The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq - Page 3

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 00:59

None of the consequences presented seem serious or proper. What the hell good would any of them do?

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
The UN shouldn't make threats and not follow through. Further threats will not be taken seriously.

Which is why they didn't threaten the use of force.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:01

Sanctions have been in place for a decade. France has been ignoring them anyway, and they've not been working.

No fly zones have been "containing" the problem, but not solving it.

The rebels, even with money, are too weakly positioned to be effectual.

Again, what other choice is left. Realistically, there are none.

For ten years we've been playing this two-bit tyrant's game.

Perhaps....just perhaps, it's time to stop the games and either get serious about it, or dismantle the UN as a waste of every time.

If we do not act, and act decisively, then the UN's "resolutions" aren't worth being used as toilet paper.

I contend that perhaps the security council members should have carefully considered what had already been tried (and failed) before they signed off on something calling for "serious consequences" given the climate that the resolution was drafted in (ie - knowing that there were nations lined up and prepared to use force).

If they didn't realize that the US would take "serious consequences" as opening the door just wide enough to use it as justification to act, then they were both short sighted and not well-versed on the current state of affairs.

They signed off on it. Time to roll out some "serious consequences."

The "good" news is, the resolution was just ambiguous enough that both sides can get by with doing what they want.

The peaceniks can point to the fact that the resolution doesn't spell out war as the consequence, and those who want to end the games can rightly say it opens the door enough.

Nobody goes away happy, but everybody has a piece of the resolution to hide behind, and THAT, IMO, is precisely why we got the wording we got.

-=Vel=-

Urban Ranger · February 14, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
1441 called for "dire consequences" in the event of non-compliance.

Okay, but clause 10 also stipulated that all countries must share information regarding any Iraqi material breach with the weapons inspectors. If the US has such info and not sharing it, it is in material breach of 1441. So what kind of "serious consequences" can we expect?

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:03

None, because the "consequences" were aimed at Iraq, but your point is well taken, and it was entirely wrong of the US not to hold up that end of its agreement.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:04

UR,

but seriously.....

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:05

I don't think it was wrong. Considering we're about to go to war with Iraq. No apologies.

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Sanctions have been in place for a decade. France has been ignoring them anyway, and they've not been working.

No fly zones have been "containing" the problem, but not solving it.

The rebels, even with money, are too weakly positioned to be effectual.

Again, what other choice is left. Realistically, there are none.

For ten years we've been playing this two-bit tyrant's game.

Perhaps....just perhaps, it's time to stop the games and either get serious about it, or dismantle the UN as a waste of every time.

If we do not act, and act decisively, then the UN's "resolutions" aren't worth being used as toilet paper.

I contend that perhaps the security council members should have carefully considered what had already been tried (and failed) before they signed off on something calling for "serious consequences" given the climate that the resolution was drafted in (ie - knowing that there were nations lined up and prepared to use force).

If they didn't realize that the US would take "serious consequences" as opening the door just wide enough to use it as justification to act, then they were both short sighted and not well-versed on the current state of affairs.

They signed off on it. Time to roll out some "serious consequences."

The "good" news is, the resolution was just ambiguous enough that both sides can get by with doing what they want.

The peaceniks can point to the fact that the resolution doesn't spell out war as the consequence, and those who want to end the games can rightly say it opens the door enough.

Nobody goes away happy, but everybody has a piece of the resolution to hide behind, and THAT, IMO, is precisely why we got the wording we got.

-=Vel=-

Again: if the President called for "serious consequences" against NK should it restart its nuke plants, which was followed by NK restarting its nuke plants, then the President's proclamation does not give his commander of forces in SK the right to cross into the North and start whooping some tail.

The SC did not detail what the serious consequences were, and you're playing a dishonest game of pretending to have the competence to judge what it meant in such a vague phrase.

