question for the anti-war guys - NOT A FLAME

[marbles]

Been reading a lot of the war arguments, and you make some solid points. Most importantly, I don't believe anyone involved in this mess is telling the whole truth, especially my own government. There's one string of logic I can't get past in the case for war though:

1. Saddam Hussein is a bad dude (I think we're all in agreement here).
2. The world has asked him to disarm (we all know the resolutions).
3. He will not disarm.

So what world do we live in if we collectively ask a bad dude to disarm, he gives the world the finger, and he faces no repurcussions?

Honestly, this is not a flame. I just want to know how you guys resolve that logic string to conclude that no war is still the best approach? If not war, how do you deal with Saddam's insolence?

[B-Man]

Usually, they respond by saying things like, "There are also bad dudes in ________ (North Korea, Iran, etc.--fill in blank with whoever you choose), and we aren't going to war with them, so why should we go to war with Iraq?" In other words, two wrongs make a right; unless we take on ALL of the "bad dudes", right now, then we are morally estopped from doing something about any of them (including Saddam).

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[adios]

Yes the UN is in nearly unanimous agreement that Iraq must disarm (I believe UN Resolution 441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council) but that fact often gets ignored. UN Secratary-General Annan, Nobel Peace Prize recipient no less, supports Iraq disarmermant 100%. France and Germany voted for 441. Yet this fact is continuously ignored by those condemning the USA. Here's a list of the reasons I compiled:

1. Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions.

2. North Korea has nukes.

3. There is no evidence of a link of Iran to al Qaeda.

4. Scant evidence of WMD's.

5. There will civil war in Iraq among the various factions upon Hussein's removal.

6. Bush is a war monger.

7. Bush is a puppet of big oil companies.

8. Bush is a facist.

9. The republicans stole the 2000 presidential election.

10. This all part of the plan for US to expand it's empire.

11. Saddam is not a threat and is contained.

It's the time proven strategy of throwing enough crap against the wall and some of it will stick.

[B-Man]

Great list. I'll add one more

12. The U.S. is a terrorist state.

[Ray Zee]

it is clear the world would be better off without him. but is it our job to remove him. also they say he hasnt disarmed. so why havent they found his weapons. i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof. only rethoric about them. or little missles that can do only small damage. and doesnt a country have the right to have weapons for protection with in reason.
currently his country is totally constrained from doing any deadly acts. with many other countrys much more dangerous than his.

[marbles]

All right, both sides have their lists of rhetoric (e.g. Saddam's supposed connection to 9/11).

I'm really trying to get a flame-free response on this question. I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of attacking only because of the logic string I mentioned, but want to see the other side's perspective on this one point.

[marbles]

"i remember bush saying he was going to give proof saadam had weapons, but i never have seen it. that was a lie as he said they had the proof."

--I agree that this looks like a lie (or half-truth, since he does have proof of the little missles). The thing is, I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell... Isn't the burden of proof on Saddam, that he has to prove he's destroyed the weapons he had back in 1991?

[Clarkmeister]

I might have given a serious response, but since all the pro-war guys jumped in, I'll just give this half-sarcastic answer:

Going to war with Iraq is similar to giving HDPM the death penalty on suspicion (without proof) of owning illegal hand grenades.

[Clarkmeister]

"I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell"

Uhhhhh, not if he wants to go to war.

[marbles]

M: "I think it was a pointless lie for Bush to tell"
CM: Uhhhhh, not if he wants to go to war.

--I'm not so sure about that. I think there's a huge amount of the population that's on the fence here (I am among them), and lying/misleading us only makes us more skeptical. Can't imagine that result is what he's looking for.

[marbles]

"Going to war with Iraq is similar to giving HDPM the death penalty on suspicion (without proof) of owning illegal hand grenades."

Close, but no cigar... It would be more like bombing the country that was suspected of producing the aforementioned hand grenades, provided they're a country we didn't like much in the first place. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[adios]

"I might have given a serious response, but since all the pro-war guys jumped in"

Blatent manipulation. Apparently Annan, Blix, France and Germany fit your definition of pro-war too given their support of UN Resolution of 441. Just for the record I don't prefer war, I much prefer Iraq's voluntary disarmerment.

An encouraging headline:

Blix Says Iraq Signals New Cooperation

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_blix_1

It's encouraging until you actually read the article to find such paragraphs as:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Blix said one letter from Iraq informed inspectors that "they have found an R-400 bomb containing liquid in a site which is known to us at which they did dispose of biological weapons before."


He gave no details, but R-400 aerial bombs can be filled with biological agents. Among the outstanding issues which Iraq has not answered is providing documentation about the filling of R-400 bombs with aflotoxin.


"There is another letter that tells us they have found some handwritten documents concerning the act of disposal of prohibited items in 1991," Blix said. "Now all these have to be followed up, but these are new elements."

------------------------------------------------------------

and this

------------------------------------------------------------
Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.


Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.


But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, "not between us and Iraq."

__________________________________________________ _______

It's clear the Iraq doesn't want to comply with UN Resolution 441 and any compliance that is forthcoming has been through overt threat of military action. So far Iraq is refusing to comply with the Blix directive to dismantle the missles. What good is passing a resolution if you don't enforce it? I don't know why those who oppose Bush policy hate the UN and it's processes so much.

[Clarkmeister]

"Blatent manipulation"


Manipulation of what, exactly? I came to the thread prepared to discuss the issue with an apparently objective undecided poster and before I can respond there are 2 long sarcastic antagonistic responses from yourself and Bman intended, apparently, to prevent that discussion.

"I don't know why those who oppose Bush policy hate the UN and it's processes so much."

I simply refuse to debate the issue with people who can't resist throwing in ridiculous statements like this.

[marbles]

"I came to the thread prepared to discuss the issue with an apparently objective undecided poster"

--Yeah, let's try to get back to that... The question remains: Can a bad dude fail to disarm after the world demands it, and still not face an attack? And if not an attack, what consequences are appropriate?

I really think that this is what it all boils down to after you cast aside the rhetoric from both sides. There may or may not be a creative solution, but it seems like the extremists from both the left and right would rather degrade each other than try to figure it out.

Any fellow moderates care to help me here?

[adios]

My post wasn't intended to be a flame. It's a legitimate laundry list of the reason I've read and heard. I'll address my friend Ray's post later but I don't think Bush has done a very convincing job about threat of Iraq to the American public. As to the laundry list, let's take number 1) Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions. If countries want the UN to address this issue as well as the issue of Iraq disarmerment perhaps some sort of "linkage" needs to be proposed by those countries that feel that way. Perhaps the UN process is flawed in such a way that it can't be effective. However, to ignore the process and put one's head in the sand regarding the UN resolutions that apply seems to be a total repudiation of the UN itself. If that's the case then those who oppose military action to enforce the UN resolutions need to either come up with an alternative or state that the UN was wrong in passing the resolution in the first place. What I'm seeing is that there are many that simply have an agenda to trash the republicans and Bush. I have literally read nothing from those who are vocal in their denunciation of the USA in this matter say that UN Resolution 441 is wrong and/or the UN is worthless organization and/or Annan and Blix are wrong in their efforts. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about why Germany is so opposed to military action. It's well worth reading IMO. Very sad when you realize the horrors of war that have been endured and inflicted by and on mankind. Germany has basically taken a pacifist stand against military action and as I've stated before I respect this stand. I think the UN offers the best hope for world peace and freedom for mankind. It's certainly not a perfect organization but it can be a damned inconvienience to blatent political agendas (a good thing). The trouble with the UN IMO is that there is lack of leadership and too many political agendas being promoted by it's members, USA included. And for those who question the wisdom of the American people during this whole crises, polls have consistently showed that Americans want UN Security Council approval before undertaking military action against Iraq. We'll see how it unfolds but the UN as an effective organization is in jeopardy IMO.

[adios]

I guess I'm an extremist. However, I think it's fair to say that Blix and Annan are not USA puppets. Far from it IMO and that's a good thing.

[marbles]

"My post wasn't intended to be a flame. It's a legitimate laundry list of the reason I've read and heard."

--Fair enough. And FWIW, I've heard all of the points on your list as well, and most of them annoy me, too (particularly the bit about stealing the election).

"We'll see how it unfolds but the UN as an effective organization is in jeopardy IMO."
--Now that's an important point. Bush is really exposing a tragic leadership flaw through this whole thing by letting it become a pissin' match between him and the UN. You mention the leaders pushing their own agendas, but is any leader pushing his agenda harder than ours?

[marbles]

"I guess I'm an extremist. However, I think it's fair to say that Blix and Annan are not USA puppets. Far from it IMO and that's a good thing."

--I don't think you're an extremist, but you have to admit your first couple of posts on this string looked a lot like some of the right-wing intolerance that's been polluting the board lately. As for Annan and Blix, I agree on both counts.

[adios]

"You mention the leaders pushing their own agendas, but is any leader pushing his agenda harder than ours?"

I agree. I was predisposed to the notion that Blix wouldn't be very effective. From seeing Blix in action I'm thinking that he is doing a good job and I was wrong. Statements from Blix like this have led me to that belief:

"Blix said he has received no reply from the Iraqi government to his order to start destroying its Al Samoud 2 missiles, their engines and components by Saturday for exceeding the 93-mile limit in U.N. resolutions.


Iraq says the missiles don't exceed the limit and has asked for technical talks.


But when Blix was asked whether the issue was open for debate, he said, "not between us and Iraq."

I don't agree totally with the way Blix is going about things (that's probably a good thing) but Blix has demonstrated that he wants compliance with UN Resolution 441 in no uncertain terms.

As this unfolds I think Bush will have some major problems if Iraq complies with his, Blix's, latest directive and Bush decides to send the troops in anyway.

