Reply
Wed 15 Jan, 2003 10:40 am
Should the US launch a preemptive attack on Iraq. If so under what conditions. Smoking gun , No smoking gun, UN santioned and etc.
The following sequence would be good:
UN Inspectors' Report
UN Security Council Decision
US+UK Decision.
But what if the inspectors' report is inconclusive, Bib, as it appears it might be?
and what if the Security Council Decision is not a match with the US/UK decision?
roger
What do you mean inconclusive? They did not find WMD's? What justification would we than have?
dyslexia
Unless the UN decision is to launch an attack regardless of the results of the inspection it will not be in accordance with that of the US. It is almost certain that the UN will not sanction an attack without evidence of WMD's and therefore,it will not be in accordance with Bush's wishes. I would not include the UK since the wind seems to be going out of their sails. British public opinion is very much against an attack. As for the opinion of the American public more and more of it is in favor of an attack only with UN sanction.
I guess my question and dyslexia's were directed to Bib's sequence. Inclusive would mean "no smoking gun", but perhaps some empty shell casings - in other words, munitions supposedly destroyed by Iraq, but no evidence of such destruction being presented.
Au, you seem assume that the US decision will match the UN's. Why is that?
The UN Inspectors WILL find something - of that I've no doubt. The US and UK haven't deployed their military machines for nothing. January 27 UN Inspectors' Report date is not a deadline - I'm sure they'll send them back again if necessary, or get involved in nuances or semantics over the meaning of certain findings in the Report.
Roger
Quote:
Au, you seem assume that the US decision will match the UN's. Why is that?
On the contrary I am sure it will not unless there are WMD's found. And even than who can predict the UN"s actions.
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
Quote:The UN Inspectors WILL find something
And if they don't than what? Will that stop a US attack?
It is incumbent upon Iraq to prove it has complied with the UN Resolutions. To this point, no such proof has been offered, and there are very troubling omissions in their declarations of compliance. Considerable weaponry and related production capacity inventoried by The UN in the past remains unaccounted for. Iraq continues to defy The UN and International Law. "The Smoking Gun" is Iraq's continued intransigence, obstruction, and prevarication. The UN mandate calls for observers to confirm Iraq has complied, not to produce evidence Iraq has not. The two are very different things.
Saddam is playing the world for a sucker, and has been getting away with it. It is long past time he was brought to account. Whether or not there is a war is a matter entirely in Iraq's hands. Saddam, and only Saddam, can decide which it is to be. UNR 1441 calls for Iraq to come clean or to face the consequences. The choice is Iraq's, no one else's. To imagine The US Administration is gleefully rubbing its hands in anticipation of glorious adventure and untold profit is disingenuous at best. To hold and espouse such a view reveals the shallowness of one's understanding of Realpolitik and the motivations of the principles on both sides of the matter.
I wish to see all available means employed to reslove the issue without hostilities. I see no such desire on the part of Iraq. The doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" does not enter into the equation; Iraq been in open and flagrant disregard of the provisions of the 1991 Cease Fire, and as such is leading with its chin. A taunting bully should not be surprised to be ejected from the playground.
timber
How can the US take action without UN support after insiting that the UN do its bidding. It is so disingenuous that after so many years of refusing to pay our membership dues and squabbling with member countries over abortion issues that we enlist their help and then ignore them. Would we not be behaving just as Iraq?
He's "sick and tired" of Saddam. I believe he needs a twelve step program for his addiction -- the first step is to realize that his foreign policy is unmanageable and he is powerless over turning the rest of the world into his model of capitalism.
With the exception of the much talked about oil in Iraq, are there any other natural resources that would appeal to the US?
lets see if i understand this so please correct my lack or reasoning.
on the one hand if the inspectors find no WOMD it only proves he has them well hidden and is not forthcoming/complying so Bush gets to bomb;
on the other hand if the inspectors find WOMD the rotten scoundrel has them ergo Bush gets to bomb.
