Human Shields (What are they thinking?) - Page 4

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>Straw-man....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Howso? Europe has threatened Saddam with the "severest consequences" (UN Resolution 1154, March 1998) and now "serious consquences" (UN Resolution 1441, November 2002). They are obligated to show full compliance and even today they have not answered all of Blix's questions, although they've had 4 months to do so.

You can say you don't want war, but to call that a straw man is intellectually dishonest.

Agent302:
[quote]Clearly, you've never seen the video of footage of the Saigon embassy being evacuated by helicopter during Nixon's administration.<hr></blockquote>

Clearly, you've seen the footage on TV but never bothered reading about the events that led to it. (Sorry for the tone, but righteous wrongness always annoys me) The embassy evacuation occured in 1975, as Saigon was being overrun by regular North Vietnamese army units that had stormed blitzkrieg-style across the DMZ. Nixon, of course, had resigned over a year earlier, at which time there were hardly any US troops in South Vietnam anyway. The official American presence in South Vietnam had ended three years earlier, in an agreement that required North Vietnam to respect the right of South Vietnam to exist. Ford refused to supply any aid or assistance at all to protect our ally from a conventional invasion supported by foreign powers (China and the USSR). Understandable, perhaps, but no less shameful.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>An anti-US website?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really can't manage to read more out of it than that?

You'll probably hate <a href="http://www.transcend.org/" target="_blank">this site</a> to...
[quote]New sponsors appeasement because that's the new global policy idea in Europe. They don't have to worry about it because they aren't going to be the ones who have to clean up the mess when it all goes sour. <hr></blockquote>
Creating safety is not what springs to mind when one studies american military intervention and military aid during the last 50 years.
You'll probably laugh it of, but the case is that the US (and the other imperialist powers) caused much of this mess in the first place.

Would there even have been an Al-Qaida without US meddling in Afghanistan?

At a time where the world should see a fall in conflicts, the cold-war being over and all. Things are seemingly getting worse.
The new, articulated, foreign policy goals of the US are highly disturbing. Alternative thoughts are more needed than ever.

I'm not advocating passivity or the absence of action. Far from it, I'm advocating active diplomacy and dialogue. Peaceful meddling, so to speak. And I have a strong faith in peoples ability to solve their own problems. If your going to interfere in other peoples conflicts there are always more than one approach.

here are two nice stories on conflict resolution:

1: Once upon a time a mullah was on his way on camel to Mecca.

Coming to an oasis he saw three men standing there, crying. So he stopped the camel, and asked, 'My children, what is the matter?' And they answered, 'Our father just passed away, and we loved him so much.' 'But,' said the mullah, 'I am sure he loved you too, and no doubt he has left something behind for you?'

The three men answered: 'Yes, he did indeed, he left behind camels. And in his will it is stated 1/2 to the eldest son, 1/3 to the second and 1/9 to the youngest. We love camels and we agree with the parts to each. But there is a problem: he left behind 17 camels and we have been to school, we know that 17 is a prime number. Loving camels, we cannot divide them.'

The mullah thought for a while, and then said, 'I shall give you my camel, then you will have 18'. And they cried, 'No, you cannot do that, you are on your way to something important . . .' The mullah interrupted them, 'My children, take the camel, go ahead.'

So they divided 18 by 2 and the eldest son got 9 camels, 18 by 3 and the second son got 6 camels, 18 by 9 and the youngest son got 2 camels: a total of 9 + 6 + 2 = 17 camels. One camel was standing there, alone: the mullah's camel. The mullah said: 'Are you happy? Well, then, maybe I can have my camel back?'

And the three men, full of gratitude said, of course, not quite understanding what had happened. The mullah blessed them, mounted his camel, and the last they saw was a tiny cloud of dust, quickly settling in the glowing evening sun.

2: Once upon a time a lawyer was on his way in a fancy car through the desert. Passing an oasis he saw three men standing there, crying. So he stopped the car, and asked, 'What's the matter?' And they answered, 'Our father just passed away, and we loved him so much.' 'But,' said the lawyer, 'I am sure he has made a will. Maybe I can help you, for a fee, of course?'

