Did the UN fail?

[GePap]

I know you did..but most of the discussion past Kramerman's post ignored the main issue.

[Velociryx]

UR: In answer to your question....

As many as he wanted.

-=Vel=-

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: In answer to your question....

As many as he wanted.

-=Vel=-

Is this just some lame excuse for covering up the fact that in 22 days no WMD have been found? I'll be really disappointed...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

12 (35) years available to hide.

22 days available to find.

What do you think?

[Master Zen]

Well, we'll find out soon enough

[GePap]

Originally posted by dv8ed
12 (35) years available to hide.

22 days available to find.

What do you think?

That if in those 35 years they hid them so well, they could hardly have been ready or very able to use them:

yeah boss, they will never find them!'
Where are they?
200 feet down!
So how the hell do we use them?
Ah....good question.
Bad answer..... *gunshot*, you , start digging.

I will give them 6 weeks past the declared end of hosdtilities to find something big.

Accordoing to them, they have to account for 500 tons of chemcial agents, 35,000 liters of antharx, and mobile bio-labs, nuclear facilities, so forth and so on.

[gsmoove23]

Don't you understand? They don't have to account for them, if they're not in Iraq they must be in Syria and Iran.

CHAAAAAAAARGE!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Don't you understand? They don't have to account for them, if they're not in Iraq they must be in Syria and Iran.

CHAAAAAAAARGE!

that is the most hilarious thing I've heard in my life!!!!!



* still laughing



and after they're not in Syria and Iran who's next, Nicaragua and Mozambique??? Search the world until you find them??

[Ned]

I have a feeling that we are going to find the truth in the next month or so. We will talk to the scientist that Saddam hid from us - assuming that Saddam has not murdered them. They will lead us to the stockpiles or explain whether they were shipped to Syria - or if Saddam destroyed them like he said but without keeping any records.

If it turns out that Saddam was telling the truth, then I will reconsider whether what happened at the UN was a failure because of US impatience.

Will you, GePap, offer the same if it turns out that Saddam was lying?

[Velociryx]

Some things that people conveniently forget:

1) Saddam gassed his own people with the very chemical agents we are talking about.

2) Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Now....if we discount for just a moment the notion that the fairy godmother of weapons of mass destruction waved her magic wand and suddenly made them appear before Saddam Hussein, then we must conclude that he either made them himself, or bought them from someone else. Fair enough?

Some of this stuff, we sold him ourself a long time ago, back when he was our boy, so we know he's got that. Now, given that our allies would NEVER go against the UN sanctions (haven't you heard? the US has a monopoly on ignoring the UN....all the other nations abide by their resolutions unilaterally!), then the only other possibility is that he made them himself.

Is that too much of a leap of logic?

Oh wait! I know! Saddam DID formerly have this stuff, but he used 100% of his stock and supply in the two unfortunate incidents mentioned above, and THAT's why the poor dictator has no more of them, right? Or maybe the aforementioned fairy godmother of weapons of mass destruction waved her magic wand after those two incidents and turned the rest of his stockpile into sand! Yes....two QUITE plausable possibilities!

All Saddam had to do was hand over proof of the destruction of the stuff we know he's got.

He had plenty of time to do that.

He did not.

Here's an example of how things went:

"Saddam, buddy...we KNOW you've got this stuff....you're not fooling anybody. Destroy it, or show us where it is and we'll destroy it."

"But I don't! Honest Abe! I swear!"

"Saddam....."

"Seriously guys, I promise I don't have anything!"

"Erm....what about these missiles with longer ranges than you're supposed to have?"

"Well I....um.....well there aren't too many of them!"

"You're not supposed to have even one."

"Ohhh....okay.....I'll get rid of them."

****Later*****

"Gotten rid of those missiles yet?"

"Missiles?"

"Yes....you know, the ones we told you to destroy."

"Ohhhh, THOSE missiles....well um....I put in the order for their destruction, yes."

"And have they been destroyed."

"Umm...we're working on it."

"Saddam....."

"Okay, okay, come with me and I'll show you the destruction of one of them."

And the response to this long, drawn out exchange:

BEHOLD! A shining new day in Iraq! Saddam enters a bold new era of cooperation and compliance!

Yeah.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Some things that people conveniently forget:

1) Saddam gassed his own people with the very chemical agents we are talking about.

2) Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Yeah, and they did that in the 1980's, and againt people who could not gas them back.

All Saddam had to do was hand over proof of the destruction of the stuff we know he's got.

He had plenty of time to do that.

He did not.

I don't know what the psycology of the man is. It does still fall un the shoulders of those that backed this war for the purpose of "disarmement" to account for all the stuff they "were positive, had iron-clad proof" was there.

But I guess you have answered my question already Vel- even if nothing is found, you will not admit that the threat from iraq was not what you made it out to be. Thanks for the answer.

[Velociryx]

GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)?

So yes.....the answer to your question is that the stuff is there. It's not a question of will we find it or won't we....it's a question of when.

-=Vel=-

[Edan]

Yeah, and they did that in the 1980's, and againt people who could not gas them back.

IIRC, Iran could and did gas them back (although, admittedly, not nearly as succesfully)

[GePap]

GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)?

It tells us that he would not use them against somoene, I don;t know, like the US, who could respond with far greater force, menaing that if the only thing we had to worry about was the threat he possed with whatever ha had, he could be easily detered. It tells us that as far as the threat from Saddam's WND;s was concerned, deterence was a viable and successful strategy, and that henece, the UN process had put him in a box, even if he had any WMD's left.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


IIRC, Iran could and did gas them back (although, admittedly, not nearly as succesfully)

Iraq first used gas when Iran had none, so Iran had to develop its own. We forget, or many don't know, that by 1984 Iraq would have acceptred a negotiated peace, but Iran decided on regime change in Iraq, only it lacked the forces to do so successfully.

[gunkulator]

I'm puzzled that people are shocked that the Iraqis did not use WMD. Think like an Iraqi commander in the field for a minute and you may reason it out:

The first days of the war were concentrated air power aimed at breaking the communications between Saddam and his army. No target to fire WMD at. Presumably, an egomaniac like Saddam would have to personally authorize the use of WMD. No comms = no authorization.

Now, if you're an Iraqi general and you see the Americans and British kicking the living bejeebees out of your troops, you know that the outcome is pretty well set. WMD may delay the end, but not prevent it. What do you do? If you unilaterally and without authorization use WMD, then when you are captured or surrender, you can pretty much assure yourself of warcrimes charges that will stick.

Since the UN has given Iraq the luxury of 12 years to build hiding places, I suspect that you leave most of the WMD where they are. The ones you have out, you ship to Syria or Iran.

[gsmoove23]

The thing is that most of these generals have good reason to believe they're up sh*ts creek anyway with their involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Saddam never intended to use them.

[Velociryx]

The problem with UN containment is that the UN wasn't footing the bill for that "containment".....that fell on the shoulders of good ol' Uncle Sam.

Now, I'm sure that the UN could agree 100% on a resolution that says that 100% of the US's annual budget should fall under UN control....that the UN should be able to dictate how the US spends its money (in fact, I'm sure France, China, and Russia would simply LOVE that!).....but that's not very likely to happen, and since the US is in control of US purse strings, if we decide that we don't wanna sit and keep Saddam in his little box any more, then....we won't. It's that simple.

We tried peaceful means. They didn't work. Inspectors booted out.

We tried sanctions. They didn't work either, and our allies griped that they were no good (funny tho, that later, when they realized we were actually serious about ending the guy, suddenly sanctions were all the rage again).

To say that we did not try these things flies in the face of what actually occured. We did...and wisely gave up on them when it became apparent that they weren't working.

Now, I know, I know....Saddam is just misunderstood, and heck, he's prolly lined up to be the next Ghandi and all that, and we brutish, war-mongering Americans should have just let him live out the rest of his days in his little box, footing the bill the whole time to keep him there.

That's the will of the UN, right? And after all, any right-minded nation would always do just what the UN says....

-=Vel=-

[My Wife Hates CIV]

perhaps iraq does not have any chemical weapons. the US has not found any yet... this is still the case, right?

Something else how France is trying to change direction now. I'm guessing most people here feel that france should be able to collect from iraq (debts/contract deals) and they should have a roll in rebuilding iraq. i can't understand why... but i'm MWHC. i'm learning to deal with it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Yeah, and they did that in the 1980's, and againt people who could not gas them back.

I believe thats kind of a definition of asymetric threat.

Reminds me a lot of terrorism.

[GePap]

Vel:

You seem to think containing Iraq meant 200,00 men sitting on its border. Actually we contained Iraq for a decade with just a few lead elemenst and the troops we had based in Kuwait and SA. The damage to the purse strings of those actions were minimal compared to simply the cost of the operation we just undertook.
If money were an issue, we would not have invaded.

I guess my point is beyond you, so I will await other comers.

[gunkulator]

What's the problem with no finding WMD in 22 days? Hell, Blix and the boys had years and years and they don't even claim that they were close to being done.

[GePap]

Blix and his boys did not have 150,000 men and general control of large sections of the country.

Oh, and your statement is factually wrong. The inspectors did find huge amounts of WMD and destroyed far more then the coolition in the first gulf war. Even during the time Blix was there he found a few munitons and the Al Samoud II's.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Vel:

You seem to think containing Iraq meant 200,00 men sitting on its border. Actually we contained Iraq for a decade with just a few lead elemenst and the troops we had based in Kuwait and SA. The damage to the purse strings of those actions were minimal compared to simply the cost of the operation we just undertook.
If money were an issue, we would not have invaded.

I guess my point is beyond you, so I will await other comers.

And yet the implied cost of a 9/11 incident is almost immeasurable. The real reason was prevention of proliferation of WMD to terrorist elements.

Expansion of borders and influence may not have been first and foremost in Saddams eyes as retribution most certainly would have been.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

i dont think it matters if the US never finds WMD. The people of iraq (at least some) seem more than ok with what has happened over the last month.

what else matters???

[Velociryx]

No, I get your point.

The old way = Return on investment = zero. Status quo remains. Saddam in power, threatening his neighbors, not complying with UN mandates, etc.

The new way = Return on investment = positive (even with a bigger initial outlay). No more saddam, no more regional bullying, undoing a past US mistake, a chance to rebuild Iraq and get them out from under an oppression that we caused.

But yeah, the first way is so much better....

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

And yet the implied cost of a 9/11 incident is almost immeasurable. The real reason was prevention of proliferation of WMD to terrorist elements.

Expansion of borders and influence may not have been first and foremost in Saddams eyes as retribution most certainly would have been.

Since the Us has had even less success in finding an actual link between the Saddam regime and Al Qaeda, the geenral threat you speak of is as likely as that of an asteroid hitting tomorrow, posible but imcredably inprobable.

i dont think it matters if the US never finds WMD. The people of iraq (at least some) seem more than ok with what has happened over the last month.

what else matters???

Tow reasons for were given for this war: liberate Iraq and remove the grave Iraqi threat. The question is, was there such a thing as the grave Iraqi threat? If not, then one of the reasons to start this war was wrong.

The old way = Return on investment = zero. Status quo remains. Saddam in power, threatening his neighbors, not complying with UN mandates, etc.

The new way = Return on investment = positive (even with a bigger initial outlay). No more saddam, no more regional bullying, undoing a past US mistake, a chance to rebuild Iraq and get them out from under an oppression that we caused.

Oh, what a wonderfully biased equation.

The problem Vel is that you have yet to prove that Saddam in power, threatening his neighbors, was true. That is the point. You constantly claim it as self-evident that Saddam was a huge threat to the region. Having seen the performance of the Iraqi forcs in this war, and especially if only small maounts of banned material are found then this notion would be wrong.

And of course the second part of your equation is also biased, since really, you have no way to quantify a chance. After all, te chace could fail, and then the two equations would not come out as you claim they do.

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap
Vel:
You seem to think containing Iraq meant 200,00 men sitting on its border. Actually we contained Iraq for a decade with just a few lead elemenst and the troops we had based in Kuwait and SA.

While I agree that the cost of the current conflict will add up to quite a large number. Containment cost considerably more than you're estimaiting.
Any idea what it costs to fly an air mission? And the cost of maintaining the planes that fly them. How many years have we been patrolling the no fly zone. Over 10 years with almost daily missions. Add it up. It was not cheap.

[Velociryx]

1) War with Kuwait. (oh wait! That wasn't regional bullying....what am I thinking!)

2) Lobbing scuds at Israel (nahhhh....never happened)

3) War with Iran (nope....not regional bullying at all)

The proof has been in the headlines over the years....what more do you want?

And Rah...shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that! We're the US....you know....our mission is to be the open check book for the UN.

-=Vel=-

[DAVOUT]

The current US Administration thinks that the US can live without the UN: nobody can stop them from doing whatever they decide, and if international relations are limited to declaring that those who are not in agreement with decisions made in Washington are against the US, they are absolutely right.

But the future is all but predictable; the state of the world to-day is completely different from what could be anticipated 20 years ago, and the US will necessarily, one day or the other reach a point where they face problems which cannot be solved in their current posture. When this day comes, they will need a place where nations can meet and discuss in a worldwide frame.

If the UN are supposed to reflect some democratic trend in the community of nations, it seems impossible for a great democracy to refuse to be part of it. The argument that the UN are impotent is not relevant : they have not been created to govern the world, only to make possible that the problems can be described, analysed, and appropriate solution recommended.
The fact that the US disagree with one recommendation (even if they have sentimental reasons to believe otherwise) does not mean that the UN has failed.

I have the feeling that many American citizens overestimate the real value of their military strength; it is true that the US can win any battle they decide to fight, but they cannot hold the ground all the time; they need allies (not vassals). Immense powers are building up in Asia; if they do not participate in organizations such as the UN, I am not sure that it will be in the interest of the US.