Lightwizard wrote:He's "sick and tired" of Saddam. I believe he needs a twelve step program for his addiction -- the first step is to realize that his foreign policy is unmanageable and he is powerless over turning the rest of the world into his model of capitalism.
I like that, Lightwizard! A 12-step program might be just the thing--and save a lot of lives. An anger-management program might also be helpful. The Pres. seems to get testy fairly often...
dyslexia wrote:lets see if i understand this so please correct my lack or reasoning.
on the one hand if the inspectors find no WOMD it only proves he has them well hidden and is not forthcoming/complying so Bush gets to bomb;
on the other hand if the inspectors find WOMD the rotten scoundrel has them ergo Bush gets to bomb.
Not exactly, dys. The inspectors are there to confirm he has no WMDs or development plans thereof, not to find that he does. If Saddam fails to prove specifically that he is in compliance, he is in breach. Finding him to be in breach would be a bonus, but his failure to openly, actively, substantively, adequately and incontravertably establish his innocence is damning in and of itself. He has not complied with the conditions to which he agreed a dozen years ago. His time is up.
He has heard the warning "Halt or I will shoot". Its his choice.
timber
Obssessive/compulsive behaviour often manisfests itself in irritability and outburst of anger. It's also a trait of alcoholics and addicts who have not sufficiently addressed their addiction. As Dubya has made clear, going to church and Laura have cured him of his past abuse of alcohol (and rumored, other substances). That's known was the "one step" program for those who want a quick fix and find the twelve steps as being insurmountable. Laura could be his higher power, a mistake common to the recovering alcoholic. I'm not comfortable with the image of a President dropping to his knees and praying to his higher power to take away his temptations. Any temptations, that is, except to go to war without considering the consequences, having a coalition of other nations, with UN approval and with approval of the people of the United States. He could also pray that he hasn't used fear as a way to motivate his constituents.
Tony Blair's speech of yesterday is an example of the eroding "coalition." Why isn't Powell being sent out like when we built a coalition to go after Afghanistan? Fear of the embarassment of failure, perhaps?
Read my lips, "No new Nukes," is beginning to look as pallid as his Dad's proclamation. Without a new international pact to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons which the United States itself will follow, diplomacy appears to be DOA
JoanneDorel wrote:How can the US take action without UN support after insiting that the UN do its bidding. It is so disingenuous that after so many years of refusing to pay our membership dues and squabbling with member countries over abortion issues that we enlist their help and then ignore them. Would we not be behaving just as Iraq?
No, we would not, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to defend the comparison you are attempting to make.
timberlandko: i am partially understanding, the problem i have is we are asking him to prove his innocence not us proving his guilt (at least thats what i think you are saying) but its pretty much understood that proving a negative is a futile pursuit is it not?
timberlandko wrote:dyslexia wrote:lets see if i understand this so please correct my lack or reasoning.
on the one hand if the inspectors find no WOMD it only proves he has them well hidden and is not forthcoming/complying so Bush gets to bomb;
on the other hand if the inspectors find WOMD the rotten scoundrel has them ergo Bush gets to bomb.
Not exactly, dys. The inspectors are there to confirm he has no WMDs or development plans thereof, not to find that he does. If Saddam fails to prove specifically that he is in compliance, he is in breach. Finding him to be in breach would be a bonus, but his failure to openly, actively, substantively, adequately and incontravertably establish his innocence is damning in and of itself. He has not complied with the conditions to which he agreed a dozen years ago. His time is up.
He has heard the warning "Halt or I will shoot". Its his choice.
And if I may add one other salient point (seems salient to me, anyway)...
The conditions of the cease-fire Saddam signed require his compliance with all UN resolutions. He and his government know full well what they can and can not do under those resolutions. For them to claim--as they are now claiming--that they destroyed chemicals and other "ingredients" for WMD, but kept no records and have no evidence to show that they actually did so, is in-and-of-itself a breach of the resolutions. They knew what items were of specific interest; things for which they would be required to account. That they can not or will not now account for any such items can only be considered a blatant and intentional breach of UN resolutions.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace