to save face means nothing.

But I didn't sign the petition either. I think both the doves and the hawks hold an equivocal position. I don't think war is the oly solution but also don't think it's always inevitable. Under the right conditions I'd support war.

I wish I'd be around to see your response but might not have the time, but please do cite sources (with links) for the part about Blix, I'd really like to read them.

Craven, for what it's worth, the petition is about war "as a last resort", not no war at all. Let the inspections work, and if they really objectively don't, well, they don't.