Dear Mike (Michael Moore)
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael moore
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
RSLancastr said:
It's ironic because the new guy is coming along doing the same kind of think that Moore made popular but using the style against Moore and at the same time he looks like Moore (to me). I don't know...I just thought that was ironic.
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Well, I was going to complain that (regardless of your physique) you felt it necessary to bring his size into the conversation, when it is of no consequence to the issue at hand, but I gave up on harping on that particular pet peeve long ago.RandFan said:
Thanks. The "Community Forum" seems to be a rough neighborhood of late, so I am wandering into parts of town I'm less familiar with...
RSLancastr
www.StopSylvia.com
Sorry... Misuse of the term "ironic" (when referring to simple coincidence) is another pet peeve of mine, but is not pertinent to the topic - as you were!Number Six said:
RandFan:
"I'm sorry but that is taking the use of force off of the table. Without force what is there to compel Saddam to comply? It took 12 years and the world at one point before 9/11 was calling for the end of sanctions.
Cirac's rhetoric was wrong and his intentions would have no effect on getting Saddam to comply. Of course now we know that there were French interests that were making lots of money from the Oil for Food program. Chirac did not want that money supply ended."
Your attempt to argue the Chirac/force point is a little embarrassing...you offer no evidence but your own feelings and unsupported judgements. I will try to provide evidence at length here to support my position and some documentation/evidence for your position would not go amiss either. You are making the claim remember?
By your own reasoning it would mean that France was taking the option of force off the table unless it immediately backed the second Resolution authorizing an attack. France refused to do this because it was not necessary at that time to invade (at least if we stick to the WMD fantasy). What they did not do was rule out force or say that the threat of force was not useful.
To quote the French-Russian-German memorandum again, they said "The pressure that is put on Iraq must be increased". They also stated that "To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely." And that a "report of UNMOVIC and IAEA assessing the progress made in completing the tasks shall be submitted by the inspectors in 120 days". Finally, they stated that "The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build-up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq."
All this is there and on the record. They were looking at a period of 120 days, a clear program for disarmament, and welcomed the threat of force. How you can possibly equate this with ruling out the threat of force beggars belief.
Furthermore, it’s insulting to us all for you to lament about French prevarication when the US was one of the principal blocks on getting the weapons inspectors readmitted after they were ordered out in 1998. As The Washington Post reported on April 15th 2002 of the concerns of "Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power." Likewise, Time magazine made it explicit on the 13th of May 2002, quoting a "top Senate foreign policy aide" who said that "The White House’s biggest fear is that the UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in."
Add to that, why, when the inspectors finally did go in, did the US give no solid evidence to UNMOVIC? At the time, the Sunday Times in the UK reported that "Scepticism has been fuelled by uneventful inspection visits to several sites identified by America or Britain as suspect." (Sunday Times, 15 Dec., p. 22) In fact, as The Economist and others pointed out at the time, the US was violating Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, which requested all countries to hand over "any information related to prohibited programmes" in Iraq. The US actually violated 1441 long before there was any question that Iraq may have done (Economist, 14 Dec., p. 58).
It’s a cheek to complain that the French were blocking disarmament when the US had done its damnedest to wreck the inspections progress -as even Richard Butler conceded in his memoirs It’s remarkable that you think Chirac’s words "speak volumes" yet your deaf to there import. When Chirac said he would vote against the second resolution he made it clear that was France’s position at that time -not for all time. Exactly what bit of "France will vote "no" because she considers THIS EVENING that there are no grounds for waging war" elludes you?
So, stood in the rubble of your own arguments you reach for the humanitarian drum and point out that "Saddam was still cutting the ears off of defectors. Young men were still disappearing into the night. Hands were still being cut off."
Yes -quite right he was. Just as he had in 1991 when the US deliberately helped him stay in power, just as he had in the 1980s when the US backed him in the anfal massacres, and just as he had when the CIA and MI6 supplied the lists of 4-5000 people for him to have murdered when he rose to power (as revealed in declassified UK papers published in The London Guardian, Jan 1st 1994).. Not only that, but Islam Karimov was still boiling his opponents alive in US-funded Uzbekistan, the tin pot Arab regimes like Saudi were still murdering political protesters -with US support and death squads in Colombia were still slaughtering 1000s of peasant -again, with US backing. What’s your point? That bombing Iraq was justified in 2003 because Saddam was cutting peoples’ ears off but murdering thousands of Kurds in the 1980s deserved nothing more than a pat on the back and an increase in aid?
As for my supposed "fallacy", the evidence says otherwise. On Halabja and 6800 Kurds murdered we know that "[T]he United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center." (International Herald Tribune 17th Jan 2003). We know that, to quote one insider the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." (NYT 18/08/2002). Why? because the "U.S.-Iraqi relationship," as Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote at the time, "is ... important to our long-term political and economic objectives" (quoted, Washington Post, 30/12/2002). This is just a sampling, of course, the record goes on.
Nor can you argue, as you attempt to, that the US allied with Saddam as a matter of necessity against Iran -since US aid for Iraq increased after the close of Iran Iraq. As an official memo leaked to the Washington Post illustrated, "John Kelly, then an assistant secretary of state in charge of Near East and South Asian affairs, cited the "explicit presidential authority" provided by NSDD 26 in a subsequent memo that argued for reining in the power of a special interagency committee responsible for reviewing exports that Iraq might use in weapons of mass destruction.
"Kelly wrote in the memo, the date of which was not provided yesterday, that "our licensing procedures have been a drag on trade with Iraq." A letter to the Commerce Department that he drafted for another State Department official, Robert M. Kimmitt, said the interagency committee's review "needs to be balanced by other considerations, including our duty to support U.S. exporters who can right our trade imbalance with Iraq."’ (Washington Post June 5th 1992). The US Government knew what it was doing and, more importantly, what Saddam was doing, they just didn’t care.
And take your final attempt at an argument:
"And his revenge against the Kurds came after the Gulf War so your thesis that Saddam was kinder and gentler when he was no longer friends with the US is not correct."
It’s difficult to take you seriously when you say things like this. We know that Saddam did not move until, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member, Peter Galbraith, reported in 1991, he had "a clear indication that the United States did not want the popular rebellion to succeed." A BBC investigation found that "Washington had no interest in supporting revolution; that it would prefer to Saddam Hussein to continue in office, rather than see a group of unknown insurgents take power" (John Simpson, The Spectator, August 10th 1991) So, the US betrayed the rebels, blowing up arms dumps as they retreated and disarming them (Charles Glass, The Spectator, April 13th 1991).
As the London Guardian reported at the time (27 March 1991) "The Bush administration resisted growing pressure yesterday to stop Iraqi helicopter gunships attacking Kurdish and Shiite rebels… White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the use of combat helicopters was “not covered by the terms of the ceasefire” though it did violate an “oral agreement” between the two sides. Helicopters would only be shot down if the represented a threat to allied forces, he stated…. President Bush has shown deep ambivalence towards the Kurds and Shiites arrayed against President Saddam. “We believe Iraq is a single country, that it is good for the stability of the region that it maintain its territorial integrity. We do not intend to involve ourselves in the internal power struggles of the country,” Mr Fitzwater said yesterday…."
Or, to quote Raymond Whittaker in the London Independent (2 April 1991):
"Victory in the Gulf war provoked a revolt against President Saddam, as Washington hoped, but not of the kind it expected. Instead of a quick and clean military coup, the presence of coalition forces encouraged a popular insurrection among the Shias in the south, in turn emboldening the Kurds to rise up against Baghdad in the north…. Washington… ordered its commanders to do nothing. Disowning any responsibility for the start of the uprising, it now insists that Iraq’s territorial integrity be preserved, even if that means keeping Saddam Hussein in power.… If anything, the tilt is against the rebels"
With US permission, Saddam went on the fill yet more mass graves -his final major atrocity and the last time he acted with US permission. Since then, murderous thuggery but on a scale no greater than dozens of other nasty little regimes that the US (and UK) supports.
Why is it that because the US and UK wanted force you believe it should have been on the table? I'm sure Cuba and Venezuela would want force to bring Bush and Blair to justice. Should we contact the UN?
France and Chirac have absolutely no explaining to do. Not only was he right to not engage in an international criminal project, since both international law and his people demanded nothing less, but the ONLY people in the dock here are from the coalition.
Get that? You make a moral judgement and call Chirac`s actions "wrong" but France is not in the dock here. It has to answer to no one. You have no basis on which to question their actions within the framework of its own democracy which overwhelmingly rejected agressive violence, the polity of the UN whose charter was breached by USUK or the morality of our own Western enlightenment under which the doctrine of a just war emerged.
Bush and Blair are uniquely in this position. They won the trifecta, to purloin the words of that buffoon who occupies the White House. This is the only conversation to be had which has any rational basis.
My point is that Chirac has nothing to answer for and only once this issue is framed correctly can it really be discussed. What you say is beside the point. On the issue of his own democracy, international law and the Western doctrine of a just war, Chirac is innocent.
In this context, framed correctly, Chirac's actions become irrelevant. Otherwise it's like talking about the holocaust and blaming the Jews and homosexuals and political prisoners and gypsies for their own misadventure. It's simply an insupportable conversation. We blame the NAZIS for their crimes, not the victims. Thus when we talk about the Iraq debacle, we BLAME the perpetrators, not the bystanders and victims. To do otherwise is an obscenity. Once you have done this, then we can open the discussion out to Chirac as a man, France as a nation, whatever.
Deflect deflect deflect. You need to take responsibility for your positions before we can even talk.
For whatever reason, Chirac is in acccord with what we consider to be the law and the norms of civilised behaviour. Bush and Blair are ethically war criminals whatever their reasons. US Prosecutor Robert Jackson's words at Nuremburg enunciate the doctrine -
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
Jackson again -
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"
THAT'S the immutable reality.
Very naive to think otherwise.
"I'm sorry but that is taking the use of force off of the table. Without force what is there to compel Saddam to comply? It took 12 years and the world at one point before 9/11 was calling for the end of sanctions.
Cirac's rhetoric was wrong and his intentions would have no effect on getting Saddam to comply. Of course now we know that there were French interests that were making lots of money from the Oil for Food program. Chirac did not want that money supply ended."
Your attempt to argue the Chirac/force point is a little embarrassing...you offer no evidence but your own feelings and unsupported judgements. I will try to provide evidence at length here to support my position and some documentation/evidence for your position would not go amiss either. You are making the claim remember?
By your own reasoning it would mean that France was taking the option of force off the table unless it immediately backed the second Resolution authorizing an attack. France refused to do this because it was not necessary at that time to invade (at least if we stick to the WMD fantasy). What they did not do was rule out force or say that the threat of force was not useful.
To quote the French-Russian-German memorandum again, they said "The pressure that is put on Iraq must be increased". They also stated that "To render possible a peaceful solution inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely." And that a "report of UNMOVIC and IAEA assessing the progress made in completing the tasks shall be submitted by the inspectors in 120 days". Finally, they stated that "The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build-up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq."
All this is there and on the record. They were looking at a period of 120 days, a clear program for disarmament, and welcomed the threat of force. How you can possibly equate this with ruling out the threat of force beggars belief.
Furthermore, it’s insulting to us all for you to lament about French prevarication when the US was one of the principal blocks on getting the weapons inspectors readmitted after they were ordered out in 1998. As The Washington Post reported on April 15th 2002 of the concerns of "Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power." Likewise, Time magazine made it explicit on the 13th of May 2002, quoting a "top Senate foreign policy aide" who said that "The White House’s biggest fear is that the UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in."
Add to that, why, when the inspectors finally did go in, did the US give no solid evidence to UNMOVIC? At the time, the Sunday Times in the UK reported that "Scepticism has been fuelled by uneventful inspection visits to several sites identified by America or Britain as suspect." (Sunday Times, 15 Dec., p. 22) In fact, as The Economist and others pointed out at the time, the US was violating Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, which requested all countries to hand over "any information related to prohibited programmes" in Iraq. The US actually violated 1441 long before there was any question that Iraq may have done (Economist, 14 Dec., p. 58).
