The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

Haven't heard about France's turn around on military solution. Didn't think that would come about. Will wait and see what develops during the next few days. c.i.

Cicero,



Surely, you didn't mean that France is proposing that the UN reinforce Saddam's Republican Guard.

Asherman, Your interpretation of my postings is up to you. I assume everybody else understands what I meant correctly - except you! What was that about "ad hominem?" c.i.

Military defeat of Iraq may be a good appeasing stimulus to Kim Jong Il. As it was previously mentioned, he is crazy but not stupid, and the last thing he wants is to lose power. If he realizes that U.S. is ready to enforce her demands by force, he will find the way how to get down from the high tree he climbed without losing his face.

steissd, That's a very good possibility. All we need now is time. c.i.

Asherman wrote;



Excellent point, and one I have not seen cited here or anywhere else (wish I said it myself). Let me repeat it for emphasis.

North Korea is a living example of the futility of a policy of long-term containment of rogue states. Containment has left it poorer but better armed and with a regime every bit as irrational as the one it had fifty years ago. The principal effect of containment has been to dull the sensitivities of the surrounding states to the danger presented by the rogue state.

For those who have nopt seen it . This was the French suggestion several weeks ago.how reasonable or unreasonable do you find it?
Send in the Marines?

France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, made an intriguing and little-noticed counteroffer at the United Nations.
It was the least he could do, as a leader of the antiwar opposition, in the face of persuasive evidence against Iraq presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday.
Mr. de Villepin, notably, didn't dispute that Iraq has now clearly violated Resolution 1441 (and therefore should be subject to "serious consequences") by hiding mobile weapons, refusing interviews with Iraqi scientists, and duping UN inspectors. He didn't even hope that Iraq might confess all, given more time.
Rather, he called for a tripling of the number of UN inspectors in Iraq, locating them across the country, and placing permanent surveillance at sites already inspected.
He asked the other Security Council members: "Why go to war, if there still exists some unused capacity [in weapons inspections]?"
It was the least he could do, as a leader of the antiwar opposition, in the face of persuasive evidence against Iraq presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday.Mr. de Villepin, notably, didn't dispute that Iraq has now clearly violated Resolution 1441 (and therefore should be subject to "serious consequences") by hiding mobile weapons, refusing interviews with Iraqi scientists, and duping UN inspectors. He didn't even hope that Iraq might confess all, given more time.Rather, he called for a tripling of the number of UN inspectors in Iraq, locating them across the country, and placing permanent surveillance at sites already inspected.He asked the other Security Council members: "Why go to war, if there still exists some unused capacity [in weapons inspections]?"Mr. Powell anticipated such an argument for more widespread UN inspections. After showing evidence of some 18 trucks carrying mobile biological weapons, he asked how these few vehicles could be found among Iraq's tens of thousands of trucks spread over thousands of miles.Mr. de Villepin's counteroffer, while it ignores the issue of UN resolve being laughably irresolute, may nonetheless be an opening for an agreement among council members - an agreement that still could allow President Bush to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, but do so peacefully.France's idea of an ever-expanding "capacity" for inspections could, at some point, lead to an effective UN occupation, led by US troops as guards or even inspectors.The Hussein regime would be both boxed in physically and humiliated in the eyes of Iraqis and other Arabs. Either Hussein would fall or pick a fight he would lose.This idea is not mere speculation. It's being played out this week as chief inspector Hans Blix travels to Baghdad to demand that Hussein agree to let unmanned US spy planes fly over Iraq.After the U-2s fly, why not let in US Marines? Quelle différence?That both France and Mr. Bush could be this close to an agreement is a testament to both. Despite his effective threat of war, Bush deserves credit for his forbearance in going to the UN. And France has at least presented useful ideas. Both clearly realize the dangers of Iraq's weapons, especially in terrorist hands.With even more forbearance by the US, and more French acceptance of the US interest in urgent disarmament of Iraq, a war could be history before it starts.

