Wars win elections! Why, just ask Bush '91! And, since this is about an election, unprovoked, random, and bloody wars are a surefire way to win public support. It worked in Vietnam, didn't it?
Oh... My apologies to those of you with sarcasm detectors. I'll be suuuuuure to pay for replacement ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wars win elections! Why, just ask Bush '91! And, since this is about an election, unprovoked, random, and bloody wars are a surefire way to win public support. It worked in Vietnam, didn't it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So....why is Bush's approval rating through the roof? Why is our PM here in Australia, who was facing 80% opposition to the war prior to it's comencement, now soaring with 70% approval ratings?
The war was quick, fairly bloodless (at least on our side) and lots of pictures can be shown of grateful cheering Iraqis. That's election material right there by the bucketload.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the events of 09/11/2001 were the final political straw that broke the US camel's back,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh...MY....God...
I just stopped reading this post around here. What the hell are you talking about? None of the Sept 11 hijackers were Iraqis. Their leader, Osama Bin Laden, has publically condemmed the government of Saddam. There is no credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (don't bring up that "evidence" Powell gave to the UN, that was pathetic). If Saddam had WMD, IF he was connected to Al Qaeda, don't you think a plane loaded with anthrax would have crashed into New York at some time over the past 2 years? Since this hasn't happened we might be able to jump to the shocking conclusion that Saddam might not have had connections to Osama OR WMD.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As soon as Sadam Husien's Iraq hampered and then kicked those inspectors out of Iraq, those groups that were involved in the cease fire/surrender had every legal right to enforce the agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if it was shown that Saddam wasn't complying with the inspectors. Iraq agreed to have them back in and they were free to go where-ever they wanted, and they did so. They turned up nothing. If the US claims to have 2000 - 3000 suspected WMD sites why didn't they throw some info in the direction of the inspectors? Maybe because the US knew there was nothing to find.
I just stopped reading this post around here. What the hell are you talking about? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You would have been well served to read the next lines of his post, particularly the words "there was a policy change." The fact that Bin Ladin and Hussein have little connection is obvious to the point of being painful to read. Unless I am misreading it, he wasn't remotely suggesting this. His point was that September 11 changed the paradigm of US foreign policy, that the US would now be preemptive against perceived threats. It can be argued both ways whether the war in Iraq is a result of this shift. If you are intending to address this part of his post, that is what you should be debating about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe because the US knew there was nothing to find.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe . . . Maybe we can wait a few weeks until we know what we are talking about . . . mmkay?
As with most of the "War on/in Iraq" stuff this one has shifted off topic just slightly.
In terms of the UN's role in post war Iraq, whats the issue?
Its OUR war, they're OUR contracts! or You couln't be bothered to share the risk, there's no role for you in the aftermath.
Although I think it sound a little bit like "Its MY ball I'm GOING HOME!!!" Since the UN had little or no role in the war or its conduct what I think will happen is this:
. . . .
The US will do whatever it wants, and ignore any international protests, and Britain will be led, wagging behind. Unfortunately the war set a precedent, that the US can dictate international policy, so why not let them hand out contracts to repair the infrastructure damage cause by the war? Its what will happen anyway, and no doubt those that object will be villified and pilloried (not literally).
You don't find it a little strange that French-German-Russian-owned UN (these days at least) is refusing to cancel Iraqi debt, wants all their oil/trade/nuclear contracts made with Saddam honored, and demands that they have an equal say in how Iraq's occupation is run? They stand to gain everything and lose NOTHING. They are simply jockeying for position right now - and I'm no fan of Bush (John McCain is where the MonsE leans), but his stubborness on these issues is the way to go. I really don't care if the countries that opposed war have their little pathetic feelings hurt - you went your way, we went ours. Now you have to deal with it like a man.
Go write your congressman (or whatever it is in your country) and have them match the US $3 Billion aid package signed for Iraq yesterday. Tell them to stop trying to grab scraps like the vultures they are and get involved with fixing this country that they screwed up in the first place (yes, I said it. Go read the Balfour Declaration - at least the UK had the ability to admit they were wrong. France has done no such thing.)
I seem to have misread points A and C. My fault and apologies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You seem certain Iraq had WMD. So why weren't artillery shells loaded with anthrax slamming into US positions? You can hardly get more desperate than the Iraqi government's situation, yet we saw nothing. We've seen 50 years of a world in which mulitple powers have nuclear weapons. At no time have those weapons ever been used, because the consequenses are just too harsh. No matter how desperate a country may become, they will not make it worse by using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity. Take North Korea. What could they possibly stand to gain by using their nukes in an offensive manner? Nothing, the retaliation and international backlash would ensure the destruction of the entire state. Every nation that has nukes has said they will use them at a certain point if they are invaded, which I assume would count as "desperate". But in an offensive capacity nukes bring far far more trouble than any possible advantages.
Now sure, deterrance could fail tommorow and the world as we know it would end. But it hasn't failed yet and no-one's got a better solution, aside from the complete elimination of nuclear weapons which certainly would never happen in our lifetime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They *DID* have WMD. They destroyed many after the first gulf war, but they apparently kept the plans and research and facilities for making them, and maybe some hidden stockpiles - UN inspectors during Clinton's administration ROUTINELY found evidence that Saddam was hiding WMD. And besides, you're saying WMD is only one thing - nukes. The US has repeatedly said that it treats Chemical and Biological agents as WMD just as they treat nukes as WMD. And chemical attacks may have a far worse impact on civilian population than a nuke.
As for your point about no WMD's being used, ask the Russian army in Chechnya, or Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Both times chemical weapons were used.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Point: If you're going to use the debate that the liberation of despoticly oppressed people is grounds for war then this must be applied globally. Point: Once a country has nuclear weapons, it is essentially imune to attack Point: The original justification for the Iraq war was that Iraq posed a real threat to the US with it's WMD. Unless these weapons can be found the Iraq war will be unquestionably illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point: I never argued that liberation was grounds for war; however, it does give a positive side to the war. Point: Americans have nukes, terrorists attack us all the time. Israel has nukes, Palestinians attack them all the time. France has nukes, and everyone attacks them all the time (if only with insults). Russia has nukes, and the Chechnyans attacked them. Point: We already found them. Saddam never fully committed to destroying them though. He's systematically denied the UN inspectors access (or at least slowed them down enough to be almost ineffective) to suspected sites, so basically we KNOW that there were WMD's at one point. However, we don't know whether he destroyed them or not. That's not something to be gambled on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now that car has a proven chance to blow up. Iraq has never attacked the United States with WMD. Hence, the comparison is worthless because there's no precedent. if Iraq had attacked the US in the past there would be validity. As it is there's just no proof *yet* that iraq constituted a threat to anything but it's own people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq has attacked Kuwait, and Iraq has attacked Iran - both times they were the aggressors, and against Iran they used WMD's. That's back when America supported Saddam because we were afraid Iran would defeat Iraq and shift the balance of power in the Middle East. Oh, excuse me...I meant "Saddam ordered the Iraqis to attack Iran and Kuwait." See how easy that was? Bush has stated several times that the war is not on the Iraqi people, but on the Iraqi regime.
Counter: Isn't the regime the representative for the people? Rebuttal: Tell that to the Egyptian government, which supports the US because it hates the Iraqi regime, even though most of the Egyptian populace demonstrated against the war.
Yeah! Cause the best interests of the Iraqi people aren't important. It's all about dividing the spoils of war to ourselves while snubbing the countries that dared to have other opinions.
Getting it back on topic again (/me looks at Psycho):
The UN <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2951819.stm' target='_blank'>condemned North Korea</a> for human rights violations today for the first time in its 50 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The UN Commission on Human Rights voted by 28 to 10, with 14 abstentions, in favour of a resolution accusing Pyongyang of widespread rights violations, including torture and public executions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, nice of 14 nations to abstain and 10 to vote nay. That makes it basically 28-24. Hardly a landslide, considering what <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240022003?open&of=ENG-PRK' target='_blank'>Amnesty international says about NK</a>. Here are some pleasant quotes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Torture and ill-treatment
Reports from a variety of sources suggest that torture and ill-treatment are widespread in prisons and labour camps, as well as in detention centers where North Koreans who have been forcibly returned from China are held for interrogation pending transfer to other places. Conditions in prisons and labour camps are reported to be extremely harsh. Inmates are made to work from early morning till late at night in farms or factories, and minor infractions of rules can be met with severe beatings. According to some reports, however, more deaths are caused by lack of food, harsh conditions and lack of medical care than by torture or ill-treatment.
Freedom from hunger and malnutrition
North Korea continues to rely on international aid to feed its population, but many people in the country are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. According to a study published last year by the Food and Agricultural Organization, 13 million people in North Korea -- over half of the population -- suffered from malnutrition. Aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people have died since the mid-1990s as a result of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. Several million children suffer from chronic malnutrition, impairing their physical and mental development. Many people in the country also lack adequate medical care due to lack of medical personnel and supplies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More at <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-prk/news' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-prk/news</a>
This is the UN. Let's not forget that this UN commision's head is none other than the famous human-rights activists Libya...
But Monse we have to ask ourselves if that alone constitutes grounds for an invasion. Whilst it would seem the moral thing to do to "liberate" these people from this suffering is it the right of the US to act in the name of these people? More-so, would helping them produce more problems: Chinese involvement/Korean war/nuclear attacks on Japan/US/Sth Korea, massive civilian casualties ect. Although these people are doubtless suffering, we must examine the situation fully and assess whether helping them through military action would be beneficial or detrimental to the region and the world.
Actually, I think we are asking ourselves in this topic if the UN serves any purpose in the world anymore, with Iraq as an example of its failures. I believe you could strip out the WHO and call the rest of the UN a bust. That was my main point.
Well if the US doesn't find any WMD then the UN process can't be shown to have failed. If the US does find evidence then there's grounds for saying the UN can't/doesn't work well in today's world.
Its a question of WHO it works for/doesnt work for. The US has shown it doesn't work for them because the power of veto ties their hands in actions they deem essential. In terms of it's role as a protector of the weak, and a security force, I believe it still has value. I think it was Burke that said that institutions that don't respond to change will eventually become anachronisms and fail (paraphrasing). The UN needs to evaluate its role and internal structure if it is still to maintain contact with reality. Perhaps it will end up as a charitable organisation with a nomial military arm (thats the way its headed for the moment), but it needs a good hard look at what it's trying to accomplish, and if its going about meeting those aims the right way.
It will take decades for a 'UN armed forces' to be created. The armies of the world are simply far too primitive to make it a force that could be used without immense accidental civilian casualties. You'd be right back where you are now - using the US as the UN's main force for the Balkans, Somalia, the first Gulf war, etc.
You would have to basically create sort of a UN mercenary force from scratch, and equip it from scratch, and train it from scratch. An insurmountable task financially for sure, and merely incredibly difficult in many other areas as well.
<a href='http://kcal9.com/topstories/topstories_story_079065744.html' target='_blank'>this</a> article points out a lot of issues that are going in Iraq.
1) American troops and Iraqi volunteers are discouraging looters 2) Kurds are asserting their mastery in the north, probably by force or threat of force 3) the U.S. is airlifting cash to Iraq to help pay the workers 4) Top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime are being captured
One noticeably absent thing is: Where is the UN??? These guys are all talking about how they want to help in the reconstruction, and barring some international aid organizations that have nothing to do with the UN, nothing is being done on that side of the aisle. Gah, lip service!
The UN needs to get its act together - by the time they agree to a plan of action and resource allocations and political maneuvering, the reconstruction will be over. The UN's inability to come to a consensus, much less stick to its guns once it's clear that whatever plan they have isn't going to be very profitable to its sponsors, is what kills the UN. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just an organization where government officials can hobnob and pose in front of the world and act as if everyone else gave a rat's rear end what they thought. Look at what happened in Iraq circa 1991; Bush Sr. pulled US forces out of Iraq because coalition support in the UN was breaking up and he feared that going all the way to Baghdad would have been a PR disaster.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Apr 17 2003, 04:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Apr 17 2003, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://kcal9.com/topstories/topstories_story_079065744.html' target='_blank'>this</a> article points out a lot of issues that are going in Iraq.
1) American troops and Iraqi volunteers are discouraging looters 2) Kurds are asserting their mastery in the north, probably by force or threat of force 3) the U.S. is airlifting cash to Iraq to help pay the workers 4) Top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime are being captured
One noticeably absent thing is: Where is the UN??? These guys are all talking about how they want to help in the reconstruction, and barring some international aid organizations that have nothing to do with the UN, nothing is being done on that side of the aisle. Gah, lip service!
The UN needs to get its act together - by the time they agree to a plan of action and resource allocations and political maneuvering, the reconstruction will be over. The UN's inability to come to a consensus, much less stick to its guns once it's clear that whatever plan they have isn't going to be very profitable to its sponsors, is what kills the UN. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just an organization where government officials can hobnob and pose in front of the world and act as if everyone else gave a rat's rear end what they thought. Look at what happened in Iraq circa 1991; Bush Sr. pulled US forces out of Iraq because coalition support in the UN was breaking up and he feared that going all the way to Baghdad would have been a PR disaster. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The UN is still trying to decide and get "permission" to "help".
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 18 2003, 02:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 18 2003, 02:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The UN is still trying to decide and get "permission" to "help". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for summing up my point so concisely.
With the new developments in Iraq, and Spain threatening to withdraw troops, do you think the U.N.'s role in Iraq has shifted? Should Bush hand the reins over to the U.N.?
If he did, would it make a difference? Can the auspices of the United Nations help the reconstruction in any meaningful way except by keeping the already-committed countries in line? Do you think it would bring in new support?
Jesus CHRIST that's some impressive threadromancy!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With the new developments in Iraq, and Spain threatening to withdraw troops, do you think the U.N.'s role in Iraq has shifted? Should Bush hand the reins over to the U.N.?
If he did, would it make a difference? Can the auspices of the United Nations help the reconstruction in any meaningful way except by keeping the already-committed countries in line? Do you think it would bring in new support?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that handing Iraq over to the UN would be an excellent way to share the burden of reconstruction costs and get the US some much needed diplomatic kudos within the UN. It's worth mentioning that France, Germany and India have all said they'd be happy to commit both troops, but only if the UN is in charge. <a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/07/iraq-030716-rfel-162021.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
The UN is willing to help; the US just has to accept that help.
Yes let the UN in for humanitarian purposes and that is it. To change who is in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq could be detremental to its rebuilding. The change over could lead to delays and confussion, as it will be almost impossible to be completly up to speed with what is going on. France, Germany, and company are unwilling to put their troops under the command of the US, and the US thinks the same of their troops under the UN at the moment.
Comments
Second of all, I don't think this war is for oil, just something for the next election. Not that freeing Iraqi is a bad byproduct.
Third of all, I personally believe Middle-East will burn to hell and missile will fly everywhere if USA don't let UN take part.
I think I got all my points across in 4 sentences, yes?
Wars win elections! Why, just ask Bush '91!
And, since this is about an election, unprovoked, random, and bloody wars are a surefire way to win public support. It worked in Vietnam, didn't it?
Oh...
My apologies to those of you with sarcasm detectors. I'll be suuuuuure to pay for replacement ones.
And, since this is about an election, unprovoked, random, and bloody wars are a surefire way to win public support. It worked in Vietnam, didn't it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So....why is Bush's approval rating through the roof? Why is our PM here in Australia, who was facing 80% opposition to the war prior to it's comencement, now soaring with 70% approval ratings?
The war was quick, fairly bloodless (at least on our side) and lots of pictures can be shown of grateful cheering Iraqis. That's election material right there by the bucketload.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the events of 09/11/2001 were the final political straw that broke the US camel's back,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh...MY....God...
I just stopped reading this post around here. What the hell are you talking about? None of the Sept 11 hijackers were Iraqis. Their leader, Osama Bin Laden, has publically condemmed the government of Saddam. There is no credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (don't bring up that "evidence" Powell gave to the UN, that was pathetic). If Saddam had WMD, IF he was connected to Al Qaeda, don't you think a plane loaded with anthrax would have crashed into New York at some time over the past 2 years? Since this hasn't happened we might be able to jump to the shocking conclusion that Saddam might not have had connections to Osama OR WMD.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As soon as Sadam Husien's Iraq hampered and then kicked those inspectors out of Iraq, those groups that were involved in the cease fire/surrender had every legal right to enforce the agreement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if it was shown that Saddam wasn't complying with the inspectors. Iraq agreed to have them back in and they were free to go where-ever they wanted, and they did so. They turned up nothing. If the US claims to have 2000 - 3000 suspected WMD sites why didn't they throw some info in the direction of the inspectors? Maybe because the US knew there was nothing to find.
I just stopped reading this post around here. What the hell are you talking about? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would have been well served to read the next lines of his post, particularly the words "there was a policy change." The fact that Bin Ladin and Hussein have little connection is obvious to the point of being painful to read. Unless I am misreading it, he wasn't remotely suggesting this. His point was that September 11 changed the paradigm of US foreign policy, that the US would now be preemptive against perceived threats. It can be argued both ways whether the war in Iraq is a result of this shift. If you are intending to address this part of his post, that is what you should be debating about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe because the US knew there was nothing to find.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe . . . Maybe we can wait a few weeks until we know what we are talking about . . . mmkay?
In terms of the UN's role in post war Iraq, whats the issue?
Its OUR war, they're OUR contracts! or You couln't be bothered to share the risk, there's no role for you in the aftermath.
Although I think it sound a little bit like "Its MY ball I'm GOING HOME!!!" Since the UN had little or no role in the war or its conduct what I think will happen is this:
.
.
.
.
The US will do whatever it wants, and ignore any international protests, and Britain will be led, wagging behind.
Unfortunately the war set a precedent, that the US can dictate international policy, so why not let them hand out contracts to repair the infrastructure damage cause by the war? Its what will happen anyway, and no doubt those that object will be villified and pilloried (not literally).
Go write your congressman (or whatever it is in your country) and have them match the US $3 Billion aid package signed for Iraq yesterday. Tell them to stop trying to grab scraps like the vultures they are and get involved with fixing this country that they screwed up in the first place (yes, I said it. Go read the Balfour Declaration - at least the UK had the ability to admit they were wrong. France has done no such thing.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You seem certain Iraq had WMD. So why weren't artillery shells loaded with anthrax slamming into US positions? You can hardly get more desperate than the Iraqi government's situation, yet we saw nothing. We've seen 50 years of a world in which mulitple powers have nuclear weapons. At no time have those weapons ever been used, because the consequenses are just too harsh. No matter how desperate a country may become, they will not make it worse by using nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity. Take North Korea. What could they possibly stand to gain by using their nukes in an offensive manner? Nothing, the retaliation and international backlash would ensure the destruction of the entire state. Every nation that has nukes has said they will use them at a certain point if they are invaded, which I assume would count as "desperate". But in an offensive capacity nukes bring far far more trouble than any possible advantages.
Now sure, deterrance could fail tommorow and the world as we know it would end. But it hasn't failed yet and no-one's got a better solution, aside from the complete elimination of nuclear weapons which certainly would never happen in our lifetime.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They *DID* have WMD. They destroyed many after the first gulf war, but they apparently kept the plans and research and facilities for making them, and maybe some hidden stockpiles - UN inspectors during Clinton's administration ROUTINELY found evidence that Saddam was hiding WMD. And besides, you're saying WMD is only one thing - nukes. The US has repeatedly said that it treats Chemical and Biological agents as WMD just as they treat nukes as WMD. And chemical attacks may have a far worse impact on civilian population than a nuke.
As for your point about no WMD's being used, ask the Russian army in Chechnya, or Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Both times chemical weapons were used.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Point: If you're going to use the debate that the liberation of despoticly oppressed people is grounds for war then this must be applied globally.
Point: Once a country has nuclear weapons, it is essentially imune to attack
Point: The original justification for the Iraq war was that Iraq posed a real threat to the US with it's WMD. Unless these weapons can be found the Iraq war will be unquestionably illegal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Point: I never argued that liberation was grounds for war; however, it does give a positive side to the war.
Point: Americans have nukes, terrorists attack us all the time. Israel has nukes, Palestinians attack them all the time. France has nukes, and everyone attacks them all the time (if only with insults). Russia has nukes, and the Chechnyans attacked them.
Point: We already found them. Saddam never fully committed to destroying them though. He's systematically denied the UN inspectors access (or at least slowed them down enough to be almost ineffective) to suspected sites, so basically we KNOW that there were WMD's at one point. However, we don't know whether he destroyed them or not. That's not something to be gambled on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now that car has a proven chance to blow up. Iraq has never attacked the United States with WMD. Hence, the comparison is worthless because there's no precedent. if Iraq had attacked the US in the past there would be validity. As it is there's just no proof *yet* that iraq constituted a threat to anything but it's own people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq has attacked Kuwait, and Iraq has attacked Iran - both times they were the aggressors, and against Iran they used WMD's. That's back when America supported Saddam because we were afraid Iran would defeat Iraq and shift the balance of power in the Middle East. Oh, excuse me...I meant "Saddam ordered the Iraqis to attack Iran and Kuwait." See how easy that was? Bush has stated several times that the war is not on the Iraqi people, but on the Iraqi regime.
Counter: Isn't the regime the representative for the people?
Rebuttal: Tell that to the Egyptian government, which supports the US because it hates the Iraqi regime, even though most of the Egyptian populace demonstrated against the war.
The UN <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2951819.stm' target='_blank'>condemned North Korea</a> for human rights violations today for the first time in its 50 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The UN Commission on Human Rights voted by 28 to 10, with 14 abstentions, in favour of a resolution accusing Pyongyang of widespread rights violations, including torture and public executions. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, nice of 14 nations to abstain and 10 to vote nay. That makes it basically 28-24. Hardly a landslide, considering what <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240022003?open&of=ENG-PRK' target='_blank'>Amnesty international says about NK</a>. Here are some pleasant quotes:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Torture and ill-treatment
Reports from a variety of sources suggest that torture and ill-treatment are widespread in prisons and labour camps, as well as in detention centers where North Koreans who have been forcibly returned from China are held for interrogation pending transfer to other places. Conditions in prisons and labour camps are reported to be extremely harsh. Inmates are made to work from early morning till late at night in farms or factories, and minor infractions of rules can be met with severe beatings. According to some reports, however, more deaths are caused by lack of food, harsh conditions and lack of medical care than by torture or ill-treatment.
Freedom from hunger and malnutrition
North Korea continues to rely on international aid to feed its population, but many people in the country are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. According to a study published last year by the Food and Agricultural Organization, 13 million people in North Korea -- over half of the population -- suffered from malnutrition. Aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people have died since the mid-1990s as a result of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. Several million children suffer from chronic malnutrition, impairing their physical and mental development. Many people in the country also lack adequate medical care due to lack of medical personnel and supplies. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More at <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-prk/news' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-prk/news</a>
This is the UN. Let's not forget that this UN commision's head is none other than the famous human-rights activists Libya...
In terms of it's role as a protector of the weak, and a security force, I believe it still has value.
I think it was Burke that said that institutions that don't respond to change will eventually become anachronisms and fail (paraphrasing). The UN needs to evaluate its role and internal structure if it is still to maintain contact with reality. Perhaps it will end up as a charitable organisation with a nomial military arm (thats the way its headed for the moment), but it needs a good hard look at what it's trying to accomplish, and if its going about meeting those aims the right way.
You would have to basically create sort of a UN mercenary force from scratch, and equip it from scratch, and train it from scratch. An insurmountable task financially for sure, and merely incredibly difficult in many other areas as well.
1) American troops and Iraqi volunteers are discouraging looters
2) Kurds are asserting their mastery in the north, probably by force or threat of force
3) the U.S. is airlifting cash to Iraq to help pay the workers
4) Top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime are being captured
One noticeably absent thing is: Where is the UN??? These guys are all talking about how they want to help in the reconstruction, and barring some international aid organizations that have nothing to do with the UN, nothing is being done on that side of the aisle. Gah, lip service!
The UN needs to get its act together - by the time they agree to a plan of action and resource allocations and political maneuvering, the reconstruction will be over. The UN's inability to come to a consensus, much less stick to its guns once it's clear that whatever plan they have isn't going to be very profitable to its sponsors, is what kills the UN. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just an organization where government officials can hobnob and pose in front of the world and act as if everyone else gave a rat's rear end what they thought. Look at what happened in Iraq circa 1991; Bush Sr. pulled US forces out of Iraq because coalition support in the UN was breaking up and he feared that going all the way to Baghdad would have been a PR disaster.
1) American troops and Iraqi volunteers are discouraging looters
2) Kurds are asserting their mastery in the north, probably by force or threat of force
3) the U.S. is airlifting cash to Iraq to help pay the workers
4) Top Iraqi officials in Saddam's regime are being captured
One noticeably absent thing is: Where is the UN??? These guys are all talking about how they want to help in the reconstruction, and barring some international aid organizations that have nothing to do with the UN, nothing is being done on that side of the aisle. Gah, lip service!
The UN needs to get its act together - by the time they agree to a plan of action and resource allocations and political maneuvering, the reconstruction will be over. The UN's inability to come to a consensus, much less stick to its guns once it's clear that whatever plan they have isn't going to be very profitable to its sponsors, is what kills the UN. As far as I'm concerned, the U.N. is just an organization where government officials can hobnob and pose in front of the world and act as if everyone else gave a rat's rear end what they thought. Look at what happened in Iraq circa 1991; Bush Sr. pulled US forces out of Iraq because coalition support in the UN was breaking up and he feared that going all the way to Baghdad would have been a PR disaster. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN is still trying to decide and get "permission" to "help".
The UN is still trying to decide and get "permission" to "help". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for summing up my point so concisely.
np.
With the new developments in Iraq, and Spain threatening to withdraw troops, do you think the U.N.'s role in Iraq has shifted? Should Bush hand the reins over to the U.N.?
If he did, would it make a difference? Can the auspices of the United Nations help the reconstruction in any meaningful way except by keeping the already-committed countries in line? Do you think it would bring in new support?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With the new developments in Iraq, and Spain threatening to withdraw troops, do you think the U.N.'s role in Iraq has shifted? Should Bush hand the reins over to the U.N.?
If he did, would it make a difference? Can the auspices of the United Nations help the reconstruction in any meaningful way except by keeping the already-committed countries in line? Do you think it would bring in new support?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that handing Iraq over to the UN would be an excellent way to share the burden of reconstruction costs and get the US some much needed diplomatic kudos within the UN. It's worth mentioning that France, Germany and India have all said they'd be happy to commit both troops, but only if the UN is in charge. <a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/07/iraq-030716-rfel-162021.htm' target='_blank'>Link</a>
The UN is willing to help; the US just has to accept that help.