Disarmament Was Working...

[Beefeater]

Nice.. So you're negating the entire Inspection process, basically nulling any reports by the Kofi Annan PAID Hans Blix. But It's nice to see that they're launching Scud Missiles.. Ammunition they claimed they did not have.. Something tells me I'll put my money on new discoveries on munitions that the Iraqis have denied. Haven't the Iraqis threatened to use the Chemical Weapons they didn't have?.. These are questions that need to be answered.

And, don't tell me, and illegitimize any point of view from here on out that you support, that you actually believe the word of Saddam Hussien and his Regime.

It's nice to see that Factual Past Credibility, regardless of POV, means nothing.. at least in this Audience,

Beefeater

 

[Dreadsox]

welcome back Speedracer!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

1st of all the US wrote Resolution 1441.

2nd of all, I would think since they wrote it they knew what it meant.

3rdly France new what it meant and the Ambassador to the UN from France had given a handshake to Colin Powell that they understood it meant use of force and that while they may not vote for it, they certainly would not veto it.

4th You all are quoting Blix as saying it was working in his last report. Blix also pointed out that there still was not 100% compliance and theat Iraq had not yet completely moved towards disarmament.

Peace

 

[speedracer]

Nice.. So you're negating the entire Inspection process, basically nulling any reports by the Kofi Annan PAID Hans Blix. But It's nice to see that they're launching Scud Missiles.. Ammunition they claimed they did not have.. Something tells me I'll put my money on new discoveries on munitions that the Iraqis have denied. Haven't the Iraqis threatened to use the Chemical Weapons they didn't have?.. These are questions that need to be answered.

And, don't tell me, and illegitimize any point of view from here on out that you support, that you actually believe the word of Saddam Hussien and his Regime.

It's nice to see that Factual Past Credibility, regardless of POV, means nothing.. at least in this Audience,

Beefeater

Uh, yes, I guess I am negating the entire inspection process.

The inspection process was a half-assed affair. There is no way it would have yielded any information or result that would change the mind of someone who had already taken a position on the war.

The only way it could have dissuaded the US from war is if Saddam gathered up his entire stash and destroyed it in front of the inspectors. There was no way this would ever happen, and Bush knew this.

The only way it would have convinced, say, France that war was necessary is if the inspectors acted on a tip and broke into a chemical weapons facility unannounced. There was no way this was going to happen either, and France knew this.

Hans Blix, the UN, and others were naive to think that inspections would "work" in any sense of the word, and they have been played for fools.

Bush knew full well that inspections would not yield any substantial results. His only aim was, by demonstrating patience and restraint, to garner international support for a war. He might have had more success if not for his, shall we say, less than stellar diplomatic abilities. (Rumsfeld deserves a lot of the blame too, perhaps more than Bush.)

That being said, I think that the Iraqi dictator's imprisonment and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during his reign of terror justifies this war. But whether or not you agree with my stance of the war, my assessment of the weapons inspections is independent of my assessment of the war.

 

[hiphop]

Beefeater, speedracer, and Dreadsox:

All three of you know that this war is against the UN Charta, regardless of what you may think of disarming, inspections, "being played for fools", "tainted investigation", "biasing", "irrrelevancy" et al.

You can just admit it. This war is not legal. There is no point in your interpretations. There may be reasons for and against the war, and interpretations about what Blix said, but we are not discussing about reasons here.

Read the UN Charta again. Read Art. 39 again.

What about the Security Council. The rules are very straight. If some permanent member(s) vote against war, or pre-emptive self defense, it is against this international right to attack.

 

[Dreadsox]

Back to the topic about disarmament really working:

Leadership? Paris Is Playing a Perilous Game

By Benn Steil, Reinhard Wolf

International Herald Tribune, March 07, 2003


NEW YORK If Iraq were a game about advancing or obstructing U.S. war plans, France had a pretty good February. Sadly, though, Iraq is not a game, and, for the sake of peace and security in the Gulf and beyond, France must stop treating it like one.

Only one of us (the American) finds the case for an imminent war more compelling than the case against. Yet we are equally concerned that the French position is undermining not only the prospects for a peaceful disarming of Iraq but also the cohesiveness of the European Union, the effectiveness of NATO and the credibility of the United Nations.

Any responsible alternative to disarming Iraq by force must have either voluntary Iraqi disarmament or effective containment of its military as its centerpiece. France's memorandum to the UN Security Council, in contrast, encourages continued Iraqi noncompliance with Resolution 1441 while remaining wholly silent on the alternative of containment.

The French memorandum, backed by Germany, Russia and China, directly contradicts 1441, transferring the burden of Iraqi disarmament from Iraq to inspectors. Given the volume of deadly Iraqi VX, anthrax and nerve agent that remains unaccounted for, this plan is clearly not intended to disarm Iraq.

The plan, in fact, is meant to mark time. According to the memorandum, at least four months time, after which inspectors would be required yet again to report on their progress. As the costs to the United States of maintaining 150,000 troops in the desert through the summer and beyond would be unsustainable, they would have to be withdrawn. But at that point, all pressure on Saddam Hussein to cooperate will be off, and the burden must therefore be put wholly on the French to establish that inspections, on their own, or sanctions, which France has long wanted removed, can disarm Iraq after 12 years without ultimate success.

The only serious alternative to disarmament is containment. But containment means putting in place a threat of military action credible enough that Saddam will know that an attack against his neighbors would risk the immediate annihilation of his regime. Without thousands of Western troops on the Iraqi border, and with the prospect of yet more Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, this means France supporting the extension of nuclear deterrence to the Gulf.

Is such deterrence on the cards? We doubt it. It is therefore time for France to spell out for the world precisely how its policies can credibly lead either to Iraqi disarmament or long-term containment. If France is not forthcoming, then the world is simply obliged to conclude that there are ulterior motives behind its insistence on "peaceful solutions." Such motives would appear to be demonstrating its independence from the United States, reactivating its claim for European leadership, protecting French oil and other commercial interests in the Gulf, and placating its own Muslim population.

The costs and risks of France's current policies are enormous. First, France publicly wedded itself to the German chancellor's pacifist election strategy as a substitute for persuading its EU partners. This has led to a deep and potentially long-lasting split in the EU, compounded by alienation of the central and eastern European accession countries, which felt compelled to respond with public support for U.S. policy.

Second, France's refusal to support NATO moves to defend Turkey has provoked one of the gravest crises in NATO history, at a time when trans-Atlantic relations are already seriously strained.

Third, France is on the verge of scoring the ultimate political own-goal by pushing the United States to act outside the United Nations, which is the most important institution through which France can still constrain and direct U.S. behavior.

The current U.S. policy may prove to be the only one that addresses the issue of Iraqi disarmament directly. Although it is fraught with great costs and risks, merely obstructing it does not constitute a responsible alternative.

Peace is always a noble cause. But as such it is not yet a political strategy. True European leadership requires far more than grandstanding at the United Nations' last hurrah or proclaiming solidarity with peace rallies. It requires presenting a serious alternative whose likely consequences can be thoroughly weighed against a forceful implementation of 1441. It is time for France to offer such leadership or to step aside.

Benn Steil is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York. Reinhard Wolf is a professor of international relations at the University of Greifswald, Germany.

 

[speedracer]

Beefeater, speedracer, and Dreadsox:

All three of you know that this war is against the UN Charta, regardless of what you may think of disarming, inspections, "being played for fools", "tainted investigation", "biasing", "irrrelevancy" et al.

You can just admit it. This war is not legal. There is no point in your interpretations. There may be reasons for and against the war, and interpretations about what Blix said, but we are not discussing about reasons here.

Read the UN Charta again. Read Art. 39 again.

What about the Security Council. The rules are very straight. If some permanent member(s) vote against war, or pre-emptive self defense, it is against this international right to attack.

You cannot dismiss our arguments; you can only displace them. If you say that they are rendered moot by the fact that the war is not "legal", then we will bring the full force of our arguments to bear on the meaning and utility of the word "legal".

As in, "the UN's definition of `legal' has been rendered irrelevant because of (insert argument here)".

 

[hiphop]

You cannot dismiss our arguments; you can only displace them. If you say that they are rendered moot by the fact that the war is not "legal", then we will bring the full force of our arguments to bear on the meaning and utility of the word "legal".

As in, "the UN has been rendered irrelevant because of (insert argument here)".

Fine, speedracer, then why is the U.S. still in the U.N.?

The administration could cancel its membership. If the U.S. doesn?t want to play the rules, why are they still inside the U.N.?Without the U.N., the U.S. would be the only state, except of the Vatican, who is not part of the United Nations.

The Leader of the Free World could approach the Pope, and maybe Tony Blair. But I doubt that the Pope gives a shit.

 

[anitram]

A sort of side note to womanfish:

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. That is from here.

Also, since the Oslo Accords, 34 resolutions were passed against Israel, so that does surpass the number passed against Iraq, but the Israeli resolutions were passed under Chapter VI rules, which do not call for the use of force in order to uphold them.

You will find varying numbers wrt how many of these resolutions Israel is in breach of. I believe that Arab media generally says it is 66, but Israel disputes some of these. Therefore the number varies, but is nonetheless significant.

-------

OK, back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

[womanfish]

thanks anitram. But i still stick by my opinion that Iraq which is ruled by a ruthless dictator who has used WMD's on surrounding countries and on his own people is much more of a threat than Israel.

And it begs the question, if they have such a horrible track record, then why doesn't someone do something about it? The UN makes no sanctions, or as you said, threatens use of force (serious consequenses) on Israel. And if it's because of the U.S. being allies with them and would vote down such things, then it again begs the question, is the UN a relevant body.

 

[womanfish]

and also, that was an awesome article posted by dreadsox. Right on in my opinion. France has such see through alterior motives, and they provide no solutions to the roadblocks that they put up to stop the process.

 

[ALEXRUS]

I think the problem on the other hand Hiphop is this. Iraq was in material breach when it submitted false and incomplete documents. And they also did not fully, completely and willingly disarm. It then says that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it violated the terms, which it did. Remember France and Russia also signed this, but then did not fulfill their agreement of bringing about serious consequences. I guess serious consequences to France meant to draft a 17th resolution for Iraq to ignore. I definitely do see the other point of view though.

And you are wrong once again. When 1441 resolution was under discussion Russian Foreign Minister (not only him) Ivanov was given assurances from US and UK that they shared the common understanding: 1441 resolution does not authorise automatic use of force. That's why 1441 was voted unanimously. That's why US made efforts (token though) to get the 2nd resolution voted. Russia and France announced they would veto the 2nd resolution precisely because it was opening the way for immediate war on Iraq.
"Serious consequences" means "war"? Why don't you interpret "serious consequences" as "authorisation to use nuclear weapons" then?

 

[speedracer]

And you are wrong once again. When 1441 resolution was under discussion Russian Foreign Minister (not only him) Ivanov was given assurances from US and UK that they shared the common understanding: 1441 resolution does not authorise automatic use of force. That's why 1441 was voted unanimously. That's why US made efforts (token though) to get the 2nd resolution voted. Russia and France announced they would veto the 2nd resolution precisely because it was opening the way for immediate war on Iraq.
"Serious consequences" means "war"? Why don't you interpret "serious consequences" as "authorisation to use nuclear weapons" then?

How did "nuclear weapons" enter this argument?

 

[U2girl]

You know what's interesting? How it's OK to say French and Russia have their economic motives, but it's completely wrong to say US had any motives whatsoever regarding one of the world's biggest oil sources.

Womanfish: Really? UN acting against Israel? US will block it anytime - THAT's why nothing is or can be done about it. If you're so powerful I guess you decide what goes on...

It's a fact inspectors said they need MORE time, Iraq was destroying Al Samoud misiiles, and was getting a report on VX and anthrax ready. The often mentioned pro-war people fact that threat of force wass working is actually a contra-war argument: if the threat is working, why not stick with that?

Whatever Saddam did wouldn't help him would it? If he verifybly disarmed, the country gets attacked for "regime change" argument; if he left the country, it gets attacked for "disarmament" argument.

 

[Dreadsox]

You know what's interesting? How it's OK to say French and Russia have their economic motives, but it's completely wrong to say US had any motives whatsoever regarding one of the world's biggest oil sources.

Ummm...I think if you look on this board....you will clearly see that there are more posts saying the US is acting for oil than the other way around. I think it is sad however, that more than 12 gulf war's of people have died in twelve years, and would continue to, because of the threat of VETO by members of the security council. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.

It's a fact inspectors said they need MORE time, Iraq was destroying Al Samoud misiiles, and was getting a report on VX and anthrax ready. The often mentioned pro-war people fact that threat of force wass working is actually a contra-war argument: if the threat is working, why not stick with that?

I would again say, for 12 years the United States foreign policy has been dominated in that region by keeping Iraq in cheque. 9/11 happened directly because of the US's intervention in the region because of this. Maybe, had the members of the security council jointly sent a force, then it would be equitable. Instead, as is the case in many places, we are paying the price monitarily and in lives. Why should we have to do that?

 

[Anthony]

At the end of the day, everyone must follow their own interests. I do not blame the US for having their own motives (though I do not believe, contrary to most supporters of the anti-war movement, that the US is going ahead with this war because of the oil), and I do not blame France and Russia for having theirs.

But to answer the question about why the US (and the UK, for that matter) should have to pay for the reconstruction of Baghdad, I only see it as just. Why shouldn't they, when it has always been, from the very beginning, a war they have both wanted. I am not an ardent defender of the French, but I do agree with their philosophy of 'you broke it, now pay for it'.

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?

Ant.

 

[Dreadsox]

At the end of the day, everyone must follow their own interests. I do not blame the US for having their own motives (though I do not believe, contrary to most supporters of the anti-war movement, that the US is going ahead with this war because of the oil), and I do not blame France and Russia for having theirs.

But to answer the question about why the US (and the UK, for that matter) should have to pay for the reconstruction of Baghdad, I only see it as just. Why shouldn't they, when it has always been, from the very beginning, a war they have both wanted. I am not an ardent defendent of the French, but I do agree with their philosophy of 'you broke it, now pay for it'.

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?

Ant.

That is fine with me.....

There is a flip side to that though.....

Why should the US have had to pay to put the military pressure on to make the sanctions work or disarmament work?

 

[U2girl]

9/11 happened directly because of the US's intervention in the region because of this. Maybe, had the members of the security council jointly sent a force, then it would be equitable. Instead, as is the case in many places, we are paying the price monitarily and in lives. Why should we have to do that?

Well, I know that the Arab world is traditionally not a fan of US - maybe that's also got to do with who they support in the Palestine question. US troops in Saudi Arabia are apparently on sacred ground (according to Bin Laden's religion) - no foreigner is ever to set foot there.

Price in lives? Hmmm...soldiers go to war, they have to realise not all of them might come back.

Monitarily? Several countries will help re-building Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. Some people could argue that whoever went it should do the repairments, though.

 

[Anthony]

Well, Dreadsox, I don't think that's an exact flipside, now is it? I can see your point, though.

I'm sure they must have had their reasons for doing so, not merely because of altruistic reasons. They're not the world's superpower for nothing, at the end of the day. Its not as if the American military was putting pressure on Hussein, thereby protecting Kuwait, for free.

Ant.

 

[speedracer]

The better question is, why should France have to pay for a war it never wanted, regardless of its motivations?

They shouldn't. They shouldn't have anything to do with a postwar Iraq.

It just seems that they want to have an influence on the reconstruction of Iraq without having to pay any of the costs.

 

[Anthony]

Agreed.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Ummm...I think if you look on this board....you will clearly see that there are more posts saying the US is acting for oil than the other way around. I think it is sad however, that more than 12 gulf war's of people have died in twelve years, and would continue to, because of the threat of VETO by members of the security council. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.

Do you have statistics on how many people die in car accidents in US every year? Let's attack the US regime that allows monsters like General Motors and others to produce such WMD - cars. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Why should the US have had to pay to put the military pressure on to make the sanctions work or disarmament work?

Absolutely legitimate question. Especially taking into account "the fact" that every other nation was imploring the US: "Please, please put your military pressure on Iraq". US was very reluctant to do so but finaly agreed...

 

[V Nura]

Nope, Arun, 1441 is not enough to justify the use of force. Have you read 1441?

HAve you read 1441????


this combined with 687 does authorize use of force...not disarming ...is a violation of the cease fire.

1441 invkes serious consequences...which reffering back to 687 can be a restarting of the war.


Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

 

[V Nura]

Also I'd like to point out that resolution 1441 did not have a clause indicating that the council had to meet again to vote on the us of force..which is what is usually done.

 

[Dreadsox]

Absolutely legitimate question. Especially taking into account "the fact" that every other nation was imploring the US: "Please, please put your military pressure on Iraq". US was very reluctant to do so but finaly agreed...

Ahhh yes, another intelligent response!!!!!

It is a legitimate question. You start a thread saying inspections work. The Security Council itslelf recognized that the ONLY reason Iraq was somewhat complying is the threat of military force on the part of the US.

ALEXRUS, I am eagerly awaiting some sort of evidence that Iraq was complying at any other point in the twelve years prior. Please enlighten me?

Iraq half-assed compliance over the past four months was ONLY because of the military presence.

I am so honored that you continue to treat my posts with such .... respect?

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you have statistics on how many people die in car accidents in US every year? Let's attack the US regime that allows monsters like General Motors and others to produce such WMD - cars. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.

THe facts do not lie. More people die each year in Iraq because of the UN sanctions that dies in the entire Gulf War. That is more than 12 Gulf Wars of victims.

France and Russia have really benefitted the most under this program of food for oil.

Oh one more thing, I have enjoyed many a debate in this forum but it is kind of hard to debate with someone when they continuously post well, things like you did above.

 

[ALEXRUS]

The Security Council itslelf recognized that the ONLY reason Iraq was somewhat complying is the threat of military force on the part of the US.

ALEXRUS, I am eagerly awaiting some sort of evidence that Iraq was complying at any other point in the twelve years prior. Please enlighten me?

My dear, I myself recognize that it is primarily thanks to the threat of military force (i.e US) that Iraq started doing something. That's why I wrote once that it would have been much better if US had continued threatening with war, balancing on the verge of war, imitating war...but never starting it. All credit goes to the US for its unprecedented pressure on Iraq. Until war started. War is different. And what I specially dislike is that your administration wanted the war from the very beginning. They went to the UN only to legitimize the war.

 

[Dreadsox]

My dear

Oh boy...do you have a crush on me?

 

[ALEXRUS]

Oh boy...do you have a crush on me?

I do have a crush on the ...... you write sometimes.