It’s a cheek to complain that the French were blocking disarmament when the US had done its damnedest to wreck the inspections progress -as even Richard Butler conceded in his memoirs It’s remarkable that you think Chirac’s words "speak volumes" yet your deaf to there import. When Chirac said he would vote against the second resolution he made it clear that was France’s position at that time -not for all time. Exactly what bit of "France will vote "no" because she considers THIS EVENING that there are no grounds for waging war" elludes you?
So, stood in the rubble of your own arguments you reach for the humanitarian drum and point out that "Saddam was still cutting the ears off of defectors. Young men were still disappearing into the night. Hands were still being cut off."
Yes -quite right he was. Just as he had in 1991 when the US deliberately helped him stay in power, just as he had in the 1980s when the US backed him in the anfal massacres, and just as he had when the CIA and MI6 supplied the lists of 4-5000 people for him to have murdered when he rose to power (as revealed in declassified UK papers published in The London Guardian, Jan 1st 1994).. Not only that, but Islam Karimov was still boiling his opponents alive in US-funded Uzbekistan, the tin pot Arab regimes like Saudi were still murdering political protesters -with US support and death squads in Colombia were still slaughtering 1000s of peasant -again, with US backing. What’s your point? That bombing Iraq was justified in 2003 because Saddam was cutting peoples’ ears off but murdering thousands of Kurds in the 1980s deserved nothing more than a pat on the back and an increase in aid?
As for my supposed "fallacy", the evidence says otherwise. On Halabja and 6800 Kurds murdered we know that "[T]he United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center." (International Herald Tribune 17th Jan 2003). We know that, to quote one insider the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference." (NYT 18/08/2002). Why? because the "U.S.-Iraqi relationship," as Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote at the time, "is ... important to our long-term political and economic objectives" (quoted, Washington Post, 30/12/2002). This is just a sampling, of course, the record goes on.
Nor can you argue, as you attempt to, that the US allied with Saddam as a matter of necessity against Iran -since US aid for Iraq increased after the close of Iran Iraq. As an official memo leaked to the Washington Post illustrated, "John Kelly, then an assistant secretary of state in charge of Near East and South Asian affairs, cited the "explicit presidential authority" provided by NSDD 26 in a subsequent memo that argued for reining in the power of a special interagency committee responsible for reviewing exports that Iraq might use in weapons of mass destruction.
"Kelly wrote in the memo, the date of which was not provided yesterday, that "our licensing procedures have been a drag on trade with Iraq." A letter to the Commerce Department that he drafted for another State Department official, Robert M. Kimmitt, said the interagency committee's review "needs to be balanced by other considerations, including our duty to support U.S. exporters who can right our trade imbalance with Iraq."’ (Washington Post June 5th 1992). The US Government knew what it was doing and, more importantly, what Saddam was doing, they just didn’t care.
And take your final attempt at an argument:
"And his revenge against the Kurds came after the Gulf War so your thesis that Saddam was kinder and gentler when he was no longer friends with the US is not correct."
It’s difficult to take you seriously when you say things like this. We know that Saddam did not move until, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member, Peter Galbraith, reported in 1991, he had "a clear indication that the United States did not want the popular rebellion to succeed." A BBC investigation found that "Washington had no interest in supporting revolution; that it would prefer to Saddam Hussein to continue in office, rather than see a group of unknown insurgents take power" (John Simpson, The Spectator, August 10th 1991) So, the US betrayed the rebels, blowing up arms dumps as they retreated and disarming them (Charles Glass, The Spectator, April 13th 1991).
As the London Guardian reported at the time (27 March 1991) "The Bush administration resisted growing pressure yesterday to stop Iraqi helicopter gunships attacking Kurdish and Shiite rebels… White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said the use of combat helicopters was “not covered by the terms of the ceasefire” though it did violate an “oral agreement” between the two sides. Helicopters would only be shot down if the represented a threat to allied forces, he stated…. President Bush has shown deep ambivalence towards the Kurds and Shiites arrayed against President Saddam. “We believe Iraq is a single country, that it is good for the stability of the region that it maintain its territorial integrity. We do not intend to involve ourselves in the internal power struggles of the country,” Mr Fitzwater said yesterday…."
Or, to quote Raymond Whittaker in the London Independent (2 April 1991):
"Victory in the Gulf war provoked a revolt against President Saddam, as Washington hoped, but not of the kind it expected. Instead of a quick and clean military coup, the presence of coalition forces encouraged a popular insurrection among the Shias in the south, in turn emboldening the Kurds to rise up against Baghdad in the north…. Washington… ordered its commanders to do nothing. Disowning any responsibility for the start of the uprising, it now insists that Iraq’s territorial integrity be preserved, even if that means keeping Saddam Hussein in power.… If anything, the tilt is against the rebels"
With US permission, Saddam went on the fill yet more mass graves -his final major atrocity and the last time he acted with US permission. Since then, murderous thuggery but on a scale no greater than dozens of other nasty little regimes that the US (and UK) supports.
Why is it that because the US and UK wanted force you believe it should have been on the table? I'm sure Cuba and Venezuela would want force to bring Bush and Blair to justice. Should we contact the UN?
France and Chirac have absolutely no explaining to do. Not only was he right to not engage in an international criminal project, since both international law and his people demanded nothing less, but the ONLY people in the dock here are from the coalition.
Get that? You make a moral judgement and call Chirac`s actions "wrong" but France is not in the dock here. It has to answer to no one. You have no basis on which to question their actions within the framework of its own democracy which overwhelmingly rejected agressive violence, the polity of the UN whose charter was breached by USUK or the morality of our own Western enlightenment under which the doctrine of a just war emerged.
Bush and Blair are uniquely in this position. They won the trifecta, to purloin the words of that buffoon who occupies the White House. This is the only conversation to be had which has any rational basis.
My point is that Chirac has nothing to answer for and only once this issue is framed correctly can it really be discussed. What you say is beside the point. On the issue of his own democracy, international law and the Western doctrine of a just war, Chirac is innocent.
In this context, framed correctly, Chirac's actions become irrelevant. Otherwise it's like talking about the holocaust and blaming the Jews and homosexuals and political prisoners and gypsies for their own misadventure. It's simply an insupportable conversation. We blame the NAZIS for their crimes, not the victims. Thus when we talk about the Iraq debacle, we BLAME the perpetrators, not the bystanders and victims. To do otherwise is an obscenity. Once you have done this, then we can open the discussion out to Chirac as a man, France as a nation, whatever.
Deflect deflect deflect. You need to take responsibility for your positions before we can even talk.
For whatever reason, Chirac is in acccord with what we consider to be the law and the norms of civilised behaviour. Bush and Blair are ethically war criminals whatever their reasons. US Prosecutor Robert Jackson's words at Nuremburg enunciate the doctrine -
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
Jackson again -
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"
THAT'S the immutable reality.
Very naive to think otherwise.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Hey Demon,
Thanks for the response.
Let's see.
1.) We are not taking force off of the table.
2.) We are not putting it on either. We are going to "build up" like we did in the Gulf War when Saddam refused to leave Kuwait.
The memorandum is a snow job and you are buying it.
What was it that we were asking them to do? Give a full accounting. They had 12 years to figure out where this stuff was. Why wasn't another 105 days sufficient? And 105 wasn't the drop dead date. We were prepared to give them more time if there was a threat of force
You say force was unnecassary. Why? Saddam had stalled for 12 years. Why should we think he was going to cooperate now?
And why MORE time?
Let's look at some of the language of 1441.
And most importantly,
Did Iraq live up to the final opportunity? No.
Did the U.S. demand an invasion when Iraq failed to comply? No.
What did the U.S. ask from the U.N. when Iraq failed to comply? Another "final" opportunity only this time with the threat of force.
Why? Because it obvious that Iraq was going to continue to play games as they always had.
Was that unreasonable? No, of course it was not unreasonable. How many "final" times do you give someone? Iraq had 12 years, they were then given 105 days and we said "this time we mean it". They failed to comply so common sense dictated that Saddam just wasn't going to get it and if we play games he is going to play games.
You will forgive me if I am unimpressed.
I hope 1441 was sufficent documentary evidence for my points.
I might not be able to get to the next bit for a few days.
Thanks again,
RandFan
Edited for all sorts of reasons. Sue me.
Thanks for the response.
Wow, so there is only one side of the argument and it is yours? I really don't have the time to answer every point. I will take it a bit at a time ok?demon said:
Yes, more "time". That is all it takes, more time. Saddam was playing a waiting game. He had been playing a waiting game for 12 years and what does the above tell us? We will have another report in 120 days. And then what? Come on, what has been Saddam'S single mode of operation? Stalling. Does the memo call for force at the end of 120 days? No. It calls for a "clear time line". What that hell does that mean? Didn't they have a "time line"? And "military build-up" ooh no, not that.
Let's see.
1.) We are not taking force off of the table.
2.) We are not putting it on either. We are going to "build up" like we did in the Gulf War when Saddam refused to leave Kuwait.
The memorandum is a snow job and you are buying it.
What was it that we were asking them to do? Give a full accounting. They had 12 years to figure out where this stuff was. Why wasn't another 105 days sufficient? And 105 wasn't the drop dead date. We were prepared to give them more time if there was a threat of force
You say force was unnecassary. Why? Saddam had stalled for 12 years. Why should we think he was going to cooperate now?
Fine, let's put in a length of time WITH the threat of force. France said NO!
And why MORE time?
Let's look at some of the language of 1441.
Deploring the fact that in 12 years Iraq had not kept its obligations.
Iraq had a history of obstruction. Iraq ceased all cooperation.
And most importantly,
Did 1441 give Iraq more time? Yes 105 days.
Did Iraq live up to the final opportunity? No.
Did the U.S. demand an invasion when Iraq failed to comply? No.
What did the U.S. ask from the U.N. when Iraq failed to comply? Another "final" opportunity only this time with the threat of force.
Why? Because it obvious that Iraq was going to continue to play games as they always had.
Was that unreasonable? No, of course it was not unreasonable. How many "final" times do you give someone? Iraq had 12 years, they were then given 105 days and we said "this time we mean it". They failed to comply so common sense dictated that Saddam just wasn't going to get it and if we play games he is going to play games.
Right, serious consequences? What serious consequences. A time line? Wow.
You will forgive me if I am unimpressed.
I hope 1441 was sufficent documentary evidence for my points.
I might not be able to get to the next bit for a few days.
Thanks again,
RandFan
Edited for all sorts of reasons. Sue me.
Hi RandFan,
I only saw your edited reply today, I caught your first shorter one and thought that was all you had written...I see you have made some additional points which I`ll try and address.
I would just like to state however that I think we have come to that impasse again...you know, the one where I think that if you go through the UN route then you ought to abide by it`s authority and not try to hijack it to rubber stamp the desires of one particular nation or group of nations.
If you think a unilateral approach to affairs of this nature is ok then we don`t really have a problem...although I disagree with that position I can accept it and I know many people (especially Americans) see no reason to consult the UN or abide by International Law in their foreign policy.
Where I do have a problem is when the US/UK feigns its support for a UN process in the hope of acheiving its goals and then when the UN insists on due process the US/UK ignore the very institution it was happy to use and go the unilateral route, declaring, without any authority whatsoever (apart from their self proclaimed authority), that Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 1441 and criticising other nations for not doing the same. As I said previously, France is not in the dock here...it did nothing to contradict the UNSC process. If you disagree with France`s position then fair enough, but you must concede it was not acting against UNSC and what that Council had agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Jackson again -
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"
THAT'S the immutable reality.
Very naive to think otherwise.
RandFan
"Wow, so there is only one side of the argument and it is yours?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I`m afraid it`s not a matter of it being my "one side" That is a definition of aggressive war and its not mine its the AMERICAN definition which applied to Nuremburg.
Are you saying it's my obligation to change an internationally recognised definition in order to be fair to America, the creator of the definition? Is this how we look at both sides? Change the meaning of the language so that America doesn`t look so bad when it ignores it?
