The US, UN & Iraq III

Walter, Steve, timber...has this become the drinkin thread? A grand Bordeau, a worthy meal, then a Bushmills. timber, what about a Black Bush? Foine indeed. Or a Connemara single malt Irish whiskey? Is that grand or what?

c.i., My point was that perceive is an aberration. Well, I won't go there.

blatham, everything I read and hear indicates that we will be in Iraq for eight to ten years.

This is a merry bunch tonight. Good.
Take the rest of the evening off.
Enjoy yourselves.
These threads (I & II) have produced some good work, some good ideas and a number of examples of good writing. We have proceeded through the challenges of arguing the possibility of war through the battles over the necessity of war to the actual process of being witness to war.
(What a harmless looking little word - war - .)

Be with those you love tonight, by phone, or email, or if you are the fortunate one, in the flesh, for my darlings, I'm sure you know, the work is still ahead of us. We have barely begun.
And some of us, myself included, think that if the goal was greater peace in the Middle East and in the World at large then we are farther away from our goal than when we first started.

Peace. Still possible.

Joe

Well, it's a Murdoch paper

The Sun: Competition: "WIN A CHUNK OF TOPPLED STATUE"

From the Washington Post this morning:

A taste of things to come....terror in a toothpaste tube.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/902624.asp?0na=x2201110-

It's not going to be about who has the biggest guns anymore, but how well a country's leaders know the rest the world.

Joe

You can win a piece of this toppled computer if it doesn't start to behave itself.

If we only had a leader ...... all we got is a 'uniter'

Off-topic here, but do you figure its a software or a hardware problem? PM me if you'd like, and I'll see if I can help.

Trouble on the horizon ....




UP

Prove Iraqi guilt, MPs tell Blair

Nicholas Watt, Michael White, James Meek in Baghdad and Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Saturday April 19, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair is facing the threat of a fresh rebellion from Labour backbenchers who are growing increasingly alarmed that the failure to uncover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will confirm that the war was illegal.

As a 1,000-strong Anglo-American task force of inspectors prepares to search hundreds of suspicious sites, Labour MPs are demanding an inquiry to establish whether MI6 misled ministers about Iraq's weapons programme.

Backbench Labour MPs who feel they were duped into backing the war on the basis of questionable intelligence want the cross-party Commons intelligence and security committee to carry out an investigation. One well-placed former minister said: "The intelligence committee is raring to challenge the veracity of what the security services told them about Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons. They were told what he had and where it was. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for all this, but they don't seem to be able to find the stuff."

Britain and the US are so desperate to uncover a 'smoking gun' to justify the war against Iraq that they have drawn up a list of 146 sites to be inspected in Iraq. A team of civilian scientists and military forces, dubbed Usmovic because they are a US-led rival to the UN's Unmovic inspection force, will interview up 5,000 Iraqi scientists.

US forces have begun to interrogate General Amir al-Saadi, the head of Iraq's weapons programme, who surrendered last weekend. But General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in the Gulf, attempted to lower expectations when he warned that it may take a year to uncover details of Iraq's arsenal.

Such comments are causing alarm in the Commons. Lindsay Hoyle, the Labour MP for Chorley, who voted in favour of war because of Mr Blair's chilling warnings about Iraq's banned weapons, said: "We were led to believe that the Iraqis could fire them within 45 minutes. If that was the case where have they vanished to? We were told there was hard evidence."

David Hinchliffe, chairman of the Commons health committee, said: "For many of us who talked to ministers there was an implication that more was known. Therefore a lot of people are anxious to establish the truth."

His remarks were echoed by the former defence minister Doug Henderson, who warned that the war would in retrospect be deemed illegal if no banned weapons were found, because the military action was taken under UN resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm.

"If by the turn of the year there is no WMD then the basis on which this was executed was illegal," he said.

MPs are also starting to ask questions about the conduct of the intelligence services. They want to see the evidence that persuaded members of the Commons intelligence committee to back government efforts to win round waverers before the war began. One MP is telling committee members: "You kept saying you wished you could tell us, so now will you tell us?"

Critics suspect that Downing Street may have hyped up the intelligence reports about Iraq's banned weapons. They point to last month's resignation speech by Robin Cook, in which the former foreign secretary said: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term."

Such doubts were echoed yesterday by a three-star Iraqi general who told the Guardian in Baghdad that the country had purged itself completely of weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf war.

The general, who worked in the chemical weapons section of the Iraqi military for more than 30 years and asked not to be identified, insisted that gas masks, anti-contamination suits and atropine injectors had been intended to protect Iraqis rather than for offensive use. "We do not have any kind of forbidden weapons," he said.

Describing the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran in the 1980s as "abnormal", he said the country had possessed weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent against its neighbours.

"If I have nerve gas and I know the Americans have a better version, it would be stupid of me to use it against them," he said. "The concept of having this kind of weapon was just to try to protect ourselves against others who had them, like the Israelis and the Iranians."

The doubts about Iraq's WMD programme mean that some Labour MPs will be sceptical even if a 'smoking gun' is uncovered. Mr Hinchliffe said there was a "cynical view" among Labour MPs that the coalition inspectors will doctor the evidence.

Britain wants to reassure critics by appointing an international body on the lines of the Northern Ireland disarmament commission to verify any weapons finds.

But the former cabinet minister Gavin Strang said the coalition should go all the way by allowing UN inspectors back into Iraq. "I do not understand why we have not been able to allow Hans Blix to go back in," he said.

In today's NYTimes, there is an article begun on Page One, ending in the War section, about the angry Shias in Mosul, and how they have taken charge in the chaos. Interesting story. There may be factionalism among the Shia, but the thought you raise above is key. There will be an Islamic party formed that will want to rule based on election by the majority in a "democratic" government. The US would never allow this, of course. In fact, there will not be elections for some years, yet, I would guess.

Prompted by an email which mentioned this discussion, I've come back in to look over yesterday's posts and confess that I'm completely mystified by the fandango about dolphins and Greek prose and a reaction to a metaphor of Kara's which I constructed a post about America's dogs of war. I come away feeling as one sometimes feels at a party where one is the only one not drinking! Feeling responsible for having said something innocently which may have added to the mess, I want to issue an apology. But (hoping this doesn't add further fuel) would like to say that those who have favored the intervention in Iraq seem to be a whole lot angrier about "winning" than do those of us who form the dolorous, liberal, Greek chorus out here who might be expected to be angry "losers." Maybe I'm not alone in feeling like the only non-drinker at a party where the subtexts are understood only by the revellers.

I don't have a point here, just an observation. Generally speaking, the pro-war peeps seem to be talking about the tragedy of dead marines, whereas the anti-war talk of the tragedy of dead civilians.

As a 'non-drinker', I can share your feelings, Tartarin! :wink:

I totally agree. I had a huge amount of respect for the guy before the war. He seems to be a man who genuinely wants to make the UK and the world a better place. Consequently, when he backed the assault on Afghanistan I placed his motives at trying to slow and calm Bush by negotiating with him. I'm finding it hard to use that same excuse over the present invasion.

I still believe he has something up his sleeve, and that he believes his actions are for the greater good.....but then coming to think of it, I could say the same about Bush....

and i may have to take up drinking

Which is more noble, to sacrifice one's life for Bush's political ambitions or to give everything one has to save a significant portion of world history? Who is responsible for war, the beleaguered civilians or the CinC and his troops? Which is more honorable, to plan well ahead for every obvious contingency, or to blame others for the collateral damage? What would have been smarter, with the world in agreement on one important thing: that Saddam Must Go -- send in a group of Special Ops to take him out, or send in a massive army to make a complete mess and not find Saddam?

Are there any who still believe this was a war of liberation? Or that America's goals weren't, as those most opposed to the war anticipated, occupation?

I think several reasons were given, one after another. The excuses I can remember included:
Weapons of mass destruction
Links to Al Queda
Terrorism -which led to...
Self Defence
Liberation


I miss any?

All I hear or see in the media is about how the US military did not protect the relics of a past age. I have not heard or seen word one about the people who looted and destroyed every thing they got their hands on. Is that OK are they blameless? It is almost but not quite like blaming the victim.

I guess I personally have more sympathy for the looters in Iraq than those in the west. I guess that's due to them being in a situation where they have a need for assets (for food and water and so on). However, lotting done by organisations there is worse since it's based more on green than necessity.

Similarly I have more sympathy for those (world wide) who steal food than a TV.