05 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

Convinced if we should bomb them? Or that they may be hiding stuff?

05 Feb 2003 | ar said...

I say bomb them. If they are so good at hiding stuff, they will live.

05 Feb 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

Good catch, Darrel. :) I'm convinced (and have been for some time now) that they're hiding something. But no, we shouldn't bomb them.

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

I am more convinced that they are not cooperating fully. But some of the 'evidence' presented is still quite circumstantial. And going to war on circumstantial evidence is still a bad idea.

In his presentation, Powell:

Asserted that Iraq bulldozed and graded to conceal chemical weapons evidence at the Al Musayyib chemical complex in 2002, and had a series of cargo vehicles and a decontamination vehicle moving around at the site. Powell said that was corroborated by a human source.

They may have direct evidence that the area was bulldozed and graded, but they didn't produce evidence as to why. And that human source could be someone's Uncle Charlie.

Yeah, yeah, national security and all that, but if they really want to convince people that military action is justified, they need actual proof. Not just fuzzy voice recordings and satalite imagery of truck movement.

But I do agree with one of Powell's statements in speaking of the UN: "This body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately."

Does that mean more pressure from inspectors or start bombing. I guess it depends on who you ask.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I am more convinced that they are not cooperating fully.

That is in direct conflict with Resolution 1441 -- a resolution unanimously passed that gave Iraq once final chance to come clean. Not their first chance -- their last chance. Like Powell said, the inspectors are inspectors, not detectives. Iraq is required to disclose everything. Everything. They haven't. Where are the chemical agents they've admitted to having but don't admit to destroying? Where are they? Like Blix said, "The production of mustard gas is not like the production of marmalade, you must keep track of what you produced.'' They have it. They aren't telling us. Resolution after resolution has required them to tell us. They haven't.

Should we pass 1442 so they can defy that one too? And then 1443? 1444? What are the consequences of constant defiance? Another opportunity to defy?

If we'll never end the cycle of defiance, we should never have started it. What's the point to any of this if there's no muscle, no consequences beyond the words?

Force is the last option. We couldn't be closer.

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Like Powell said, the inspectors are inspectors, not detectives.

I thought they were supposed to be detectives. Which is why they are supposed to have access to anything at any time. I equate that to detective work. I equate what UNSCOM was to inspecting work.

The inspectors should be given the resources to carry out their job. Not a new resolution, but a new resolve. Give the inspectors more teeth (not weapons, but more ability to do multiple inspections without getting "permission" first).

I agree the time of being civil may have passed, but the time war doesn't have to be upon us.

If we'll never end the cycle of defiance, we should never have started it. What's the point to any of this if there's no muscle, no consequences beyond the words?

You could be right. Perhaps we shouldn't have started it. But we did (as is apparent, I know) and now we have to live with the consequenses of our actions. Or is it our inactions. Once again what we are talking about today started with bin Laden. But no one can find him. Everyone knows where Saddam is. So why don't we follow up on that topic. We've been meaning to. And now we have a bunch of pissed off people to appease. Let's appease them buy killing Saddam.

If this topic is so damn important, why did we wait 12 years? Why are they presenting evidence that they have had for years (yes some is recent)?

05 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

I think he made the case in some areas. Yes, there does appear to be deliberate deception going on. Does that represent "material breach"? I don't know. I'm not well-versed in the arcana of diplomatic language. I would say that, combined with Blix's surprising damning report from a couple weeks back, the case is much stronger than it has been. Is it enough to unleash the dogs of war? I don't know yet. I'm going to have to mull that over for a while.

Other parts of the case were not made, though. I really wish the Bush administration would stop trying to insult everyone's intelligence with trying to tie this into the battle against terrorism and against Al Qaeda in particular. There was a story in the LA Times yesterday that mentioned that the intelligence agencies are really starting to resent the administration's pressure for them to come up with an Iraq-Al Qaeda link where clearly none exists.

Now, if Powell had come up with this sort of proof, I'd be all in favor of going in. Unfortunately, this proof is coming from North Korea, which seems to be of no concern to anyone. That's where the real and clear danger is, not only from the standpoint of what North Korea themselves may do, but because they're far more likely to sell what they have to terrorists or hostile nations (again, the only international income North Korea receives is via the arms trade). The current situation in North Korea scares the living shit out of me. I'm not losing any sleep over Iraq in the least.

Mark my words: when a suitcase nuke is exploded in the US, it will have come from North Korea, not Iraq or Iran. Second leading contender is Pakistan, a supposed "ally."

05 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"Force is the last option. We couldn't be closer."

I agree with that. But force doesn't have to equal war.

We're living in a time where all the world has weapons of mass destruction. We can't forever try to go after governments through war in hopes of ending it. There are too many reasons for them to continue doing what they are doing (one of those reasons being the fact that we threaten to go to war with them). We need to work on getting rid of all of these reasons...not the individual people.

As long as there are compelling reasons to manufactor and sell WOMD, then someone will.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

As long as there are compelling reasons to manufactor and sell WOMD, then someone will.

Or, look at it this way...

And as long as dictators can get away with possessing them, even after the world says NO about a hundred times, they'll still seek them out.

Until someone takes this seriously, as I believe the US is trying to do, behavior won't change. Why stop seeking and creating them if there are no real consequences? That's the message that is being sent by the UN right now. We'll let you keep 'em, but we'll keep acting tough by saying NO.

No one listens until examples are made. No one listens until there's a threat of action. And, no one listens when action from the threat of action never comes.

It's time to take action and show the world that this won't stand. Period.

05 Feb 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

Hmm, where have we seen dodgy evidence mobilised to prop up a cause before? No casus belli? Invent one!

Not the most convincing article I've ever read, but given the climate of mistrust and distortion on all sides it seemed pertinent.

Key question for me is this: is Powell's evidence enough to condemn thousands of innocent Iraqis to death? To my mind this fact has been elided by the laptop soldiers of this world. Has the US forgotten what it's like to lose so many citizens to violence? Or do Iraqis not count?

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Plenty of examples have been made over the brief history of the modern US. And people listen for a while.

But the US is not trying to change behavior. They are trying to say "live how we tell you to live."

In the long run it doesn't matter if there are consequences. There are still going to be people who make it to power who want to do whatever they want. Just like Saddam. Is this bad news for the rest of the world (especially immediate neighbors)? Yes.

If behavior modification is what you (the generic 'you' not you JF;) are after, study after study has shown that force only produces short-lived behavior change.

I agree that the UN should do more than (attempt) to act tough. But it would be better to show these governments the successes available in "joining in" rather than being isolationist. I guess the problem with that is governments are usually made up of a small (relative to population) group of individuals who like having it their way. That is one human behavior that is difficult to change.

05 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

"It's time to take action and show the world that this won't stand. Period."

And we're pissed off at who? Iraq? No. Sadam. Go in there, pop a cap in his ass and be done with it. We don't need a war.

Terrorists? Well, they aren't a government. Nor are they a person. They've been around for decades, they'll still be here decades from now. Killing Sadam will have little affect on terrorists.

The only thing I got out of todays speach was the argument that Iraq's leadership is suspicious, conniving, and uncooperative. I'm not sold on that being a reason to go to war with the country as a whole.

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

By the way, it's a wonderful thing to have this forum to discuss these issues.

But thank goodness none of us are in charge of the current situation! ;)

05 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

And as long as dictators can get away with possessing them, even after the world says NO about a hundred times, they'll still seek them out.

The question I'm about to ask is somewhat more on a hypothetical level than related precisely to the situation at hand, but there are of course overlaps.

Exactly what authority does the U.S, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or anyone have to dictate what weapons other countries may or may not have? What authority does anyone have to determine that one dictator (e.g. Hussein) does not have the right to have such weapons but another (e.g. Musharraf) does?

Yes, there are treaties in place that address this, like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which, I don't recall if Iraq has signed). But, treaties can be backed out of. N. Korea did that. The US has shown plenty of willingness under the current administration to toss all sorts of treaties aside. So, again, where is the authority or moral right to say that what's acceptable for some countries to have is not acceptable for others?

Now, in an area where hypotehtical and reality don't quite mix, Iraq voluntarily agreed to banning certain weapons as part of the cease-fire agreement. It's a different case. But, the above situtation pretty much mirrors what goes on with N. Korea. I don't disagree at all that it's a very, very bad idea for them to have such weaponry. In fact, I'd be in favor of military action against North Korea long before I would be for Iraq (although I don't think we're close to needing to do that yet - the North Koreans have practically begged the US to talk to them, but we're too preoccupied or too stubborn to do so). But, I have to admit a great deal of discomfort with the idea that we should get to decide who should have such weapons and who shouldn't.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Exactly what authority does the U.S, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or anyone have to dictate what weapons other countries may or may not have?

The balance of power creates the authority.

In the area of Iraq... You're right, they agreed to banning certain weapons as part of the cease-fire agreement. They put themselves in this situation. They've created the standard by which they are judged.

05 Feb 2003 | whoopy-doo said...

if jf gets any more excited about having a war hes gonna cum in his pants

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

I dont really feel like Ive learned anything new. Iraq is a rogue state, a dictatorship, sitting smack dab in the middle east, wallowing in the cruel politics of Hussein. They are a poor, lawless, pitiful bunch with an evil leader. Thier leader is hiding weapons, they arent cooperating. And there are many like them on the planet. Some worse, some milder. Should they all be invaded JF? Should the politicians of the developed world force thier democracy on every rogue nation on the planet?

Im sorry, but I just dont trust much about politicians. I dont care what country theyre from. Theyre not the people. I believe in the power of the people, the silent masses. And to change them, it takes a lot of time, work and patience.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Thier leader is hiding weapons, they arent cooperating. And there are many like them on the planet. Some worse, some milder. Should they all be invaded JF?

No, they shouldn't all be invaded. I'm not sure where that came from.

In this case, UN resolution 1441 was passed to give Iraq a final chance to prove that it was disarming. Any material breach of that resolution would result in what the UN agreed to call "serious consequences." We know what that means.

Basically, if the UN didn't want military action as a remedy for non-compliance, it shouldn't have unanimously passed 1441. Just as Iraq needs to be held accountable for what it agrees to, the UN needs to held accountable for the resolutions it passes.

05 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

The balance of power creates the authority.

I don't buy that. That's nothing different than bullying. Because I'm bigger than you, I get to tell you what to do.

Allegedly, we're all about the rule of law in international standards and accepted types of behavior and all that. Allegedly, we're not about bullying. Reality appears to be quite different, however.

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I don't buy that. That's nothing different than bullying. Because I'm bigger than you, I get to tell you what to do.

That's the reality of the world. Always has been, always will be. Dispute it, disagree with it, or ignore it, but it's reality.

05 Feb 2003 | Xavier said...

Does anybody really thinks that Saddam is the biggest threat to this planet?

Now what would the US do if a bunch of countries were asking the UN to send inspectors to search all the weapons facilties freely operating on the US soil?

And don't tell me that the US never used WMD whereas Iraq did... US has the world record of death per second (afaik that was 130,000 in Nagazaki, 1945).

Of course Saddam is an evil dictator but everyone knows the situation will be far worst to replace him by a CIA-driven puppet, just look how bad it has gone in Iran or Afghanistan.

While the man in the street is focused on Iraq, he forgets that Osama is free... And maybe that the one that Dybya wants to be the new Iraqui leader will be the next Osama... Face it, your "elected" president is a really dangerous dumbass... I just hope that for your country and the rest of the world, americans won't vote for him next year...

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

That's the reality of the world. Always has been, always will be. Dispute it, disagree with it, or ignore it, but it's reality.

You're right. It's reality today. But it doesn't have to be reality tomorrow. We should try very hard to change it. Never give up.

No, they shouldn't all be invaded. I'm not sure where that came from.

This came from the serious consequences remark. If that does mean military action, to achieve a goal of outsing Saddam, then we will have to invade their territory, hold ground, remove the current government, establish a temporary government, and do all the other administrative/policing actions that it takes to hold land.

Invasion is not something that just the "bad guys" do.

05 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

Xavier said...
Now what would the US do if a bunch of countries were asking the UN to send inspectors to search all the weapons facilties freely operating on the US soil?

Well, actually, the USA has refused to have inspections in the US. They have repeatedly refused to allow chemical weapons inspectors access to US installations (in fact, to the country). Course the real difference is that all of the illegal chemical weapons research that goes on in the USA is for defence purposes, whereas when it happens elsewhere, those countries are clearly doing it as a threat to freedom and democracy everywhere and as an act of aggression. This despite thd fact that since World War II, the USA has been involved in morewars and military operations that almost any other country in the world. :)

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

Basically, if the UN didn't want military action as a remedy for non-compliance, it shouldn't have unanimously passed 1441. Just as Iraq needs to be held accountable for what it agrees to, the UN needs to held accountable for the resolutions it passes.

---
then why did they specify that inspectors would have "months" to carry out thier work? they should have said "some weeks". Suddenly, they arent allowed to finish thier work or what?

05 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

by the by, to me the "evidence" still looks pretty flimsy. My favourite bits so far have been a drawing of a mobile chemical weapons lab (yes I did say drawing) and the bit about anthrax where Co-lin said something along the lines of 'Iraq has admitted making X amount, but we estimate they could have made Y amount". My but that's pretty damning.

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

No, they shouldn't all be invaded. I'm not sure where that came from.
---
I said it because there are more dangerous countries than Iraq on the planet, but the US is hell-bent on Iraq, claiming theyre the biggest threat at the moment.

05 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

alisha said...
then why did they specify that inspectors would have "months" to carry out thier work? they should have said "some weeks". Suddenly, they arent allowed to finish thier work or what?

it should also be noted that "serious consequences" could mean a lot of things, not just war.

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"That's nothing different than bullying. Because I'm bigger than you, I get to tell you what to do."
"That's the reality of the world. Always has been, always will be. Dispute it, disagree with it, or ignore it, but it's reality."
---
Yikes. so youre justifing bullying? I guess Hitler and his henchmen were simply balancing power then.

05 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

I don't buy that. That's nothing different than bullying. Because I'm bigger than you, I get to tell you what to do.

That's the reality of the world. Always has been, always will be. Dispute it, disagree with it, or ignore it, but it's reality.

Then I guess all that rhetoric about the rule of law, democracy, the importance of international institutions and "free people set[ing] the course of history" is just a load of crap then.

I don't dispute that that's always the way it's been. Doesn't make it right. And it doesn't fit with the language the US runs around using trying to justify what it does. I have much more respect for a country like 19th century Prussia (and later Germany) that doesn't hide behind platitudes and embraces its realpolitik than a country like the US which can't keep its rhetoric and its actions anywhere in line with each other.

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

jfs wearing me out...

05 Feb 2003 | ek said...

alisha, get back to work!

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

alisha, get back to work!

Yeah, ya self-proclaimed, blog-smoking, lollygagger!

Oh crap, that means me, too.

05 Feb 2003 | Carlos Bravo said...

I'm convinced, convinced people have stopped thinking and now can only react, like, animals.

she is convinced

05 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I'm done with this thread.

Iraq is in material breach of multiple UN (not US, but UN) resolutions. 12 years of world defiance. When you sign on the dotted line TO END A WAR, you better be prepared to deal with the consequences when you defy that agreement over and over and over. In effect, the war shouldn't have ended if the losing party ignores key terms in the agreement to end it. I don't know what else to say about that.

The UN can continue to be irrelevant or it can act. That's all I'm saying. I'm not "excited" to go to war, but I'm comfortable saying I support it where necessary.

Words needs to be backed up by action or else they'll be ignored (see Iraq's behavior as evidence). In my opinion, this is an issue that can't be ignored any longer.

Thanks for listening. Bye.

05 Feb 2003 | Darrel said...

I'm done with this thread.

Sounding more and more like Bush each day... ;o)

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

alisha, get back to work!
---
deck. youre never there when I need you EK. youre like all the men in my life.

05 Feb 2003 | wr said...

Has the US forgotten what it's like to lose so many citizens to violence?

The US hasn't forgotten because, relatively speaking, it has lost so few compared to countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. 6,000 citizens (ie. non-military citizens) in 55 years is not very many compared to the loses in those other countries. In World War II German and English cities were ferociously bombed with great loss of life and someone also mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is very easy for Donald Rumsfeld (who seems to be actively antogonising his own departmental staff) to criticise Europe and other Middle Eastern countries for being nervous about a was against Iraq - Sadaam's weapons are never going to get to the USA - for him this war is largely conceptual and a chance to make up for a blunder 10 years ago. Meanwhile Europe is embracing the former communist states of Eastern Europe and helping them transition to capitalist economies and making steps to work with the muslim world by co-operating with Turkey. (ie. Europe is doing a lot of work here making the world a stable safer place)

JF you keep going on about Iraq failing to comply with a UN resolution, but you ignore the fact that the US and Israel (and other countries) also continue to defy such resolutions. Should the UN overthrow (white collar criminal/electoral fraudster) Bush and (war criminal) Sharon because of their non-compliance as well? If that was to be the case I'd more actively support a UN-lead invasion of Iraq.

The current US administration makes me very nervous.

05 Feb 2003 | Paperhead said...

Has the US forgotten what it's like to lose so many citizens to violence?

Are we talking about terrorist victims or gun deaths or both or what? The ridiculously high number of gun deaths each year in the US hasn't, I think, been as much forgotten, as never addressed in the first place. Statistically you all have much more chance of being shot in a drive-by or mugging than you do of being killed by a terrorist. Unpleasant thought but true.

05 Feb 2003 | brian said...

the thing about iraq is, they have a lot of oil. and if you look at the history of war, economics is a perfectly good reason to go to war. saddam took oil that u.s. companies thought was theirs, and now our texan-president is going to blow him to poo. in the history of war, this is pretty valid. doesn't mean "right", but fuck crashing into the wtc wasn't "right" either. i don't think saddam is a threat, but i do think he helps those who are. so fuck it. he commits environmental atrocities worse than digging in alaska which i am strongly against, so to hell with him. just try not to blow out those nomad dudes. but whatever, the world has all sorts of fucked logic, and if you don't acknowledge that, then i have a hard time listening to you.

06 Feb 2003 | pr said...

The deal with Iraq and the resolutions boils down to this... The current resolution calls for proof of the destruction of these weapons. It's not the job of the inspectors to find and hunt these weapons down. The burden of proof is on their shoulders and they have done nothing except provide an useless 15lb. document.

The difference between Iraq and North Korea is this - North Korea has a history of responding to diplomatic pressures. Iraq, on the other hand, does not.

06 Feb 2003 | Randy said...

pr: "The difference between Iraq and North Korea is this - North Korea has a history of responding to diplomatic pressures. Iraq, on the other hand, does not."

The real difference between all of this is that Iraq agreed to resolutions in order to END A WAR. Countries can't ignore agreements signed to end a war, especially the losing country.

I'm shocked that so many folks want to ignore this fact. They want to talk about how the US has done this wrong blah blah blah blee blee blee. That has zero to do with the latest UN resolution focused on Iraq's compliance. UN Res 1441 says nothing about how horrible everyone else is yada yada yada, it just talks about how Iraq must comply and come clean. Any deception results in a material breach. It's that clear cut and the case was made.

If the world thinks the US is so horrible they are free to gather their evidence and make their case in front of the UN just like the US has done with Iraq. Hell, they'll be able to go in front of the human rights committee, you know, the one chaired by LIBYA, and complain.

It's as if Iraq is leasing a car. They've stopped making payments. It's time to repossess.

06 Feb 2003 | dmr said...

No evidence isn't evidence. We have processes for a reason, let's stick to a process.

We have 10,600 nuclear weapons in stockpile and we are being critical of a country that MIGHT have a fucking handful? Oh come on. The biggest threat in terms of 'weapons of mass destruction' is clearly the U.S., if second place may or may not be a handful of nukes, what makes them the bad guys?

I don't think the ideal of 'kill or be killed' ought apply to the arena of world diplomacy.

06 Feb 2003 | Randy said...

dmr: "The biggest threat in terms of 'weapons of mass destruction' is clearly the U.S."

Ok, let's take your logic (whoever has the most is the biggest threat) and apply it to some other things (good things)...

The US must be the biggest threat to world hunger since the US provides more food aid than any other country on Earth.

The US must be the biggest threat to disease, sickness, and suffering since the since the US provides more cures, drugs, and more medical researchers (and medical schools) than any other country on Earth.

The US must be the biggest threat to ignorance because the US has the most teachers and educational institutions of any country in the world.

The US must be the biggest threat to AIDS around the world since the US is the leading international donor for HIV/AIDS funding and research.

The US must be the biggest threat to poverty since the US is the leading individual country providing aid to third-world nations.

And... The Arab countries must be the world's biggest environmental offenders because they possess the most oil.

But I'm sure none of these things matter to you.

06 Feb 2003 | dmr said...

I can't say I agree with your application of my logic; Iraq is a threat because it may or may not have weapons, but the U.S. isn't a threat with 10,000+ nuclear weapons?

To have a large pile of marbles on the playground, but to be critical of the kid with a closed hand behind his back, and to say that if he has any marbles in his hand, you are gonna kick his ass, is a little hipocritical, is it not? If there is a rule in effect: 'no marbles on the playground', how can the kid with the large pile find exception?

There is one purpose a weapon has: to harm or kill an opponent. With the potential of harm or death comes fear. To posess a weapon is to pose a threat to an opponent. To have many weapons, which would harm or kill a large number of opponents, is to pose a much larger threat.

So, yeah. In the case of ten thousand plus nuclear weapons, I do believe quantity equates to larger threat.

I don't like stretches. To take my argument, flip it, and apply it to very unlike terms is a stretch. What is this, an Art critique?

Besides, aren't there more important social issues in our own backyard that need addressing, prior to seeking trouble in the neighbors yard?

06 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Speaking of may or may not have weapons...

06 Feb 2003 | fleagle said...

North Korea's purpose over the last 50 years is to build up it's military to fight the US. I don't believe there is an option of sitting around and leaving them alone - they want a war, and a nuclear one at that.

06 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Some basic problems I have with the U.S position:

1) U.S. seems to pick and choose when international law is binding and when it is not.

This is a privilege of being a superpower of course, it can ignore legal decisions made against it. But it shouldn't expect other countries to take the U.S. government too seriously when it starts talking about the inviolability of the rule of law.

06 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

One thing I've been wondering about the last few days is if the original cease-fire agreements (I don't believe there ever was a treaty) and UN resolutions specified the use of force as concequence for Iraq's failure to live up to its end of the deal. Are not the current sanctions the "punishment" for Iraq's failure to live up to those deals?

If that's the case, failure to live up to those agreements doesn't really play into whether a call for war is justified right now. The standard can't be changed mid-stream.

Now, regarding the current resolution, I'm still undecided (which is a move from completely opposed). I don't see the harm in giving inspectors more time. And I don't understand why the US isn't getting around to giving the inspectors intelligence until now if they're so sure that they're intercepting orders to move matierals before inspectors' arrivals. Call the inspectors, say go here instead of there today, and you've got your smoking gun. No contest.

06 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Some basic problems I have with the U.S position:

2) Res 1441Compliance

What people keep misunderstanding is that this is not about the U.N. proving that Iraq has a 'smoking gun', it is about Iraq proving it doesn't have a 'smoking gun'.

Having said that, it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e. it is no more possible to prove that Iraq doesn't have WMD than it is for the U.S. to prove that it doesn't have a crashed UFO somewhere.

The whole point of Res 1441 is to provide a process of discovery which will reveal whether Iraq does have WMD, or probably doesn't (100% certainty is impossible with a negative).

What Bush is arguing is that Iraq is obstructing this process of discovery. I think obstruction is inevitable, because of human error and incompetence - I'm sure any army in the world probably wouldn't be able to account for a good percentage of it's ordinance (some more than others). Also I'm sure there is deliberate obstruction going on, from the personal guy-on-the-ground level to Saddam policy level.

What I disagree with Bush on, is at what stage does this obstruction necessitate war with Iraq, and the killing of thousands of civilians.

Create a scale of obstruction in your mind. at one end is maybe Iraqi drivers turning up 5 minutes late to take inspectors to a site. If this happened would it be grounds for war? No, not for me. On the other end of the scale, Republican Guards opening fire on inspectors at a contested site. Reason enough to go to war, yes, absolutely!

Somewhere in between these two points of the scale is justification for going to war. Too many lives are at stake to simply take a legalistic view, and go to war at the smallest occurrence of obstruction .

06 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Some basic problems I have with the U.S position:

3) Motivation of Bush and Gang

These guys are just sooo in bed with the oil companies, and involved in previous shady deals with Iraq. Can we really trust anything they say?

06 Feb 2003 | B said...

Mega: "These guys are just sooo in bed with the oil companies, and involved in previous shady deals with Iraq. Can we really trust anything they say?"

So when the US liberated Kuwait, why didn't they grab all the oil too? Prices didn't change. Supply didn't change. Oil is no cheaper today than it was back then. If we were all about oil, we surely would have cut an extra special deal with Kuwait after saving their ass, right? What changed in the oil world after the gulf war?

No, what we did was build a coalition to enforce a UN resolution to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression. We did that and then we left. God we're evil - enforcing (and trying to enforce) all those UN resolutions that the WORLD wrote. Sorry.

06 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

You mean the oil that burned, and burned, and burned for 7 months straight?

A recent CNN article on it.

06 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Halliburton profited greatly rebuilding the oil infrastructures of both Kuwait and Iraq after the war.

Kuwait successfully lobbied OPEC for oil production cuts in the summer of 1998. The cuts caused oil prices to triple over the next year. American gasoline prices began skyrocketing in mid-January, increasing for 10 consecutive weeks before reaching a historic average high of $1.59 per gallon for unleaded regular by late March. That was an increase of nearly 60 cents since prices bottomed out at 99.8 cents per gallon in February 1999, according to a Lundberg Survey report.

06 Feb 2003 | Cam said...

Showing proof of this nature is all fine and good, but what the American public really wants is proof from the Bush Administration that it doesn't have a hidden agenda: namely Iraq's oil fields.

06 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

I actually don't buy into the idea of oil as a motivator, or at least not a primary one. The US actually doesn't need Middle Eatern oil (only about 20 percent comes from there now and could come from other countries like Russia, Mexico and Venezuela much easier and more economically; the US maintains a stake there for political reasons). I do believe there are ulterior motives going on, but I think they're separate from oil. (If anyone's interested in the real politics of oil, in terms of using it as one of many tools to keep Europe dependent on the United States and prevent the rise of any regional, let alone global powers, read this.)

Hidden agendas aren't always a reason for not doing something, though. Stalin certain had all sorts of hidden agendas in World War II, but it was necessary and right to ally with him. I'm still not convinced that it's necessary to go to war with Iraq right now - although I'm coming around to the idea that it may be necessary very soon - but the presence of ulterior motives is not enough to dismiss it out of hand.

06 Feb 2003 | B said...

mega: "Halliburton profited greatly rebuilding the oil infrastructures of both Kuwait and Iraq after the war."

Isn't that what Halliburton does? That's their line of work. If you're going to purport that a war was started so they could directly profit, you better plate up some definitive, concrete evidence. You know the kind - the kind you're asking Bush to present for going into Iraq. Nothing circumstantial now.

06 Feb 2003 | B said...

And... You people act as if the US is the only country that uses oil. France, for example, has a major interest in Iraqi oil (they don't want their current contracts shaken up). Everyone has their own interests. To flaunt the fact that the US has all these oil interests, but not mention any other country's similar interests, is not telling the full story.

07 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Apologies. My point was not well made. It would have been better to say that the extremely strong links between the U.S. administration and companies that profited from the last Gulf War, and are likely to profit from the next Gulf War are disquieting.

Here's a brief summary (but I'm sure you can Google much more if you are interested):

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=333400

Of course, none of this is illegal, and as B pointed out, those companies are there to profit. Fine.

But what worries me, is how well has this been researched? Is there an iceberg of rotten deals floating below the suspicious tip that we see?

07 Feb 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

Great article you picked out there Steve, but it ain't the only one from The Atlantic worth reading:

Mideast Oil Forever?

Why the Gulf War Was Not in the National Interest

07 Feb 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

BTW, us Brits did a fantastic job of manufacturing, er, I mean marshalling the evidence against Iraq:

No 10 admits mistake in copying Iraq dossier

07 Feb 2003 | B said...

Is this why Germany doesn't want to have anything to do with the war?

"Expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. What's galling is that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his minions have long known the facts, German intelligence services know them and have loads of information on what Saddam Hussein is hiding, and Schroeder nonetheless plays holier than thou to an easily manipulated, pacifist-inclined domestic audience. "

07 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

probably right. I wouldnt put it past him - like I said, hes a puppet. all governments have dirt to hide and to think its too idealistic to believe that any of them go to war out of the good of thier hearts. That only happens in Middle Earth.

07 Feb 2003 | hanky said...

Isn't Middle Earth where all those sexy elves live?

07 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

The current situation in North Korea scares the living shit out of me. I'm not losing any sleep over Iraq in the least.

I second that.

07 Feb 2003 | Randall said...

mega: "Halliburton profited greatly rebuilding the oil infrastructures of both Kuwait and Iraq after the war."

Isn't that what Halliburton does? That's their line of work. If you're going to purport that a war was started so they could directly profit, you better plate up some definitive, concrete evidence. You know the kind - the kind you're asking Bush to present for going into Iraq. Nothing circumstantial now.
Cheney/BushSr + Cheney/Haliburton + Cheney/GWB = CONFLICT OF INTERREST.

Duh!

07 Feb 2003 | B said...

Randall: "Cheney/BushSr + Cheney/Haliburton + Cheney/GWB = CONFLICT OF INTERREST."

And that's conclusive, definitive proof of what?

07 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Stop. Read. Think...

"It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank.

"The problem comes when private business and public policy blend together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html

08 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"Isn't Middle Earth where all those sexy elves live?"

Yes; the elves are lusty babes, arent they? especially Legolas.

10 Apr 2003 | Steven Chung said...

I am very much interesting South Korea for the defence equipment.How we start a business could you give me a advisor.I am a business man,thank you.