No 2nd Resolution

[DanS]

Excellent post, AS.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I am not particularly in favor of invading Iraq. We are currently playing diplomatic poker, and right now it appears that all we have in our hand is a pair of sixes. However, I find these comments disturbing on three grounds.

I wouldn't be so sure about the pair of sixes. The French are doing their best to muck things up, but we've got ~100,000 boots on the ground that say the French are peripheral actors.

Exile and other forms of regime change have come up in the last couple of days. The ME is beginning to discount the continued existence of the Hussein regime, which could snowball.

Frist, a few months back we went through a protracted discussion at the UN about whether there needed to be an additional resolution before attacking Iraq. We reached some kind of tenuous agreement, and now it appears that the French have not moved one inch from their original position.

Yep. I agree. We can only imagine that the French were looking for tactical advantage wrt public opinion.

Second, it appears that both the French and the Germans are not quite straight on their facts. According to de Villepin, quote:
"Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
According to German Foreign Minister Fischerquote:
"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground.
I will be the first to admit that there is no smoking gun. However, the UN inspectors indicated there are large gaps in the Iraqi declaration; there is no accounting for materials known to be in their possession during the prior inspections; and three thousand pages of classified documents which appear to be responsive to the UN request were found in the home of an Iraqi scientist. Do de Villepin and Fischer know something that the rest of us don’t, and if so would they please share it?

Yeh, this grated on my nerves too. They don't have to resort to telling obvious untruths in order to make a good argument. The way the atmosphere of the French news conference was portrayed in the Post (theatrical, overblown), you got the feeling that this was amateur hour. Lots of Saddam coddling.

Colin Powell busted his ass to get the US to play ball with the UN. And what we appear to have for our diplomatic efforts is a failure of other parties to negotiate, a likely willful ignorance of the facts, and little reason to take the word of the UN Security Council seriously. If this is the case, many Americans will wonder why we should even bother.

It's a shame, more than anything, because that is the best way to avoid war. Bush gave the UN a fair crack at trying to deal with the problem, or being 75% of the solution.

But I do think that the 1st resolution was valuable to us, even without the second. The coalition will be bigger for it. Powell didn't waste his time.

[Ned]

Did Saddam quielty do a deal with the French?

[Ned]

After all, he's got billions in the bank.

[MoonWolf]

Originally posted by Azazel

So, what you think that if the americans did follow your proposal it wouldn't be an american "oil colony"?

1a) (and most important) Tens of thousands of innocent people wouldn't have been blasted and burned to pieces by American bombs. If USA and UK is still using (I'm not sure of the correct words now) low-nuclear grenades both the Iraqi and American civilians and soldier will not suffer from cancer and other diseases after the war is over.

1b) The war might last for a while. This increases the chance for other countries beeing dragged in to the war a lot. Maybe some countries will exploit the media-focus on Iraq to do bad things them self.

2) Reputationwise USA would have gained. Their current reason, removing a dictator and prevent Iraq to be a threat, would actually make more sense.

3) I would be harder for the oil companies to ruthless exploit the area as they want to do now. If Iraq is occupied, American and UK soldiers and administration will "need" to be there. If Saddam's control was removed otherwise, it would be more difficult to hide the real purpose of this.

4) (not actually a reply to you, but anyway...) Why has it suddenly now been this interest for Iraq? Pesonally, I think the US government "surfs" on the terrorist wave after the Afghanistan war. They want to exploit the uppertunity "to fight terrorism" (OMG, I'm tired of the word terrorist...)

[MoonWolf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

We've seen how well that works with OBL.

Sorry, I don't understand what OBL stands for (Oil Business League?)...

[Az]

(and most important) Tens of thousands of innocent people wouldn't have been blasted and burned to pieces by American bombs. If USA and UK is still using (I'm not sure of the correct words now) low-nuclear grenades both the Iraqi and American civilians and soldier will not suffer from cancer and other diseases after the war is over.

low-nuclear granades? wow, it's like "starship troopers" all over again.

Tens of thousands of innocent people will die? It IS a possibility. but what are your other choices?
-to leave the status quo as it is, and THOUSANDS of people will die under Saddam (not because of the sanctions, mind you, just look at self-governing northen Iraq, that does great in 'food-for-oil'.
-To lift the sanctions. people all over Iraq live better, until Saddam goes for another war in 5 years.

[HershOstropoler]

Well, after all the drivel, where's the invasion ? BRING IT ON!

[MoonWolf]

Originally posted by Azazel

low-nuclear granades? wow, it's like "starship troopers" all over again.

Tens of thousands of innocent people will die? It IS a possibility. but what are your other choices?
-to leave the status quo as it is, and THOUSANDS of people will die under Saddam (not because of the sanctions, mind you, just look at self-governing northen Iraq, that does great in 'food-for-oil'.
-To lift the sanctions. people all over Iraq live better, until Saddam goes for another war in 5 years.

Hard to explain! They contain low-radiation-uranium ("used uraniaum", they don't fission like conventional nuclear weapons) to easier penetrate armor. Of course the governments are denying it, but soldiers on both side have said otherwise after the Gulf-war. And there is a terrible increase in cases of cancer in those areas...

Not a possibility; it's a fact I'm afraid... To go back to my original post; there are other options than going to war all the time. The intetion with the sanctions (at least offically...) was to make Iraqi people riot against Saddam. It's the people who suffer anyway; they don't have the resources or strength to revolt.

Think of it the other way: If your children died and was sick because they lack food and medicin because some country far, far away refused your country to trade with others, who would you be angry at? Maybe you know it's because that other country doesn't like you leader, but what the hell can you do about it? You are busy enough just keeping you and your family alive from day to day! Why are that other country making life even worse for you? And now they are even threatning to bomb you a lot!

Belive me, mate, I want Saddam of his throne as well! His path to power has been bloody all the way, but what's the price to pay for removing him? The imperilast US is not very popular in the Arabian countries, so they should really, really be careful with this cowboy game. Already now American civilians have been assulted in Kuwait. It will not stop for a long time if this continues...

[Az]

do you mean DEPLETED uranium? well a couple of corrections:

The US govt. acknowledges it's use. They don't use it in granades, since that's not it's greatest property. They use i t in either AP shells, or armor, because it's supposedly more durable.

And there is a terrible increase in cases of cancer in those areas...

any real data?

In any case, I understand that people could take up positions against the US because of the sanctions (though saddam is the one to blame). However, this doesn't reply to the question, what do you believe should be done?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Did Saddam quielty do a deal with the French?

No, Chirac's listening to his citizens. Maybe Bush should listen to his citizens too. 70% think that the inspectors should be given more time, according to a poll commissioned by the Washington Post.