I really don't see how you're continuing to miss the point, unless it's on purpose. 1441 was passed in order to give Iraq one final chance to comply fully with previous Resolutions. At a later date the Security Council was then to decide whether Iraq had taken this last chance. Instead, the British and Americans, impatient to attack because that was their objective regardless of WMD, tried to bounce the Security Council into authorizing an attack. France, Russia, and China all saw no reason to invade in February or March since, as Blix reported, Iraq's compliance was improving, no WMD had been found, none of the US's supposed 'intelligence' had panned out, and no one had demonstrated that Iraq was a threat. To quote Blix’s final report:
'the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:
'The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
'It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.”
Blix went on,
'Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;…”
'How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.'
In other words, inspections were proceeding -with problems, yes- but sufficient that UNMOVIC was able to plan a draft work programme and anticipated that remaining tasks would only take a few months, providing pressure was sustained.
All of this was unilaterally and illegally disregard by the US and UK. Without support in the Security Council, at the Azores summit (March 16th) Bush and Blair announced a 24 hour deadline for the UN support. When the UN refused to back down and authorize the attack, the UK withdraw the draft resolution.
So, when the US and UK tried to push for an attack, France said that there was, at that time, no need. The inspections had only been going a couple of months and things were improving -why kill people? That's not taking the issue of force of the table, that simply saying that you use force as a last resort. America and Britain had not demonstrated in any way that the only remaining option was force. If you're proposing violence then the burden is on you to prove why it is NECESSARY -it is not for anyone else to prove that it is UNECESSARY.
So France argued that inspections had barely been given any time to work (a point that is all the more valid given that the ISG is still searching and has found nothing) and that the presence of troops was bringing Saddam to heel.
Not only that but the idea that Saddam only ever played a waiting game is simply wrong. As Scott Ritter has said, ‘If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has in fact demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors.’ (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile, 2002, p.25). Even Richard Butler’s own report in 1998 stated that, out of 300 inspections, there had only been incidents at a mere 5 (according to the Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov in December 1998, as quoted by Associated Press 17/12/98).
Under UNSCOM, Iraq was 95% disarmed and what remained was non-viable. To quote Scott Ritter, who was no patsy to the Iraqis when he was chief weapons inspector, "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, ‘War On Iraq’ Profile Books, 2002 p.26)
If you don’t trust Ritter, what about the late Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s leading expert on the subject? In his draft article published posthumously by the Observer (31/08/03) did not state that Iraq definitely had WMD, either. Indeed, he concedes that UNSCOM and the IAEA ‘destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability.’ The problem, Kelly argued, lay in what was unknown; i.e. for which inspectors could not account. According to Kelly, what was unaccounted for was ‘8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions.’ To reiterate Blix’s caution, because we cannot account for these weapons, it does not mean they actually existed. Even if they had, as Ritter and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, they would have all been useless sludge by 1995. Further, Kelly conceded that these figures are based ‘in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq’. The threat from Iraq -which was so ‘modest’ that it was ‘unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops’ or ‘likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries’ was a ‘long term’ one: that they might -one day- be developed to ‘military maturity’. This is hardly the ‘serious’ or ‘current’ threat concocted by Blair and Co. Or, as Hans Blix said in September 2002, ‘If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council.’ (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002)
Or, if you don’t believe any of these people what about your own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who said on February 24th 2001 -on the record and on camera in Cairo- that ‘He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours’ (US Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm).
Or consider the US provocation of Iraq -the spying which eventually undermined UNSCOM and brought down the inspection process (and to which US officials admitted in january 1999). Or ask yourself why the US and UK violated the ceasefire resolutions and maintained that sanctions would never be lifted REGARDLESS of Iraqi cooperation over WMD.
"All possible sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is gone."
- Marlin Fitzwater, former White House Press Spokesman, May 1991
"Iraqis will be made to pay the price while Saddam Hussein is in power. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert Gates, former US National Security Advisor, Los Angeles Times, 9th May 1991 (Note that Gates said 'Iraqis', not the Iraqi regime.)
"We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its 'obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted."
- Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, addressing a symposium on Iraq at Georgetown University, USA, 26th March 1997
"Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussein] lasts."
- Former US President Bill Clinton, quoted in The New York Times, 23rd November 1997
The games weren't just on the Iraqi side. As another example, why did the US also make it deliberately difficult to comply with the deadline for submitting a report on its weapons?
The US and UK, who wrote SCR 1441, required Iraq to report not only on its weapons programmes, but also 'all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material'. Even Blix commented that, while it was feasible for Iraq to report on its past and present weapons programmes within 30 days and that ‘the same should be true for declaring remaining permitted peaceful nuclear programmes', 'To declare all other chemical programmes in a country with a fairly large chemical industry, as well as other biological programmes might be more problematic in a short time.' (Blix, 'Notes for the briefing to the Security Council, 28 October 2002', )
Likewise, why did the US unilaterally censor the Iraqi weapons declaration, removing (if memory serves 8000 pages from an 11,000 page document)? THE 1441 required Iraq to deliver its weapons declaration to all fifteen members of the Security Council. On the eve of the delivery of the declaration, however, the Security Council agreed that the declaration should be edited before circulation, 'Diplomats said they had all but decided on Friday [6 Dec.] to allow UN experts to excise "proliferation- sensitive" material from the document, before passing copies to all 15 council members. Instead-following a weekend of telephone diplomacy that saw all but Syria agree to allow the five permanent members access to the unedited text-US officials walked into UN offices on Sunday and took the unedited declaration to Washington. The US has since forwarded copies to the other permanent members of the Security Council-the UK, Russia, China and France. The non- elected 10 members will receive an edited version later.' (Financial Times, 11 Dec., p. 8)
The memorandum was not a "snow job" as you put it, that more accurately describes the whole US-UK plan. France was simply arguing for a decent period of time for inspections and that violence -killing thousands of people- should only be done if there truly was no other option. The US and UK never came close to demonstrating that. Your contention that France would simply have played for time misunderstands the politics. France knew that it was unlikely that the US could be prevented from attacking forever because that was US policy -the invasion of Iraq had obvious intrinsic value (securing a stable base in the mid-east and controlling access to oil). However, by pushing for a further 120 days and a series of benchmarks, France could show itself as honourably making a last push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis and providing itself with a get-out clause if Iraq still failed to cooperate (assuming the US and UK would allow Iraq to cooperate fully -which is implausible for the obvious reasons). Indeed, this point was well recognized, as by the London Financial Times ‘However, diplomats observed that the memorandum could serve as the basis for an eventual French "exit strategy" if Iraq failed to comply with the benchmarks set.’ (February 25th 2003).
