Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

http://www.nysun.com/article/5661

Afterall, I apparently don't understand what I'm commenting on anyway.

Finding humor in taking pleasure in one's presumed demise is delusional enough for me, thank you very much.

17 Resolutions demanding compliance= "crying wolf". Your denial of the obvious is what makes debate with you pointless. The most liberal of the liberal among us recognize that our threats went unfulfilled for many years in many theatres between WWII and IRAQ-II. While some agreed that not following through was appropriate in many an instance, only fools deny the obvious facts.

Actually, O'Bill, I don't agree that our threats went unfulfilled for years. Maybe you could talk about which threats went unfulfilled.

I didn't think that UN resolutions were designed to be threats.

FreeDuck wrote:

Actually, O'Bill, I don't agree that our threats went unfulfilled for years. Maybe you could talk about which threats went unfulfilled.

I didn't think that UN resolutions were designed to be threats.

Surely you jest? Of what possible use could a Security Council resolution for compliance be if there was no implied consequence for failure to adhere to it? Your position is untenable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Actually, O'Bill, I don't agree that our threats went unfulfilled for years. Maybe you could talk about which threats went unfulfilled.

I didn't think that UN resolutions were designed to be threats.

Surely you jest? Of what possible use could a Security Council resolution for compliance be if there was no implied consequence for failure to adhere to it? Your position is untenable.

So in your estimation every single UN resolution passed since the security council came into existence was a threat of force from the US? I don't think I'm the one with the untenable position.

On December 16, 1998, United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) military forces launched cruise missile attacks against military targets in Iraq. These strikes were ordered by the President of the United States and were undertaken in response to Iraq's continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein's capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors.

In November 1998, US President William J. Clinton warned Iraqi leadership that force would be used if they continued to hamper United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors efforts. This operation, dubbed Desert Fox, was a rapid and intense use of air power that lasted four days (17-20 December 1998), ending on the first day of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year during which Muslim believers must fast between dawn and dusk. It was also the first operation that used B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft in a combat role. As in earlier confrontations between coalition forces and Iraqi military forces in the Persian Gulf, the intent was to show the coalition's resolve to continue to support the UN's monitoring effort. This was basically the "straw that broke the camel's back" in the year-long tug of war between Hussein and the coalition. In fact, the US deployed forces to the Persian Gulf in February 1998 as part of operation Desert Thunder. Like confrontations in the past, Hussein selected a time when the US and her European allies were busy with preparing for another situation, again in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

There can be little doubt who was providing the muscle behind the UN resolutions against Iraq. Pretending otherwise is expected from Dookie, not from you.

So which is it, O'Bill? Did we launch cruise missile attacks as part of our strategy of crying wolf? Or have we not, actually, been crying wolf.

Maybe this is what I'm not getting. The resolutions were that Iraq disarm or face serious consequences.

If there is a resolution that says disarm or face invasion, I'm sure you will show it to me.

In fact, Iraq had disarmed but apparently could not prove that to our and the UN's satisfaction.

Also, I guess I don't consider cruise missile attacks an empty threat. I consider that use of force. He threatened it and he carried it out. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable for failing to see how that is 'crying wolf'. Are you suggesting that full scale invasion is the only serious consequence to violating UN resolutions?

Actually, O'Bill, I don't agree that our threats went unfulfilled for years. Maybe you could talk about which threats went unfulfilled.

FreeDuck wrote:

Maybe this is what I'm not getting. The resolutions were that Iraq disarm or face serious consequences.

The resolutions didn't just say disarm. That's where your argument indulges in fiction. Were that the case, lack of weapons found would provide some wiggle room for you. But that is NOT the case.

FreeDuck wrote:

If there is a resolution that says disarm or face invasion, I'm sure you will show it to me.

I have no such obligation because I never claimed such a thing existed. This is a strawman argument.

FreeDuck wrote:

In fact, Iraq had disarmed but apparently could not prove that to our and the UN's satisfaction.

You're messing with the timeline here. Has it occured to you that the reason they couldn't prove it "to our and the UN's satisfaction" in 2001 is because they been out of compliance with previous resolutions since 1998?
You're making the common mistake of trying to defend your reasonable opinion that the U.S. had no right to invade, by making the absurd counterfactual argument that Saddam was in compliance with his obligations. Put simply; he wasn't.

FreeDuck wrote:

Also, I guess I don't consider cruise missile attacks an empty threat. I consider that use of force. He threatened it and he carried it out. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable for failing to see how that is 'crying wolf'. Are you suggesting that full scale invasion is the only serious consequence to violating UN resolutions?

No, I'm suggesting Bill Clinton was attempting to force Saddam Hussein back into compliance with UN resolutions when he threatened the use of force. Are you suggesting his threat was intended as "If you don't comply, we'll spend 4 days blowing up some stuff as punishment?" I think you are being intellectually dishonest to pretend that Bill Clinton wasn't attempting to return Saddam to compliance. Obviously, Saddam didn't return to compliance again during Bill Clinton's term so, cruise missiles or no, the threat was empty.

The truth of the threat was clearly explained in the link I provided you here. If you're assessment of Bill Clinton's threat was accurate, there would have been no Desert Viper to call off.

As a result of the destruction of key facilities and specialized equipment during several days of combat operations, Iraq's ballistic missile program was set back several years. "Desert Fox" led to putting ordnance on the ground. "Desert Viper" came within eight minutes. Within 8 minutes of TLAMs spinning up, the President said to shut it all down.

Now let's back up the train and see what my obligations really were. You said:

FreeDuck wrote:

Actually, O'Bill, I don't agree that our threats went unfulfilled for years. Maybe you could talk about which threats went unfulfilled.

I have provided you with unequivocal proof that our threats went unfulfilled for years.

There are certainly many reasonable arguments you can use to disagree with a great many aspects of our action in Iraq. Arguing that Saddam complied with all of his obligations, or that he didn't ignore threats aren't among them. Those are untenably false.

Quote:

As a result of the destruction of key facilities and specialized equipment during several days of combat operations, Iraq's ballistic missile program was set back several years. "Desert Fox" led to putting ordnance on the ground. "Desert Viper" came within eight minutes. Within 8 minutes of TLAMs spinning up, the President said to shut it all down.

This is confusing. If it was called off, how did the ballistic missile program get set back. Also, if Desert Viper was called off, was Desert Fox also called off? What I remember is that in 1998 we bombed the **** out of Iraq because they weren't letting weapons inspectors in. That, to me, sounds like use of force and not an empty threat. So please, stop calling me a liar in your newfound vocabulary.

I'm not calling you a liar FreeDuck. I'd apologize if I were because I don't believe that about you.

That's where your argument indulges in fiction.

I think you are being intellectually dishonest

I did suspect you were hiding behind some clever wordplay to to cover the error you just revealed. Apparently, you are none too familiar with what actually took place in 1998 and more importantly; what didn't take place.

Desert Viper was a plan for a ground assault not unlike the ground assault Bush called for years later. This was the action that Bill Clinton was threatening.

Desert Fox was the opening stage including the cruise missile strikes you reference. There were so many "Desert XXXX's" overlapping its easy to get confused. These Cruise missile attacks that you tout as fulfillment of our threat of force, were only the beginning. The "confusing" part you quoted simply means that our ground invasion (the actual realization of our "threat") beginning with the TLAMs (Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) came within 8 minutes of being realized, before Clinton called it off. Either he was bluffing, or he chickened out. Either way, the relatively irrelevant cruise missiles that were fired as part of Desert Fox were only a tiny fraction of what was threatened... and what Tommy Franks and Co. were within 8 minutes of beginning to deliver. Now if you didn't know that, I retract the charge of intellectual dishonesty.

Do go back and read the short links I provided so you can understand how close Bill Clinton came to starting the war that George Bush did. The difference is; Bill Clinton had the benefit of any tactical information that may have been obtained during the inspection process. George Bush had 3 years of unaccounted for activity... because Saddam had called Clinton's bluff. We all now know what a lousy job was done filling that huge gap in intelligence, but let's remember how and why that gap came about in the first place, shall we?

Once you understand how trivial Clinton's strike was, as compared to the actual threat he made, you'll understand why I consider the cruise missile strike part of crying wolf. When that strike was executed, and Saddam still didn't back down, Bill Clinton did. That, my friend, is crying wolf.

The balance of our exchange is largely unproductive sniping (mostly due to your misunderstanding ) so I'm letting it pass. :wink: