10 Mar 2003 | SU said...

CU-Boulder did a similar thing last week. After a volunteer meeting on campus, I asked a CU student if he didn't think it was just this side of ridiculous to "protest" by doing what you wish you could do everyday. He didn't get my drift and basically assumed I must be Pro-War if I thought the protest was ridiculous.

C'mon college students of America... Don't devalue our right to protest with such token gestures.

10 Mar 2003 | Indi said...

We had highschool students walking out in protest here in SoCal. So what did they do while they were out? They looted a gas station mini-mart.

The ones that kill me are the grade school protests. Yeah, like they made the choice.

Personally, I'm semi-fasting for a quick war with no gas or bio weapon last ditch retribution, and a stable region with the US playing gradually less of a part in the government in Iraq in the after years and leaving without taking control of the oil.

Don't laugh, it could happen.

10 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I'm interested in the idea that Hans Blix withheld "smoking gun" information.

If that is true ... whoa.

10 Mar 2003 | brian said...

i was in london last week, and saw TONS of teenagers protesting the war-effort, and its funny, cuz the first thing that came to my mind was that this was a stupid waste of a protest (the kids were running in the street slapping stickers on cars, almost getting themselves killed) because none of these kids vote, or influence the vote. I guess being a more informed individual, despite only being 20 has made me slightly jaded on the whole issue.

10 Mar 2003 | Jim Jones said...

Don, then W should bomb the s*** out of Hans Blix, no?

10 Mar 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

C'mon, give them a break!

They obviuosly couldn't all get the airfare together to go to Baghdad and become human shields.

10 Mar 2003 | CK said...

Hey Don -

Where did you hear that? I did a (cursory) news search and didn't find anything that suggests Blix is withholding information. That's a really mind-blowing, interesting idea. Any links?

10 Mar 2003 | CK said...

Nevermind - I found it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5470-607000,00.html

11 Mar 2003 | jupiter said...

Do they know what the're protesting against? Apparently the majority in the U.S. (thanks to the media) meanwhile thinks, that the WTC-terrorists came from Iraq. Reminds me of Tonkin...

11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

These sorts of protests carried a little more weight when there was a draft. Now, while I appreciate the sentiment, they are a bit feeble.

11 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Jupiter -- EXCELLENT POINT, the connection with Tonkin.

Even though I'm a bit of a Hawk, I'm not ready to attack Iraq yet. Your point is excellent.

For those of you who have no idea, PLEASE look up and learn about the Tonkin Bay non-incident that started the United States' involvement in our "police action" in Southeast Asia.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

"Aw Dad, I wanna, I wanna" - an unexpected commie peacenik speaks.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

this is really f****** funny

11 Mar 2003 | B said...

What's so funny? So they want to look good on TV. Wow, what a shocker. Big deal.

11 Mar 2003 | B said...

And in related news, Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial.

11 Mar 2003 | dd said...

The Gulf of Tonkin incident...

In 1964, the North Vietnamese reportedly attacked a US Navy vessels. What happened afterwards was the adoption of the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution", which gave President Johnson the power to resolve the conflict with any means necessary.

So far my search has a 70/30 return - 70 percent saying that the event was manufactured.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

So you don't even find it remotely funny that the man designing the set for the second US invasion of Iraq is noted in the article as having worked on a film called It Runs in the Family?

11 Mar 2003 | Benjy said...

Here's Bush Sr.'s Tufts speech transcript:
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/030303BushSpeech.htm

11 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

dd -- my reading about Tonkin says that it wasn't really "manufactured" ... the pings were coming back. They were valid pings.

But the didn't even bother to investigate whether they were, in fact, echoes -- which they were.

The WORST part: President Johnson (a DEMOCRAT for all you Bush haters out there) gets on TV and announces that "as I speak, American aircraft are hitting North Vietnamese targets". IN FACT ... the aircraft didn't arrive until three hours AFTER his TV announcement. Gee ... think Charlie was ready?

11 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I heard that citizens of Iraq are already starting to topple statues of Saddam.

Is this true?

11 Mar 2003 | indi said...

B: That incident happened within a few miles of where I live. I think the people involved were from outside our area and must have confused the informal 911 memorial which has been there for quite a while as being a pro-war, anti peace demonstration display. It' still pretty sad when people become violent and disrespectful in the name of peace. I wonder how many really cared about what they are doing and thought about why they were there. Is going to a peace demonstration the new "in" thing to do?

11 Mar 2003 | COD said...

Just heard that Iraq intercepted a US U-2. That could be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to speak.

11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Here's the U2 story. So much for cooperative Saddam. Hussein isn't going to fully disarm, he'll string the UN along until they leave him alone...just like he has been doing.

Fortunately, Bono was not harmed.

Don, RE: the statue thing...I saw a report of that on Ananova, so take it with a grain of salt.

11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

By the way, what the hell, people. How can you masturbate for something? (and no, I won't do it for a Hershey Bar)

That's like saying I'll refrain from suicide for Save the Arctic Wombat. Protests usually involve some sort of sacrifice. Masturbating isn't a sacrifice unless you're Edward Scissorhands.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

So, basically, two Iraqi fighter planes went to find out what an unscheduled plane was doing crossing their airspace and didn't fire on anyone or anything and then the UN admitted that the second U2 shouldn't have been there in the first place. That's not even a straw.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Could we take bets on the reaction to an unscheduled Iraqi plane crossing US airspace?

11 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Yeah, the U2 thing was an example of the media creating hype over, basically, nothing.

11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

...except for the fact that Iraq is obligated to comply with UN resolution 1441 and immediately disarm and open up their books, so to speak, for inspection. They didn't specifically state "must allow aerial inspection", but I think a compliant Iraq would be amenable to that sort of thing.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

1441 does not prohibit Iraq from actually, you know, having any aircraft. nor do they - specifically or otherwise - have to completely disarm. most of the recent issues have concerned the reach of weapons that they are perfectly at liberty to have, were it not that on a good day with the right kind of wind, those weapons might actually be capable of going another 4 - 5 miles further down the road.

11 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Paperhead, I didn't say that. I was saying that a compliant Iraq would allow recon flights. The fact that we give them 48hrs notice is outrageous.

Besides, it isn't up to the UN to find the weapons -- 1441 puts the burden of proof soley on Iraq.

Iraq must prove that they no longer have the ABC weapons/programs that they were determined to have after the Gulf War. For extra fun, the UN also decreed that Iraq wasn't allowed to posess weapons capable of delivering ABCs very far.

Here's the resolution.

...Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates.

Iraq is already in material breach. It was their job to get themselves out of material breach.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Paperhead, I didn't say that. I was saying that a compliant Iraq would allow recon flights. The fact that we give them 48hrs notice is outrageous.

Iraq does allow recon flights. With a few hundred thousand troops massed on their borders wouldn't you expect them to go and investigate an unannounced flight in their airspace?

Iraq must prove that they no longer have the ABC weapons/programs that they were determined to have after the Gulf War. For extra fun, the UN also decreed that Iraq wasn't allowed to posess weapons capable of delivering ABCs very far.

It's practically impossible to prove a negative like that, because all people have to do is say "we don't belive you" or produce a drawing of what a mobile chemical weapons lab might look like if Iraq had one and then ask them to prove they don't have any. Could the US actually prove [even if it allowed chemical weapons inspections, which it doesn't] that it isn't developing nerve gases? Of course it couldn't.

11 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

i've decided to drink Wild Turkey for peace. this may not work very well as i sometimes get belligerent when pissed.

12 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

a weak thread - masturbation and students cutting class? who cares.

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Iraq does allow recon flights.

Iraq allows recon flights with 48 hour notice. There is a difference.

It's practically impossible to prove a negative like that, because all people have to do is say "we don't belive you" or produce a drawing of what a mobile chemical weapons lab might look like if Iraq had one and then ask them to prove they don't have any.

Nonsense. It is most practical to prove that you've abandoned a known weapons program and disposed of the weapons. From previous inspections, Iraq was known to have thousands of liters of sarin and vx, for example.

What Iraq was supposed to do was either say that they still have it, and show inspectors where it is, or to say that they've burned it off, and show inspectors where the empty containers and related evidence are. THAT was what was supposed to be in the dossier that Iraq released in early December. It wasn't. In fact, they've denied EVER having a banned weapons program - an outright lie.

If Iraq did provide an explanation for their weapons programs and Bush still took this tack, that would be a different story. As it stands, Iraq is noncompliant and the burden of proof is on them.

12 Mar 2003 | JF said...

Amen Toby.

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Well if the UN didn't want to give a 48-hour notice, they should have said so shouldn't they.

In case you haven't noticed there are digs scheduled to verify that certain weapons the Iraq has said have been destroyed actually have been destroyed, but best not to hang around and wait for any of that eh?

Incidentally, the US also denies having a banned weapons program, despite the fact that we now know that the anthrax used in the recent attacks came from a US lab and despite the fact that the US continually refuses to have independent inspections of US chemical weapons facilities like the rest of the world.

Iraq is in the process of destroying weapons. Even now, as the US and UK are about to launch an illegal war on the country, they are still destroying missiles that, quite frankly, they may need to defend themselves against an illegal act of aggression, when the world's largest military power goes and kicks the shit out of one of the worst-equipped militaries in the world later this week.

As you seem so keen on quoting 1441 Toby, perhaps you could point out the passage that mentions declaring was on Iraq for non-compliance. As many times as I've read the damned thing, I still can't find that bit.

"Once the door is opened to calculations of utility and national interest, the usual speculations about the future of freedom, peace, and economic prosperity can be brought to bear to ease the consciences of those responsible for a certain number of charred babies." - Nagel

Course, this time round you probably won't be seeing too much of that as the only footage you're likely to be seeing is going to be "approved" before it gets anywhere near you.

Aside//

Did any of you see that business a while back with Colin Powell at the UN. Needing to give a speech in the lobby of the UN building, Colin's minders insisted that the copy of Guernica that was hanging on the back wall of the lobby was covered with a blue cloth. A spokesman commented that the image was "not appropriate" to a discussion of war. Sweet.

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

I'm not going to get into the whole thing, Paperhead, since it will soon be moot. But the very fact of the matter, which you fail to take seriously, is that Iraq was supposed to account for their biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons program. They haven't.

The point, which you seem to dismmiss, is that it isn't the job of the inspectors to find the weapons, but of Iraq to furnish proof that they no longer have them. Once Iraq provides that info, it was the inspector's job to confirm or refute.

Incidentally, the US also denies having a banned weapons program, despite the fact that we now know that the anthrax used in the recent attacks came from a US lab and despite the fact that the US continually refuses to have independent inspections of US chemical weapons facilities like the rest of the world.

The exact origins of the Anthrax have yet to be determined. If you have a confirmed source, I'd like to see it.

Anthrax, however, can be found in a number of goverment and academic labs. So, while it may have been produced domestically, it wasn't part of a bioweapons program. The American and British bioweapons came to an end with the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972. The rest of the world didn't know that the Soviets accelerated their weapons program until 1992 when Pasechnik defected, revealing everything. Which led one lecturer at the recent AAAS meeting [I think it was Christopher Davis of the National Academy of Sciences Working Group on Biological Weapons] to lament the fact that inspections are useless unless we are told where to look.

In any case, your point is irrelevant as we are talking about Iraq, whose disarmament came about as terms of a cease-fire for a war that they started.

As you seem so keen on quoting 1441 Toby, perhaps you could point out the passage that mentions declaring was on Iraq for non-compliance. As many times as I've read the damned thing, I still can't find that bit.

It doesn't specifically call for war as a consequence, although the previous (and might I add still binding) resolutions have. The phrase "serious consequences" is relevant.

Since France said it would veto any resolution that sets a deadline, they have unwittlingly forced parties to war. Go France.

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Lord Goldsmith's justifications for war.

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

It doesn't specifically call for war as a consequence, although the previous (and might I add still binding) resolutions have. The phrase "serious consequences" is relevant.

The previous resolutions were superseded by 1441, which is how it works. 1441 did not mention war because, if it had, the resolution would not have passed.

Since France said it would veto any resolution that sets a deadline, they have unwittlingly forced parties to war. Go France.

oh yeah, the French are forcing you to have a war. They have said that they will veto a resolution for war. That is not the same thing and, frankly, it is low of you to suggest it is.

As I said, there are digs going on to unearth evidence, but that's not going to come to light at all now is it, because the current UK and US administrations don't have the patience to see through a process that is witnessing the destruction of weapons on a daily basis.

You can try a search of the Baltimore Sun for articles on Dugway Proving Ground, which is where the US government, now by its own admission, has been producing weaponized anthrax. The difference is that when the US produced this stuff it's for "defensive purposes", when anyone else does it, it's as a "threat to world freedom". So much for the '72 treaty.

17 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Saddam used chemical weapons as recently as 1988, maybe 1991. That says a lot, doesn't it?

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

And the US was weaponizing anthrax as recently as 2002, maybe 2003. And that says nothing, does it?

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

The inspectors could dig all day, it really doesn't matter. Iraq had to give up the goods. They didn't.

Again, look at what Goldsmith said.

That is not the same thing and, frankly, it is low of you to suggest it is.

Nonsense. Chirac has said that he would veto any resolution that authorized a deadline for war even if there was a majority of support. He has said, and Villepin has said that they would not back any deadline, a bit of turnaround from what Chirac said this past autumn.

And yes, a deadline was essential. The threat of force backing that deadline was essential. A deadline enforced by the threat of war could have averted this mess, but France decided to torpedo that discussion.

Also, I've read the Baltimore Sun article...and the subsequent articles. And it still stands that hasn't been a link other than the fact that the government makes this stuff. The production is legal in small amounts for testing. Illegal when it comes to sacrificing a huge portion of your GDP to stockpile it, which the Soviets and Iraqis did.

If you are suggesting that the American anthrax mailings were part of a government conspiracy, that is beyond the point of the discussion.

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

And the US was weaponizing anthrax as recently as 2002, maybe 2003. And that says nothing, does it?

It says less than nothing -- this isn't a matter of moral equivalence.

17 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

When it's over (in a matter of DAYS):

* Iraqi citizens will be dancing in the streets
* Large caches of WMD will be found
* Saddam will be shown to be a liar BEYOND ARGUMENT
* France will be shown to have knowingly contributed to Saddam's WMD efforts

Mark my words.

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Again, look at what Goldsmith said.

if you made that thing up the page into a link i might be able to.

Nonsense. Chirac has said that he would veto any resolution that authorized a deadline for war . . .

That's what I said Toby, not veto deadlines, veto deadlines for war. That's what I said.

It says less than nothing -- this isn't a matter of moral equivalence.

Whereas accusations that Iraq had this back in 1990 are of course deadly serious?

Also, I've read the Baltimore Sun article...and the subsequent articles. And it still stands that hasn't been a link other than the fact that the government makes this stuff.

other than it being the same strain and all, and the fact that the US government maintains that the security levels around it means that none could be stolen.

If you are suggesting that the American anthrax mailings were part of a government conspiracy, that is beyond the point of the discussion.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. It's a stupid idea and I'm not at all sure why you brought it up.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Of course it will be over quick Don, the world's largest military power is about to bomb the crap out of what is effectively a third world country that is armed with missiles that might reach out to a 105 km distance if there's a good tail wind.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Still at least the munitions manufacturers will get to make some "cool new videos" showing how effective their weapons are against people who don't have a hope in hell of fighting back. Who knows maybe the US forces will get to kill tens of thousands of them while they're running away again.

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Hmmm...wonder what happened to the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857347.stm

17 Mar 2003 | Reinga said...

Re Indi on 11 March :

"It' still pretty sad when people become violent and disrespectful in the name of peace."

Umm ... The US/UK spin is that the invasion is in the name of peace ? Truly sad.

17 Mar 2003 | Reinga said...

In all the talk about France and vetos, I've seen no mention of the US/UK previously stating they'd invade regardless of the result of any second resolution vote. That is they would use a 'virtual veto' under any circumstance. They made these statements long before France's statementy.

Along the same lines, France has never stated they are opposed to use of force. They have stated they are opposed to the use of force at this moment. Chirac's tv statement said France would use the veto unless Blix stated that inspections would not work.

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

That's what I said Toby, not veto deadlines, veto deadlines for war. That's what I said.

So...what would the point of a deadline be if it didn't have a consequence?

17 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

In all the talk about France and vetos, I've seen no mention of the US/UK previously stating they'd invade regardless of the result of any second resolution vote. That is they would use a 'virtual veto' under any circumstance. They made these statements long before France's statementy.

Actually, the US and the UK have stated that they do not need the resolution to start a war.

Along the same lines, France has never stated they are opposed to use of force. They have stated they are opposed to the use of force at this moment. Chirac's tv statement said France would use the veto unless Blix stated that inspections would not work.

No, Chirac said that they would veto any resolution that ever threatens war and any deadline that has war as a consequence.

And please consider that they only time Iraq has made an effort to work with the inspectors was when violence was threatened.

17 Mar 2003 | Reinga said...

Don

"Large caches of WMD will be found"

The onus will then be on the US/UK to prove :
a) The caches were there when they invaded and
b) They did not know their location when the inspectors were still in Iraq (1441 requires all countries not to withhold information).

If they do that, they have justifcation for the invasion. If they don't, they don't.

"Saddam will be shown to be a liar BEYOND ARGUMENT"

Bit like the US government lying about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Niger then.

"France will be shown to have knowingly contributed to Saddam's WMD efforts"

Bit like the US and most other 'western democracies' in the late 80's then.

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

So...what would the point of a deadline be if it didn't have a consequence?

you know Toby, I just looked up consequence in the dictionary and it says a whole bunch of stuff. It doesn't say war.

As for the Goldsmith business, if I was in their position I'd probably try the same argument. However, this war is not about "the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security". We are not at a state of war and Iraq is no threat to international security - as the US/UK forces will amply demonstrate in the next few days. Hint: the clue is also in the US administration labelling this a "pre-emptive" action for the last few months. See how the language works there Toby, "restoring" and "pre-emptive". Restoring in advance of the possibility of it becoming damaged? This is kind of like how if the witch drowned . . .

17 Mar 2003 | Steve said...

OK Don, I've marked your words. And I'll dispute some of them:

Saddam is already known to be a complete liar. Like this is going to be any surprise? Like anyone believes him?

The war will not be over in a matter of days. It took a couple months to make large-scale progress in Afghanistan, against a completely unorganized and primitive force. As depleted as it is, Iraq still has an actual, real army. And there's the wildcard of what happens when the fight goes to Baghdad. The Germans thought they would just roll through Belgium in 1914, but when the Belgian citizens decided to start fighting in the streets, the Germans were hung up for about two months. More recently, just look at the mess that was Mogadishu. This won't be a repeat of Gulf War I.

I remain skeptical how many weapons will be found. There will be some. But, I think they're all very well hidden, and the people who know where they are will die before telling.

France is tangled into Iraq pretty well, but in terms of oil and infrastructure. I really, really, really doubt they have any involvement in weapons programs. The Russians could, but I highly doubt the French.

17 Mar 2003 | Reinga said...

Actually, the US and the UK have stated that they do not need the resolution to start a war.

Ok, I thought it had been put stronger than that. Either way, little if any difference between US/UK saying "we do not need a vote" and France saying "we will veto the vote".

... would veto any resolution that ever threatens war and any deadline that has war as a consequence.

"If inspectors said they were at a dead end, France would use force," the [French ambassador to the US, Jean-David Levitte] said. "The question is why now? As long as inspections are producing results, let's go on." March 13 - Post-Gazette

Can't argue with the point re threat of violence. Blix says "months not years" to prove what's in Iraq. So why not keep the troops there to provide the threat and give Blix his months. I think that's what the French, Russians and Chinese are getting at.

17 Mar 2003 | Reinga said...

The British Attorney General is one politicall appointed lawyer. The monarch rubber stamps the prime minister's recommended appointee. Not surprising his view supports the government. Other lawyer's may have different views. You're not a lawyer are you Paperhead ?

17 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

No, I'm not a lawyer Reinga, though I did train as one for a couple of years.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Toby, it's all well and good you blaming France, but do you not think there might just be a possibility that the US/UK withdrew sponsorship of a second resolution because they knew they were NOT going to get 9 votes on the security council? This is just a way of invading Iraq without having had a failed resolution for war.

18 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Paperhead, I don't blame France for war, I blame them for stalling a potential diplomatic course. A Security Council that dismisses the possibility of violence is toothless and farcical. I also question French motives, but that's not pertinent to this discussion.

And yes, I do think that the US/UK withdrew the resolution because they knew it would fail...and I think it was probably the correct thing to do.

18 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

. . . so, effectively, we are going to have a war because the UN security council was not going to vote in favour of a war resolution . . . that's so democratic it hurts.

18 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

If the UN was a democracy, it wouldn't have a Security Council. It is a political beast built around the fiction that everyone will act in the best interests of global security.

18 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

. . . so if the US was a democracy it wouldn't have a senate?

Aside//

pop quiz: anyone know which one of the five permanent members of the security council has used their power of veto most over the years?

19 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

The Soviet Union(121), followed by the US(76), then UK(32), then France (18), lastly China (4-5, depending how you count)

India really should be on the Security Council.

19 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

. . . so if the US was a democracy it wouldn't have a senate?

I can't tell. Is it the concept of the Security Council you are having trouble with? Or is it the concept of representative democracy?

19 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

The breakdown of those vetoes is quite fascinating too.

I can't tell.

I'm sure you'll think of some kind of an answer if you give it long enough Toby.

19 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Paperhead -- what happened in 1970? If you go to the bottom of that list and scroll up, it's all USSR until 1970; then it changes to like all USA.

Interesting.

19 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

Maybe most countries had joined the UN and there were no more membership applications to veto?

Or maybe Brezhnev had a different foreign vision than Khrushchev.

Does anybody remember Yuri Andropov or Konstantin Chernenko?
I sure as hell don't.

19 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Don I'm not really sure, the late 60s and early 70s were a pretty busy time.

Most of the early Soviet vetoes were connected with admitting new countries for membership. Perhaps the replacement of Nationalist China with Communist China persuaded the Soviets to loosen up on the admissions policy.

As for the sudden rise in the number of US vetoes, I'm sure you and a lot of other people here probably know a lot more about what was going on in the US than I do. A handful of the early ones seem to have been spent trying to keep North and South Vietnam out of the UN. After that most of the US vetoes seem to be based around Palestine/Israel/Middle East and seem to have kicked in after Yom Kippur.

19 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

also interesting to see that a lot of the French use of the veto has been in conjunction with a US/UK veto.

20 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

A rant about the war by Raed, a blogger in Baghdad.

21 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

thanks for that link P8! its really powerful and thats the beauty of the internet. for me, 1000 times better than some news reporter.

21 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

It's very interesting to read his normal day-today stuff. It shows that the Iraq's people are real people just like you and me (even more so than I thought) and not some statistic.

He has some really funny stuff on his blog: Tips on how to become super popular in the office.

Raed has not updated his site since yesterday. I hope he is OK.
I think it's really dangerous what he is doing. He might be the only objective 'reporter' in Baghdad right now. Both Iraq and the US want to control the information flow.

21 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

Oops, I believe his name is Salam not Raed.

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

He goes by Salam Pax, Raed is the guy he's looking for. I think it is like Desperately Seeking Susan with Geopolitics and Satellite-guided Munitions.

21 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

hey - he just updated! i thought the same: what if his blog suddenly stops being updated or even just taken down with no explaination... the thought makes me sick.

21 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

Thanks Toby, I didn't know that. Salam is very funny.
The title is also a palindrome: dear-raed (same when read backwards)

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

He is funny and he puts a wonderful face on the Iraqi people. It is remarkable how his tales of the daily absurdities of life in Baghdad are so similar to tales you hear of life under the soviets.

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

To throw fuel on the fire...

Take it for what it is worth, but this is from the Strategy Page. They get their figures from SPIRI, a Swedish disarmament group.

Below are best estimates of the dollar amount of weapons sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990.

Soviet Union- Over 25 billion dollars
France and China – at least five billion dollars each.
Czechoslovakia and Poland – about two billion dollars each
Brazil, Egypt and Romania – between $500 million and one billion dollars each.
Denmark- Over $200 million.
Libya and the United States, less than a quarter of a million dollars each

Hussein was hardly "our boy" -- he was a soviet client.

This isn't to absolve the US from supporting Hussein in the 80s. It was one of those "enemy of my enemy" deals. We gave him vaccinia (the smallpox vaccine -- they had a smallpox outbreak in some parts of Iraq -- India had an outbreak as well) and anthrax (to an agricultural lab -- anthrax wasn't really considered a big deal until after the Soviet weapons program was disclosed). We stood by while he gassed the Iranians. Hussein fights with Soviet-era weapons and French aircraft.