Or the Sunday Times:
‘"He feels strong, but that's a dangerous feeling because it could lead him to overplay his hand," said one French analyst. "Frankly, I think he needs an exit strategy." Another predicted a "fudge" allowing France not to join a war but to participate in the spoils of victory later.’ (February 23rd 2003)
Or the New York Times:
‘The more immediate question is how France will vote when the United States and Britain present a new resolution on Iraq at the Security Council. But some French politicians are also beginning to ask whether Mr. Chirac has prepared an exit strategy that will enable France to mend its ties with Washington and London as well as preserve France's political gains.’ (23 February 2003)
If France had agreed to the second resolution then the US and Uk would have attacked almost immediately -as they did anyway- but at least without the imprimatur of law. Your criticism of France is only valid if attacking Iraq is your objective -not a means to an objective...disarmament.
I only saw your edited reply today, I caught your first shorter one and thought that was all you had written...I see you have made some additional points which I`ll try and address.
I would just like to state however that I think we have come to that impasse again...you know, the one where I think that if you go through the UN route then you ought to abide by it`s authority and not try to hijack it to rubber stamp the desires of one particular nation or group of nations.
If you think a unilateral approach to affairs of this nature is ok then we don`t really have a problem...although I disagree with that position I can accept it and I know many people (especially Americans) see no reason to consult the UN or abide by International Law in their foreign policy.
Where I do have a problem is when the US/UK feigns its support for a UN process in the hope of acheiving its goals and then when the UN insists on due process the US/UK ignore the very institution it was happy to use and go the unilateral route, declaring, without any authority whatsoever (apart from their self proclaimed authority), that Iraq was in breach of UNSCR 1441 and criticising other nations for not doing the same. As I said previously, France is not in the dock here...it did nothing to contradict the UNSC process. If you disagree with France`s position then fair enough, but you must concede it was not acting against UNSC and what that Council had agreed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Jackson again -
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"
THAT'S the immutable reality.
Very naive to think otherwise.
RandFan
"Wow, so there is only one side of the argument and it is yours?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I`m afraid it`s not a matter of it being my "one side" That is a definition of aggressive war and its not mine its the AMERICAN definition which applied to Nuremburg.
Are you saying it's my obligation to change an internationally recognised definition in order to be fair to America, the creator of the definition? Is this how we look at both sides? Change the meaning of the language so that America doesn`t look so bad when it ignores it?
I really don't see how you're continuing to miss the point, unless it's on purpose. 1441 was passed in order to give Iraq one final chance to comply fully with previous Resolutions. At a later date the Security Council was then to decide whether Iraq had taken this last chance. Instead, the British and Americans, impatient to attack because that was their objective regardless of WMD, tried to bounce the Security Council into authorizing an attack. France, Russia, and China all saw no reason to invade in February or March since, as Blix reported, Iraq's compliance was improving, no WMD had been found, none of the US's supposed 'intelligence' had panned out, and no one had demonstrated that Iraq was a threat. To quote Blix’s final report:
'the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:
'The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
'It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.”
Blix went on,
'Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;…”
'How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.'
In other words, inspections were proceeding -with problems, yes- but sufficient that UNMOVIC was able to plan a draft work programme and anticipated that remaining tasks would only take a few months, providing pressure was sustained.
All of this was unilaterally and illegally disregard by the US and UK. Without support in the Security Council, at the Azores summit (March 16th) Bush and Blair announced a 24 hour deadline for the UN support. When the UN refused to back down and authorize the attack, the UK withdraw the draft resolution.
So, when the US and UK tried to push for an attack, France said that there was, at that time, no need. The inspections had only been going a couple of months and things were improving -why kill people? That's not taking the issue of force of the table, that simply saying that you use force as a last resort. America and Britain had not demonstrated in any way that the only remaining option was force. If you're proposing violence then the burden is on you to prove why it is NECESSARY -it is not for anyone else to prove that it is UNECESSARY.
So France argued that inspections had barely been given any time to work (a point that is all the more valid given that the ISG is still searching and has found nothing) and that the presence of troops was bringing Saddam to heel.
Not only that but the idea that Saddam only ever played a waiting game is simply wrong. As Scott Ritter has said, ‘If this were argued in a court of law, the weight of evidence would go the other way. Iraq has in fact demonstrated over and over a willingness to cooperate with weapons inspectors.’ (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile, 2002, p.25). Even Richard Butler’s own report in 1998 stated that, out of 300 inspections, there had only been incidents at a mere 5 (according to the Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov in December 1998, as quoted by Associated Press 17/12/98).
Under UNSCOM, Iraq was 95% disarmed and what remained was non-viable. To quote Scott Ritter, who was no patsy to the Iraqis when he was chief weapons inspector, "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, ‘War On Iraq’ Profile Books, 2002 p.26)
If you don’t trust Ritter, what about the late Dr. David Kelly, Britain’s leading expert on the subject? In his draft article published posthumously by the Observer (31/08/03) did not state that Iraq definitely had WMD, either. Indeed, he concedes that UNSCOM and the IAEA ‘destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability.’ The problem, Kelly argued, lay in what was unknown; i.e. for which inspectors could not account. According to Kelly, what was unaccounted for was ‘8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions.’ To reiterate Blix’s caution, because we cannot account for these weapons, it does not mean they actually existed. Even if they had, as Ritter and others have pointed out on numerous occasions, they would have all been useless sludge by 1995. Further, Kelly conceded that these figures are based ‘in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq’. The threat from Iraq -which was so ‘modest’ that it was ‘unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops’ or ‘likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries’ was a ‘long term’ one: that they might -one day- be developed to ‘military maturity’. This is hardly the ‘serious’ or ‘current’ threat concocted by Blair and Co. Or, as Hans Blix said in September 2002, ‘If I had solid evidence that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction or were constructing such weapons I would take it to the Security Council.’ (Quoted in The Independent, September 11th 2002)
Or, if you don’t believe any of these people what about your own Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who said on February 24th 2001 -on the record and on camera in Cairo- that ‘He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours’ (US Department of State website at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm).
