Announcement

**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

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

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

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

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

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.

Announcement

The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment