Shifting Sands

[Agrajag]

It would appear the President Bush is now coming up with alternative reasons for the war on Iraq. He is recently quioted as follows :


Bush conceded to veteran interviewer Tim Russert that it was "correct" that weapons of mass destruction had not been found in Iraq but emphasized a different reason why the war was necessary.


"He had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network,"

Is this a reasonable thing to do ? to change the explanation for why the war was necessary. Or does this negate the legitimacy, if their was any, of the war ? Does the belief that the weapons were there justify the action, even if it turns out that there were none ?

I personally think it does, so long as the belief was a genuine one. If you believe someone has a gun to your head, you are entitled to react to it. Even if it turns out to be a banana, but only if the beleif is genuine and not just a matter of convenience.

[Biggles]

The difficulty with the subsequent reasoning for the war on Iraq is the varied responses from different parts of the US administration and other coalition members.

Paul Wolfowitz appears to be confirming that the WMD issue was played deliberately because other geopolitical reasons were not considered robust enough to proceed with. That is, they knew that Iraq posed no immediate threat. It is one thing to say a person is holding a gun (which might be a banana) it is quite another to say I will attack him because I think he will visit a fruit shop next week.

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN's instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I'll get me coat :( )

[Agrajag]

Would perhaps the fact that the regime in power constantly prevented proper inspection of their fruit bowl have added to the problems.

If they had no such weapons, then the sensible thing to do would be to not only allow the inspections, but to do everything possible to assist them. That way they could be seen to be without bananas much sooner. The fact that they were obstructive tended to suggest that they did have such weapons. Perhaps they wanted others to see them as a greater power than they were. I cannot believe that a decade of intransigance was merely the pig-headedness of the leader.

[Biggles]

Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.

[mogadishu]

sorry, i just really like your gun - banana analogy.. :D ;) ;) :P

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 February 2004 - 18:40
Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.
The question really is one of balance. If you think that someone presents a clear and present danger to your country.

You must look at the likeliehood of something happening and the consequences if it does. Then decide on appropriate action. It is known as risk assesment.

I think a lot of people look at one thing or the other and not both. There is no point in over reactig to a situation where either the likelihood is very low, or the consequences trivial. However if there is a reasonable chance, with dire consequences then you must act. The only remaining question would be, what constitutes over-reaction ?

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Agrajag+8 February 2004 - 18:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 8 February 2004 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@8 February 2004 - 18:40
Indeed

Saddam had made many regional enemies. There is little doubt that he was deliberately tying to make Iraq appear robust.

However, the UN inspectors were back in and they were making progess. Hans Blix wished to continue and said so. He also said real progress was being made. The UN position appears somewhat more correct than it was given credit for.
The question really is one of balance. If you think that someone presents a clear and present danger to your country.

You must look at the likeliehood of something happening and the consequences if it does. Then decide on appropriate action. It is known as risk assesment.

I think a lot of people look at one thing or the other and not both. There is no point in over reactig to a situation where either the likelihood is very low, or the consequences trivial. However if there is a reasonable chance, with dire consequences then you must act. The only remaining question would be, what constitutes over-reaction ? [/b][/quote]
Or indeed, the true nature of the threat. Saddams wars and territorial claims were never more than small strips of land adjacent to Iraq. He was a very local bully.

It is true that he would have been a problem if he had developed nuclear weapons, but the truth is he wasn&#39;t even close. The UN inspectors determined that very early in their work.

In my view North Korea is a far more potent and dangerous threat than Iraq could have even hoped.

There appears to have been a desire to conduct this war regardless. It will, I think, prove to be ultimately counter-productive. However, I remain open to the possibility that some good may yet come of it.

[Agrajag]

I tend to agree with you, with regard to the necessity, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. However like I said, the consequesnces must also be factored in.

I have however to suggest that the people of Kuwait may take your description of their country as "small strips of land adjacent to Iraq" a bit insulting to their Nation. Accurate as it may be.

