A War Policy in Collapse

[Ray Zee]

m,

the only two purposes the un serves is to get countries to get together and sit down and talk

and to at least get some money from other countries for what they get in international benefits.

[MMMMMM]

The U.N. provides an artificially amplified voice to dictatorships and to hardly relevant countries, due to its flawed structure.

It has long served as a forum for the advancement of special interests rather than as an organization genuinely dedicated to furthering the causes of peace, liberty and human rights.

I actually think the idea of a forum where countries can get together and talk is a great idea. However trying to give such a forum immense legal clout, and giving small and/or tyrannical countries an equal say in many ways, are IMO poor bases for such an organization.

Why the US should have to worry about which way Cameroon or New Guinea votes on the Iraq war is beyond me. We have a national security decision to make (one way or the other)--and what Cameroon thinks doesn't really matter, except in the U.N.--but we'll probably have to pay them off to get their vote.

The U.N. structure allows the Arab states to gang up politically on Israel. It also allows those, such as China, who have a vested interest in thwarting us on virtually any issue, a vehicle to become actual impediments rather than mere voices in the background.

What kind of moral legitimacy can the U.N. have when its structure calls for apppointing Iraq to be the next Chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Committee, and Libya the next Chair of Human Rights?

I'd really love to see a forum where countries could meet to discuss things sincerely with the aims of furthering human rights, liberty, and common interests. But I feel the U.N. has become a political battleground, and that it has enough legal credibility to create major obstacles to rational progress.

Also, I don't feel that our security or sovereignty should be subjugated to a international body.

I recently read that when the U.N. was founded, the USSR got 3 votes and the USA got 1 vote (although I have not yet confirmed this independently). Ever since then, it has had a distinctly anti-US bias--and I feel this is in part due to its overall flawed structure.

I see the U.N. as being more counterproductive than productive, generally speaking, although the initial conception may have been a great idea.

Ideals don't always translate into reality very well, although I sure wish they did.

End of rant;-)

[Chris Alger]

This is a good point because it shows how the assumptions that supposedly justify war actually counsel against it. Although there is some debate about whether war will increase the risk of terrorism by others, there is little discussion about whether war will increase the chance of retalliation by Iraq, even though the certainty that this is likely follows from the assumptions that justify the war.

The conventional argument holds that Iraq has WMD and canot be 'trusted" to refrain from using or disseminating them in the future. As a result, war is necessary to eliminate the threat.

The same argument could have been used in the 1980's to justify a first strike against the Soviet Union. In that case, however, the stakes were so high that the response was obvious: it would be suicide because it would ensure a similar response. Deterrence might fail, but attack would guarantee the result that war was supposed to prevent. Everyone knew that war could not possibly eliminate the threat.

In Iraq's case, war's ability to eliminate the threat, at least after an initial volley against U.S. forces, is generally assumed, and in fact remains unchallenged in virtually all "respectable" discussion. But it's hard to imagine how Saddam could not have a delivery system capable of inflicting WMD on US civilians for many years to come.

For example, one US government disaster scenario posits that two people with small amounts of antrhax and a small airplane could kill 3 million residents of Washington, D.C. Saddam's ability to do the same in the event of war, even after his own demise, should be just as certain as the USSR's ability to retalliate against a US first strike. The Mexican and Canadian borders remain porous. A handful of his agents with few supplies and modest expertise could inflict unprecedented disaster. A legion of highly-trained, well-stocked retalliators could create uncalculable harm. Or Saddam could arrange to funnel any WMD to al Qaeda or some other group -- such as former Iraqi secret police or Republican Guard leaders facing execution if the US invades --and sensibly assume that they will make their way to their intended victims. I saw last week on TV that Saddam supposedly has an untraceable personal fortune of some $30-$40 billion, many times that of bin Laden. In the right hands, these resources could gaurantee unlimited carnage indefinitely.

I have not seen any explanation of how war could preclude this from happening. I'm confident that the reason is that war could not possibly do so. The only counterarguments, which are that Saddam is either unable or not incined to retalliate, obviously undermine the basic arguments for war.

It seems that either one of two things are true: (1) Iraq's WMD threat to the U.S. has been so grossly exaggerated as to be minimal even when Iraq is presented with the maximum case for unleashing them; or (2) those US officials that desire war accept the chance of a WMD retalliation as a worthwhile price.

If the latter, perhaps they are right. The absence of widespread media emphasis on this obvious risk, however, helps explain why the American public (while opposed in the majority to unilateral action) is unique among the people of the world in its support for war. Perhaps Americans are more inclined toward war, that they are less appreciative of the costs and more enamored of war's supposed benefits. More likely, however, is that the information that would allow them to make a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis has been less widely circulated in the U.S. than it has in other countries.

[B-Man]

Barring an unforeseen disaster, I can't imagine the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq. Practically speaking, I would guess we could do whatever needed to be done with conventional weapons, without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily. The political fallout from using nukes would just be too high.

If some great disaster happens (another 9-11 scale event that we think was done by Iraq), I suppose this could change.

[brad]

its been reported in the news that US has 'superbombs' that are roughly equivalent to a small nuke (i read to be hiroshima size yield).

so we'll see if that plays out into anything.

[Chris Alger]

I bet I would and I'll try to find it.

It has occurred to me why U.S. diplomats are pretending to be optimistic about a second resolution: It forestalls discussion about an important but negative element of the war for as long as possible. A number of media organs and personalities have left their opinions on the war open depending on whether the U.S. obtains international sanction. By pretending the issue is still open, members of this group don't have to render an opinion about unilateral war. Then, when the U.S./UK invade on their own, they can duck the issue and hide behind the need to "support the troops."

[andyfox]

There were articles in the L.A. Times that we were considering using tactical nuclear weapons as the only effective way of getting to the Iraqi weapons hidden underground.

[nicky g]

I suppose that would be rather convenient in that nothing would be left of those "bunkers" to prove or disprove the existance fo the weapons - though a MOAB would probably be just as good.

[MMMMMM]

nicky do you really suppose there is even a 1% chance that Saddam does not have WMD?

[brad]

we know hes got model airplanes, that should be good enough to justify a non nuclear strike at least.