The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[Wernazuma III]

Sorry Duncan, it was too tasty to jump on it. At any rate, I do not feel that the hostility was coming from France and Germany in the first place. Many reasons have been given in this thread on why a lot of people out in the world simply aren't convinced about the necessity of an Iraq war or aren't convinced that it will do any good to the future development. Powell keeps telling about WOMD proof while the UN authority on the issue says those claims are partially simply false or not convincing. Yet the US-government stubbornly keeps the same arguments going, Rumsfeld acting like an elephant in a glass store.
The Iraq/Al Quaeda link is ridiculous as almost everyone by now should have understood. Bush &Co. are simply playing with the understandable trauma of Americans after 9/11 by spreading fears and by fanatizing. etc., all well known.
There is no proof for WOMD! says Mr.Blix and the UN (including the US) previously had agreed to give inspections a chance. Obviously they were not serious about it. Well, the rest of the world was. And now many Americans complain that all the talking doesn't get anywhere - there is no new proof, that's why.
While simple Anti-Americanism may be a motivation for some in Europe, it doesn't explain the vast and growing opposition against the current US politics.
The US government now shows clearly that it does not accept any interference or even discussion and no procedures - "He who is not for us is against us" is no basis for negotiation, it's a fundamentalist position. It has been made clear that the US government should be the one and only authority to decide about good and evil. The rest of the world shall trust that daddy knows and just wants the best but can't show the proof- for a good reason of course, for our best...

[Agathon]

The US reason for the war is the interest in preserving US global hegemony.

Who makes this ridiculous and controversial claim?

Well, Bush and co. in the new policy on "pre-emptive strikes." That's who.

Sorry, the rest of the world just doesn't buy it; especially given the pathetic and transparent attempts to justify military action (handily refuted by Mr Blix this morning). The US administration and Blair look like a pack of dumb p**ks who can't bring themselves to tell the public the real reasons they want to go to war.

I also have a response to those who think the US should no longer help other countries.

My answer is: OK - remove all your military forces to within your own borders and leave everyone else alone. That would be just great - problem solved.

Of course they won't do this, because the reason they are there is to protect US power and economic interests, rather than the people they claim to be "protecting".

Wernazuma is right - no proof makes the US look lame.

[Adam Smith]

There is certainly room for debate about the best course of action. Personally, I don't think the US or anybody else should be invading Iraq at this point. Nor did I find the evidence of a terrorist link to be very convincing. But I do not understand how any objective person could look at the evidence that Powell presented on Iraqi compliance and say there is nothing there as Wernazuma, Agathon, and Blix seem to be saying. All those trucks and bulldozers out in the middle of the desert were all part of "normal" activities? Would you reach the same conclusion about vehicles near NK reactors? Looking the evidence in the in the face, and denying its existence can only damage the credibility of the UN, which is sorely needed right now.

[Seneca]

This is worth a look, and I'd be interested to know what the economics gurus here think about it:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Essentially it's arguing that the decision by Iraq to switch its reserve fund from dollars to euros, and the fear that OPEC as a whole would do the same, was a major factor.

[DinoDoc]

Good God! Someone actually takes the ravings from indymedia.org seriously!

[Agathon]

Blix himself said that Powell's presentation was no proof. How are we supposed to know what the bulldozers and trucks were there for? I don't see how brandishing photos of them counts as "proof." I'm certainly not convinced - I have seen more suspicious looking vehicles parked near my house.

In any case the WMD issue is not the game breaker people think it is. There is no logically compelling connection between the mere Iraqi possession of WMD's and the use of overwhelming force. That is not a sufficient casus belli. There remains the further problem that nothing the US or UK have said counts as a good reason for going to war. WMD's are a good reason for doing something but what that is remains to be argued for.

The credibility of the UN is being rescued by France, Russia and Germany who seem remember what the organisation was formed for (i.e. preventing wars). The credibility of the UN is being threatened by two rogue states that seem hell bent on a war for national gain no matter what the international consensus. The administration of one of these states is also hell bent on demolishing international treaties that don't suit it. France and Germany are not the problem here.

Look - here's how it stands. In almost ever country outside of the US, the Bush administration is seen as promoting a policy of, "we'll do what we like and damn what anyone else thinks." [A good summary of Bush's policy in my opinion] Are you surprised that others find this a less than rosy prospect? Is everyone else just supposed to accept this? Anyone who believes that is a complete moron.

The truth is that Bush is incompetent. In Canada, Germany, the UK, Australia and France (and most other countries I'll bet) the US is seen as the biggest threat to world peace, ahead of Iraq and North Korea! These aren't the opinions of leftist radicals; we are talking about the views of ordinary middle-of-the-road people here. This is all the more galling since Clinton managed a fairly unilateralist policy without creating too much of a stir - Gore would have done it just as easily. Madeleine Albright now looks like a diplomatic genius in comparison (and she wasn't really - she was just pragmatic). Again, The Bush administration is just incompetent.

[DanS]

Seneca: That argument is bizarre. $10 billion in reserves changed to Euros scarcely warrants a mention, even if it directly causes Iran to do the same (which it hasn't). Consider that the war would cost at least $50 billion cash money and many more tens of $ billions in the aftermath.

[Velociryx]

Agathon - I wholeheartedly agree with you re: Bush and Company's competency. They have none. It'd be funny if not for the positions of power they hold.

General comments:

IIRC,
The wording of 1441 was:

non-compliance = serious consequences

I have not seen the latest Blix report, but as of his previous one, his word was that the Iraqi government was not complying.

Given the above, I think the course is fairly clear.

Does he have weapons of mass destruction? Probably not any more, no. We d*cked around so long that he had more than ample opportunity to farm them out to his oh-so-wholesome buddies to hold for him till everybody snooping leaves. Hooray for us!

Is he cooperating? Not according to the first Blix report.

What does that mean?

Serious consequences.

What are "serious consequences"?

Well, they can't be sanctions, since we're already imposing those.

They can't be no-fly zones, since we're already imposing those.

Perhaps we could wash his mouth out with soap? Scold him and make him sit in the corner of one of his thirteen palaces?

Or perhaps we should just go ahead and say it.

The UN does not mean what it says when it writes its so-called "resolutions." It has no intention of enforcing non-compliance, and is, essentially, just a global circle-jerk, whose resolutions mean less than nothing.

It'd be one thing if they meant just "nothing" but they mean less than nothing, because if we don't enforce the resolution, if we don't dole out some of those serious consequences, then we give every other dictator the world over a blank check to blatantly defy the NEXT UN resolution.

Does that sound like a sound policy for the furtherance of world security and peace? If so, how, exactly?

Can you think of any other "serious consequences" for non-compliance of 1441 that do not involve putting troops on the ground in Iraq that have a) not already been tried, and b) stand some chance of being considered a "serious consequence"? If so, what are they?

-=Vel=-

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I have not seen the latest Blix report, but as of his previous one, his word was that the Iraqi government was not complying.

Maybe you should do it. Otherwise, some of us could get the impression you don't care to inform yourself about an issue where you claim to have well-founded opinion. Blix was never arguing that Iraq was in breach of1441 and this time explicitly criticized Powell and his "evidence".

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Great thread....

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
In the first place, you didn't elect him, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.

I was going to comment on this, but, never mind. It's to stupid to bother.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
There is no proof for WOMD!

This is an often repeated lie so please allow my to despell this stupidity with a few facts. For the sack of debate here is a list of things Iraq has done which have violated UNSC resolution 1441 in which Iraq was ordered by the U.N. to show where its WoMD are or to provide evidience they were destroyed.

To date 25,000 liters of Anthrax are still unaccounted for as are numerous Scud missiles, their launchers, as well as nerve gas. Those aren't small things. Then there are the human intelligience reports from defectors, the intercepted cell phone calls were Iraqi military officers talk about hiding "nerve agents", the 15 sites which were cleaned up right before the U.N. arrived, the refusal to allow U2 inspection flights, the refusal to allow scientists to be questioned without Iraqi secret police present, the holding of scientists families hostage to make sure the scientists spout the party line, intercepted radio transmitions that Saddam had authorized the use of chemical and biological weapons in case of attack, that 6,500 chemical bombs and 550 chemical arty shells still remain unaccounted for, the human intell that right up to 2002 Saddam was trying to make a nuke or failing that a dirty bomb, and lastly you throw on top that there are a handful of terrorist cells opporating in the country and Saddam is deliberately not arresting them even though several countries have requested he do so.

The terrorist thing is a fringe issue and I don't know why Bush is making such a big deal about it. He should be harping about how we have satilitte photos of Iraqi Scud missiles and how there are multiple defectors who have spoken about Iraqi's on going chemical and biological weapons program.

[Velociryx]

I just did, Werna, and was going to post some comments about my findings, but Oerdin beat me to it.

No proof of WOMD? So what is 25,000 litres of Anthrax (and that is but one of many entries) unaccounted for?

If they're destroyed, where is the confirmation order for its destruction?

I'd say there's plenty of proof, but of course, nobody wants to get their hands dirty to fix the problem, so everybody turns a blind eye.

1441 was NEVER exclusively about WOMD. It was about compliance.

Is Iraq complying?

Not according to Blix. His last report mentioned *numerous* material breeches of 1441, including Missiles of longer than specified range, canisters for lobbing nerve gas agents, and a great many holes in his "inventory sheet" that supposedly provides a complete accounting.

In short, HE IS NOT COMPLYING!

That's hardly rocket science folks, and it begs the question (which still has not been answered by the peaceniks), what are serious consequences?

What can we do, short of troops on the ground, that has not already been tried, and demonstrably failed?

Name them.

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Maybe you should do it. Otherwise, some of us could get the impression you don't care to inform yourself about an issue where you claim to have well-founded opinion. Blix was never arguing that Iraq was in breach of1441 and this time explicitly criticized Powell and his "evidence".

He really didn't say things substantial one way or the other. He was weak, just like the UN.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Agathon
The credibility of the UN is being rescued by France, Russia and Germany who seem remember what the organisation was formed for (i.e. preventing wars). The credibility of the UN is being threatened by two rogue states that seem hell bent on a war for national gain no matter what the international consensus. The administration of one of these states is also hell bent on demolishing international treaties that don't suit it. France and Germany are not the problem here.

It's really people like who are killing the UN. Just going to war without the approval of the UN should do nothing to ruin the credibility of the UN. Nations were never meant to abandon their sovereignty to the UN. The more you guys beleive they were the weaker the UN becomes. That's why your statements are so laughable. Don't tread on me!

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Sorry Duncan, it was too tasty to jump on it. At any rate, I do not feel that the hostility was coming from France and Germany in the first place. Many reasons have been given in this thread on why a lot of people out in the world simply aren't convinced about the necessity of an Iraq war or aren't convinced that it will do any good to the future development.

Fine, don't attack Iraq. Step aside while the men take car of this boys. Just stop complaining and claiming that we need authorization from you. We don't and you really just look lame in all this.