As may the Kurds of Northern Iraq take your description of him as a "very ocal bully" to be somewhat euphamistic, or perhaps insensitive.

[Biggles]

A fair point. Kuwait was part of the Basra district of the old Ottoman Empire and as such was very adjacent. The borders of the region are at best fluid.

The Kurds were promised their own country back during the First World War when they assisted the Allies. A promise that has still to be honoured in my view. The UK&#39;s role in this matter during the 1920s was not good. I doubt if we will set that straight this time either. To many political hot potatoes to handle despite the reasonableness of the request.

[Agrajag]

It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:09
It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.
I think you should investigate how friendly the CIA were to the Kurds in Turkey during the 1990s......after the 1st Gulf War...

The "Safe Haven" was just a nice close place inside Northern Iraq for the allied Intelligence community... if you look closely, not a lot of the money to "provide Comfort" to the population ever actually reached them.

At the same time as they were bleating on about the "Plight of the Kurds" in Northern Iraq and the chemical weapons used in the past...they were helping the Turks do the same thing to the Kurds in Turkey (which has over 1/2 of the former Kurdistan)



I think i&#39;ll give up, i mean it never leads any where and even if someone actually learns something it wont change things...

All this stuff is readily available, whether about the Human Rights abuses of Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, USA, UK, et al...


The fact though is that its on public record that the USA was going to invade. Whether your a WMD or a 9/11 link believer is irrelevant...either/both have both been used as reasons, and if they hadnt been available other reasons would have appeared.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@8 February 2004 - 19:16
The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat :( )
Note: This is not a defense of the war, just my take on the "wisdom" of the UN.

Regardless of the justification for the war, I certainly don&#39;t think that the UN&#39;s instincts were confirmed at all. Those grandstanding, paperclip pushing posers don&#39;t do anything but wear suits, pass impotent resolutions, and talk flatulence. Hans Blix would have loved to play his little game forever, the limelight was all he ever wanted.

In the movie "The Fly", while undergoing his transition, Jeff Goldblum stated, "Now I know why there are no fly politicians". Meaning that flies don&#39;t have the mental capacity to appreciate such an abstract concept as "politics", it is all about desire and fulfillment without compromise.

Once people realize, as Bush did, that Saddam is a "fly", you understand that brute force is the only language he understands.

The administration basically decided that they wanted Saddam out and that 12 years of paperclip pushing had resulted in nothing but suffering for the people of Iraq, so they took matters into their own hands. Not for the people of Iraq, but because Bush felt it would be to OUR benefit in the long haul. We shall have to see about this.

Do you think some "reasonable dialogue" would cause Saddam to see the light? Do you think additional sanctions against Iraq would do anything but cause his people greater suffering? Saddam loved this game, he was a leader of nothing, but appeared to be a man to be feared. Macho, macho man&#33;

The UN failed to understand that "political" measures only are useful on people who can appreciate that concept. Saddam is a binary man, all "yes" or all "no" and he needed to be dealt with in a like manner.

The UN needed to either piss or get off the pot and all they wanted to do is fumble with their zippers.


edit: rant off. I agree with RF, it was going to happen, just needed to create a legitimate sounding reason to tell the press

[Agrajag]

I think you may have missed my point. More my fault than yours, sorry if it was badly written.

The post with regard to the Kurds was as a direct response to somthing which Biggles had said. That in turn was as a direct result of somthing I had said, i.e. about him being rather more than a local bully (not Biggles ;) ). This was as a direct result of a description which Biggles had posted.

If you do not follow that back through the thread then the post on it&#39;s own may be misunderstood. It is very easy to take things out of context when replying to them.

To follow it from the start :

Biggles described him as a local bully.
I replied that the Kurds in the North may disagree
Biggles then posted about The Kurds being promised their own country at WW1
I replied that I was more referring to the chemical weapon attacks.

I have no need to investigate the CIA or anyone else. It has no effect on the point we were discussing. Once again I apologise if my posts were not clear enough.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:47
I think you may have missed my point. More my fault than yours, sorry if it was badly written.

The post with regard to the Kurds was as a direct response to somthing which Biggles had said. That in turn was as a direct result of somthing I had said, i.e. about him being rather more than a local bully (not Biggles ;) ). This was as a direct result of a description which Biggles had posted.

If you do not follow that back through the thread then the post on it&#39;s own may be misunderstood. It is very easy to take things out of context when replying to them.

To follow it from the start :

Biggles described him as a local bully.
I replied that the Kurds in the North may disagree
Biggles then posted about The Kurds being promised their own country at WW1
I replied that I was more referring to the chemical weapon attacks.

I have no need to investigate the CIA or anyone else. It has no effect on the point we were discussing. Once again I apologise if my posts were not clear enough.
And i replied that Turkey had been accused of using Chemical weapons against the Kurds in the 1990s, with the complicity and knowledge of the CIA...among the many Human Rights Issues from the 1990s in that country.


I agree with Hobbes, in most things except he was pro-war and i was anti-war.....

......he has the intelligence and honesty to know that the war had very little to do with WMD, Humanitarian for the current population or Chemical attacks in the 1980&#39;s. It was about the interests of the USA.


I look at it as:

If the UN (as thats the best we have at the moment) says we can remove a Bastard then do it&#33; The more the merrier...

If it says No, then dont.

I dont believe you can pick and choose which International Laws to follow, as that just brings more instability on an increasingly unstable world...especially when you doing, or have done more recently, the things you are selling as the reasons to go to war in the first place.


There are a lot of countries as bad as Iraq was, when are we going to tackle them?

[Agrajag]

I meant no disrespect. I was simply pointing out that our discussion centered on a specific thing. I have no doubt what you say is correct, however the fact that other countries violate certain things is not at issue. It makes what was happening no less deadly.

However the main reason I posted it in the fiurst place was to respond to Biggles describing him as a local bully, I merely suggeted that the Kurds would disagree with that, as I have tried to explain.

If I am charged with theft I do not expect the defence that other people steal more than me will serve me well. I will be judged on my actions.

If you read my post, you will also see that I agreed with Biggles when he said that ultimately the war had been counter productive. It was the first thing I said.

[Rat Faced]

Sorry, didnt mean to appear as if i was trying to pick a fight.


As to the "Local Bully", its relative..

To the Region they are local and there is no doubt they were bullied :(


At the time of the 1st Gulf War he attacked Israel, which isnt quite as local. However people tend to forget that the Skuds he sent over had no warheads on them. As he had the warheads to put on these missiles at that time (both High Explosive and Chemical), he wasnt serious in bombing Israel, but merely trying to drum up Arabian support. That doesnt detract, of course, from the fact that a missile landing on your house at speed is still gonna cause a huge hole in the ground and that lives were lost :(

Other than that, relatively speaking he was a "Local" bully.

[Agrajag]

As someone said in another thread a few moments ago, nothing wrong with people disagreeing as long as they can try to be civil. My fault if I picked you up wrong.

Like I said the comment was really aimed at Biggles, in a friendly poke sort of way. "Local Bully = Mass Murderer" I don&#39;t think the victims or their families would agree. Sometimes it is easy to forget that other people are also reading and responding.

Hope I didn&#39;t get off on too much the wrong foot.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag@9 February 2004 - 00:41
As someone said in another thread a few moments ago, nothing wrong with people disagreeing as long as they can try to be civil. My fault if I picked you up wrong.

Like I said the comment was really aimed at Biggles, in a friendly poke sort of way. "Local Bully = Mass Murderer" I don&#39;t think the victims or their families would agree. Sometimes it is easy to forget that other people are also reading and responding.

Hope I didn&#39;t get off on too much the wrong foot.
I haven&#39;t seen a more controversial entry into this forum since that smack talking hot-head Biggles erupted upon the scene&#33;





















You will appreciate the meaning of my comment in time. Since you are new, the translation is: Welcome to the forum from Hobbes, I think you&#39;ll fit in just fine.

[Agrajag]

Thank you, I hope you are right.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Agrajag@8 February 2004 - 20:09
It was more the large number of Kurds which he killed using chemical weapons I was thinking about.
Apologies for my somewhat ambigious reply. I was in a rush to go out, so was perhaps less clear than I intended. Saddam&#39;s action in his own arena were of course awful. The war against Iran was insane and was truly over a small if strategic strip of land. He used chemical weapons a great deal during this campaign with the tacit if albeit uncomfortable acceptance of the West (who viewed Iran the greater threat). The murder of the Kurds was part of that war as he was convinced that they were assisting in cross border incursions by Iranian forces. The Kurds have enjoyed virtual autonomy since 1992 and are understandably reluctant to rejoin Iraq proper.

My reference to the 1920s was an acknowlegement of your point. The new Iraq was faced by the Kurds breaking away and setting up their own country. Unable to do much about this they asked for British assistance. The British forces faced with difficult terrain used mustard gas bombs to beat the Kurds into submission. Not a highpoint in our military history.

I do not dispute that the region is well rid of Saddam. I merely question the necessity to rush in all guns blazing and causing enormous damage to the Iraqi infrastructure. Hundreds of coalition soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died when other means to enforce change appeared to be working. The UN inspectors asked for more time saying they could see definite change. This was not hindsight but rather advice based on "on the ground" experience - something our intelligence clearly lacked.

The end result of both approaches was to effect change. The former was somewhat dramatic and costly, the latter slow and painstaking.

Interestingly GW does appear genuinely surprised by the events as they have unfolded, unlike Wolfowitz. I am unconvinced as to how engaged the President really was/is in all this.

:D However, welcome to the Board. Interesting and unpolemical debate is in short supply at times.

Hobbes - Hothead??? :lol: I must try it some time.

[Agrajag]

I take your point and agree with it, it was really well made. I know this may be considered a red herring, however I will post it anyway. How many more atrocities, commited by the Hussein regime, would have been acceptable while the more diplomatic solution was sought ?

It could be argued that the soldiers lost in the conflict were professional fighters, who chose that life and were trained for it. However the civilians who he (Hussain) was terrorising were born into it and had no choice. How much of their suffering was stopped because of the war ? How many would have been tortured and murdered while the inspectors were doing their jobs ? How long would it have taken ?

Sometimes, much as we might find it horrific, dentistry is required. Yes it is really painfull at the time, but in the long run it is a good thing. I really hate dentists btw, so this is a really difficult analogy for me to use.

Thank you for the welcome, I have no idea what unpolemic means. Though I may now appreciate Hobbeses joke, with regard to you.

[billyfridge]

We could go round in circles on this topic for ever, Hussein brought it all on himself
by intimating he had WMD, presumedly to frighten neighbouring countries. he defied the rest of the world for nine years was it? when he could have cleared it all up by allowing inspections, which would then have removed the embargoes on his country.
Bush and Blair said enough is enough, and acted whilst all the rest of the world would have carried on doing what Hussein wanted them to do, that is why Bush and Blair were elected, TO MAKE DECISIONS.
The fact that Hussein turned out to be a little martinet with nothing in his locker
just proves what a stupid egotistical twit he was. <_<

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag@9 February 2004 - 02:06
How many more atrocities, commited by the Hussein regime, would have been acceptable while the more diplomatic solution was sought ?

How many would have been tortured and murdered while the inspectors were doing their jobs ? How long would it have taken ?


Yes, inaction is not benign, not benign in the least.

Anybody who thinks that diplomatic solutions would have won the day are not aware that they are dealing with a "fly" (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=98908&view=findpost&p=862355).

[leftism]

Hobbes, I would like you to clarify one point.


Originally posted by hobbes
Hans Blix would have loved to play his little game forever, the limelight was all he ever wanted.

I&#39;m unaware of any evidence that says all Mr Blix wanted was "the limelight". How did you come to this conclusion?

I would also like to point out something that seems pretty obvious, to me at least.

There are many many "flies" in this world who are equally as bad, if not worse, than Saddam, yet we readily accept the fact that we cant take them all out. So why Iraq and not Zimbabwe for example?

This is the reason why the WMD argument was put forward. &#39;Just&#39; because a country is run by a brutal dictator, it does not justify prosecuting a war against that country. If that factor alone were enough, we&#39;d be at war with a significant proportion of the planet. So, to bolster the case, we were fed scare stories such as Iraq being able to attack British troops in Cyprus, and Iraq having the capability to launch its WMD within 45 minutes.

So now that no WMD have been found, the head of the CIA has indicated that he never said Iraq was an "imminent threat" and Tony Blair has stated that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons, we are back to square one.

Why Iraq?

In the absence of WMD the argument now seems to be that the US is doing this for it&#39;s own selfish reasons, but as long as Saddam is gone that somehow makes it right.

One thing is certain. After being fed lies and seeing the unprotected Iraqi museums being looted whilst the oil wells were secured, the British public will certainly require a little more than allegations of WMD to be persuaded to risk the lives of their sons and daughters in the next war.

On the point of the UN not being perfect. Apart from abandoning the concept of International Law and having the US act as judge, jury and executioner do any of the ferocious critics of the UN have any better ideas? As fallible as the UN is, I dont see that alternative as being particularly attractive either. The critics of UN inaction may also want to bear in mind that the US is part of the UN and that the inaction comes in handy when resolutions are applied to US allies such as Israel.

I could also point out that the US currently supports a few &#39;flies&#39; who are on a par with Saddam, but I think that will do for now.

[hobbes]

As I put in bold at the start of my first post, I am not defending or justifying the war.


Hobbes post 1:

The administration basically decided that they wanted Saddam out and that 12 years of paperclip pushing had resulted in nothing but suffering for the people of Iraq, so they took matters into their own hands. Not for the people of Iraq, but because Bush felt it would be to OUR benefit in the long haul. We shall have to see about this.

Hans Blix:
I guess I can spot a poser when I see one.

"Mr. Blix, when will you suspect that the Iraqi&#39;s are impeding your inspections?"

"If I get 1 flat tire on the way to a site, I will probably overlook it. If I get 6 flat tires I will be sure they are obstructing me. So my level of suspicion is somewhere between 1 and 6 flat tires."

What a silly quipster. But really he is irrelevant in that Saddam is a fly.



Flies
I merely labeled Saddam a fly and explained the language that flies understand. As you say, lots of flies about.



Relevant old post (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=31003&view=findpost&p=214039)

[leftism]

Interesting, looking at that post you linked to it seems that we are thinking along very similar lines with regards to the war.

As for that Hans Blix quote I would simply say that the reporter asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer. Like him or loathe him, Hans Blix is an intelligent man and is quite capable of knowing if/when he is being impeded by the Iraqis.

I still can&#39;t see where this accusation of wanting the limelight has come from.

A hawks egg perhaps? :)

[hobbes]

Or perhaps not :lol:

[Biggles]

I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be pro-active and prevent atrocities. However, I am unconvinced with the assertion that this particular war was necessary to prevent a significant level of wrong doing over and above say that of North Korea or Zimbabwe let alone the activities in Rwanda which either went are still going all but ignored.

Saddams main atrocities occurred when he was on our side 15 to 20 years ago. We said little and did nothing at the time. His second batch of atrocities occurred 12 years ago when he suppressed the Shi&#39;ites, who had risen at our behest only to be ignored in their plight.

I find the moral high ground here uncomfortably low. I am sceptical that it is indeed this hallowed turf we are in the process of re-claiming - although on this matter I would happily be proved wrong. Nevertheless, political expediency may be a wind that blows some good to the ME; albeit by fortuitous accident. If it does not, then the whole party piece may not be easy to repeat even if the circumstances are direr and more pressing.

[leftism]

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A hawks egg perhaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Or perhaps not&nbsp; :lol: [/b][/quote]

I guess it depends on you understanding what I mean by "hawks egg" :)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+10 February 2004 - 03:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 10 February 2004 - 03:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by leftism@
A hawks egg perhaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Or perhaps not :lol:

I guess it depends on you understanding what I mean by "hawks egg" :)[/b][/quote]
Never heard the term but I got this jist-
Hawk:
3 : one who takes a militant attitude and advocates immediate vigorous action; especially : a supporter of a war or warlike policy -- compare DOVE

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@9 February 2004 - 16:33
I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be pro-active and prevent atrocities. However, I am unconvinced with the assertion that this particular war was necessary to prevent a significant level of wrong doing over and above say that of North Korea or Zimbabwe let alone the activities in Rwanda which either went are still going all but ignored.

Saddams main atrocities occurred when he was on our side 15 to 20 years ago. We said little and did nothing at the time. His second batch of atrocities occurred 12 years ago when he suppressed the Shi&#39;ites, who had risen at our behest only to be ignored in their plight.

I find the moral high ground here uncomfortably low. I am sceptical that it is indeed this hallowed turf we are in the process of re-claiming - although on this matter I would happily be proved wrong. Nevertheless, political expediency may be a wind that blows some good to the ME; albeit by fortuitous accident. If it does not, then the whole party piece may not be easy to repeat even if the circumstances are direr and more pressing.
As usual, nicely stated, Biggles.

I wonder, though:

From it&#39;s lofty perch on the presumptive moral high ground, how cloudy is the outlook of the U.N., given it&#39;s pose of altruistic intent bastardized by it&#39;s awful conflicting admixture of international political pressures?

I believe if the U.N. didn&#39;t exist (in it&#39;s current form) some movement might have occurred to ameliorate these other situations (Rwanda, etc.).

As it is, most of the world looks to the U.N. for leadership, and what is the result?

A constipation of inaction and non-effect; the U.N. accomplishes nothing.

This, for some reason, fails to impress the true believers.

[Biggles]

:lol:


My own view is that the UN not so much stands on the moral high ground but rather wanders the moral maze. This is not done with bad intent, but is simply a function of the dispirate aspirations and political groupings that such an organisation must necessarily accommodate.

The UN has been compared to a family. I would go along with this. However, as my own family is largely dysfunctional (Fugely is strangely reminiscent of my mother) I am perhaps looking at this from a different perspective than that which the person who coined the phrase meant (although I suspect not).

Although dysfunctional, I think the world is a better place with the UN than it would be without. It does a lot of work which is often dull, worthy, unreported, but is the difference between life and death to some poor child. Its report card should read "Could do better. More support at home would not go amiss"

[hobbes]

I still strongly disagree that the Un&#39;s instincts to pursue "other means" was correct. Those little impotent toads had 12 years to get something done. Meanwhile sanctions are making life miserable in Iraq and Saddam is laughing at the silly resolution makers.

Either take a stand or stand down. How long is long enough? 12, 15, 20 years for a pathetic 3rd world country to comply. Imagine if they were dealing with a real power.

What "other means" would have been effective against a man whose sole agenda was to preserve the illusion of power? A man more interested in palaces and gold toilets than any interest in his people. It is really that simple. He was playing a bluff and calling it was the only solution.

The US acted in it&#39;s own self interest, no doubt, but the UN had been given 12 years to do something and had accomplished not just nothing, but less than that. The effect of the sanctions were borne by the citizens, not Saddam.

Blix was an annoying poser, almost as ridiculous as Donald Rumsfeld.

[billyfridge]

Just what i meant on page 2 Hobbes, i hate to think what would have happened if saddam had had some clout <_<

[hobbes]

Originally posted by billyfridge@11 February 2004 - 05:58
Just what i meant on page 2 Hobbes, i hate to think what would have happened if saddam had had some clout <_<
An American and a Brit in agreement, will miracles never cease? ;)

BTW, I am still on page 1.

[j2k4]

Hobbes, I think Biggles has nailed it:

The U.N. doesn&#39;t suffer from malicious intent, it is afflicted with a paralytic condition born of it&#39;s construction; think of a field of freshly mown hay:

How many stalks in toto are aimed in precisely the same direction?

The U.N.&#39;s fecklessness is inherent in it&#39;s "structure". ;)

[hobbes]

J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat&nbsp; )

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.

[Billy_Dean]

Just what did Saddam not do for 12 years? He let inspectors in and they found nothing, but no-one believed there was nothing to find, so the sanctions stayed in place. He got the shits and kicked them out. Still the sanctions stayed. They were there to lead the people to revolt. Not very likely after the last US call to arms&#33; He insisted all along that he didn&#39;t have these weapons. The inspectors went back in and, again, found nothing. Still the sanctions stayed. Saddam got the blame for kids dying, he had the money they said, it&#39;s his fault, ignoring the fact that all the Iraqi money in the world was unable to buy the drugs needed to save the lives of tens of thousands of kids. Again the inspectors went in, again they found nothing, Bush cut them short and invaded. Where are the weapons? There are none. Doesn&#39;t this point to Saddam complying with UN resolutions? As has already been said here, if this excuse wasn&#39;t used, they would have thought of others. What does this point to? OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL.


B)

[Agrajag]

It was my understanding that, in the view of the inspectors the regime in Iraq was not being co-operative with their investigations. Failing to allow them ready access to locations and documentation. He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so. It was for these reasons that the sancions stayed in place. If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.

[Billy_Dean]

What did he not comply with? There are no weapons&#33; He supplied a 3,000 page document detailing what they had done. Weapons inspectors went everywhere they wanted, whether they were hindered or not.


He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so.
What does that mean?


If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.
And this? What does not complying mean? That he denied they had WMD? They didn&#39;t&#33;

What&#39;s the problem here? You just can&#39;t admit they went to war over oil&#33;


<_<

[Rat Faced]

He "Kicked them out" initially when it was revieled that one of the Inspectors was passing information to the US... ie was a spy for a hostile nation. Every nation has the right to arrest spys and prosecute..he just kicked him out.

He kicked that inspector out, and the rest left with him as the UN demanded "all or nothing"....

Im pretty sure the citizens of any country would try and cause problems for inspectors imposed upon them, given the opertunity; its human nature..

Im not saying the Iraqi government didnt put up obstructions, however not all would have been down to them.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@11 February 2004 - 01:48
J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat )

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.
Ah, now it is clear.

I think, along with the "why", a "how", and possibly an "if" were also warranted.

I have reached the point that, whenever I think of the U.N., reason and logic assume a divergent trajectory, and legitimacy beats a rather hasty retreat.

After all, this is the group that approved Libya to head it&#39;s Human Rights Council by a vote of 33-3 (albeit with 17 abstentions). ;)

BTW-Should I get me coat?

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@11 February 2004 - 10:07
What did he not comply with?&nbsp; There are no weapons&#33;&nbsp; He supplied a 3,000 page document detailing what they had done.&nbsp; Weapons inspectors went everywhere they wanted, whether they were hindered or not.&nbsp;


He was not in a position to get them and kick them out, as he did not have the power to do so.
What does that mean?


If there were no weapons and he wanted a peaceful and quick solution he would have complied totally with the resolutins, the fact that he did not raises the questions about his motives.
And this? What does not complying mean? That he denied they had WMD? They didn&#39;t&#33;

What&#39;s the problem here? You just can&#39;t admit they went to war over oil&#33;


<_<
I didn&#39;t discuss why they went to war, I was discussing the position with the weapons inspectors subsequent to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The inspectors were there under the banner of the United Nations and were there to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he had previously used chemical weapons to attack the Kurdish people, there was certainly evidence that he had such things. The Inspectors as I understand it reported that they were not being given the proper co-operation by the regime. Which is why the inspections were taking so long.

I apologise if my post was not clear, any confusion on your part is entirely down to me. As you say the inspectors were there, subsequent to his invasion of Kuwait, which was entirely motivated by Iraq&#39;s desire to get control of more oil.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes@11 February 2004 - 05:48
J2,

We both have great respect for Biggles and this is well deserved.

My appearance in this thread was to disagree, respectfully, with this post:

Biggles:

The events as they have unfolded would confirm the UN&#39;s instincts to pursue other means was correct. The French and German intelligence agencies were unconvinced that Iraq posed an immediate threat and said so. A question should be asked regarding why their information was better than ours (although the German intelligence agencies may say "we ask ze questions" - I&#39;ll get me coat )

If you look at my first post in which I quoted him, you will realize that he went back and edited the post.

I never felt that the UN was malicious, just impotent.

You would have to read all of my threads to see my point.
Hobbes

I have read my original and the piece you quote and for the life of me I can&#39;t see where I changed that segment. This is not to say it is not there - sometimes one cannot see things for looking.

I tinker with my posts. I will re-read and find a phrase inelegant (or the inevitable typo). If I have changed a post and rendered someones quote inaccurate I apologise unreservedly.

As to the part you quote, well I was being a tad provocative (well for me anyway) :) It was a response not to anything on here but to something I heard on the radio where a poltician rather pathetically complained "but everyones&#39; intelligence was wrong". It is perhaps an excuse yet to aired over on your side.

With regards the UN..

I think the difference in my position is that I do not see the UN as an entity. It is not a country or a political party. It does not have policies as such. I see it simply as the meeting place of ever-changing coalitions, aspirations and alliances of real countries. The primary purpose of the UN is to provide a forum for the friction caused by all the above and allow some cooling off space. It does also, as I said, act as a mechanism whereby more uncontroversial assistance can be easily administered.

Perhaps your anger towards the UN is caused through having expectations that it could never meet. At the end of the day China is still China the US still the US etc., The UN serves a purpose in allowing issues to be aired but, as yet, no country is likely to yield its sovereignty to it.

I am not sure as to your views on Hans Blix. He perhaps has had more air time on US TV. The little I have seen he comes across as a slightly grumpy scientist type - rather than a media-hogger.

[hobbes]

My quote came from a thread you posted, for the life of me I cannot find it. Then again, I have been standing next to something, only to ask the clerk where the hell that something is.

Excuse my comments about Blix. I watched a 30 minute interview with him and made my conclusions based on this.

If I were to admit my arrogance, it would be that I can see through the facade to the actual person. I make character judgements in this way, it is my job and I do it well.

I don&#39;t require external validation to support my observations. Since I am no-one to you web people I don&#39;t require that you acccept my observations and therefore, I withdraw any comments abour Blix, as they are irrelevant to my final conclusion.

I have no "anger" toward the UN, just very little respect.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

You may be right about Blix. I have not enough information to say one way or the other. At the end of the day, he is simply a scientist employed to do some detective work. As far as one can tell he was proficient in this. I did read somewhere that he used to really annoy the Iraqis with his picky and fussy attitude so he must have been doing something right. Iraq certainly appears to be pretty uncontaminated with WMD. (apologies to Monty Python and the Cheese Shop sketch) :rolleyes:


Time for bed I think.

[Agrajag]

Night Night Zebedee.