Tariq Aziz is in US hands. Seems the dominoes are gonna start falling real quick. c.i.
Which would you want to take home with you, CI, Bush or Barney?
I guess if I had a choice, how about a small portion of the hundreds of millions found?
c.i.
No, BUSH gets that. So I'm taking Barney.
I'd take Bush cause I know what to do!
A hasty referendum conducted by me comes up with 99% say, TAKE HIM, BILLW. And do it fast. And leave no traces. We will send you also a UPS 7-day ground package containing Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rover, The Wolf, Pearly Teeth and the rest, kinda crammed together. Have a lovely barbecue. Remember Fried Green Tomatoes.
I feel that most on this thread will mostly agree with the following statement:
Given the state of the world today with the pervasion of national interests and fears, the United Nations has demonstrated that it can apply little leverage to persuade any nation, other than the most economically deprived, to forgo human rights abuses or adventurism towards other nations on a timely and permanent basis.
If one considers nations that possess considerable resources the above statement seems less optimistic.
There have been many who have decried the actions of 2 nations as a defiant action ignoring the wishes of the rest of the world. Would 3 nations agreeing on a course of "serious consequences" be more palatable? Maybe 5 would be preferable surely 15 should suffice. It is well known that each additional member required for a decision charged body (such as the UN Security Council) exponentially increases the chance of dissent, the harshness of any applied remedy only further multiplying any difficulty in reaching an agreement. Add to the mix that the decision is far reaching and of a time sensitive nature "analysis paralysis" then becomes highly probable so that nothing is done and events soon overtake the decision makers. However, this is all moot since even if a hard decision is arrived at there is no military force to serve the "arrest warrant"
The "legality" of U.S./U.K. actions has been much discussed on this thread. I myself thought that one could legally rationalize these actions via the fact that the Iraqi agreed upon ceasefire was contingent upon Iraq "coming clean" and if it did not prove it had cleansed itself of WMD (among other things) then the resumption of hostilities would be approved and then take place. The fault in that argument lies with who would do the "approving". Since all these ruminations take place under the umbrella of the UN, legal military action could only be approved by that body. Therefore the legal argument for resumption of hostilities through UN resolutions fails.
As perc has (with others) already mentioned there is another older international legal precedent that was used by the U.S. that is quite valid and has been recognized by the international community for a long time and, in the case of humanity, even longer. This is, of course, self-defense or the right of national security given to a sovereign nation. Even the UN does not deny this basic right to its members. Given the perception of a clear and present threat to its security an individual or nation is free to defend itself and thus, owing to the time sensitive decision involved, one may only debate this subjective perception of danger through the luxurious lens of hindsight.
Asherman, either in this thread or another, has brought out an important concept involving the "nexus of causes". Some here have suggested the administration has been changing the reasons for military action giving one the linear impression of "moving the Goal Posts" and thus implying disengenuity or unfairness on the administration's part.
However, one can conceptually move to another vantage point and obtain a different view. By considering each reason in an additive construct rather than separately one can see a nexus or a coming together of causes whose sum is arguably greater.
Asherman cited many of the reasons for U.S. action but 3 general reasons will do for this example:
1 -Saddam's tyranny and human rights abuses were well known and documented.
2 -WMD: Saddam admitted to possessing these in 1991 via the ceasefire resolution and stated these would be destroyed and that fact documented. Further, Saddam has demonstrated a willingness to deploy these and in so doing killed thousands of his own citizens.
3 -Saddam demonstrated his support for terrorism. This is documented in the fact that he publicly announced he would pay thousands of dollars to the family of Palestinian "suicide bombers" when successful, and in this regard its not too hard to feel that he might give terrorists something other than money to aid them.
Taken together as a body of reasons for concern these facts are glaring.
As to the question why take out Saddam... Why not North Korea? The reasons separately seem weak when applied to other "rogue states". But if one asks in which regime does one observe ALL these requirements, the answer jumps out at us. Syria, DPRK, or Iran do not qualify, as did Saddam's Iraq.
As far as assessing blame, many here have placed much blame on the U.S. and specifically G.W. Bush. I myself have found fault with what I feel are this administration's initial diplomatic missteps. But GW looked at the available intel, surveyed Saddam's past actions, and made and stuck with his decision. Such is leadership.
Many have faulted George W. Bush and his administration for taking the initial stance: "Saddam Hussein will be disarmed with or without UN approval" (My paraphrase). However, it must be said that this statement and its repetition throughout this crisis allowed anyone involved to predict the future and to act accordingly. Those with a modicum of experience in these affairs could easily foretell the consequences of any action by any party.
So, Saddam always had his choices. Saddam seemed to think that France's irresponsible act of removing the "War" card from the mix was valid and would afford him his Byzantium rope-a-dope tactics ad infinitum. He was wrong and mostly to blame.
Also, it seems that some in this thread have argued that the U.S. is as much to blame as Iraq because the U.S., simply put, gave them WMD (or precursors, etc.), as if that argues towards...what? Then, when the U.S. sees the evil of its ways and tries to correct what that argument implies as a bad situation turned worse, the U.S. is suddenly a bad guy...again. From this one can only draw the lesson that if one has a history of aiding a fellow nation (As France and Russia actually has by selling Iraq armaments) and that nation "goes south" then one must convert to UN obstructionism to cover up the initial mistake while letting the problem bloom.
Respectfully,
JM
JM, On your three points. 1. There are many tyrants in this world today. 2. WMD's: There are many countries with WMD's including the US and Israel. 3. It's true that Saddam support(ed) terrorism by the payment of thousands to the family of suicide bombers, but Saudi Arabia is a worse culprit in many people's opinion; most of the al quida came from Saudi Arabia. Most of the terrorists that hijacked those planes were from Saudi Arabia. Where's the beef? c.i.
In order to help James Morrison counter the constant and disturbing negativism produced by the same participants of this forum I post another excerpt from the the brilliant article in the Foreign Affairs Mag which totally defined the reasons for the irrelevancy of the UN:
<However the war turns out, the United States will likely confront pressures to curb its use of force. These it must resist. Chirac's admonitions notwithstanding, war is not "always, always, the worst solution." The use of force was a better option than diplomacy in dealing with numerous tyrants, from Milosevic to Hitler. It may, regrettably, sometimes emerge as the only and therefore the best way to deal with WMD proliferation. If judged by the suffering of noncombatants, the use of force can often be more humane than economic sanctions, which starve more children than soldiers (as their application to Iraq demonstrated). The greater danger after the second Persian Gulf War is not that the United States will use force when it should not, but that, chastened by the war's horror, the public's opposition, and the economy's gyrations, it will not use force when it should. That the world is at risk of cascading disorder places a greater rather than a lesser responsibility on the United States to use its power assertively to halt or slow the pace of disintegration.>
Remember, use of force is positive. Moral doubts are negative. The US is positive. The rest of the world (damn bunch of idiots and layabouts) is negative. If you just remember that, everything will be clear (and positive) for you. Now, suit up...
Tartarin - exactly.
And funny from which quarters come the exhortations to "be positive", huh?
From the same quarter, Snood, that has grasped one of the principal tenets of Western Civilization, as bequeathed to us by Alexander the Great: the solution to the Gordian Knot - a real knot on a rope, so complex it was said that anyone who untangles it will become ruler of Asia, and also a metaphore for Near- and Middle- Eastern political complexities.
You know Alexander's solution: a quick fall of the sword. You got any better ideas, let's hear 'em <G>
In practical application negative thinking is destructive----which would you rather be around ----a negative thinker or a positive thinker?
There are some words that have the same implications as negativism---hate, bigotry, intolerance, destructive ----all are words that a nihilist/anarchist would be proud of.
<Moral doubts are negative>
No need to create a mental hernia on this sort of thinking---guys like Chomsky have already already outlined their conclusions for guys like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao to put into practice.
Read this article today... food for thought ???
Quote:
Paradox of Embedded Freedom
Gautam
That interview between the doctor and the CNN reporter is just a tad on the vulgar side, is it not. Really quite like the wonderful Onion piece from several weeks ago, headlined (paraphrasing) "Iraqi Blown To Bits Would Have Been Thankful For Liberation". Of course, on the happy-making side of the equation, those Iraqi kids with no legs and massive burns will get to enjoy a Big Mac now. Progress undeniable.
Here's a lovely little piece on the saints who bequeath us all such forward motion to the good life... (it's got a nifty map and pictures too)
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage6.asp
Manchester United played "for Ali" on Wednesday after it emerged he was a fan and Beckham his favourite player.
The players all signed a shirt for him (short sleeved).
blatham,
The insenstivity of some of the reporters never ceases to amaze me. I remember a couple fo years ago in India, when a 2 yr old girl was killed in an terrorist attack, a reporter had the nerve to ask the mother "how did you feel when you saw yr daughter being shot" ??
It is on very rare occassions that I get angry enuff to tear someone with my bare hands - and that was one of them !
as the nuclear bombs burst in air we can all sing "You light up my life" followed by "We Were the World"