Or consider the US provocation of Iraq -the spying which eventually undermined UNSCOM and brought down the inspection process (and to which US officials admitted in january 1999). Or ask yourself why the US and UK violated the ceasefire resolutions and maintained that sanctions would never be lifted REGARDLESS of Iraqi cooperation over WMD.
"All possible sanctions will be maintained until Saddam Hussein is gone."
- Marlin Fitzwater, former White House Press Spokesman, May 1991
"Iraqis will be made to pay the price while Saddam Hussein is in power. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."
- Robert Gates, former US National Security Advisor, Los Angeles Times, 9th May 1991 (Note that Gates said 'Iraqis', not the Iraqi regime.)
"We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its 'obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted."
- Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, addressing a symposium on Iraq at Georgetown University, USA, 26th March 1997
"Sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Hussein] lasts."
- Former US President Bill Clinton, quoted in The New York Times, 23rd November 1997
The games weren't just on the Iraqi side. As another example, why did the US also make it deliberately difficult to comply with the deadline for submitting a report on its weapons?
The US and UK, who wrote SCR 1441, required Iraq to report not only on its weapons programmes, but also 'all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material'. Even Blix commented that, while it was feasible for Iraq to report on its past and present weapons programmes within 30 days and that ‘the same should be true for declaring remaining permitted peaceful nuclear programmes', 'To declare all other chemical programmes in a country with a fairly large chemical industry, as well as other biological programmes might be more problematic in a short time.' (Blix, 'Notes for the briefing to the Security Council, 28 October 2002', )
Likewise, why did the US unilaterally censor the Iraqi weapons declaration, removing (if memory serves 8000 pages from an 11,000 page document)? THE 1441 required Iraq to deliver its weapons declaration to all fifteen members of the Security Council. On the eve of the delivery of the declaration, however, the Security Council agreed that the declaration should be edited before circulation, 'Diplomats said they had all but decided on Friday [6 Dec.] to allow UN experts to excise "proliferation- sensitive" material from the document, before passing copies to all 15 council members. Instead-following a weekend of telephone diplomacy that saw all but Syria agree to allow the five permanent members access to the unedited text-US officials walked into UN offices on Sunday and took the unedited declaration to Washington. The US has since forwarded copies to the other permanent members of the Security Council-the UK, Russia, China and France. The non- elected 10 members will receive an edited version later.' (Financial Times, 11 Dec., p. 8)
The memorandum was not a "snow job" as you put it, that more accurately describes the whole US-UK plan. France was simply arguing for a decent period of time for inspections and that violence -killing thousands of people- should only be done if there truly was no other option. The US and UK never came close to demonstrating that. Your contention that France would simply have played for time misunderstands the politics. France knew that it was unlikely that the US could be prevented from attacking forever because that was US policy -the invasion of Iraq had obvious intrinsic value (securing a stable base in the mid-east and controlling access to oil). However, by pushing for a further 120 days and a series of benchmarks, France could show itself as honourably making a last push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis and providing itself with a get-out clause if Iraq still failed to cooperate (assuming the US and UK would allow Iraq to cooperate fully -which is implausible for the obvious reasons). Indeed, this point was well recognized, as by the London Financial Times ‘However, diplomats observed that the memorandum could serve as the basis for an eventual French "exit strategy" if Iraq failed to comply with the benchmarks set.’ (February 25th 2003).
Or the Sunday Times:
‘"He feels strong, but that's a dangerous feeling because it could lead him to overplay his hand," said one French analyst. "Frankly, I think he needs an exit strategy." Another predicted a "fudge" allowing France not to join a war but to participate in the spoils of victory later.’ (February 23rd 2003)
Or the New York Times:
‘The more immediate question is how France will vote when the United States and Britain present a new resolution on Iraq at the Security Council. But some French politicians are also beginning to ask whether Mr. Chirac has prepared an exit strategy that will enable France to mend its ties with Washington and London as well as preserve France's political gains.’ (23 February 2003)
If France had agreed to the second resolution then the US and Uk would have attacked almost immediately -as they did anyway- but at least without the imprimatur of law. Your criticism of France is only valid if attacking Iraq is your objective -not a means to an objective...disarmament.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
You are assuming that the United Nations is the best authority about what is considered a 'good' or 'moral' decision. Every country has their own agenda when it goes to the United Nations. The fact that most countries there are either dictatorships, or have ulterior motives makes that assumption suspect.demon said:
However, France had agreed with 1441 (and previous resolutions before that, going back over a decade). Their failure to act when such resolutions were broken does go against the Security Councils previous decisions.demon said:
There are a number of problems with that argument....demon said:
- First of all, it was mostly America and Britian that were providing the 'pressure'. Perhaps if France, Russia, etc. were willing to provide support (either financially or militarily) then the U.S. may have been willing to wait. Or perhaps France or Russia may have gotten frustrated themselves and been more willing to support an invasion. Or perhaps Saddam may have cooperated more at the beginning if he saw those countries willing to invest resources rather than just his 'traditional' enemies
- Secondly, remember the time frame. Saddam had stalled for a significant amount of time; had the invasion not happened when it did, we would have been in the Iraqi summer when the weather (heat and sand storms) would have made military actions much more difficult. Given the fact that Saddam was quite happy stalling, there was a very good chance that he would have used the weather to extend his stalling tactics
Perhaps if France had actually suggested other alternatives besides 'let the inspections continue' when Iraq had broken resolution 1441.demon said:
Keep in mind however, that the U.N. weapons inspectors under Ritter were not able to uncover most of Iraq's weapons programs, until a defector showed them where to look. That's hardly being 'cooperative'.demon said:
I originally believed that too...demon said:
However, the recent use of a Sarin shell which dispersed Sarin gas shows that that may not be correct. The shell (using binary compounds) is most likely a holdover from before the first gulf war, and although there is no proof that more shells exist, it at least shows that not all of Iraq's chemical weapons would have been "useless sludge".
demon said:
The problem with that statement is that it makes a lot of claims which don't measure up... that the U.S. would get a secure base of operations (they already had one in Saudi Arabia, as well as some other countries) and that it would 'control access to oil' (if they wanted access to oil, they could have just made a deal with Saddam). Even if the U.S. were not honest in their reasons for invading, those explainations don't measure up.
demon said:
The big questions are:
- Would France be willing to contribute to the extension of the American buildup in the gulf to allow the extra 120 days
- Would france be willing to allow military action if any of their benchmarks were missed (or would they say "Well, give them more time")
I suspect the answer to both those questions woudl be a 'no', but maybe you know something I don't.
Ion said:
Section 3. of UNSC Resolution 1441
UNSC Resolution 1441
They were required to provide a full account of all wepaons, programs etc.
Now read the UNMOVIC brieifing 30 days hence:
UNMOVIC UNSC Briefings
Hans Blix (who personally wanted to avoid war at all cost) reported to the UNSC on the Iraqi dossier required to meet the demands of section 3. mong other tinhg he stated:
Seems in breach to me.
Segnosaur:
"However, France had agreed with 1441 (and previous resolutions before that, going back over a decade). Their failure to act when such resolutions were broken does go against the Security Councils previous decisions."
Iraq never violated Resolution 1441.
If you have evidence that the Security Council did rule Iraq in violation of 1441 (they're to only body competent to make such a ruling) perhaps you'd like to offer it?
"However, France had agreed with 1441 (and previous resolutions before that, going back over a decade). Their failure to act when such resolutions were broken does go against the Security Councils previous decisions."
Iraq never violated Resolution 1441.
If you have evidence that the Security Council did rule Iraq in violation of 1441 (they're to only body competent to make such a ruling) perhaps you'd like to offer it?
Drooper:
"Seems in breach to me."
But it`s not up to you, it`s up to the UNSC to pronounce on UNSC Resolutions and they never did. That`s the fact of the situation.
Of course you can argue that Iraq was in breach from your own individual position and that the US and the UK acted in accordance with your wishes but you cannot use the UNSC in this instance to support your case. They never ruled on it.
The simple question to ask is "If Iraq was in breach of UNSC Resolution 1441, then why didn`t the UNSC pronounce them to be in breach?".
"Seems in breach to me."
But it`s not up to you, it`s up to the UNSC to pronounce on UNSC Resolutions and they never did. That`s the fact of the situation.
Of course you can argue that Iraq was in breach from your own individual position and that the US and the UK acted in accordance with your wishes but you cannot use the UNSC in this instance to support your case. They never ruled on it.
The simple question to ask is "If Iraq was in breach of UNSC Resolution 1441, then why didn`t the UNSC pronounce them to be in breach?".
Oh, and Hans Blix also reported this on the 7th of March:
My emphasis.
The fact is that he couldn't report that Iraq had complied. Saddam was playing the same games he had for 12 years. His "new initiatives" referred to by Blix came against the backdrop of the military build up that was providing some credible threat of enforcement.
Military action followed shortly after this report. Had it not, Saddam would have called the bluff and the game would have continued for another 12 years.
My emphasis.
The fact is that he couldn't report that Iraq had complied. Saddam was playing the same games he had for 12 years. His "new initiatives" referred to by Blix came against the backdrop of the military build up that was providing some credible threat of enforcement.
Military action followed shortly after this report. Had it not, Saddam would have called the bluff and the game would have continued for another 12 years.
demon said:
That was my pithy comment. Howeverr, that was exactly what the US and the UK and other coutries decided was the case.
Read the UNMOVIC reports yourself and form your own opinion. Don't make the hollow claim that because France didn't agree it can't be so.
Address the contents of the Resolution as it was written and the UNMOVIC reports as they were made. Then use your own brain.
"That was my pithy comment. Howeverr, that was exactly what the US and the UK and other coutries decided was the case."
You still don`t get it do you? They aren`t authorized to judge UNSC resolutions.
"Read the UNMOVIC reports yourself and form your own opinion. Don't make the hollow claim that because France didn't agree it can't be so.
Address the contents of the Resolution as it was written and the UNMOVIC reports as they were made. Then use your own brain."
I`m very familiar with the reports and the way the UNSC works (which you don`t seem to be). I have discussed this matter at length with RandFan and others and have at every step took pains not to make "hollow claims" such as Iraq was in breach of 1441. You have not followed my posts on this topic if you think I make hollow claims.
You still don`t get it do you? They aren`t authorized to judge UNSC resolutions.
"Read the UNMOVIC reports yourself and form your own opinion. Don't make the hollow claim that because France didn't agree it can't be so.
Address the contents of the Resolution as it was written and the UNMOVIC reports as they were made. Then use your own brain."
I`m very familiar with the reports and the way the UNSC works (which you don`t seem to be). I have discussed this matter at length with RandFan and others and have at every step took pains not to make "hollow claims" such as Iraq was in breach of 1441. You have not followed my posts on this topic if you think I make hollow claims.
demon said:
This is not the same as:
It is disingenuous to suggest it is.
Resolutio 1441 required Saddam to provide an "accurate , full and complete" dossier within 30 days. UNMOVIC reported to the UNSC that they failed to do this.
It was the perverse positon taken, in the face of contrary evidence, by some members of the UNSC that cost it its credibility.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
demon said:
If you read 1441, it specifies that Iraq must provide: immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach. So, they had to be cooperative right from the first day. But they weren't... their initial declaration missed materials, inspectors did find banned items, etc.
In your previous post, you said: In other words, inspections were proceeding -with problems, yes- . The fact that there were problems is a violation. The only issue is whether such violations were serious enough to warant military action. (Obviously France, Russia, etc. didn't think so.)
Now, I can respect your opinion if you don't think military action was justified. But I don't think anyone can claim that the resolution wasn't broken, even if its just on minor technicalities.
Also, if you note, in my posting I indicated Iraq broke: previous resolutions before that, going back over a decade. 1441 was not the first resoution broken by Iraq, and if you read the text of 1441, it indicates Iraq broke other resolutions (such as 688 and 1284). So the Security council itself (including France and the United States) came right out and stated that Iraq broke previous resolutions, for which their was no punishment.