THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

For me its pretty simple. If you're going to issue sanctions, you better be prepared to back them up. Otherwise they are meaningless and ignored. That is precisely why we are fighting a war in Iraq right now.

Blatham - great to see you again! Never expressed an opinion on marriage, knowing less now (after 3 experiments) than I thought I did before I started. Of course I hadn't read Gel's advice at the time - will apply during experiment #4 (forthcoming, ahem).

'Independent' writers debate whether world is safer place
By Ian Herbert, North of England Correspondent
22 October 2004


Two of The Independent's most provocative writers engaged a large audience in an animated public debate on the merits of the Iraq war at Manchester town hall last night.

The Independent debate, which placed Robert Fisk against Johann Hari on the question "Has the Iraq war made the world a safer place?", gave an eloquent voice to anti-war sentiment, in the traditions of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. Fisk's case, that the war had succeeded only in consigning Iraq to a state of "anarchy and madness", comfortably held sway among the audience of 500.

The debate, chaired by Simon Kelner, editor-in-chief of The Independent, pitched Fisk's argument - that the West's century-old obsession with "rescuing" the Middle East from itself had left it at the mercy of anarchists whom the West will be forced to do business with - against Hari's proposition that Iraqis wanted the war and that today's chaos was an improvement on Saddam's tyranny.

The notion that the West had created "an oasis of democracy with its centre in Iraq" was "a lie", said Fisk, opening the debate. "The one thing we did do was get rid of the man we helped to create - Saddam Hussein - and we are now searching for other beasts to take his place: the name Zarqawi comes to mind."

Fisk, whose writing in The Independent had clearly won over many in the audience, described how a recent journey south from Baghdad to Najaf revealed burnt-out Iraqi police vehicles, US trucks and an occupying force which was manifestly overrun. "The chances of [January] elections are fading faster than water running into the desert," said Fisk. "The Americans must leave Iraq, the Americans will leave Iraq, but the Americans can't leave Iraq."

Hari countered with his own vivid experiences among the Marsh Arabs. "While the Baathist [minders] were away, I asked them: what do you think about the war? They concluded it was better to take your chance with the Americans than live with infernal Baathism."

There was also eloquence from the floor. A former US naval officer, worrying that the West had "lied about Iraq like we lied about Vietnam", urged The Independent to continue "challenging the lies" in a way no other paper has.

"It is astonishing," concluded Kelner, "that despite the illegality of the war, the thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of soldiers who have died, that nobody on either side of the Atlantic has paid a political price."

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

Einherjar wrote:

.... how would you structure [the UN] to insure it performs as you wish?

I would limit the UN to four functions:
1. Provide an international forum for sharing knowledge, discussing problems, debating opinions, and adopting resolutions that seek voluntary compliance by member nations;
2. Supplement the Internatiuonal Red Cross by providing aid to those countries ravaged by desease, starvation or natural disasters.
3. Provide technical instruction for how to improve infrastructure.
4. Provide technical instruction in economics.

I would have all this paid for by a worldwide, uniform, flat tax on each member nation's gross national product. The tax rate would be set by resolution such that the number of votes each member nation would have would be directly proportional to its gross national product. Payment of the tax would be a requirement for retaining or obtaining membership in the UN.

The moment for this [may] have passed, but I'm responding anyway. I like your tax idea, although I'm not too sure about giving affluent nations disproportionate representation. Might be a tough sell in the third world.

As for the numbered points [my responses are boldface]:

1. The UN already does that. [Yes]

2. Funding this through the same tax might be a good idea, but I would prefer keeping such aid independent. [How then would you have such aid financed?]

3. Provide advice or instruction? If instruction, how would it be enforced?[Voluntary attendance, voluntary study, and voluntary application--no other enforcement]

4. Same as three.[Likewise]

I notice you did not include the primary function of the UN, that is the coordination of sanctions for humanitarian reasons [item 2--helping folks ravaged by desease, starvation or natural disasters is humanitarian; perhaps you have additional humanitarian reasons in mind]. and other, and providing [for] discussion and desicion making on issues concerning war and peace. Would you abandon these functions? How would you see sanctions managed, and the logitimacy of wars judged? [item1--compliance with resolutions on any subject including war and peace would be strictly voluntary; sanctions included]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

AN OLD OPINION

Alexander Tyler writing about the viability of democracy, in "The Cycle of Democracy", 1778:

Quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The piece quoted above has been circulating on the Internet since shortly after the November 2000 presidential election.
[...]
The quote from "Alexander Tyler" is very likely fictitious. His name was actually "Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler," and he was a Scottish historian/professor who wrote several books in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Quote:

... a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

A Senate Democrat is your authority? You seem pretty desperate.

blatham wrote:

... Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

FACT: Al Qaeda declared war on Americans in 1996, 1998, and 2004, and have murdered thousands of Americans.

FACT: Al Qaeda were harbored in Afghanistan prior to US invasion of Afghanistan.

FACT: Al Qaeda were harbored in Iraq prior to US invasion of Iraq.

FACT: Missile attacks on al Qaeda in Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Afganistan failed to destroy a large number of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

FACT: Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed a large number of al Qaeda that were in Afghanistan and Iraq prior to the invasions of those respective countries.

[item1--compliance with resolutions on any subject including war and peace would be strictly voluntary; sanctions included]

The quote from "Alexander Tyler" is very likely fictitious. His name was actually "Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler," and he was a Scottish historian/professor who wrote several books in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Would you abandon any semblance of a rule of law in the relations between nations? [No, but that rule of law should be limited to signed treaties among nations completely independent of the UN] would you really declare a free for all where military action is concerned? [that's what we've got now; that hasn't been changed by the UN; I would prefer other international treaties governing this separate from the UN]

Are you saying that enforcing sanctions should be volontary, but that the UN should be able to recomend sanctions? If so how does this differ from ehat the UN is doing? [Yes; it differs only in that it would be made explicit instead of implicit in the UN Charter; some folks think compliance with sanctions once adopted is mandatory]