The three men answered: 'Yes, he did indeed, he left behind camels. And in his will it is stated 1/2 to the eldest son, 1/3 to the second and 1/6 to the youngest. We love camels and we agree with the parts to each. But there is a problem: he left behind 17 camels and we have been to school, we know that 17 is a prime number. Loving camels, we cannot divide them.'

The lawyer thought for a while and then said: 'Very simple. You give me 5 camels, then you have 12. You divide by 2, 3 and 6 and you get 6, 4 and 2 camels respectively.' And so they did. The lawyer tied the five unhappy camels to the car, and the last they saw was a vast cloud of dust, covering the evening sun...

New:

[quote]<strong>You really can't manage to read more out of it than that?
You'll probably hate this site to...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I ask for solutions and you give me links to websites. Think for yourself, give me a solution in your own words.

[quote]<strong>You'll probably laugh it of, but the case is that the US (and the other imperialist powers) caused much of this mess in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Iraq? The UK screwed that up.
Afghanistan? That's as much the USSR's fault as the US's.

The reason the middle east is so screwed up in so many way is mostly because of European colonialism, the after-effects of which Europe is content to ignore, choosing instead to focus on how to make their own continent less bloody and violent, which is a noble aim.

[quote]<strong>I'm not advocating passivity or the absence of action. Far from it, I'm advocating active diplomacy and dialogue. Peaceful meddling, so to speak. And I have a strong faith in peoples ability to solve their own problems. If your going to interfere in other peoples conflicts there are always more than one approach.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And this philosphy taken to the Iraq question has had 12 years to produce results and has only gotten token compliance and 500,000+ Iraqi dead from sanctions, I believe your lot would call that "peaceful meddling".

[quote]<strong>here are two nice stories on conflict resolution:</strong><hr></blockquote>

I suppose you see Europe as the mullah and the US as the lawyer. Telling of your cartoonish and disrespectful view of America.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I ask for solutions and you give me links to websites. Think for yourself, give me a solution in your own words.</strong><hr></blockquote>If you read my last post, it has some of my own words in there. You even quoted them. If you you want to start a new thread on peacful alternatives to the comming war I'd be delighted. Somehow I didn't think that was on your agenda.
[quote]Iraq? The UK screwed that up.
Afghanistan? That's as much the USSR's fault as the US's.<hr></blockquote>Yes, some of the other imperialist powers that I mentioned.
[quote]The reason the middle east is so screwed up in so many way is mostly because of European colonialism, the after-effects of which Europe is content to ignore, choosing instead to focus on how to make their own continent less bloody and violent, which is a noble aim. <hr></blockquote>
I agree totally, and the US is doing a fine job of continuing where the french and english left of.
[quote]And this philosphy taken to the Iraq question has had 12 years to produce results and has only gotten token compliance and 500,000+ Iraqi dead from sanctions, I believe your lot would call that "peaceful meddling". <hr></blockquote>No, I resent that. What has been going on the last twelve years is continous bombardment and slow starvation of the civil population. I'm totally against it, as it is neiter peaceful, diplomatic, constructive or even civilized. Wasn't it your Allbright who called it a "necessary evil"?
[quote]I suppose you see Europe as the mullah and the US as the lawyer. Telling of your cartoonish and disrespectful view of America. <hr></blockquote>
Well, you suppose wrong. I believe all countries have both the "mullah" and the "lawyer" character. Your statement is what is cartoonish.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>If you read my last post, it has some of my own words in there. You even quoted them. If you you want to start a new thread on peacful alternatives to the comming war I'd be delighted. Somehow I didn't think that was on your agenda.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Diplomacy is not a solution to the Iraq problem. 12 years of diplomacy have failed. 12 years of sanctions have failed.

Start the thread if you have an idea, I've tried before and all I get in response is anti-US rhetoric.

[quote]<strong>Yes, some of the other imperialist powers that I mentioned.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kind of shoots your whole premise that the US is to blame in the head, eh?

[quote]<strong>I agree totally, and the US is doing a fine job of continuing where the french and english left of.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That makes absolutely no sense. The US's actions in the middle east are completely different. If there's any real gripe it's that we don't stick around long enough. Your contient was very recently one of colonialism (and vestiges of it remain, Ivory Coast being a currently violent one) and the same cannot be said of the US. Well it can be said but not by anyone being honest and willing to look at the situations above the level of defensive rhetoric.

It's easy to scream at the US when it is the only body capable of addressing the problems your continent created.

[quote]<strong>No, I resent that. What has been going on the last twelve years is continous bombardment and slow starvation of the civil population. I'm totally against it, as it is neiter peaceful, diplomatic, constructive or even civilized. Wasn't it your Allbright who called it a "necessary evil"?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I know it was Albright and it was a horrible thing to say. It's a horrible policy to undertake, one I'm looking forward to seeing Bush rectify.

What do you suggest? Anything? Saying "start a thread about it" is a cop-out. Answer the question.

What diplomatic means would you use to get Saddam Hussein to disarm?

I never said US should carry the blame alone. You read that into it. I know, and have been trying to make a point out of Europe being colonialist. Norway was itself a colony, like Ireland and Iceland. I don't feel we should carry any responsibility for the old colonial powers of our continent. You'd make a better case holding me responsible for the misdoings of the vikings. But that would just be silly, right? Colonialism in its old form is dead. Imperialism most certainly is not. Just take a look at US military involvement abroad in the last 50 years. Ask yourself who armed Saddam in the first place, and why?

As far as I can see Saddam is disarming as we speak. I know you'll say that this only because of US pressure. And sure, that might be. The problem isn't really the pressure. It's the lack of alternative solutions from your government. The one track war rhetoric. It makes your motives untrustworthy.

If this was about disarming, then what's the rush? Lift the sanctions and continue the inspections. Hell even if the inspections dragged on for 12 more years it would cost penuts compared to what the US has spent this week. The german/french idea of sending in UN troops to aid the inspectors if they are hindered is worth a try. A wider arms treaty between the middle-eastern countries would be nice. One that included Israel.

But its not about disarmament is it? That was two weeks ago. Last week was about regime-change, and now its about peace in palestine? How stupid does this administration think people are? Even the pro-war folks over here are having trouble keeping up with your governments argumentation.

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Ask yourself who armed Saddam in the first place, and why?</strong><hr></blockquote>

France, Germany, Russia and the US. Your point?

[quote]<strong>As far as I can see Saddam is disarming as we speak.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see him doing some things. There are still many unanswered questions. Ask Blix.
The resolutions call for full cooperation, even now they haven't answered the questions and only highlight their own lies. They say they *destroyed* R-400 bombs, but 8 have been uncovered *intact*.

But essentially time is up. There is going to be war, it's just up to the UN to decide whether or not they want to play along. No other member nation will be expected to do anything at all, either way, which makes me wonder even more why we bother with the UN on issues that need immediate action.

[quote]<strong>I know you'll say that this only because of US pressure. And sure, that might be.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And I would be 100% correct. Ask Blix. Read his interview with Time magazine. Without American "hawks" there would be no inspections, there would be no disarmament at all. Limp-wristed diplomacy and sanctions brought only death to the Iraqi people.

[quote]<strong>The problem isn't really the pressure. It's the lack of alternative solutions from your government. The one track war rhetoric. It makes your motives untrustworthy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bush has given three options: (1) full disarmament, (2) Saddam's exile, (3) forced disarmament.

Bush gave Saddam YET ANOTHER chance. Saddam didn't take it.

[quote]<strong>If this was about disarming, then what's the rush? Lift the sanctions and continue the inspections.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Take away the threat to imminent war and you take away Saddam's willingness to comply. Please do try and keep up.

The moment you remove the knife from Saddam's neck he ceases to cooperate. Remove the threat and you remove what little compliance you get.

[quote]<strong>Hell even if the inspections dragged on for 12 more years it would cost penuts compared to what the US has spent this week.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't care about what is cheapest, if I cared about that I'd advocate massive cuts in our military and removal of our foreign bases. You know, the ones that allowed the EU to form their little idyllic world.

[quote]<strong>The german/french idea of sending in UN troops to aid the inspectors if they are hindered is worth a try. A wider arms treaty between the middle-eastern countries would be nice. One that included Israel.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, treaties are a great idea, we know how Saddam honors his agreements!

[quote]<strong>But its not about disarmament is it? That was two weeks ago. Last week was about regime-change, and now its about peace in palestine? How stupid does this administration think people are? Even the pro-war folks over here are having trouble keeping up with your governments argumentation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The only way to get disarmament is regime-change. Once again you run out of your own logic and fall back to attacking the administration.

War hasn't started until we've dropped our first bomb. Saddam still has time to show that he has fully disarmed. If the inspectors have even one tiny question about a misplaced bullet he should be held to full accountability.

The burden is on him to stop his punishment, not on us to justify it when it has been outlined in so many resolutions.

[starts slow clap...]

I'm taking it from New's post that he believes that it is the cost of just a few UN dudes driving around in SUV's that has brought this mere drizzle of compliance from Saddam? It couldn't have anything to do with the cost of practically having the US's entire fleet sitting out in the Mediterranean bearing down on Saddam with impending doom, could it? If you can imagine footing the bill to sustain that show of force for another 12 years just to get babysteps out of Saddam, I don't think that will be change in a bucket for what you get.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Howso? </strong><hr></blockquote>

You claim that the aim of the UN is to back down. That's a lie/straw-man argument. Admit it.

[quote]<strong>You claim that the aim of the UN is to back down. That's a lie/straw-man argument. Admit it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is the goal of shrinking away from threats that you make? That's backing down, bunge, that's the definition of backing down.

The UN has repeatedly stepped up with harsh rhetoric and at every turn have been sent back whimpering by Saddam. Of course they still have a chance to answer the call, but it seems the only way that will be happened is for them to be dragged kicking and screaming by a US president filled with resolve.

As Hans Blix says, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." I can't wait for the UN to join together and prove me wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

What is the goal of shrinking away from threats that you make? That's backing down, bunge, that's the definition of backing down. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You're lying. The UN has never said they'll go to war. You want to believe they did as an excuse to attack. They never even implied it.

So they're backing down from inspections? Is that what you're saying? Right now, the UN is not inspecting? That's what you're accusing them of doing. It's just not true. They're following through with what they said they would. They just never said they would do what you want them to do. So now that they're not doing what you want, you claim they're backing down, even though they're doing exactly what they said they would do.

The UN will go to war as a last resort. They still will. Inspections are working. No need to go to war just yet. You want to. You're mad because the UN won't let you justify it. So, you now try and make them look bad. Your argument is so weak it's sad.

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>[starts slow clap...]

I'm taking it from New's post that he believes that it is the cost of just a few UN dudes driving around in SUV's that has brought this mere drizzle of compliance from Saddam? It couldn't have anything to do with the cost of practically having the US's entire fleet sitting out in the Mediterranean bearing down on Saddam with impending doom, could it?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hm, it does seem the one-two punch of threatening to rain hell on Hussein and having inspectors is getting at least getting him to comply, ifin little baby steps. Maybe we should just keep up the good-cop, bad-cop thing with the UN?

Whaddya think it's free to have this triple-A, uber-cutting edge technology armada sitting out there doing nothing but waiting? How long do you think U-haul is going to wait for their rental equipment?

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You're lying. The UN has never said they'll go to war. You want to believe they did as an excuse to attack. They never even implied it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The "severest consquences" in 1998. Resolution 1154, read it.
What are the "severest consequences", bunge? Tell me. What are 1441's "serious consequences"? What does that mean to you? Voluntary inspections?

Answer this question: What do "severest consequences" mean to you?

[quote]<strong>So they're backing down from inspections? Is that what you're saying?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm saying that many key UN figures do not really care whether or not Iraq complies with the resolutions they signed on to. I'm saying that they view anything outside their own little bubble as a mere distraction and their citizens in general view their biggest ally as a bigger enemy than Hussein. That's what I'm saying.

If Saddam were to stop cooperating these nations would only sputter and pout, only to turn back away from the problem. That's what I'm saying, and it's historical fact.

[quote]<strong>Right now, the UN is not inspecting? That's what you're accusing them of doing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Inspections aren't the goal, disarmament is the goal. Inspections have not worked and they only cosmetically work now because the US is holding a knife to Saddam's throat. He wasn't cooperating when we weren't threatening now he's providing tacit and conditional cooperation now that we've put a gun against his head. It doesn't take a genius to do that math.

Those nations who choose limp-wristed diplomacy indicate that they do not care to solve the problem.

[quote]<strong>They're following through with what they said they would.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ready 687. Read 1154. Read 1284. Read 1441. Saddam has taken each of these, wiped his ass with them and handed them right back to the UN. You're blind.

We said as a polity 5 years ago that without full cooperation Saddam would be met with the "severest consequences". I cannot believe you are trying to say that the UN has followed through on its threats.

[quote]<strong>They just never said they would do what you want them to do. So now that they're not doing what you want, you claim they're backing down, even though they're doing exactly what they said they would do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When all else fails, bring it to a personal level, eh? Sad.
I can just see your top lip quivering as you type that.

[quote]<strong>The UN will go to war as a last resort. They still will. Inspections are working. No need to go to war just yet. You want to. You're mad because the UN won't let you justify it. So, you now try and make them look bad. Your argument is so weak it's sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why do you think I want to go to war, bunge? Answer that question and then realize that you've got a seriously messed up view of this situation.

Iraq says it will stop destroying the missiles if the US does not back off. They are putting conditions on their cooperation.

The UN better not back down again. I cannot believe you will actually say they have lived up to their resolutions, it shows an amazing ignorance of the 17 very harsh resolutions already passed over the last 12 years.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Answer this question: What do "severest consequences" mean to you? </strong><hr></blockquote>

You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter what "severest consequences" means to me or you or the US. It's what it means to the UN. The UN used the phrase "severe consequences" because they did not want to authorize automatic war. They wanted to force more debate before going to war.

So even if 1441 has been officially breached, it's got to go back into discussion with the UN. There is no automatic trigger for war in this situation, I'm sorry.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Why do you think I want to go to war, bunge? Answer that question and then realize that you've got a seriously messed up view of this situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, well, you've pretty explicitly stated that you don't want to NOT go to war. So, the double negative does mean a positive in English. That leaves a YES answer to your question.

If you didn't want to go to war, you would be able to think of other solutions to the problem because they actually do exist.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter what "severest consequences" means to me or you or the US. It's what it means to the UN. The UN used the phrase "severe consequences" because they did not want to authorize automatic war. They wanted to force more debate before going to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The obvious question is then, what do you think it means to the UN? We know what Groverat thinks, I think.

I understand why we would try to get YAUNR (Yet Another United Nations Resolution) for the sake of Spain and the UK governments from a political point of view. I do not understand why it would be necessary for another resolution unless it more specifically (ha) defines what "serious conquences" are, and of course in that, what is to be done. So let's rephrase my first question: What would you expect or want the UN to write for its next resolution, assuming it's necessary. If it's not necessary, why also, from the UN point of view? I am asking you to read inds, or just make your best guess. I won't hold you or the UN to it.

PS: I think I speak for Groverat too when I say that I do not want to go to war, but I think we may have to go to war.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>You're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter what "severest consequences" means to me or you or the US. It's what it means to the UN. The UN used the phrase "severe consequences" because they did not want to authorize automatic war. They wanted to force more debate before going to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If the phrase "severest consequences" means "further hedging" to the UN then the US needs to go it alone, or with whoever is willing to go.

[quote]<strong>So even if 1441 has been officially breached, it's got to go back into discussion with the UN. There is no automatic trigger for war in this situation, I'm sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not saying there is an automatic trigger, I'm saying that any logical human reads those resolutions and sees that if Saddam does not provide full cooperation he is to be forced to do so.

[quote]<strong>Um, well, you've pretty explicitly stated that you don't want to NOT go to war. So, the double negative does mean a positive in English. That leaves a YES answer to your question.</strong><hr></blockquote>

When you say I look for an excuse you imply that my first impulse is to make war. So answer the question, what twisted mindset do you have that makes you paint people with that sort of brush?

[quote]<strong>If you didn't want to go to war, you would be able to think of other solutions to the problem because they actually do exist.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What are your solutions? You obviously don't want war so how do we get Saddam to disarm?

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>

The obvious question is then, what do you think it means to the UN? We know what Groverat thinks, I think. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it means fluffy bunnies to groverat.

To me? I think I said what it means to the UN in my previous post. It was a trigger for more discussion. The US wanted explicit wording to trigger an attack, but the UN was against that. So, since they're against an attack, the words can't mean we attack, even if that's what some people (Bush) want them to mean.

I had no idea there was that much room to interpret what "severest consequences" could mean. I guess Bill Clinton can rest easily now that there is a "new guy" in town to take liberties with "words" to even new levels. The UN is the new Clinton (with regard to mean what you say and say what you mean). I guess if severest consequences means more inspections and more food for oil, then war must be listed somewhere above that along with the "less severe" consequences. Does anybody think this rating system is even more confusing than a 5-color threat level scheme? When does the UN pull out the big guns and start saying stuff like "no more pudding"? A dark, dark day that will be, I tell ya...cuz Saddam sure like da puddin'.

[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

I'm not saying there is an automatic trigger, I'm saying that any logical human reads those resolutions and sees that if Saddam does not provide full cooperation he is to be forced to do so. </strong><hr></blockquote>

And amazingly enough it's working without war right now.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

When you say I look for an excuse you imply that my first impulse is to make war. So answer the question, what twisted mindset do you have that makes you paint people with that sort of brush? </strong><hr></blockquote>

I've said nothing about your first impulse. You want to quit the inspections process and start the war now. That's what you've stated. I'm not painting anything. Paraphrasing? Maybe. Painting? No.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
What are your solutions? You obviously don't want war so how do we get Saddam to disarm?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Isn't he going to destroy those missles he has? He is disarming now. Keep up the good work peoples.

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>I had no idea there was that much room to interpret what "severest consequences" could mean. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That's because your bias wants to go to war.

bunge:

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of saying that it's a trigger for war, insisting I don't know what the UN thinks (as if such a concrete conclusion exists) but you say it's a trigger for more discussion, as if there is a unified UN feeling and you happen to know what it is. Hypocrisy? Never!

Who knew that forced disarmament wasn't the "severest"? It really must be one of the less severe ones, R99, you're onto something.

It's going to happen, UN or no UN. It needs to happen, the problems the resolutions address exist outside of the bickering councils.

Scream for more years of bloody sanctions and appeasement if you like, but war is coming. Saddam can avoid it if he leaves or answers every outstanding question. But he won't do either.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

That's because your bias wants to go to war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

...and you feel it means more "talks" because of your bias. See how that works?

[quote]Originally posted by Randycat99:
<strong>

...and you feel it means more "talks" because of your bias. See how that works?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. The UN refused to put in language that authorized war, no matter what I want it to mean. You want it to mean "attack" but there is a specific example of why it explicitly means "no attack."

I know that's tough to swallow, I'm sorry. But you all know the UN avoided authorizing an attack. You all know the language was watered down specifically to produce moer "talks."

It has nothing to do with what I want. It has nothing to do with what you want. It has nothing to do with what Bush wants. It has everything to do with what the UN wanted and the UN did not want an attack.

Hence we are back to the dubious claim that the UN never backs down from anything. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>bunge:

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of saying that it's a trigger for war, insisting I don't know what the UN thinks (as if such a concrete conclusion exists) but you say it's a trigger for more discussion, as if there is a unified UN feeling and you happen to know what it is. Hypocrisy? Never! </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's wrong of me to explicitly say it's a trigger for more talks, I know that. It's just short hand. All we know about the language is that it does not mean war. What's left? More talks are all I can think of. Maybe it does mean something else, I don't know. But it doesn't matter. All that does matter is the fact that the language does not mean war.

Even if you want it to mean that.

It might simply mean another vote to approve war. It might me fluffy bunnies. It can't mean attack. You know it's true.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Scream for more...appeasement if you like....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Straw-man.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>It's wrong of me to explicitly say it's a trigger for more talks, I know that. It's just short hand. All we know about the language is that it does not mean war. What's left? More talks are all I can think of. Maybe it does mean something else, I don't know. But it doesn't matter. All that does matter is the fact that the language does not mean war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We do not know that it doesn't mean war. You don't know that. The difference is that your aims are limited to the UN while mine are not.

No more talks, this issue should've been resolved years ago. The only thing that will convince me that war is not the answer is Saddam himself through either full and unconditional disarmament or exile.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

It's wrong of me to explicitly say it's a trigger for more talks, I know that. It's just short hand. All we know about the language is that it does not mean war.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can't even say that. When the resolution was passed, many pundits (yeah I know, they are worthless) took it to mean military action. Maybe it didn't mean military action, maybe it did. You are right, it is open to interpretation by the council member states, but it sure was implied at the time that it meant military action
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
What's left? More talks are all I can think of. Maybe it does mean something else, I don't know. But it doesn't matter. All that does matter is the fact that the language does not mean war.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, the threat of Iraq facing 'serious consequences' and 'severest consequences' meant a threat of more talking? What sort of threat is that? I can't believe any member of the UN council believed that 'Iraq will face ____ consequences' meant 'Iraq will face more talking to'. That makes no sense, diplomatically or logically.


[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
It might simply mean another vote to approve war. It might mean fluffy bunnies. It can't mean attack. You know it's true. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, it could mean fluffy bunnies, it could mean a hail of flowers and chocolates, but in any reasonable interpretation, it means military action.

I think it meant nuke NK, if not, marklar. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

I love how "severest consequences" means "anything but war". What a twisted logic. What a twisted, twisted logic.

The US and a few other members seem to think it means forced disarmament.
Others seem to think it means, uhh... not forced disarmament.

I think the UN has reached a point of "severest credibility".

[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

We should have more talks before we be hasty and decide on what to eat for lunch.

That was actually a recent skit on SNL! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

How difficult can it be to understand?

Here is how it went. US wanted that 1441 should say "if you don´t do this, its war" (or in UN language "If Iraq doesn´t comply with this resolution its up to the member countries to do what they see fit to force Iraq to do so"). Others in the SC didn´t want that in the text so it exchanged it with "severest consequences". They didn´t want iraqi non-coorporation to mean war. They wanted it to mean "then we sit down again and talk what to do next". Its that simple and ANYONE following it in the press back then a couple of month ago will know that.

Now we can agree with the resolution or not. BUT you can not despute that thats is what happened and that is what it mean. You do not have green lights in the resolution to go to war. Its not open for interpretation because the process that made 1441 clearly shows how it is to be interpretated.

The second part of your argument ("Screw UN because we are going to war anyway") is another story that has nothing to do with the interpretation of 1441.

So you think it's evident that "severest consequences" means "sit down for more talks"? That's among the most convoluted politick-speak I've ever seen in my life. It's like the entire European continent missed the lesson on the superlative. I can see where you get the idea, it's a lot of truth, but I fail to see how you think it's perfectly logical.

You fail to realize in the compromise between Europe's (and I'm being nice here by making the anti-war movment sound like it has more solid backing than it really does) "sit down for more talks" and America's "war if they don't abide" breeds gray area. There is no perfectly clear definition. You fail to respect both sides of the compromise. And even beyond that, you fail to see that the compromise in which Europe sees "severest consequences" as "more talking" shows how powerless the continent has become.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>So you think it's evident that "severest consequences" means "sit down for more talks"? That's among the most convoluted politick-speak I've ever seen in my life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It may be but thats how it is. When looking at it from a pure diplomatic POV, disregarding all links to the outher world the way 1441 was formulated was "anything but giving carte blance for going to war without getting the approval from SC"

This is another issue than "should we go to war or not". Thats why I cut the second part of your post. It really doesn´t mean anything when we try to understand what the words in 1441 mean in themselves.

And BTW: No. 1441 is no grey area between those wanting to go to war without a new resolution and those who wont. It was a clear victory for those who wanted to have another session in the SC before giving a go for war.