[adios]

It seems to me that there is a lot of blind opposition to military action without considering the issues involved. I hate to make the dividing line anti-war vs. pro-war because god damnit I'm anti war too but admittedly not a pacifist. BTW I believe the left has very successfully framed this crises an "anti-war vs. pro-war" crises. This characterization may be accurate at a later date but it certainly isn't now. I just don't see coherent policy alternatives from the left. The laundry list I gave actually has some relevant issues but throwing out a bunch of negative propaganda seems rather shrill and empty to me.

[marbles]

"It seems to me that there is a lot of blind opposition to military action without considering the issues involved."

--True, but there's been plenty of blind support as well. Have you heard anyone called "unpatriotic" for questioning the president lately? I have, and I find it pretty nauseating.

I, too, would like to see some policy alternatives, but they don't necessarily have to come from the left. Through all the debate and bickering, I'm still only aware of two basic options:
1. Wipe Saddam off the face of the earth.
2. Let Saddam ignore the orders of the UN and pretty much the entire western world.

As of this moment, neither option sounds particularly appealing, since both have pretty frightening repurcussions. I personally think option 1 is a little better than option 2, but I'm not particularly fond of either one. Can no one come up with a third route?

[MMMMMM]

I don't see other alternatives.

I think around 4 million Iraqi exiles and the majority of the population currently inside Iraq's borders favor option #1--if that means anything much to the anti-war crowd.

I'm truly baffled as to how so many public supporters of the Serbia/Bosnia war could not feel at least as much need for the approaching Iraq war on purely humanitarian grounds.

[Chris Alger]

Rhetoric aside, no one seriously believes that Saddam's violation of UN disarmament resolutions, by itself, justifies war. If his potential for aggression (internally and externally) can be contained without complete disarmament, then it makes no difference whether he's 50% disarmed or 100%. As it stands right now, Saddam has remained boxed in a no-fly zone for 10 years, his small airforce is at half-strength, his army is 1/3 the size it was in 1990, his armored divisions are in disrepair and he has no Navy. It is not likely that Saddam's army can even train for an invasion. Contrast this to a large US military presence in the Gulf and surrounding region that wasn't there when he invaded Kuwait. Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred.

There are three arguments you hear to the contrary:

1. Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S.

Response: Saddam doesn't need WMD to terrorize the US, as 9/11 and Oklahoma City showed. Nor does he have any record of engaging in or supporting terrorism against the US. The rhetoric from the Bush adminsitration to the contrary is just that.

2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant.

3. We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains.

This is criminally immoral but also asssumes that war is risk-free. War in the middle east could just as easily unleash a wave of terrorism and WMD acquisition that would not otherwise occur.

Two more points:

1. The US cannot be trusted to refrain from invading Iraq even if Iraq disarms. Complete disarmament of all conventional and WMD would therefore render the people of Iraq as well as Saddam vulnerable to a war of aggression. This is part of the current dispute over the range of Iraq's missiles.

2. The disarmament process has only been taking place in earnest for a few years, although it has achieved concrete results. It could take a decade or more, but the trend is for Iraq to become grandually more impotent.

[MMMMMM]

So for the sake of argument let's assign a relatively small weighting to all of those points--now add that smallish weight to the large humanitarian call to liberate the people of Iraq from the Butcher of Baghdad, and we may have a case for war still. As I've said elsewhere, I find it hard to see how intervention in Serbia/Bosnia could have been justified if intervention in Iraq is not. The counter-argument that we don't liberate all oppressed peoples won't fly here, because the question is not the degree of our moral perfection (or lack thereof) but whether the plight of the Iraqi people is sufficient to merit intervention on their behalf. I believe most strongly that it is.

[IrishHand]

This thread is priceless. Someone asks a legitimate question for "the anti-war guys", and promptly gets 22 responses. Too bad 18 of them are from the pro-war crowd, and there's really only 1 response of any substance from an "anti-war guy" - and that's the last one. Sort of defeats the purpose of the thread, doesn't it? Although Chris' attempt to actually answer the question(s) is admirable, I prefer Clarkmeister's approach of just shaking my head at the process. Iit's pretty clear from reading this thread how little interst the pro-war crowd - or at least the select few responsible for offering their hollow versions of the "anti-war" positions - have in actually hearing the reasons the vast majority of the world disagrees with them.

[marbles]

"no one seriously believes that Saddam's violation of UN disarmament resolutions, by itself, justifies war."
--I would agree with that. But I do believe that it justifies action. Unfortunately, no one has come up with an appropriate action other than war (unless you consider containment an "action").

"1. Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S."
--I dismiss this pro-war argument.

"War in the middle east could just as easily unleash a wave of terrorism and WMD acquisition that would not otherwise occur."
--I dismiss this anti-war argument.

"2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.
the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant."
--Well, I wouldn't say irrelevant. Sure, we play by slightly different rules than the other guys, but that goes with being the big kid. I know it's tempting to compare all UN resolutions like they're apples-to-apples, but every situation is a little different. We do have more say, and that just goes with being the superpower.

Believe me, I don't think Saddam is the greatest threat the US faces today, but I can't stomach the thought that he could call our bluff and come out roses. I don't like war, and I don't want Saddam Hussein to be running a country, particularly without disarming. Can't someone give me what I want?!?

[marbles]

"Correction- make that 23 responses total, 19 from pro-war crowd."

--In all fairness, 10 (now 11) of the responses are from me. Of course, I don't think my position (or my posts on this thread, for that matter) is all that pro-war. I am fairly pro-action. I am most definitely anti-Saddam.

BTW, Irish, I value your opinion; assuming you are against military action, could you concisely answer the initial question at the top of the post? I just want to know what the thought process is, and still no one has told me.

[IrishHand]

I shall respond directly to your questions in a new thread, so as to create the vague possibility of a discussion where I don't have 3 people offering bad versions of my arguments. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

"Sure, we play by slightly different rules than the other guys, but that goes with being the big kid."

Fine, but then let's dispense with the nonsense about the little kids having to play by rules. One either accepts the limits set by international law or one doesn't. When law is applied only arbitrarily, it isn't really law but -- at most -- a phony pretext for the actions of those with power..

"Believe me, I don't think Saddam is the greatest threat the US faces today, but I can't stomach the thought that he could call our bluff and come out roses. I don't like war, and I don't want Saddam Hussein to be running a country, particularly without disarming. Can't someone give me what I want?!? "

Saddam and his coterie are probably the only people on earth that want him to remain in power. I agree that this is a real problem, but it doesn't justify mass killing and certainly not "regime change" under the control of a superpower that could care less about the well-being of Saddam's future victims, having stood on the sidelines and applauded his treatment of victims past..

If we're serious about the worst governments in the world, then let the UN or at least the Security Council agree on what constitutes a "bad" government and put into place a series of measures designed to isolate them and encourage their replacement and reform. This isn't in the cards, however, in part because the US -- hardly alone this time -- wouldn't tolerate it.

Further, I'm not sure why him "calling our bluff" is such a bad thing. In the first place, it's not just him, but most of the rest of the world. The world views the U.S. as both a benevolent promise and a threat. If Bush unilaterlalism is proven unworkable, then we'll have to redouble our efforts at persusasion and diplomacy and rely less on brute force. Everyone is better off.

[B-Man]

I came to the thread prepared to discuss the issue with an apparently objective undecided poster and before I can respond there are 2 long sarcastic antagonistic responses from yourself and Bman intended, apparently, to prevent that discussion.

Come on Clarkmeister, my sarcastic response prevented you from discussing the issue? How so? You could have done any number of things, including posting whatever you were going to post before you read my response.

For the record, my post was not intended to prevent discussion. I would love to hear some anti-war arguments which make sense (so far I have heard exactly one that I agree with, but I do not think it outweighs all the arguments in favor of disarming Iraq, by force if necessary).

[Chris Alger]

Who's going to liberate them from the guy we replace him with? You insist this is paranoid speculation, but at the same time you profess ignorance or casually dismiss the horrible things the US has done to other countries in pursuit of its interests, tending to define them as "not as bad" and therefore unworthy of concern. The response is obvious: one doesn't engage in something as horrifically destructive and risky as war on the grounds that the new boss will probably be better than the old one.

Here's an example. It was reported today that the quid pro quo for Turkey's support for the invasion was that Turkey itself gets to invade the (now largely autonomous) Kurdish regions of Iraq. The reason for this is that the Turks don't like the idea of autonomous Kurds. The details aren't yet clear, but the Kurds are furious because they're more terrified of the Turkish army than they are of Saddam. What if the Turks do the Kurds in Iraq what they've done to the Kurds in Turkey (i.e., kill tens of thousands of them)? How will the Kurds have been "liberated" by the U.S. under that scenario?

[B-Man]

2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant.

Typical Chris Alger reasoning--two wrongs make a right (or, as usual, any alleged wrongful act committed by Israel means everyone in the world has the right to commit wrongful acts, and the U.S. has no right to do anything about it).

[adios]

"Rhetoric aside, no one seriously believes that Saddam's violation of UN disarmament resolutions, by itself, justifies war."

Oh really? hmmmm........ I disagree but that's ok.

"If his potential for aggression (internally and externally) can be contained without complete disarmament, then it makes no difference whether he's 50% disarmed or 100%."

A big if but you would know for sure.

"As it stands right now, Saddam has remained boxed in a no-fly zone for 10 years, his small airforce is at half-strength, his army is 1/3 the size it was in 1990, his armored divisions are in disrepair and he has no Navy. It is not likely that Saddam's army can even train for an invasion. Contrast this to a large US military presence in the Gulf and surrounding region that wasn't there when he invaded Kuwait."

Enforcing the UN resolution should be easy and painless then if there's no resistance.

"Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred."

First of all your dredging up an over 10 year old war. Second of all if we would have supported him in earnest he would have won the war instead the standoff that resulted with both sides being slaughtered. So methinks you exaggerate and are bringing up something that is irrelevant today and you're just throwing crap against the wall.

"Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred."

Again since he's powerless there won't be much resistance to enforcing the relevant UN resolutions.

'There are three arguments you hear to the contrary:

1. Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S."

Maybe you hear it but I don't.

An interview with Bush today. That's not his position at all.