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Just read raed...absolutely chilling to know that B52s are on their way to your town...and I ain't talkin "Love Shack".

Tin Roof. Flattened.

21 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Hussein was hardly "our boy" -- he was a soviet client.

A lot of the stuff Saddam got from the US won't show up under armaments sales because it was either dual-use or not charged for when the US saw Iran as public enemy #1.

So anyway, here's a small list of stuff that the US supplied to Saddam (and indeed supplied up until 1992). Most of this stuff was supplied under Reagan and Bush v1.0):

anthrax
VX nerve gas
West Nile fever germs
botulism
brucella melitensis
clostridium perfringens

All of this is checkable by examining the Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq'.

The shipments continued after Halabja (1988) when 5000 Kurds were gassed. In total, between 1985 and 1990 the US administration granted 771 dual-use export licences.

********************************************
Courtesy of the late Bill Hicks:

"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the fucking arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the shit out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet.

"Pick it up."
"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."
"Pick up the gun."
(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)
"You all saw him - he had a gun."

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Up until '92?

One of the great ironies is that we helped put it together because we sent him the materials in the beginning to get him going, with these licenses that were approved by our own Government to send the biological specimens and so forth.

Read the report and the transcript.

You make it sound like "dual-use" items are inherently evil. Part of the reason the Iraqis suffered so much under sanctions is that they couldn't get dual-use items. You also make it sound like the US were the only ones. Whereas, as far as I can tell, the "dual-use" items were bought and paid for -- not given away.

We sold them items that could be converted into weapons. The Soviets sold them weapons systems capable of delivering biological and chemical weapons. Whatever the difference is, we were wrong then and it is all the more reason we are responsible now.

21 Mar 2003 | p8 said...

The US also supplied Saddam with intelligence information which could be very critical when waging war.

abcnews: "But even more remarkable was what the United States was doing, in secret, to help Iraq win its war against Iran. "We provided a great deal of intelligence to Iraq," according to Pollack, "intelligence which was critical to helping them win certain battles against the Iranians.""

Also interesting is this part:
"Even then, it was clear Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet in 1981, when Israel's U.S.-made warplanes bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak to prevent Saddam from building an atomic bomb, the United States condemned Israel for the attack."

21 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

We sold them items that could be converted into weapons. The Soviets sold them weapons systems capable of delivering biological and chemical weapons.

actually, the US helped out on that front too :)

Up until '92?

yep. more or less stopped when the democrats got in Toby.

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

The war was in '91...what 'dual-use' stuff was the US giving them.

Meanwhile, people who have supported Iraq since '92.

21 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

update:
"please stop sending emails asking if I were for real, don't belive it? then don't read it. I am not anybody's propaganda ploy, well except my own. 2 more hours untill the B52's get to Iraq."

isnt it weird to read his words that B52s are 6 hours away, then 2...? And you wonder if hell be posting still in 2 hours or if hell be blown to kingdom come. this is getting errie.

21 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Unfortunately, that last post was before the presidential palace was reduced to concrete mist.

From the pictures, it looks like that was all that went up...but you can never be sure. I really hope that Salam's OK.

21 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

The war was in '91...what 'dual-use' stuff was the US giving them.

I know when the war was Toby.

Meanwhile, people who have supported Iraq since '92.

And the US is about to give $6billion in aid to Turkey. That's the same Turkey that has killed in excess of 30,000 Kurds in the past decade, as well as displacing several hundred thousand more. That's the same Turkey that has been allowed to perpetrate boming raids and excursions into Kurdish northern Iraq (yep, the "safe havens" by the US and the UK for the past five or six years. The US and UK military both complicit in this. When the Turks conduct their assaults on the Kurds, US and UK forces are under orders to turn off their radar so that they can't monitor the areas that the Turks are bombing.

Sleep good knowing where your tax dollar goes. Bombing the crap out of one country because they persecute the Kurds whilst giving aid to another country (Turkey) while they kill tens of thousands of Kurds.

and you wonder why people think the US administration is hypocritical. Someone tell me how that's not hypocritical.

21 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

boming = bombing