Complete Poll

au1929,

Interesting post. I agree the French minister's argument has some merit. Agreeing with him, however, requires the observer to conclude that the gambit he proposes will not give Saddam more room to wiggle out of accountability in the political forums of the world, than it will contain and confine him. That appears to me to be a rather difficult assumption on which to base such a weighty decision.

Further, unless the police apparatus of the Iraqi state is broken apart, nothing any number of inspectors can do is likely to even seriously threaten his control of that unfortunate country. If the last ten years have taught us anything, it should be that.

Finally, given the enormous political and military investment already made by the U.S. and the UK, this seems to be a mere straw, albeit a large one, suitable only for grasping by those whose opposition is, in fact, based on other factors.

Tres
I find it hard to place much faith in a phone poll of 900 people asking who knows what.
What would you think a poll of people and governments around the world would show if
the question were asked? I am relatively certain it would get overwhelming approval. We, the Bush administration and their fellow traveler Blair are the only ones that seem hell bent for war. Bush in my opinion will settle with nothing
less The rest of the world and I am sure the American public as well are hoping and praying for a peaceful solution. "Give peace a chance"

There is nothing wrong with this delay for military action. The questioning by France, Russia, and Germany are legitimate based on changing the policy to preemptively strike against another country before they have acted in aggression. This changes the whole dynamics of defensive war. It is too important for this world to ignore their conscience for a preemptive strike that will kill hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqis and our military men and women. It is important for the most powerful country in the world to listen to others in the world community. There are many reasons for this, and I'm sure many of us understand those reasons. A world coalition speaks to the other roague leaders that any situation similar to Iraq's will not be tolerated. Isolation means no voice in this world, and nobody to protect their interests. c.i.

I am afraid, this is inaccurate. Iraq is a hot country. And probability exists that soldiers will have to wear carbon cloth protection suit. It will be much more difficult for them to fight in summer than in winter/spring. Further delay will make the mission more difficult and may result in larger number of the U.S. casualties.

It simply is not accurate to label any military action we might take as "preemptive". We are in a state of cease fire. That means we are still at war, and that Saddam was required to do certain things to earn a continued cessation of those hostilities, things he has failed to do. Do you deny that?

We are still working under UNR1441. c.i.

All the countries of the UN understand Iraqi's noncooperation. Their questioning the ethics and necessity at this time to take military action. That's a good thing - for some of us that believe all life has value, and a rush to war may exacerbate security problems for all. c.i.

ci - Your responses have nothing to do with the question I put to you.

- TW

UN 1441 is authority for the use of military force to disarm Iraq of weapons banned in 1991. If that resolution is toothless, there is no reason for Kim Jong-Il to end his nuclear buildup, and export of missile technology that further threatens world security.

Further delay in "biting the bullet" only strengthens the hands of Saddam and Kim Jong-Il. Only the threat of imminent credible military force has managed to get even token compliance with UN directives. That military force will lose its credibility by further delay, and Iraqi cooperation and compliance will again decrease. Delay will only increase the costs that must be paid if the threats posed by Saddam's megalomania are to be eliminated. Military action now will certainly result in many deaths, but the cost in lives and teasure caused by delay will certainly be greater.

Though we may speculate on the reasons that France, China, Russian and Germany oppose backing UN resolutions calling for Iraqi disarmament, their reasons are less important than the effect. UN resolutions will be no more useful than those of the League of Nations. The importance of what the UN does over the next several days will likely determine its future. I hope the members of the Security Council will take the hard, but necessary decision to pass another resolution very specifically authorizing military action. They can, and probably will avoid the hard choice, and the United States and its Allies will procede on the authority given in UN1441, and earlier resolutions directing Iraq to disarm.

Seems many of you opting for war without UN approval is inconsistent with the majority of Americans and many in this world. Everybody understands all the claims you have made. Even with those arguments, most people are opting for UN approval. c.i.

The majority of Americans are willing to go to war without UN approval.

Asherman,

Well said.