Bush Presses U.N. to Back Action Vs. Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_28

"2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant."

The implication here is that:

a) the UN acts at the USA's beck and call and is totally controlled by the USA. Nothing could be further from the truth.

b) the UN is a useless organization for imposing international law.

This is perfect example of throwing crap at the wall to see how much sticks. No mention in Chris's words that "the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states makes it irrelevant" by the Security Council members. No linkage for imposing UN resolutions on Iraq and Israel have been proposed by Security Council members either. Perhaps they should be.

"3. We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains."

What's your source for this one? I've never heard this justification.

"Two more points:

1. The US cannot be trusted to refrain from invading Iraq even if Iraq disarms. Complete disarmament of all conventional and WMD would therefore render the people of Iraq as well as Saddam vulnerable to a war of aggression. This is part of the current dispute over the range of Iraq's missiles."

You're entitled to your opinion. It's interesting that you're waffling here. Above your implication that Iraq is impotent as far as having a defense capability so there is no need to disarm and here your implication is that they need their defense capability as a deterrent to the potential for naked US agression. Perhaps they, Iraq, should be allowed to develop a few Nukes and maintain a stockpile of WMD's to further deter the threat of naked US agression.

"2. The disarmament process has only been taking place in earnest for a few years, although it has achieved concrete results. It could take a decade or more, but the trend is for Iraq to become grandually more impotent."

Blix and Annan have drawn their line in the sand. Iraq is refusing compliance. We'll see what happens.

I guess what I take from this is that you believe the UN process isn't worth very much.

[MMMMMM]

CA: "...one doesn't engage in something as horrifically destructive and risky as war on the grounds that the new boss will probably be better than the old one."

Isn't that just what we what we did in Serbia/Bosnia and in Afghanistan? And weren't the replacements better?

Now add to today's equation the likelihood that Saddam's replacement will be better by virtue of the fact that despots generally don't run much worse than Saddam.

[Chris Alger]

I was under the impression that it was the proponents of war that had the burden of proof. Maybe I'm old school. You still haven't explained:

(1) how Iraq's violation of UN resolutions can justify war while Turkey's and Israel's can't even justify cutting lethal aid, much less the slightest attempt to enforce UN resolutions against them; and

(2) how, given the above, that violating UN resolutions can possibly be the real reason this war is going to happen. There has to be some other reason that renders UN resolutions either pretext or only part of the case.

[Chris Alger]

"1) Israel is in violation of UN Resolutions. If countries want the UN to address this issue as well as the issue of Iraq disarmerment perhaps some sort of "linkage" needs to be proposed by those countries that feel that way."

It has been by dozens of countries time and again, it's called "enforcement of UN resolutions," period, as opposed to war as the sole means of enforcing those ones that fit the US agenda and forgetting about those that don't. And Israel isn't the only one.

"Perhaps the UN process is flawed in such a way that it can't be effective."

The only procedural problem with enforcing the resolutions against Israel is the US veto power in the security council.

"However, to ignore the process and put one's head in the sand regarding the UN resolutions that apply seems to be a total repudiation of the UN itself."

Correct. That is what the US has done by its countless vetos.

"If that's the case then those who oppose military action to enforce the UN resolutions need to either come up with an alternative or state that the UN was wrong in passing the resolution in the first place. What I'm seeing is that there are many that simply have an agenda to trash the republicans and Bush. I have literally read nothing from those who are vocal in their denunciation of the USA in this matter say that UN Resolution 441 is wrong and/or the UN is worthless organization and/or Annan and Blix are wrong in their efforts."

There's nothing in any resolution regarding Iraq that says it will be enforceable by war. The antiwar side isn't opposed to enforcement of UN resolutions -- far from it -- it's against automatic war for their violation when war is not the last resort. They are also against hypocritical enforcement of some resolutions while ignoring others because this too renders the resolutions meaningless.

Just once I'd like to see the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times or anyone in the Bush administration argue that the US should consider, for a day perhaps, even the slightest cut in lethal aid to Israel or Turkey as an incentive to get them to abide by international law. It will never happen. This is why it's so gallling to read the same sources soberly invoke the requirements of UN resolutions as basis for US policy.

[Chris Alger]

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't think Iraq has any "right" to violate UN resolutions, or that anyone in the world has any right to commit wrongful acts. I think for the US to declare war on a country for violating UN resolutions is no better than Israel declaring war on a country for violating UN resolutions. Nobody with half a brain would accept Israel's reason at face value, and nobody with half a heart would ever favor war waged on behalf of lies. When it comes to the US, however, there are powerful social taboos that compel people to accept whatever reason, however spurious, however contradictory, that their leaders invoke as the justification for military force.

[MMMMMM]

Well just for the record, I think it's a mistake to tie the approaching Iraq war to U.N. Security Council Resolutions. There are plenty of other good reasons for this war (IMO) and we don't need to confuse the issue with the resolutions of a terribly flawed organization like the U.N.

I believe Bush has sought U.N. approval in an attempt to gain world opinion or to show a non-unilateral approach, but I fear the end result will be that the next time war is justified and necessary, and perhaps vital to our security, we will be expected to jump through hoops to have it OK'ed by the U.N. first.

There are many reasons I feel the U.N. is a fundamentally flawed and anachronistic body, ill-fitted to impose law on sovereign nations or to uphold the principles of liberty or human rights. I won't go into the details of why in this post, however, as I think that would merit a separate thread.

The U.N. also is apparently becoming irrelevant. Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen, but if it does die a natural death as did the League of Nations, perhaps its successor could be better. The concept itself, of an international body, has some merits and some caveats, but surely a better one could be devised than the one currently in existence.

[andyfox]

We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains."

What's your source for this one? I've never heard this justification.

I hear this all the time, most recently in the car a half an hour ago on the Hugh Hewitt Show. There was apparently a refinery fire in Minnesota and Mr. Hewitt said it was an accident, but what if it was caused by Hussein's "drones," do we really want to take a chance?

[andyfox]

Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S."

Maybe you hear it but I don't.

An interview with Bush today. That's not his position at all.

-It's precisely his position. He is calling for complete, 100% disarmorment. Complete means without any trace.

[marbles]

"Further, I'm not sure why him "calling our bluff" is such a bad thing. In the first place, it's not just him, but most of the rest of the world. The world views the U.S. as both a benevolent promise and a threat. If Bush unilaterlalism is proven unworkable, then we'll have to redouble our efforts at persusasion and diplomacy and rely less on brute force. Everyone is better off."

You win the prize, Alger. That post was closer to resolving my question than any other today. I still don't want Saddam to stay in power, but obviously you agree with me in that respect anyway.

One hitch, though: You say that we'd have to redouble our efforts on persuasion and diplomacy and less on brute force. I think that's just a little bit naive, particularly when dealing with the likes of Saddam (and, for that matter, what's-his-face in North Korea). I don't believe you can sit down at the table with these guys, and in some cases, brute force is the only answer.

I'm not sure we're quite at the point where force is our only resort with Saddam right now, but we're a lot closer than we have been with anyone in a long time.

[Chris Alger]

(The quotes are yours, the bold is my first post)

"Enforcing the UN resolution should be easy and painless then if there's no resistance."

Not for those caught in the crossfire. And there's a big difference between an aiblity to defend entrenched positions and an ability to be a regional threat.

"First of all your dredging up an over 10 year old war".

An event which is one of two cross-border invasions that supposedly prove that Iraq is a regional threat. Proponents of the war raise it all the time.

"Second of all if we would have supported him in earnest he would have won the war instead the standoff that resulted with both sides being slaughtered. So methinks you exaggerate and are bringing up something that is irrelevant today and you're just throwing crap against the wall."

US support for Saddam during the Iranian war included the technology of weapons of mass destruction and is a matter of public record. It proves that the US cared so little about Saddam's then-known record of tyranny, brutality and murder that it was willing to help him spread it to another country. Why do you assume that the US will never do it again if it's interests so demand?

Further, his invasion of Iran was supported by the U.S. other western states, where any invasion he launched against anyone would be met with immediate annihilation by the U.S. All evidence suggests that Saddam has been and will continue to be relatively powerless and deterred.

"Again since he's powerless there won't be much resistance to enforcing the relevant UN resolutions."

Do you seriously think that the ability to win a war is the only matter of justification worth considering?

'There are three arguments you hear to the contrary:

1. Saddam is so dangerous that any trace of chemical or biological weapons in his possession present grave threats to the U.S.

Maybe you hear it but I don't.

An interview with Bush today. That's not his position at all.

Bush Presses U.N. to Back Action Vs. Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_28

I'm not sure how you think this refutes my point. "In a brief exchange with reporters, Bush was asked what it would take to avoid war. "Full disarmament," he replied tersely. Asked to expand on the answer, the president said, "Well, there's only one thing: it's full disarmament. The man has been told to disarm. For the sake of peace, he must completely disarm."

In other words, Bush's threshold for war isn't whether Iraq is a threat of any particular magnitude, but whether it has disarmed 100%. I understand this to mean that if Saddam retains any trace amounts of WMD, that the resulting threat will justify war.

I disagree. The issue for me isn't the degree to which he's disarmed, but the degree to which he's a threat.

2. Saddam's material breaches of Security Council resolutions undermine the rule of international law.

This is a better point, but the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states make it irrelevant.

"The implication here is that:

a) the UN acts at the USA's beck and call and is totally controlled by the USA. Nothing could be further from the truth."

The US has full power to prevent the Security Council from enforcing anything. Not quite total control of the UN, but sufficient control to prevent the UN from interring with US interests.

"b) the UN is a useless organization for imposing international law.

This is perfect example of throwing crap at the wall to see how much sticks. No mention in Chris's words that "the U.S.'s refusal to allow UN resolutions to be enforced against its client states makes it irrelevant" by the Security Council members. No linkage for imposing UN resolutions on Iraq and Israel have been proposed by Security Council members either. Perhaps they should be."

By "linkage" you mean some sort of quid pro quo, the SC goes after Iraq if the US agrees to enforce against Israel? Dream on. The other members of the Security Council know well that the US would never consider allowing any resolution against Israel to be enforced. After 30 years of US vetos and threats of vetos I think they've got the message.

3. We should be "on the safe side" and go to war as long as any risk remains.

"What's your source for this one? I've never heard this justification."

The term "safe side" is a quote from M. You yourself praised a WSJ article arguing for war on the grounds that we'll never know what Iraq has by way of WMD because there's no way of locating them. Because of this, the argument goes, the whole UN inspections process is a joke -- "a waste of time" -- he called it. That's what I mean by the safe side: war will be jusitifed even if we can only prove trace amounts of WMD or even no WMD at all. Saddam himelf is all the risk we need.

Two more points:

1. The US cannot be trusted to refrain from invading Iraq even if Iraq disarms. Complete disarmament of all conventional and WMD would therefore render the people of Iraq as well as Saddam vulnerable to a war of aggression. This is part of the current dispute over the range of Iraq's missiles.

"You're entitled to your opinion. It's interesting that you're waffling here. Above your implication that Iraq is impotent as far as having a defense capability so there is no need to disarm..."

I don't understand that Iraq needs to disarm for the purpose of being unable to defend itself from invasion. That's a new one.

"and here your implication is that they need their defense capability as a deterrent to the potential for naked US agression. Perhaps they, Iraq, should be allowed to develop a few Nukes and maintain a stockpile of WMD's to further deter the threat of naked US agression."

This is certainly the lessen that other countries will take to heart. After all, nobody's talking about invading North Korea.

"Blix and Annan have drawn their line in the sand. Iraq is refusing compliance. We'll see what happens.

I guess what I take from this is that you believe the UN process isn't worth very much."

No, I'm all for the process. I don't think that the threat of immediate war is necessarily part of it.

[brad]

and how does he prove he destroyed the ones which american forces blew up during the war?

so you see there will always be stuff he cant account for.

[nicky g]

Oooo I say, you've all been fighting wthout me.

One thing. No, the fact that other regimes have been allowed to flout UN resolutions does not mean that it's ok for Saddam to flout them too. But it make the idea that he must be ATTACKED, BECAUSE he has flouted UN resolutions absurd. It is perfectly possible to back 1441 and not support the war, because 1441 does not call for force. Flouting a UN resolution does not guarantee or demand war. One would think nothing at all was being done to Iraq at the present and that war was the only option. Perhaps a sincere offer to lift the sanctions (which Blair and co have previously said would only happen wth the removal of Saddam, even though that has nothing to do with the legal basis and ostensible purpse of the sanctions) should Iraq cooperate more might be a way out of this impasse.

[Chris Alger]

[MMMMMM]

That certainly ought to straighten the whole thing out;-)

[Zeno]

“If we're serious about the worst governments in the world, then let the UN or at least the Security Council agrees on what constitutes a "bad" government and put into place a series of measures designed to isolate them and encourage their replacement and reform.”

This has been done to Iraq since the Gulf War and the results are not encouraging. The somewhat bias, but usually reasonable, Economist estimates that 360,000 Children have died because of the sanctions and isolationist policy of the UN to pressure Saddam’s regime. True numbers are probably impossible but certainly damage has been done. And this does not count deliberate deaths caused by Saddam and his henchmen. In addition, black-markets, smuggling, payoffs, backroom deals etc make real isolation of “bad governments” impossible and you cannot isolate a regime without punishing innocent people.

Few governments working with an international body have the political will or international clout, much less the stomach for such actions. Plus, Nationalism would have to markedly decrease before anyone would take such an approach seriously. Given the irrational nature of people and the easy way that they are manipulated, this will never occur.

There is no political solution. You must wage war and kill large numbers of people. It is the human way to solve problems.

Le Misanthrope

[Zeno]

"I don't like war, and I don't want Saddam Hussein to be running a country, particularly without disarming. Can't someone give me what I want?!? "


No.


As I stated in a response to one of chris's posts:

"There is no political solution. You must wage war and kill large numbers of people. It is the human way to solve problems."


Le Misanthrope

[brad]

360k?

madeleine albright said a half million on 60 minutes almost ten years ago!

ive heard its now about a million.

[Chris Alger]

This isn't what I'm talking about. Iraq was subject to sanctions only because of the Gulf War, not because Saddam is a dictator with WMD -- there are several of those. The sanctions were barely multilateral, never enjoying much support outside the security council. They were ostensibly designed to eliminate WMD, not to reform Iraq's poltical system, and predictably tightened Saddam grip on his country. Given the tepid attempts to get Saddam to dissarm during the 1990's it appears that the sanctions were more designed to wreck Iraq's economy and infrastructure as a lesson to those countries that consider crossing the west, especially the U.S.

I was referring to a system by which the UN sets minimum standards for political decency along the lines of the genocide convention and enforces it through the General Assembly. It's completely utopian because the major powers, especially the US, would never consent to it.

[nicky g]

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Let me put it this way:

The sanctions have now been replaced with the threat of war. The sanctions were originally put in place to persuade Iraq to comply with various demands and resolutions, particularly concerning WMDs. They were not meant to simply punish Iraq. However, Clinton, Blair and Bush have all made it quite clear that the sanctions will NEVER be lifted so long as Saddam is in power. They also actively undermined the inspections process, by putting spies in the original inspections team, which they've admitted, and replacing the original chief weapons inspector, who after several false starts said he was happy with the progress he'd made and that the sanctions should be lifted, with the bullish and idiotic Richard Butler, who set the entire process back to square one before getting his team kicked out.
Now they've decided the sanctions and inspections won't work, and are going to go to war; but the sanctions/inspections process could never work because there was no prospect of the sanctions ever being lifted. Even now if Saddam did whatever it is Bush wants him to do, the war might be averted but the sanctions would remain. Surely before going to war the UK and the US should at least investigate the posibility of fair negotiations and a genuine quid-pro-quo disarmament programme in Iraq before launching this incredibly dangerous adventure.

[adios]

I haven't read all of the new posts and I'm behind on answering the others. As I stated above somewhere I think Bush will run into major political problems if Iraq complies with the latest directive from Blix to dismantle the missles (I hope he does dismantle them). FWIW I actually think Blix is doing a good job as is Annan. We'll see what happens.

[MMMMMM]

nicky please don't take my one-line reply as anything other than a complete expression of my faith in Saddam to refuse to truly give up all his WMD.

I think Saddam has to go---period. The Iraqi people need for Saddam to go, too. It would be impossible for Saddam to truly change his ways and this is really what would be required of him--a few cosmetic changes aren't going to suffice here, IMO, other than to delay the process--Saddam is a tyrant and a survivor through and through, and he's not going to become a decent member of the world community, nor become a decent leader to his people--that just isn't going to happen--and he isn't going to give up what he sees as his Aces-In-The-Hole (his hidden WMD's). So he simply has to go. It's actually better for everyone that way. It wouldn't be better for everyone if he manages to make some concessions and stay in power. The Iraqi people will be glad when he's gone, too--you'll see. As for the "danger" of removing him by force--there are dangers too in leaving him in power--and life itself isn't safe--it's coming time for Saddam's reign of blood and terror to draw to a close.

[nicky g]

I agree with what you say, except for for 2 things which put me in anti-war position:

A. I think the cost of the war will likely outweigh its benefits - that includes the fact that I don't trust the US to run Iraq well or fairly post-Saddam, nor to not sell the Kurds and Shias down the river.
B. I don't think what the US and UK is doing is justifiable under international law, and I don't think it's a good idea for international law to just be whatever the great powers say it is. Maybe there should be a law that requires all countries to be democracies and all tyrants to be toppled by force. But there isn't and i don't see that Bush can just pick and choose when he fancies it.

[matt_d]

3,4,5 and 11 are the most credible reasons IMO.

Here are some more, from a "realist"/pragmatic perspective:

12. The war will not achieve its intended objectives, and negative unintended/unforseeable consequences will predominate (Murphy's Law)
13. Invading and occupying Iraq may increase rather than reduce terrorist threats to the West.
14. World security will be destabilised and WMD development encouraged (e.g. N Korea, Iran, Syria)
15. Foreign military campaigns are always accompanied by an expansion in the role of government, leading to higher taxes, increasing public debt, inflation, currency depreciation, and reduction in civil liberties.
16. Initial military successes, especially in the face of widespread doubt, often lead to overconfidence by politicians ("Swelled head" syndrome). This significantly increases the chance of bad plays being made in future when the stakes are much higher (possible example being confronting China/N Korea). WWI is a good example of what can happen in this situation.
17. Unilateral pre-emptive invasions set a worrying precedent. Should America eventually be faced with a rival superpower, it will no longer be able to complain if said superpower starts invading neighbouring states for trumped up "security" reasons (e.g. China now has a green light to invade N Korea to "protect" itself from WMD; Taiwan and S Korea cannot build up WMD defences due to fear of Chinese invasion; India can attack the nuclear-armed military dictatorship in Pakistan)
18. Under the US constitution, foreign military action is illegal without a Congressional Declaration of War. Thus Bush has broken his oath to uphold & protect the constitution.

For American citizens, another concern is the political motivation behind the war, and the shady conduct of the Bush administration in gathering support for an invasion. If Americans decide to support a war and occupation, it should be after consideration of the true facts of the situation, not as a result of propaganda and deception by unelected and unaccountable members of the executive branch. Public ignorance about the facts has been exploited by politicians. It is against your best interests to support politicians who are "economical" with the truth, and put private agendas ahead of their duty to the public.

[matt_d]

"There is no political solution. You must wage war and kill large numbers of people. It is the human way to solve problems."

Ask Switzerland - they have been in the middle of the two most destructive conflicts in mankind's history, yet have suffered/inflicted almost no casualties of war, and enjoyed remarkable peace and prosperity.

It is difficult to imagine America being worse off if it had pursued a similar policy for the last 100 or so years.