United Nations: Useless or Essential??

[Brinn]

Thanks Syl. That's certainly high praise coming from someone such as yourself who has studied the Middle East. Looking back over my list I noticed I left out Saddam's assasination attempt on Bush Sr. and Iraq's recent harrasment of coalition planes in the no fly zones, but I think the preponderance of "evidence" is there.

We'll see you in the "Doctrine of Preemption" thread. I've seen quite a few misrepresentations and misinterpretations there and I'm feeling the need to vent.

[Damelon]

Brinn - I too, have to praise the thoroughness of that quote. The only thing I would add to the list was he used chemical weapons not only against the Iranians in the late '80s, but also to supress the Kurds in his own country. It's his ready willingness to use chemical weapons that is most disturbing about him and his regime.

[Brinn]

Very true Damelon...Another oversight on my part. Of course you are referring to the now infamous Al Anfal campaign and it's main perpetrator 'Ali Hassan al-Majid also known by the moniker "Chemical Ali". Not only did he brutalize and murder over 100,000 Kurds but he also spearheaded the 1991 "pacification" of the southern Shi'ite population. In two days of heavy fighting two divisions of the Republican Guard crushed the rebellion.

Here I quote Iraqi Staff Brigadier General Najib al-Salihi from his account of the withdrawal from Kuwait and the days and events that followed. This account refers specifically to the Shi'ite "pacification":

"The Republican Guards were ordered to act with a savagery that many observed was more appalling than even the Anfal campaign against the Kurds. The Guards maimed and slaughtered thousands of people and 'Ali Hassan insisted that the piles of bodies and severed limbs be left unburied throughout al-Basrah and its surrounding villages. On one occasion 'Ali Hassan demanded that residents of the city turn out in Sa'd Square to show their support for the regime, but when he arrived he pulled out an AK-47 and he and his bodyguards began firing into the crowd, mowing down scores of innocent men, women and children. He executed some captured rebels by running over them with tanks, while others were drawn and quartered by trucks"

This is just one more indicator of how much of a threat Saddam really is. Again, if he is willing to subject his own countrymen to this treatment what is his limit when it comes to foreign enemies?

[Skyweir]

I too think you have made a good argument Brinn ..

You're regurgitation of some of the events from 1973-1998 are interesting .. yet clearly representative of one stand point ..

for example ..

1980 - Saddam invades Iran in an attempt to eliminate the Ayatollah's regime.

I think Hussein's intent in this conflict is grossly overstated.

Hussein's interest in this conflict was primarily over disputed Iraq/Iran territory and an attempt to expand Iraqi territory in a time of turmoil and confusion in Iran. Yet Hussein has shown time and time again .. that he is not comfortable with fundamentalist religous arab leaders [as the Ayatollah] .. as he is a muslim but he is first and foremost a political/secular leader! and ridding the Ayatollah would have been within his interest as having an unpredictable Islamic fundamentalist leader next door .. would have certainly held some concerns for Hussein's own regime.

Six weeks later the troops are halted by Iranian forces. Saddam launches missile strikes at Iranian population centers in 1982, '83, '84, '85, and '87. Chemical weapons are used indiscriminately throughout the war against Iranian infantry. Cease fire declared in 1988

It also bears reiterating that Iraq had US moral and military support during the Iran/Iraq war .. [in response to the Iran hostage crisis] and that some of those missiles you mention were quite likely american missiles.

Jerrold Post, a longtime US Govt expert on Saddam offers the following analysis on whether Saddam could be deterred: "He (Saddam) is psychologically but not politically in touch with reality. His worldview is narrow and distorted and he has scant experience outside the Arab world."

I would argue with this .. I would say Hussein would seem to be politically in touch .. as evidenced by his allegedly 'monkey dance' operation with UN inspection processes over the recent months. How he played as many would suggest, the UN very carefully .. providing inroads where and when most needed .. and relaxing those inroads where he could get away with it.

To me Hussein seems to be far rather, a cold calculating political craftsman .. I think it unwise to underestimates Hussein or to assess him otherwise .. He would seem intelligent .. yet clearly he does seem an internationally naive

.. yet without doubt a quite secular politician.

All the examples you listed - not one of those examples included a direct threat to the US.

As you have illustrated in your list .. and as we all believe Hussein has had WMD .. and has had them for some time .. and his WMD programme would seem to have been initiated on or before 1976.

Yet in that time he has not glibly marketed them or even supplied them to rogue non-national cells or even other states.

Hussein is an astute and rabbid secularist .. power is very important to him .. his seat of power particularly .. and one not so stupid nor politically suicidal as to supply WMD .. firstly for free .. secondly to enemies of the most powerful nation on earth .. an uncontested recipe for suicide.

Hussein has experienced the influence of US backing .. and also of their wrath .. re: sanctions .. He is no lover of the US .. thats a given .. but he isnt so stupid as to place his head in a US noose either imho.

And Hussein's issue with Iarael/Palestine is not uncommon in the arab world .. Sure he may wants to be seen by the Palestinians as their liberator .. but the consensus in the arab world about Hussein .. is that he is impotent to the degree required to realise such goals.

Hussein has always been outspoken regarding the 'Palestinian Plight' .. and like many arab nations and peoples .. they see the Israeli's as the culpable party in this ongoing conflict .. and the US as the number ONE Israeli ally .. jointly responsible.

They see the Palestinian efforts as 'freedom fighting' efforts .. in an attempt to liberate the Palestinian people from their unwelcome oppressors.

At the end of the day .. its all about view point .. and what you see from where you stand ..

More preferrable perhaps to take a look at the same scenario from a variety of standpoints.

The Hussein regime is reprehensible in the extreme .. there are quite a number of regimes in the world similarly reprehensible.

You asked what alternative manner I would suggest for handling this issue that would be more appropriate.

Firstly .. I think and have been impressed by the way in which the US lead co-alition is handling the elements of warfare. Minimising civillian casualties is a great burden for any invading force of this nature .. and I commend the administration for taking all steps possible to minimise civillian casualties.

I mentioned to a good fried recently how moved I was by an event I saw aired on the news .. where a US soldier on taking some ground somewhere in Iraq (I forget where it was now .. but it was a small town or village) who went to erect the American flag .. as a sign of victory over the defending forces. He was chastised by his immediate superior/commander and ordered to remove the US flag! The commander instructed his troops not to repeat this error - that they were to be seen as Liberators and not Invaders.

Now this story touched me on one level .. and I commend the presiding officer for reminding his troops of the mission as set down by the administration.

I want to believe that this is true .. but at the end of the day .. the co-alition forces are an invasion force .. Will they also be Liberators? I genuinely hope so.

I feel this offensive would have been better handled if it had been initiated by international law. Thus protecting and containing the growing anti-US sentiment in the middle east .. thus averting the critical glare of the international community.

You say you disagree with me regarding the threat status of Iraq to the US .. but you do not provide any real support for the arguement that this threat is imminent or real imhol.

Iraq was in the active process of disarmament regardless of what the Bush administration would assert. Even though many would criticise France and Germany for their opposition to this effort at this time .. they both supported resolution 1441 .. and pledged to back forceful disarmament when it became necessary.

You see .. the dispute is between the timing issue. France and Germany as a the majority of the Council both permanent and non-permanent members .. did not see any immediate need to take that course of action yet.

France and Germany proposed a new resolution increasing inspection team members and placing NATO forces in Iraq to speed the disarmament process. They saw this as a judicous method of expediting the disarmament process. Many of the members of the Coucil also expressed similarly the need to take EXHAUST peaceful processes the their full extent prior to a resort to aggression.

This predominant feeling was carefully weighed to take into account all the factors at play in such a step .. factors affecting regional stability .. future relations in the middle east .. future confidence in UN processes .. and a whole host of other important considerations.

I would have preferred taking this course with the UN backing .. rather than this unilateral action.

I see grave problems this unorthodox precedent will cause in the future .. I dont like to see any one nation mandating themselves with a role of such magnitude.

On one level I also agree with the statement of Chirac's .. there needs to be checks and balances in all governmental actions .. but fundamentally internationally impacting decisions.

On the UN there needs to be a check from each nation .. on each other .. so that no one nations (subjective) interests take precedent over what is in the international (objective) interest. We need a UN .. and I am pleased to see that the US are re-iterating this need .. even after their recent unilateral departure from it.

Now more than ever we need a United Federation Of Nations .. now more than ever we need the international co-operation of the international community to achieve our united ends.

anyway .. I cant keep chatting .. I have to go and write an essay .. I promised to restrain myself from coming here till that was done .. and I have failed in that personal agreement.

in my haste to address some of your questions I hope I have made myself clear ..

and I thank you for your respect fellow watchman .. it is good to remember we are united here under the one community .. and I sincerely reciprocate .. with mutual respect.

[Skyweir]

I dont know why my post wasnt registering ..

[Brinn]

*Brinn eyes Skyweir warily and decides that she is just too strong to wear down through the use of long posts alone. He contemplates confusing her through nonsensical replies*

and relaxing those inroads where he could get away with it.

Uh Haaa! It is physically impossible to relax inroads. Or outroads, sideroads and aboveroads for that matter therefore I declare your arguments invalid!

*Brinn decides that this also may not work. He briefly considers banning Skyweir from his moderately popular "Favorite Movies by Genre" thread but quickly dismisses this as too draconian. Shaking his fist in the air defiantly, the Haruchai warrior vows to return and then goes back to the old drawing board*

[Brinn]

I think Hussein's intent in this conflict is grossly overstated.

Hussein's interest in this conflict was primarily over disputed Iraq/Iran territory and an attempt to expand Iraqi territory in a time of turmoil and confusion in Iran. Yet Hussein has shown time and time again .. that he is not comfortable with fundamentalist religous arab leaders [as the Ayatollah] .. as he is a muslim but he is first and foremost a political/secular leader! and ridding the Ayatollah would have been within his interest as having an unpredictable Islamic fundamentalist leader next door .. would have certainly held some concerns for Hussein's own regime.

When you mention “disputed territory” I’m not sure if you’re referring to the Shatt al-Arab waterway which, according to the Algiers Accord (which Saddam signed), was awarded to Iran. Certainly the accord was humiliating for Saddam but I think you underestimate his goals in the conflict which ensued. As you know, Iran under the Shah had supported Kurdish insurgents and Saddam had always chafed at Iran’s superior military but returning the waterway to Iraqi control was only a small piece of his goals in this war. The bigger prize was Iranian Khuzestan which contains the vast amount of Iran’s oil reserves. If Saddam could occupy Khuzestan the combined oil production that he would control would have amounted to almost 20% of global production which would overshadow even Saudi Arabia. A secondary reason was the fear that Iran’s revolutionary Shi’ite population (the majority population in Iran) would cause unrest among Iraqi Shi’ites. IMHO, Saddam attacked to reverse the Algiers Accord, to conquer Khuzestan, and to topple the new Iranian regime preventing it from igniting an Iraqi revolution. This once again illustrates Saddams willingness to use military force in his quest to eliminate any threat to his regime and to gain additional political, economical and military dominance.

All the examples you listed - not one of those examples included a direct threat to the US.

I guess that all depends upon your definition of direct threat. According to various Iraqi sources Saddam has explicitly admitted to making five mistakes during the Gulf War. First and foremost he believes that it was a mistake to have invaded Kuwait before he had nuclear weapons because he believes they would have deterred the US from intervening. Second, he admitted that it was a mistake not to have continued the invasion to seize the Saudi oil fields and rig them for destruction thereby holding them hostage to US behavior. Third, he believes it was a mistake to have released his western hostages in December of 1990, rather than keeping them and using them as human shield at high value facilities. Fourth, he reportedly has concluded that it was a mistake not to have attacked coalition troops when they were first deploying to the region and were vulnerable. Last, he has admitted that he placed too much faith in the abilities of Mitterrand and Gorbachev to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

If Saddam, the serial aggressor and mass murderer, aggresses against another country or ultimately acquires a nuclear bomb, who do you think will be ultimately be forced to deal with it? The world? The UN? When Kuwait was invaded and the UN provided approval for a military response who were the countries that bore the lion’s share of that responsibility? And if the US decides it no longer wants to concern itself with the affairs of other nations what would be said of her? Would the world thank the US for it’s withdrawal from the world stage or would there be accusations that the mighty US was to selfish and preoccupied with her own affairs to be concerned with the rest of the world. It seems that we have become a very convenient target for hatred and regardless of which side the US chooses or what foreign policies she pursues there will always be those who judge these actions wrong. But I digress…

The threat that I perceive is thus: If we continue down the path we are on (a policy of containment) the only question is when and not if Saddam will acquire nuclear capability. The threat of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world is terrible but their use in the Persian Gulf is unimaginable. A nuclear armed Saddam would have the capability to kill millions of people and to push the world into a global recession that some argue would be on the scale of the “Great Depression” via the destruction of a major portion of the worlds oil reserves. His track record does not give me comfort and deterrence is a gamble that I am not willing to support.

All that aside here is the direct threat you have asked for: On August 5th of 1991, shortly after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam threatened the use of chemical weapons against US forces when he ordered the loading of Iraqi aircraft with chemical munitions to deter US intervention.

It also bears reiterating that Iraq had US moral and military support during the Iran/Iraq war .. [in response to the Iran hostage crisis] and that some of those missiles you mention were quite likely american missiles.

As Sylvanus and Mhoram have pointed out, that relationship was one of convenience designed to maintain a fragile stability in a volatile region and to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon…The support was not moral in nature at all. Iraq is not and never has been an “ally”.

As you have illustrated in your list .. and as we all believe Hussein has had WMD .. and has had them for some time .. and his WMD programme would seem to have been initiated on or before 1976.

Yet in that time he has not glibly marketed them or even supplied them to rogue non-national cells or even other states.

But he has used WMD extensively and if he is the shrewd manipulator (I refuse to call him a politician) that we all believe him to be he would have no reason to “glibly market” them. Under the UN resolutions it would amount to an admission of guilt and would provide the US with the “smoking gun” that it seeks. For this reason Baghdad views its current arsenal as a deterrent rather than another foreign policy tool. As far as providing WMD to terrorists goes I agree with you….It is unlikely that he would do so. But because he is not likely to do it does not mean he absolutely would not. If it were highly improbable that the attack would be traced back to him or if the operation offered a very high payoff he may be tempted.

The Hussein regime is reprehensible in the extreme .. there are quite a number of regimes in the world similarly reprehensible.

But none that present the regional and global threat that Saddam does.

I feel this offensive would have been better handled if it had been initiated by international law. Thus protecting and containing the growing anti-US sentiment in the middle east .. thus averting the critical glare of the international community. ...I would have preferred taking this course with the UN backing..rather than this unilateral action.

Unfortunately I don’t believe we would have ever received the support of France, Russia, and China for reasons I have explained in the “Pre-emption” thread. Their vetoes would preclude UN approval. The only way these nations would support a US led attack to oust Saddam would be as a result of some grievous disaster or aggression (most likely leveled at the US or a neighboring Arab state) that could be directly attributed to Iraq and was of a magnitude that prohibited political debate. And this is certainly not a unilateral attack. The coalition supporting this action is larger than the Gulf War coalition.

Iraq was in the active process of disarmament regardless of what the Bush administration would assert. Even though many would criticise France and Germany for their opposition to this effort at this time .. they both supported resolution 1441 .. and pledged to back forceful disarmament when it became necessary.

No offense intended but I think you are being either overly idealistic or naive. Where have the 25,000 liters of anthrax gone? What about the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and the 500 tons of mustard, sarin and VX nerve gas? And how about the 30,000 missiles and short-range rockets Iraq has failed to account for? The international community knows Saddam had all of this however the report he submitted to U.N. inspectors, which was to have declared all weapons of mass destruction, doesn’t mention them. Very strange. Under UNSCR 1441 Saddam now knows that if his scientists don’t cooperate, inspectors must find a nuclear needle in a vast Iraqi haystack. What happened to Iraq proving it was disarmed? Now the burden of proof is on the UN.
What makes you think that Saddam has decided that after 12 years of obfuscation, overt hindrance and outright deception that this time he really means it when he says he is going to disarm? Is it the gun of the US military that is currently being held to his head? If that is the reason one must understand that it is economically and politically unfeasible for the US or its allies to maintain a military force in that region for anything longer than 6 months or so, maybe twelve if the administration were willing to incur enormous costs. Once the immediate threat of force has diminished what incentive does Saddam have to continue his “disarmament”. The shell game will continue.
As columnist Maggie Gallagher recently described “In a memorandum, the French laid out their opposition (along with the Germans and Russians) to war with Iraq: "Full and effective disarmament" remains the "imperative objective," but so far "the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled."
Why not? "No evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field"; "Inspections have just reached their full pace"; and "Iraqi cooperation is improving."
The French and their allies thus continue to place arms inspectors in the role of detectives, not verifiers, a role chief inspector Hans Blix has explicitly and publicly rejected. If a regime wants to disarm, U.N. inspectors can verify that it has done so. If a regime wants to hide its arms, it can do so, and even thousands of inspectors -- operating in a foreign country without basic tools of law enforcement -- will not, and never have, uncovered hidden arms programs. (It took defectors, not inspectors, to reveal to us the full extent of Iraqi violation of the peace terms imposed on it by the United Nations in the last decade.)”

You see .. the dispute is between the timing issue. France and Germany as a the majority of the Council both permanent and non-permanent members .. did not see any immediate need to take that course of action yet.

France and Germany proposed a new resolution increasing inspection team members and placing NATO forces in Iraq to speed the disarmament process. They saw this as a judicous method of expediting the disarmament process. Many of the members of the Coucil also expressed similarly the need to take EXHAUST peaceful processes the their full extent prior to a resort to aggression.

This predominant feeling was carefully weighed to take into account all the factors at play in such a step .. factors affecting regional stability .. future relations in the middle east .. future confidence in UN processes .. and a whole host of other important considerations.

As I stated above and outlined in detail in the “Pre-emption” thread, the immediate tangible benefits realized through trade (both legal and illegal) that these countries enjoy certainly make it desirable to postpone the inevitable disarmament process while still reaping the benefits that political support of Saddam currently provides. And they also realize that they will not be the ones who will be asked to bear the burden of dealing with the fruits of their policies of containment and appeasement.

On one level I also agree with the statement of Chirac's .. there needs to be checks and balances in all governmental actions .. but fundamentally internationally impacting decisions.

On the UN there needs to be a check from each nation .. on each other .. so that no one nations (subjective) interests take precedent over what is in the international (objective) interest. We need a UN .. and I am pleased to see that the US are re-iterating this need .. even after their recent unilateral departure from it.

Quite ironically I could look at your statement and reasonably conclude that what you are arguing against is exactly what has occurred with the subjective interests of France, Russia and to a lesser extent Germany holding hostage the objective interests of the world (effective disarmament of Saddam).

Now more than ever we need a United Federation Of Nations .. now more than ever we need the international co-operation of the international community to achieve our united ends.

I agree but the UN, as it is currently constituted, has proved to be a political snake pit incapable of effectively achieving its own stated goal of disarmament and preventing further aggressions of Iraq. Do you at least find it ironic that the current chair of the human rights council is Libya and the chair for the UN disarmament conference is Iraq? How serious can the UN be?

and I thank you for your respect fellow watchman .. it is good to remember we are united here under the one community .. and I sincerely reciprocate .. with mutual respect.

Here here!

[Skyweir]

Certainly the accord was humiliating for Saddam but I think you underestimate his goals in the conflict which ensued.

either I do or you sorely over-estimate them

The bigger prize was Iranian Khuzestan which contains the vast amount of Iran’s oil reserves.

yep .. territorial dispute I was not alluding to the fact that Saddam was not expansionist .. not at all .. he wanted to expand his territory .. and that was the main intent of his aggression against Iran.

A second factor .. was the existence of the Shah himself imho .. he represented a great threat as you said .. being a fundamentalist Islamic fanatic (again imho) and Iraq being predominantly Muslim .. the message of the Shah was not something he wanted permeating Iraq. As for Hussein he is only Muslim by birth only .. he is purely a secularist leader .. and religous priorities do not accord with his own political objectives per se

as you clearly agree:

A secondary reason was the fear that Iran’s revolutionary Shi’ite population (the majority population in Iran) would cause unrest among Iraqi Shi’ites. IMHO, Saddam attacked to reverse the Algiers Accord, to conquer Khuzestan, and to topple the new Iranian regime preventing it from igniting an Iraqi revolution. This once again illustrates Saddams willingness to use military force in his quest to eliminate any threat to his regime and to gain additional political, economical and military dominance.

Hussein made the aggressive move in attacking Iran .. and you seem to be glossing over the fact that he had US support .. militarily as well. And arent you claiming in reverse it is ok for the US to use military force in their more noble quest of eliminating any threat to them .. and gain additional political, economic and military dominance. Whereas in the case of Hussein he didnt 'gain' these outcomes from the Iran/Iraq war did he?

I guess that all depends upon your definition of direct threat.

I dont think so .. a threat is either direct .. or its indirect .. or its too remote to be either .. and in the case of Iraq representing a 'dircect threat' to the US .. it simply does not. Iraq is outgunned by the US .. most certainly militarily inferior .. The only threat Iraq represents to the US mind is in the possibility of its selling WMD to terrorists. No link has been substantially supported connecting Hussein to bin Laden .. they have never been allies. bin Laden represents all the same fundamentalist Islamic views that threaten the Hussein regime. Secondly, in assuming the possibility of such a link .. as I have explained Hussein is not suicidal .. He is a survivalist .. he has shown an immense drive for his personal and political survival .. joining himself with terrorist factions he knows is suicidal .. and he knows full well .. irritating the acquisition of an enemy like the US is a recipe for disaster.

First and foremost he believes that it was a mistake to have invaded Kuwait before he had nuclear weapons because he believes they would have deterred the US from intervening.

I believe it would have! For the same reason that the US is playing softly softly catchy monkey with Korea .. It makes perfect sense.

YOur second criteria accords with Hussein's known military responses. He has always shown that if he cant have them .. then he will make it pretty darn difficult for anyone else to.

Third, he believes it was a mistake to have released his western hostages in December of 1990, rather than keeping them and using them as human shield at high value facilities

. Another tactic the Hussein regime are known to employ. Human shielding .. but he did not .. and in this last aggression .. Hussein allowed the UN inspection team to exit safely .. and other westerners to do the same prior to US invasion.

Fourth, he reportedly has concluded that it was a mistake not to have attacked coalition troops when they were first deploying to the region and were vulnerable.

Well he may have stated that .. but in this conflict he did not make a pre-emptive strike against the US troops in Kuwait .. and even though everyone alleges he has WMD .. he has not produced them .. or used them .. He may well have them and if push comes to shove he may produce them .. but so far .. one wonders why he has not. Being that he is facing a far superior military presence!

If Saddam, the serial aggressor and mass murderer, aggresses against another country or ultimately acquires a nuclear bomb, who do you think will be ultimately be forced to deal with it?

Precisely .. IF .. I have heard many US commentators claim that he does have them .. I do not believe the US would have commenced this invasion if they really believed he did have them.

Well to answer that theoretical question .. the UN/

The US bowed out of the League of Nations and hence we saw its inevitable decline. The US has pledged its allegiance to the UN as did all the permanent members .. to avert future war and aggressions. Does that pledge mean nothing? Does it mean .. we only pledge to support the UN so long as the UN instigates those issues which forward US interests only?

The threat of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world is terrible

This is interesting .. yet so many wealthy nations possess nuclear capability dont they? We allow those who have them to retain them dont we? Yet we restrain the ability of smaller nations to acquire them .. because we say they are not responsible .. I would agree Hussein has not shown to merit this capability .. he has not shown to the world that he would be responsible with this capability. I agree.

But who can? Korea?? Most definitely not we say. So many smaller nations strive to secure the right of self-determination .. as we declare we respect (UN charter) .. and acquiring nuclear capability brings security to some degree from external interference ..

All that aside here is the direct threat you have asked for: On August 5th of 1991, shortly after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam threatened the use of chemical weapons against US forces when he ordered the loading of Iraqi aircraft with chemical munitions to deter US intervention.

What do you expect in war? The Iraqi threat was directed to what they deemed as their opposition in this conflict .. Its like watching the news reports of suicide bombers .. This is war .. the Iraqis are facing a far more superior attacking force .. they will use whatever measures at their disposal .. like the vietnamese .. used guerrilla tactics .. Do we really expect the Iraq republican guard or whomever to just lie at the feet of coalition tanks? No this is war .. this is what the Bush administration instigated .. many will die .. on both sides .. There are those so totally committed to their country and nation that they will give their lives in defending it. Beats me?? I find it unbelievable! Its like human shield volunteers?? How can someone rationalise such an insignificant sacrifice as a noble contribution?? I just dont know.

As for this being evidence of a direct threat to US soil .. I'm sorry it doesnt make the grade. This was a contextual threat .. a threat in the context of the Iraq/Kuwait aggression more than a decade ago. Certainly doesnt forward the case for the imminent need of aggressions now.

As Sylvanus and Mhoram have pointed out, that relationship was one of convenience designed to maintain a fragile stability in a volatile region and to prevent the rise of a regional hegemon…The support was not moral in nature at all. Iraq is not and never has been an “ally”.

You are wrong .. the US backed Iraq against Iran and did so following the Iran hostage crisis .. with some research of your own .. you could find evidence in support of this yourself.

But he has used WMD extensively and if he is the shrewd manipulator (I refuse to call him a politician) that we all believe him to be he would have no reason to “glibly market” them. Under the UN resolutions it would amount to an admission of guilt and would provide the US with the “smoking gun” that it seeks.

Yet the US administration has never had any hesitation in accusing Hussein of making the attempts. I dont buy that .. Iraq has been held up as one who would supply terrorist factions with WMD .. well which way do the administration want it?

As far as providing WMD to terrorists goes I agree with you….It is unlikely that he would do so

. Well isnt this the basis of the threat Iraq poses to the US?

But because he is not likely to do it does not mean he absolutely would not.

and here we are back to the .. well .. he might .. maybe .. who knows ..

If it were highly improbable that the attack would be traced back to him or if the operation offered a very high payoff he may be tempted.

well he may be.. Korea may also be .. and a number of other rogue nations may also be??

But none that present the regional and global threat that Saddam does.

I have to question this assumption .. I think Korea is more of a global threat than Iraq .. and the largest global threat to this date is terrorism .. and Osama bin Laden ..

Unfortunately I don’t believe we would have ever received the support of France, Russia, and China for reasons I have explained in the “Pre-emption” thread. Their vetoes would preclude UN approval.

absolutely .. but I disagree with your posited reasons. I believe these nations had a more simple agenda .. and that was peaceful disarmament .. increasing the inspection force and placing NATO troops on the ground in Iraq .. To simply exhaust these peaceful processes first .. they always agreed to the use of aggression as a last resort .. not anytime prior.

This is a unilateral action .. by a limited number of coalition forces .. it is unilateral primarily because it acts outside of the international consensus and acts prematurely to the UN resolution imho. But whats done is done .. and I dont want to spend more time arguing whats already done.

No offense intended but I think you are being either overly idealistic or naive.

I do have questions about all these issues myself .. I do not intend to be naive or overly idealistic .. yhet I think it is in my nature to be so. I feel the need to abide by international law and protocol .. to exhaust diplomatic measures prior to engaging military force.

Where have the 25,000 liters of anthrax gone? What about the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and the 500 tons of mustard, sarin and VX nerve gas? And how about the 30,000 missiles and short-range rockets Iraq has failed to account for?

According to Blix and el Barade (sp?) the process of disarmament was making progress. 1441 was supposedly a more aggressive resolution infact instigated by the US. It was made very clear what Iraq was expected to do ..

What happened to Iraq proving it was disarmed? Now the burden of proof is on the UN.

It is a matter of fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser .. isnt it?

I have great faith in the UN and the most damaging and threat to UN potency is lack of support from the major contributors.

I think we need to focus more on the UN at this time .. and I see the US doing this with their reflection on the role of the UN during the time of re-building in Iraq ..

what has gone before is a great pity imho .. but roads can still be built and an international community can still be salvaged. EAch needing the balancing act of the other.

anyway I gotta go .. I still have an essay outstanding .. and I have wickedly wasted some hours here already ..

oh may the gods have pity on me ..

oh and p.s. I dont have time to edit and check this draft so in all its rugged glory it is ..

[Brinn]

either I do or you sorely over-estimate them

Could be. Or the truth could lie somewhere in the middle.

Hussein made the aggressive move in attacking Iran .. and you seem to be glossing over the fact that he had US support .. militarily as well. And arent you claiming in reverse it is ok for the US to use military force in their more noble quest of eliminating any threat to them .. and gain additional political, economic and military dominance.

An interesting argument. I'll consider this and get back to you.

The only threat Iraq represents to the US mind is in the possibility of its selling WMD to terrorists. No link has been substantially supported connecting Hussein to bin Laden .. they have never been allies. bin Laden represents all the same fundamentalist Islamic views that threaten the Hussein regime. Secondly, in assuming the possibility of such a link .. as I have explained Hussein is not suicidal .. He is a survivalist .. he has shown an immense drive for his personal and political survival .. joining himself with terrorist factions he knows is suicidal .. and he knows full well .. irritating the acquisition of an enemy like the US is a recipe for disaster.

Selling WMD to terrorists is a concern but certainly not the only threat. I can only speak for myself but the primary threat I see is Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons. And Saddam has shown a willingness to probe the limits of exactly how much "irritating" he can do before he can expect a reprisal. He has a basic grasp of the political interplay in the UN and the dynamics between the US and UN. He has seen what the UN is willing to tolerate or condone and has seen them restrain the US on a consistent basis.

Precisely .. IF .. I have heard many US commentators claim that he does have them .. I do not believe the US would have commenced this invasion if they really believed he did have them.

Well to answer that theoretical question .. the UN/

The US bowed out of the League of Nations and hence we saw its inevitable decline. The US has pledged its allegiance to the UN as did all the permanent members .. to avert future war and aggressions. Does that pledge mean nothing? Does it mean .. we only pledge to support the UN so long as the UN instigates those issues which forward US interests only?

First I do not believe that Saddam has nuclear capability nor have I heard anyone in the media make this assertion, which is not to say that it hasn't been said. It may have. But I have absolutely no doubt that Saddam is pursuing them and will succeed unless something is done. Believe me when I say that if I could be confident that the UN inspections could effectively disarm Saddam and prevent him from acquiring further WMDs I would not be attempting to defend a war. Unfortunately I am convinced that the inspections are ineffective.

And if it is the UN that will respond to the ultimate nuclear threat I would ask which countries have historically been the military whips that the UN would expect to enforce their collective will?

Of course the US pledge to the UN has meaning. The US feels that prosecution of this war has benefits to both the US and to the world as well. The UN's failure to address the situation in an effective manner is the reason for our departure. IMHO, self-serving and fundamentally political/economic reasons are hamstringing the disarmament process at every turn.

This is interesting .. yet so many wealthy nations possess nuclear capability dont they? We allow those who have them to retain them dont we? Yet we restrain the ability of smaller nations to acquire them .. because we say they are not responsible .. I would agree Hussein has not shown to merit this capability .. he has not shown to the world that he would be responsible with this capability. I agree.

But who can? Korea?? Most definitely not we say. So many smaller nations strive to secure the right of self-determination .. as we declare we respect (UN charter) .. and acquiring nuclear capability brings security to some degree from external interference ..

Another thought provoking response. You have some valid arguments here but I don't see the possession of nuclear weapons and the right of self determination as being coreliant. Certainly the US must be counted as one of the primary supporters of self-determination via democracy in the world. IMHO self-determination arises from the will of a collective people. Are the mandates of a dictator a mark of self-determinination? Is the will of the Iraqi people truly being heard? My guess is no but who can be certain. If the Iraqi's truly prefer to live under Saddam and his leadership than I guess I would say let's get out of Iraq and proceed down the path of deterrence. With that said, I would have to think more about this to refine my views and weigh the threats but my initial gut feeling is "let the world deal with a nuclear armed Saddam when it occurs, let the Arab "street" deal with any military threats and let the Iraqi people either solve their own issues or provide us with a clear-cut, UN approved, method for halting their repression."

What do you expect in war? The Iraqi threat was directed to what they deemed as their opposition in this conflict

But this seemingly excuses the Iraqi's for their initial aggression against Kuwait. The US was there at the UN's behest in response to an unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation. If Iraq was a responsible world citizen wouldn't it have heard the UN resolution unanimously condemning the action and pulled out of Kuwait? Of course I expect they would threaten the opposing forces but that doesn't justify the initial aggression which, by any definition was wrong.

You are wrong .. the US backed Iraq against Iran and did so following the Iran hostage crisis .. with some research of your own .. you could find evidence in support of this yourself.

I don't deny that we backed Iraq and I'm certainly not proud of it (As you know the US once backed Bin Laden as well and look how that has turned out). The US has made its fair share of foreign policy mistakes and I am not a US apologist. What I can say is that I believe in the fundamental values and morals that the US espouses...The right of individual citizens to participate in their own govt and destiny and the right to be free of oppression. As best I can explain, our backing of Iraq at that time was choosing the lessor of two evils (forgive the use of "evil").

Yet the US administration has never had any hesitation in accusing Hussein of making the attempts. I dont buy that .. Iraq has been held up as one who would supply terrorist factions with WMD .. well which way do the administration want it?

An excellent point and one that I have no answer for. Let me be clear that my opinions regarding the Iraqi/terrorism link are not reflective of the Bush administrations official position. As you can see I have some issues with the justification that has been provided. I feel that invasion is the only remaining option and I feel that the reasons for it are compelling enough without trying to forge what is, at best, a rather tenuous link between Saddam and terrorism. But what do I know. It may be that the administration has intelligence indicating a link and has not been more specific for fear of jeopardizing the safety and integrity of their sources. At this point I am more inclined to believe what British and US intelligence has asserted rather than what Saddam has said given the track records of the parties involved.

but I disagree with your posited reasons. I believe these nations had a more simple agenda .. and that was peaceful disarmament .. increasing the inspection force and placing NATO troops on the ground in Iraq .. To simply exhaust these peaceful processes first .. they always agreed to the use of aggression as a last resort .. not anytime prior.

On this point we will simply need to agree to disagree. I have stated my reasons as best I can and I believe that they are compelling. In the end this is no more than speculation on my part and faith on yours and we will probably never know who was correct. And I apolgize for calling you naive. It was a poor choice of words. Maybe I'm just more cynical than you.

It is a matter of fact that the burden of proof falls to the accuser .. isnt it?

Not in the case of disarmament. The original UN resolutions that followed the Gulf War clearly and explicitly called for the full disclosure and disarmement, firmly placing the inspection team in the role of verifier and not detective and placing the onus of proof on the Iraqi state. Again I refer to my comments in the "Pre-emption" thread when I state that the resolutions and inspections became so watered down over the ensuing twelve year period (Iraqi resistance and a general fatigue in the UN over the twelve years of issues) that the chances of effective disarmement became negligible. The inspection teams now have an insurmountable task ahead. The burden of proof is no longer on Iraq but has instead been placed on the inspectors. You may argue that this is because Iraq has already "claimed" to be disarmed but this is just another indication of Saddam's willingness to use deception. This "claim" has not been justified with proof. Saddam has not supplied the proof that was required per the early resolutions.

Defending war is certainly not an easy (nor popular) position to take and I don't do so lightly. I only attempt to offer the counter point to your points so that an intelligent discussion of the issues can take place and both sides can be fairly represented with a minimum amount of rhetoric. Once again, I thank you for your thoughtful posts and I apologize for keeping you from your essay. I would like you to visit the "Who are You" thread (but, of course, only after you've addressed my concerns in the "pre-emption" thread!) that I posted in the general discussion forum as I have begun to admire your dogged determination (that's not to say that I don't also admire your faith in the human spirit and trusting nature!) and I would like to know more about you. TTYS.

[Skyweir]

well Brinn ..

Could be. Or the truth could lie somewhere in the middle.

yes I'm sure in truth it does

possession of nuclear weapons and the right of self determination as being coreliant

it would seem in todays world there is a correlation .. between obtaining nuclear capability and securing independence .. true independence .. free from the intervention the kind that Iraq is exposed to now ..

Korea .. will be dealt with very differently I suspect .. with kid gloves ..

you dont charge head first at a crazed lunatic with whose holding a loaded shot gun pointed directly at you or worse the ones you love ..

Certainly the US must be counted as one of the primary supporters of self-determination

I wonder at the accuracy of this statement .. yes indeed as a western democracy it is a stated claim/proclamation even .. but I think it is truer to state that the support is more for 'self-determination' within the parameters they deem as acceptable ..

yes I agree .. a democratic system of government is a desirable goal and a positive notion to instill in the minds and hearts of those who do not share this political philosophy .. but self-determination is supposed to allow self-determination to lead to this or another end ..

ie: Cuba's Castro is an intereting example of this .. western style capitalist/democracy isnt necessarily the optimum preference of governance for all nations .. some nations through self-determination will develop their own unique philosophy .. and I wonder at the correctness of interference and intervention in other state's affairs ..

I have some thinking to do about this .. I'll get back to you as well ..

forgive the use of "evil").

ts'ok .. I get that you are referring to a philosophical evil here ..not a moral one .. and its a distinction worthy making ..

It may be that the administration has intelligence indicating a link and has not been more specific for fear of jeopardizing the safety and integrity of their sources

well that may be .. yet I cant see that simply stating in general terms that intelligence is possessed establishing this link .. would have in any way injured the wider public interest or the integrity of whatever intelligence sources they claim to have ..

but we havent been the recipients of even the smallest crumb of evidentiary connection ..

If we claim to revere democratic principles .. then above all we believe in open government .. and as such the people are owed at least some information .. as the sovereign right of government lies with the people .. prior and during the Bush admin dealings with the UN .. and the decision to attack Iraq .. we 'the people' have not been privy to this level of accountability from the governments as trustees .. hold sensitive information in behalf of us .. we need to know ..

governments tend to make all efforts to avoid public scrutiny .. but we do live in a democracy .. and it is not a matter of choice .. governments are accountable to us ..

we have commissioned public funds to supply the war effort .. we have commissioned sons and brothers fathers uncles .. sisters etc .. to this war .. the day of accounting will come .. it always does .. regardless of the efforts of government to retain its secrecy regime ..

sure .. it can be argued as you assert .. that information held by the government is too sensitive to be released .. it can be argued thus .. but we claim the political superiority of democracy .. then we retain a vested interest in governmental accountability ..

Defending war is certainly not an easy (nor popular) position to take

about as popular in some circles as defending peace

I have certainly enjoyed discussing this with you and await you to fulifill your promise of ... 'thinking and getting back on some of these issues'

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say ..

[Brinn]

Korea .. will be dealt with very differently I suspect .. with kid gloves ..

Do you think N. Korea's recent concessions, backing off of their insistence of one-on-one meetings with the US and allowing a regional meeting, are in any way a result of the military action in Iraq?

I wonder at the accuracy of this statement .. yes indeed as a western democracy it is a stated claim/proclamation even .. but I think it is truer to state that the support is more for 'self-determination' within the parameters they deem as acceptable ..

yes I agree .. a democratic system of government is a desirable goal and a positive notion to instill in the minds and hearts of those who do not share this political philosophy .. but self-determination is supposed to allow self-determination to lead to this or another end ..

This a really slippery slope. How do you define self-determination? Is it the will of the individual? The majority? The strongest? Was Saddam a representative of the people of Iraq. Can we look at that situation and say that he was an expression of the Iraqi peoples will. I agree that there are certain methods of rulership that will be frowned upon by the US and by most democratic nations as well. Ruling through terror, murder, opression and aggression will not be tolerated nor should it. One of the loudest criticisms of US foreign policy that I have heard is that the US has been an abstaining superpower hesitant to get involved in foreign affairs even when human rights are being violated. I think this is largely true. Iraq is the exception to the rule. Look around the world at all of the governments that are oppressive and undemocratic...Does the US wish these forms of government were more western? I'm sure in certain cases, yes. But there is no evidence that the US will interfere in the choices of other sovereign nations as long as they do not pose a threat to their people, their neighbors or other countries.