The conflicted liberal viewpoint on Iraq

[KrazyHorse]

Did it threaten the use of force against Iraq in 1441?

[DuncanK]

Didn't it?

[KrazyHorse]

Only if you were one of those that wanted it to.

[Velociryx]

1441 called for "dire consequences" in the event of non-compliance.

Since sanctions and no-fly zones are already in place in Iraq, there aren't many other "dire consequences" remaining besides force.

What else could it mean?

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

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

Since sanctions and no-fly zones are already in place in Iraq, there aren't many other "dire consequences" remaining besides force.

What else could it mean?

-=Vel=-

a) "Serious", not "dire"
b) You and I both know that no resolution threatening force would have made it through the SC
c) There are a hell of a lot of levels between the current situation and all-out war, and you know it

[Velociryx]

Given the sanctions and no-fly zones already in place, the only way to impose *any* additional consequences on Saddam is to put troops in Iraq.

At that point, our choices are to do it piecemeal (start off with a low-level occupation), or to do it en mass.

IF we do it piecemeal, Saddam *will* strike. Loss of life will be relatively high.

IF we do it en mass, we can take him by storm and end his silly games.

Given the two alternatives, which would you choose?

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

I thought for a second that frogger might be right, and my government might be lying to me again, but I don't see any other serious consequences besides war. It seems to me that it means what ever consequences are neccessary.

[KrazyHorse]

If the UN SC is going to authorise force, don't you think it would be best if they say that they've authorised force rather explicitly?

[Velociryx]

Would it be best? Absolutely.

But that isn't what we've got.

If you can outline some other "serious consequences" that don't involve putting troops on Iraqi soil, I'd dearly love to hear them.

And *if* we are to put troops on Iraqi soil, then the only responsible way to do it is in full force, hit him hard, and get it over with.

To take yet another half measure would draw the conflict out, give Saddam time to set fire to the oil fields, and endanger the civillian population.

In this instance, a half measure is the worst possible play.

All the other "consequence" cards are already on the table.

So...either the UN is a joke, and ought to get out of the business of writing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing, or we end it.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Look, what's happening is rather simple.

The US wanted authorisation to go to war

They weren't going to get that. So what they got as a compromise was "serious consequences". What that means was not stated. They're now trying to bootstrap it up to authorisation for war.

If you want serious consequences, Vel:

They could have meant tightening sanctions
They could have meant increasing no-fly zones
They could have meant more money to rebel groups

or any of a half-dozen other things.

If the UN SC would not pass a resolution authorising force (as it seems rather more than likely it would not, given its makeup) then any attempt to interpret its resolutions as authorising force is a deliberate misconstrual of intent.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nope.

But in this case, it's not just one violation. It is a clearly defined pattern of defiance, beginning right after Gulf War One. UN resolutions were written to enforce the destruction of Saddam's arsenal. That resolution was ignored.

Later, the UN Inspectors were kicked out.

Before that, Saddam played a little game of "Gas The Kurds"

Given his track record, given that we put this wholesome individual in power, and given that his actions could spur others like him to act much the same way, an example must be made.

A very stern, strong example, I think.

-=Vel=-

Vel, Israel has been defying UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq, yet not only the US hasn't condemned the country for doing so, the US hasn't even cut off aid.

Clearly, defying the UN is not a reason.

[GePap]

10 days of intesne air bombing would be a serious consequence, which is all resolution 1441 calls for. That the 'serious consequence" would be regime change was desided by the Bushies long ago.

If the admin. has a coherent exit planb, a coherent vision for Iraq that would trully lead to a better ME without creating significant short term and long term forms of blowback, then I would abstain instead of voicing endless arghuments against. But the admin. has no coherent exit plan. As we speak, they envision a minimum of 2 years full occupation and US military rule, and think most likely it will be more. They have showed little if any ideas about the possible political upheavels, hell, the office delegated with serious planning as of the aftermath was created 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks ago I think most people here knew the war is inevitable, and yet that is when these people get to planning the long aftermath. And I fail to see how this will help the anti-Al Qaeda (because that is what the war on terror is) campaign. I have never taken seriously, because I see the arguments as laughably moronic, that Saddam would, under any ciscumstance except the one we will give him soon enough, give WMD to anyone not under 100% his direct control.

As for the humanitarian notions: I have grown not cynical, but hard-hearted to these. There are many forms of suffering and suffering in many places. Given the limited resources due to man current selfishness, I think our resources need to be carefully used, and the people of Iraq, while they suffer, are nowhere near the list of those that suffer most. If the point is just to spread freedom, we have better work to do elsewhere.

Oh, and a little gem form the NYTimes:

Still, while there is a high degree of awareness, substantial conflict and confusion exist among the public about Iraq and the antiterror campaign, so much so that 42 percent of those polled said they believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither the Bush administration nor any other authority has alleged such involvement.

Maybe this is one of the reasons support for the Iraq war in the US remains high....

[DuncanK]

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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Would it be best? Absolutely.

But that isn't what we've got.

If you can outline some other "serious consequences" that don't involve putting troops on Iraqi soil, I'd dearly love to hear them.

And *if* we are to put troops on Iraqi soil, then the only responsible way to do it is in full force, hit him hard, and get it over with.

To take yet another half measure would draw the conflict out, give Saddam time to set fire to the oil fields, and endanger the civillian population.

In this instance, a half measure is the worst possible play.

All the other "consequence" cards are already on the table.

So...either the UN is a joke, and ought to get out of the business of writing resolutions it has no intention of enforcing, or we end it.

-=Vel=-

What you've done is decided that the US is judge and jury as to what "serious consequences" are.

If you mean that Saddam is a bad character and your nation has decided what's best, then fine:go for it. Nobody will stop you.

But don't for a second pretend that you're upholding the will of the security council. Because I find it hard to believe that it would have unanimously passed such a resolution. And therefore any attempt to abuse the interpretation of it is a subversion of the UNSC's will.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
1) We need an exit strategy. We have been at war with this SOB for 12 years.

The UN resolution called for only the liberation of Kuwait. That was done. Where is the war?

Originally posted by Ned
2) The exit strategy must result in Saddam's disarmament.

On what grounds?

Originally posted by Ned
3) We are really concerned about Saddam's connections to al Qaeda. 9/11 showed us how vunerable we are. It would be a nightmare if OBL got ahold of an Islamic nuke.

If this is true, you should be in Pakistan, not Iraq.