Go into Iraq, but don't deceive yourself into believing that you're just carrying out a SC resolution.

ravagon · February 14, 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Okay, but clause 10 also stipulated that all countries must share information regarding any Iraqi material breach with the weapons inspectors. If the US has such info and not sharing it, it is in material breach of 1441. So what kind of "serious consequences" can we expect?

That clause is supposed to relate to breaches on the part of said countries. Not to their intelligence sources regarding breaches in other countries.
The UN has no power over US or any other intelligence agencies whatsoever.

GePap · February 14, 2003, 01:07

Let me add something new to the mix:

The only reason "iraq has been playing this game for 12 years" is that the US and UK insisted in keeping the game around. If it were up to France, China, Russia and probalby 90% of the members of the UN most of the sanctions regime against Iraq would have been removed and while some sanctions would remain, the whole WMD issue would have gone away. For the past 12 years, it has been the US and UK that have kept demanding these acts and more and more resolutions. Now, feel free to argue this was the correct things to do, but it does take 2 to tango. If the issue is how long the game has gone, the Iraqis do not bear full reponsibility.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:08

We've also not been playing the game with NK for the past 12 years. Only three weeks ago (or thereabouts) did he start acting up. Totally different timeframe.

And don't kid yourself, Frogger....the boys at the UN chose that phrase very carefully, precisely because it was a politican's way out.

It is ambiguous enough to let the peaceniks off the hook for not supporting action, and strong enough to let the hawks play their games.

The phrasing of 1441 was entirely politically motivated, and gives everybody an "out."

-=Vel=-

Urban Ranger · February 14, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
UR,

but seriously.....

Sadly, serious consequences is only dealt out by the guy with the biggest stick on the block, not by an international agreement.

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:10

You're continuing to avoid the point.

You feel that nothing except militay force will do to push Iraq into compliance.

You have to demonstrate that this is what the SC meant. Period.

Not that this is the best way to enforce SC resolutions.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:10

A president threatening something casually and a formal threat is something entirely diferent.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:12

UR,

If you seriously beleive that than come straight with it. Otherwise I'm considering it just a joke.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:13

frogger,

It's implicit. Satisfied.

Urban Ranger · February 14, 2003, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon
That clause is supposed to relate to breaches on the part of said countries. Not to their intelligence sources regarding breaches in other countries.
The UN has no power over US or any other intelligence agencies whatsoever.

Have you read it?

Quote:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

[emphasis my own]

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:14

Frogger, I'm not avoiding the point.

We've tried other "serious consequences." To say that we haven't flies in the face of the truth.

They haven't worked!

Saddam ignored the resolution calling for UN inspectors remaining on Iraqi soil (playing "hide the weapons" games with them while they were there), and then, blatantly defied it by kicking them out.

Sanctions haven't worked, and when they were being enforced, all we heard from our European allies was how wrong they were, because they only hurt the people of Iraq, and not the dictator in power.

Now, in the eleventh hour, those SAME GROUPS that once scoffed at sanctions come back extolling their virtues, even though they didn't work!

You may think what you wish about the rightness or wrongness of the various possible interpretations of 1441, but at the end of the day, it was worded that way for purely political reasons....just vague enough so that everybody could justify their positions and sleep well at night.

-=Vel=-

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:14

Vel, this is the most dishonest argument I've ever seen you make.

I list some alternate "serious consequences" and you proceed to argue against them based on their effectiveness instead of on why they weren't what it meant.

Quote:

It is ambiguous enough to let the peaceniks off the hook for not supporting action, and strong enough to let the hawks play their games.

Exactly. Which means that the US is going into Iraq on its own prerogative. Not the authority of the SC. And claiming that it's just helping the SC is a lie. It's hijacking the SC's authority in an attempt to legitimise an extra-SC decision.

Joseph · February 14, 2003, 01:15

Remember guys there is only a cease fire on the table and not a surrender. We told Sadam that we would agree to stop the shooting part of the war if he Sadam did this and this and this. Sadam has done none, I repeat NONE of the cease fire accords. The war is still on.

Just think if Germany and Japan in 46 had did what Sadam has done, we would have bomb them even further back into the stone age.

Note: I hope a war will not come. Yes that is me saying that.

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Let me add something new to the mix:

The only reason "iraq has been playing this game for 12 years" is that the US and UK insisted in keeping the game around. If it were up to France, China, Russia and probalby 90% of the members of the UN most of the sanctions regime against Iraq would have been removed and while some sanctions would remain, the whole WMD issue would have gone away. For the past 12 years, it has been the US and UK that have kept demanding these acts and more and more resolutions. Now, feel free to argue this was the correct things to do, but it does take 2 to tango. If the issue is how long the game has gone, the Iraqis do not bear full reponsibility.

True enough. Part of me says it makes it much easier to invade this time around. The other part of me says that that is just as wrong as what France did to Germany after WWI.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:17

I shot down the proposed "alternatives" because they were neither serious, nor consequential. Taking more of the same medicine that's not resolving the problem does not equal a cure.

-=Vel=-

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
We've also not been playing the game with NK for the past 12 years. Only three weeks ago (or thereabouts) did he start acting up. Totally different timeframe.

And don't kid yourself, Frogger....the boys at the UN chose that phrase very carefully, precisely because it was a politican's way out.

It is ambiguous enough to let the peaceniks off the hook for not supporting action, and strong enough to let the hawks play their games.

The phrasing of 1441 was entirely politically motivated, and gives everybody an "out."

-=Vel=-

You completely avoided the point of the scenario I posed. I was not arguing about the relative merits of using force in Iraq and NK, and if you'd bothered to read it you would have seen that.

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:20

Vel, admit that the body of the SC did not intend to authorise the use of military force to remove saddam hussein and I'll let you off the hook here.

If the SC would have passed such a resolution, then that is what the US would have proposed and gotten.

You want to interpret it to mean war. Some want to interpret it to mean nothing.

The only body with the competence to interpret it is the SC itself.

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:21

So until the SC explicitly authorises the use of force, any nation that chooses to use force is acting completely outside the authority of the SC.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:24

I contend that the SC did not intend to authorize anything (that's right....my contention is that 1441 was devised with NO "consequences" in mind whatsoever!)

Rather, it was designed and worded in such a way that the members who wanted to go to war, could use it as a calling card for that very thing, and the members who didn't, could claim righteous indignation and still be seen as upholding the resolution.

It was a crappy, messy, totally politicized way of handling the situation, and speaks directly to the impotence of the UN in its present condition.

But it's also the current state of affairs.

The ambiguous wording is there precisely to give both sides a way out, while seeming to enforce the "spirit" of the resolution.

It's a political shell game. That's what they wanted, and that's what they got.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:24

Well then. The next time the UN threatens serious consequences this should mean there will be some pointless actions taken. That's great.

KrazyHorse · February 14, 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I contend that the SC did not intend to authorize anything (that's right....my contention is that 1441 was devised with NO "consequences" in mind whatsoever!)

Rather, it was designed and worded in such a way that the members who wanted to go to war, could use it as a calling card for that very thing, and the members who didn't, could claim righteous indignation and still be seen as upholding the resolution.

It was a crappy, messy, totally politicized way of handling the situation, and speaks directly to the impotence of the UN in its present condition.

But it's also the current state of affairs.

The ambiguous wording is there precisely to give both sides a way out, while seeming to enforce the "spirit" of the resolution.

It's a political shell game. That's what they wanted, and that's what they got.

-=Vel=-

So stop trying to claim that going to war upholds the SC's authority.

Velociryx · February 14, 2003, 01:31

Prove that it doesn't?

With a phrase like "serious consequences," we're both right. It's so ambiguous that it can mean anything.

Entirely open to interpretation....just as the SC wanted it.

-=Vel=-

DuncanK · February 14, 2003, 01:31

It would hold up its authority even if its not stated explicitly in the wording that serious consequences mean invasion.