<strong>Those months contingent on Iraq providing FULL COMPLIANCE.... Keep ignoring it. Keep your head in the sand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and you keep attacking me personally instead of trying to discuss anything. I'll keep trying to raise the level of your conversation, but I can't do it all on my own. You have to want to.
So we're looking at a few months. Is that still too much for you? Are you afraid you would you lose your hard-on for war by then? Are you prepared to hold off your need for blood long enough to let the inspectors 'give up' in a few months? Or do you just absolutely have to kill now? Are you afraid that after two months the inspectors will say they're progressing very well and that war will never be necessary? Is that the fear? That war now or it'll never be possible?
War is your goal. No-war is not my goal. Your bias is too plain. Your motives are too clear. You want war. That's too bad. I'd hope our society could create individuals that were more enlightened than that.
<strong>So we're looking at a few months. Is that still too much for you? Are you afraid you would you lose your hard-on for war by then? Are you prepared to hold off your need for blood long enough to let the inspectors 'give up' in a few months? Or do you just absolutely have to kill now? Are you afraid that after two months the inspectors will say they're progressing very well and that war will never be necessary? Is that the fear? That war now or it'll never be possible?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're not looking at a few months, bunge, because France rejects ANY deadline. Any ultimatum at all will apparently be vetoed. Where do you get this "only a few months" idea?
You will whine about personal attacks but accuse me of just wanting to kill. Please try to be consistent or at least not be a whiner if you're going to play hardball.
We're not looking at a few months, bunge, because France rejects ANY deadline. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The inspectors asked for 'a few months'. That's not a specific deadline. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and 'give up', then you'll have your answer. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and say everything is running smoothly then there's no war.
Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.
<strong>The inspectors asked for 'a few months'. That's not a specific deadline. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and 'give up', then you'll have your answer. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and say everything is running smoothly then there's no war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does "running smoothly" mean?
Do you think there's ever a point where Iraq must fulfill its obligations or does that not matter?
[quote]<strong>Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Have you realized yet that this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it's not up to the inspectors, it's up to the Security Council whether or not Iraq is complying with 1441 (and previous resolutions).
If you would bother to actually read the inspectors reports (which I'm sure you haven't) and the relevant resolutions (which I'm sure you haven't) it would be abundantly clear to you that the job of the inspectors is to evaluate evidence brought forward by Iraq and provide reports to the Security Council. They are not policy makers who say "yes" or "no" and they are not detectives who are there to search for things.
It's difficult to intelligently discuss something as complex as this issue with someone who is willfully ignorant of the basic fundamentals. I've got Resolutions 1441, 1284, 1154 & 687 all in .pdf, Blix's last two reports (2/14/03 & 3/7/03) in .rtf & the Cluster document in .pdf if you'd like to educate yourself on the realities of this issue. I'd be more than happy to e-mail them to you.
Make an effort to be informed, bunge, just a superficial effort to at least act like you know something about the issue would make me very happy.
And BECAUSE it is not their duty to make policy you will see that they have not said "yes" or "no". There's a reason, bunge, there's a reason.
Your trigger is the "yes" or "no" from the inspectors. But it's something you will never get because that is not their job.
The United States is not and cannot force anyone to enforce 1441 under the UN guidelines. That's not even a question so I don't know why you bring it up.
OK, if I have to explain things like you're a simpleton, I can. I just thought we could have a reasonable discussion without trying to play semantic games.
Obviously the inspectors don't have any say.
Obviously the Security Council has all the say.
Obviously the inspectors get the information and pass it to the Security Council.
Obviously the Security Council takes the information from the inspectors and assimilates it.
You should be able to see how that process roughly translates into "this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide...."
I'm interested in learning, not nitpicking, bickering or personally attacking people here. I can do all three as well, it just gets in the way of a potentially intelligent discussion rather than enhancing it.
[quote]<strong>Obviously the inspectors don't have any say. Obviously the Security Council has all the say. Obviously the inspectors get the information and pass it to the Security Council. Obviously the Security Council takes the information from the inspectors and assimilates it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]<strong>You should be able to see how that process roughly translates into "this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide...."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since the United States is part of the UN, you're wrong. The United States has as much a say as any other nation in the Security Council. The United States has more say than the inspectors.
Your assertion lies in the assumption that the US and the UN and the US are separate competing entities. That the US, by pushing forced disarmament, is going *against* the UN. This is patently idiotic.
Your assertion lies in the assumption that the US and the UN and the US are separate competing entities. That the US, by pushing forced disarmament, is going *against* the UN. This is patently idiotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're almost right. My assertion is that the US & the UN competing entities. Both parties want to disarm Iraq (at least in theory) but the US is in favor of war. The UN is in favor of a war-less solution. In that sense they are at odds.
I've repeatedly said that Bush was right to push the issue, and that his pressure was the catalyst for getting to a solution (be it through war or peace). I've never even indirectly made the claim that the US pushing for forced disarmament is wrong. That would be idiotic.
I would say that pushing for regime change is wrong, even if getting Saddam out would be a positive for the world. But that issue covers a whole different realm than just disarmament.
[quote]<strong>You're almost right. My assertion is that the US & the UN competing entities. Both parties want to disarm Iraq (at least in theory) but the US is in favor of war. The UN is in favor of a war-less solution. In that sense they are at odds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The US is also in favor of a war-less solution to disarmament, as are the nations that are with the US. If you truly believe the US just wants war, why do we not see war?
Those members who have promised to veto ANY deadlines have not offered alternative plans. Do you honestly think they care about disarming Iraq?
[quote]<strong>I've repeatedly said that Bush was right to push the issue, and that his pressure was the catalyst for getting to a solution (be it through war or peace). I've never even indirectly made the claim that the US pushing for forced disarmament is wrong. That would be idiotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you have claimed that the US wants war. Have you not?
The US is also in favor of a war-less solution to disarmament, as are the nations that are with the US. If you truly believe the US just wants war, why do we not see war? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on now, if 'we' can get war through diplomatic means it'll mean a heck of a lot fewer headaches. The effort getting the U.N. to say 'yes' will be less painful than the aftereffects of a 'unilateral' attack. For that reason alone it makes sense to try to get the U.N. to approve a war. You could have thought of that.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
But you have claimed that the US wants war. Have you not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I believe Bush & Co. will not stop short of war. I assume because their goal is regime change, not disarmament.
Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without a 'trigger' we would be exactly were we are now, regardless of the timeframe given. Assume the US was willing to present another resolution that didn't have a trigger, and follow France's lead regarding Iraq. Perhaps it threatens more serious consequences...then after the given time frame, we would be having this exact conversation. The hawks arguing that now force is required, the doves pushing for yet more time, saying we need another resolution, again without a trigger or deadline. This would potentially go on and on, accomplishing nothing in terms of actual disarmament, and would only serve to embolden Saddam, as he realized that the once credible threat is really just a paper tiger. This charade has been going on for 12 years. Haven't we learned that extending timeframe again and again without consequences accomplished exactly the opposite of disarming Iraq. Saddam sees delays by the world community as weakness and exploits them. As goverate continually and correctly says, a credible threat of consequences fails to continue being credible when no serious reprimand is ever given. At some point it simply becomes a bothersome annoyance.
<strong>But if the US just wants war then surely even 100% proven disarmament and Saddam's exile wouldn't stop them, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam's exile might, but I'd guess that 100% disarmament wouldn't. It's impossible to prove 100% disarmament so there's always going to be a question.
As goverate continually and correctly says, a credible threat of consequences fails to continue being credible when no serious reprimand is ever given. At some point it simply becomes a bothersome annoyance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. 300,000 troops amassed on your borders isn't an annoyance. OK, it IS an annoyance, but it's also a credible threat.
As long as the troops are there, the inspectors will continue to make headway. That's correct.
At no point will there be a request that the inspectors make that will be refused. We have access to palaces without having to wait 2 days. We now have spy planes flying over the cities. We are going to take scientists and their families out of the country. The hawks lie and say "all that's happened is we've made them destroy a few missles." Those advances I've mentioned are much more important than the destroyed missles. They'll lead you to your 'trigger' or 'smoking gun' if it exists.
What do we honestly believe the U.N. will do if Saddam refuses to let the scientists leave the country while 300,000 troops are waiting to attack? Let him say 'no' and continue with the rest of the inspections? Saddam certainly doesn't think so since he's caved in on every request.
What do we honestly believe the U.N. will do if Saddam refuses to let the scientists leave the country while 300,000 troops are waiting to attack? Let him say 'no' and continue with the rest of the inspections? Saddam certainly doesn't think so since he's caved in on every request.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam doesn't have to say no. The scientists them selves can do that for him. 1441 already said that the inspectors had the right to take scientists outside of Iraq for interviews. Scientists haven't exactly been lining up for interviews alone and unrecorded, let alone out of country. Saddam can already claim he is allowing scientists to leave. The UN can't force these scientists to leave or even consent to a private interview if they choose not too. Given the threats Saddam has probably spread throughout the Iraqi scientific community, is it any wonder none are stepping forward?
Inspections are not working. They are finding dribs and drabs of materials and weapons. But if they were working, they would be fulfilling their mandate, which is to verify the destruction and accounting of the weapons, not looking for hidden weapons.
I thought I'd dredge up this thread and re-set on topic...
What are human shields thinking? "But we thought we had an understanding. We didn't think they would kill us." (-media spokesman for International Solidarity Movement)
Meanwhile, the local news here spent a solid 3 minutes showing her mourners, talking about what a wonderful girl she was, without bothering to mention why, exactly, those evil Jews were bulldozing houses in Gaza. And they reported that the bulldozer "backup up and ran over her two or three time", an account not supported by any mainstream news source. Even the NY Times suggests it was a terrible accident; she was trapped when she tried too late to move, with the driver unable to see her that close to the blade and assuming she'd be smart enough to get out of the way.
The news spent even more time on the "peace rallies" in town tonight, pretending that there were "thousands" of people such rallies around the country. More like a couple hundred misguided Catholics in the local catherdal plus a few dozens others at local hot spots. Don't even get me started on how these rallies were apparently inspired by an "invitation" from Archbishop Tutu (he who likens Israel to Hitler's Germany).
I live in ^#&!@ Baghdad. When can I go home to NY again?
Comments
This is a key point you keep wanting to ignore. Iraq has never given full compliance, ever. They need a few months if Iraq gives full compliance.
Keep ignoring it. Keep your head in the sand.
<strong>Those months contingent on Iraq providing FULL COMPLIANCE.... Keep ignoring it. Keep your head in the sand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and you keep attacking me personally instead of trying to discuss anything. I'll keep trying to raise the level of your conversation, but I can't do it all on my own. You have to want to.
So we're looking at a few months. Is that still too much for you? Are you afraid you would you lose your hard-on for war by then? Are you prepared to hold off your need for blood long enough to let the inspectors 'give up' in a few months? Or do you just absolutely have to kill now? Are you afraid that after two months the inspectors will say they're progressing very well and that war will never be necessary? Is that the fear? That war now or it'll never be possible?
War is your goal. No-war is not my goal. Your bias is too plain. Your motives are too clear. You want war. That's too bad. I'd hope our society could create individuals that were more enlightened than that.
<strong>So we're looking at a few months. Is that still too much for you? Are you afraid you would you lose your hard-on for war by then? Are you prepared to hold off your need for blood long enough to let the inspectors 'give up' in a few months? Or do you just absolutely have to kill now? Are you afraid that after two months the inspectors will say they're progressing very well and that war will never be necessary? Is that the fear? That war now or it'll never be possible?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We're not looking at a few months, bunge, because France rejects ANY deadline. Any ultimatum at all will apparently be vetoed. Where do you get this "only a few months" idea?
You will whine about personal attacks but accuse me of just wanting to kill. Please try to be consistent or at least not be a whiner if you're going to play hardball.
<strong>
We're not looking at a few months, bunge, because France rejects ANY deadline. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The inspectors asked for 'a few months'. That's not a specific deadline. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and 'give up', then you'll have your answer. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and say everything is running smoothly then there's no war.
Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.
<strong>The inspectors asked for 'a few months'. That's not a specific deadline. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and 'give up', then you'll have your answer. If in 3 or 6 months they come back and say everything is running smoothly then there's no war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does "running smoothly" mean?
Do you think there's ever a point where Iraq must fulfill its obligations or does that not matter?
[quote]<strong>Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They won't be forced to agree to anything.
Have you seen the UNMOVIC Cluster document?
<strong> What does "running smoothly" mean?
Do you think there's ever a point where Iraq must fulfill its obligations or does that not matter?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you realized yet that this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide?
<strong>Have you realized yet that this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it's not up to the inspectors, it's up to the Security Council whether or not Iraq is complying with 1441 (and previous resolutions).
If you would bother to actually read the inspectors reports (which I'm sure you haven't) and the relevant resolutions (which I'm sure you haven't) it would be abundantly clear to you that the job of the inspectors is to evaluate evidence brought forward by Iraq and provide reports to the Security Council. They are not policy makers who say "yes" or "no" and they are not detectives who are there to search for things.
It's difficult to intelligently discuss something as complex as this issue with someone who is willfully ignorant of the basic fundamentals. I've got Resolutions 1441, 1284, 1154 & 687 all in .pdf, Blix's last two reports (2/14/03 & 3/7/03) in .rtf & the Cluster document in .pdf if you'd like to educate yourself on the realities of this issue. I'd be more than happy to e-mail them to you.
Make an effort to be informed, bunge, just a superficial effort to at least act like you know something about the issue would make me very happy.
And BECAUSE it is not their duty to make policy you will see that they have not said "yes" or "no". There's a reason, bunge, there's a reason.
Your trigger is the "yes" or "no" from the inspectors. But it's something you will never get because that is not their job.
The United States is not and cannot force anyone to enforce 1441 under the UN guidelines. That's not even a question so I don't know why you bring it up.
<strong> avoidavoidavoidavoid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK.
Obviously the inspectors don't have any say.
Obviously the Security Council has all the say.
Obviously the inspectors get the information and pass it to the Security Council.
Obviously the Security Council takes the information from the inspectors and assimilates it.
You should be able to see how that process roughly translates into "this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide...."
I'm interested in learning, not nitpicking, bickering or personally attacking people here. I can do all three as well, it just gets in the way of a potentially intelligent discussion rather than enhancing it.
Yes.
[quote]<strong>You should be able to see how that process roughly translates into "this is up to the inspectors and the U.N. (not you, me or the United States) to decide...."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since the United States is part of the UN, you're wrong. The United States has as much a say as any other nation in the Security Council. The United States has more say than the inspectors.
Your assertion lies in the assumption that the US and the UN and the US are separate competing entities. That the US, by pushing forced disarmament, is going *against* the UN. This is patently idiotic.
<strong>
Your assertion lies in the assumption that the US and the UN and the US are separate competing entities. That the US, by pushing forced disarmament, is going *against* the UN. This is patently idiotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're almost right. My assertion is that the US & the UN competing entities. Both parties want to disarm Iraq (at least in theory) but the US is in favor of war. The UN is in favor of a war-less solution. In that sense they are at odds.
I've repeatedly said that Bush was right to push the issue, and that his pressure was the catalyst for getting to a solution (be it through war or peace). I've never even indirectly made the claim that the US pushing for forced disarmament is wrong. That would be idiotic.
I would say that pushing for regime change is wrong, even if getting Saddam out would be a positive for the world. But that issue covers a whole different realm than just disarmament.
The US is also in favor of a war-less solution to disarmament, as are the nations that are with the US. If you truly believe the US just wants war, why do we not see war?
Those members who have promised to veto ANY deadlines have not offered alternative plans. Do you honestly think they care about disarming Iraq?
[quote]<strong>I've repeatedly said that Bush was right to push the issue, and that his pressure was the catalyst for getting to a solution (be it through war or peace). I've never even indirectly made the claim that the US pushing for forced disarmament is wrong. That would be idiotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But you have claimed that the US wants war. Have you not?
<strong>
The US is also in favor of a war-less solution to disarmament, as are the nations that are with the US. If you truly believe the US just wants war, why do we not see war? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Come on now, if 'we' can get war through diplomatic means it'll mean a heck of a lot fewer headaches. The effort getting the U.N. to say 'yes' will be less painful than the aftereffects of a 'unilateral' attack. For that reason alone it makes sense to try to get the U.N. to approve a war. You could have thought of that.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
But you have claimed that the US wants war. Have you not?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I believe Bush & Co. will not stop short of war. I assume because their goal is regime change, not disarmament.
<strong>
Bush wants a trigger. That's unreasonable to a lot of people. Without a trigger Bush is willing to attack unilaterally. That's unreasonable too. France shouldn't be forced to agree to a trigger.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without a 'trigger' we would be exactly were we are now, regardless of the timeframe given. Assume the US was willing to present another resolution that didn't have a trigger, and follow France's lead regarding Iraq. Perhaps it threatens more serious consequences...then after the given time frame, we would be having this exact conversation. The hawks arguing that now force is required, the doves pushing for yet more time, saying we need another resolution, again without a trigger or deadline. This would potentially go on and on, accomplishing nothing in terms of actual disarmament, and would only serve to embolden Saddam, as he realized that the once credible threat is really just a paper tiger. This charade has been going on for 12 years. Haven't we learned that extending timeframe again and again without consequences accomplished exactly the opposite of disarming Iraq. Saddam sees delays by the world community as weakness and exploits them. As goverate continually and correctly says, a credible threat of consequences fails to continue being credible when no serious reprimand is ever given. At some point it simply becomes a bothersome annoyance.
<strong>But if the US just wants war then surely even 100% proven disarmament and Saddam's exile wouldn't stop them, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam's exile might, but I'd guess that 100% disarmament wouldn't. It's impossible to prove 100% disarmament so there's always going to be a question.
<strong>
As goverate continually and correctly says, a credible threat of consequences fails to continue being credible when no serious reprimand is ever given. At some point it simply becomes a bothersome annoyance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. 300,000 troops amassed on your borders isn't an annoyance. OK, it IS an annoyance, but it's also a credible threat.
As long as the troops are there, the inspectors will continue to make headway. That's correct.
At no point will there be a request that the inspectors make that will be refused. We have access to palaces without having to wait 2 days. We now have spy planes flying over the cities. We are going to take scientists and their families out of the country. The hawks lie and say "all that's happened is we've made them destroy a few missles." Those advances I've mentioned are much more important than the destroyed missles. They'll lead you to your 'trigger' or 'smoking gun' if it exists.
What do we honestly believe the U.N. will do if Saddam refuses to let the scientists leave the country while 300,000 troops are waiting to attack? Let him say 'no' and continue with the rest of the inspections? Saddam certainly doesn't think so since he's caved in on every request.
<strong>
What do we honestly believe the U.N. will do if Saddam refuses to let the scientists leave the country while 300,000 troops are waiting to attack? Let him say 'no' and continue with the rest of the inspections? Saddam certainly doesn't think so since he's caved in on every request.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Saddam doesn't have to say no. The scientists them selves can do that for him. 1441 already said that the inspectors had the right to take scientists outside of Iraq for interviews. Scientists haven't exactly been lining up for interviews alone and unrecorded, let alone out of country. Saddam can already claim he is allowing scientists to leave. The UN can't force these scientists to leave or even consent to a private interview if they choose not too. Given the threats Saddam has probably spread throughout the Iraqi scientific community, is it any wonder none are stepping forward?
Inspections are not working. They are finding dribs and drabs of materials and weapons. But if they were working, they would be fulfilling their mandate, which is to verify the destruction and accounting of the weapons, not looking for hidden weapons.
What are human shields thinking? "But we thought we had an understanding. We didn't think they would kill us." (-media spokesman for International Solidarity Movement)
This poor misguided fool from Olympia, WA got herself killed by lying in front of an Israeli armored <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/international/16WIRE-MIDE.html?ex=1048482000&en=49fbc653358e27a8&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE" target="_blank">bulldozer</a>. She died protecting the home of a Palestinian militant.
Meanwhile, the local news here spent a solid 3 minutes showing her mourners, talking about what a wonderful girl she was, without bothering to mention why, exactly, those evil Jews were bulldozing houses in Gaza. And they reported that the bulldozer "backup up and ran over her two or three time", an account not supported by any mainstream news source. Even the NY Times suggests it was a terrible accident; she was trapped when she tried too late to move, with the driver unable to see her that close to the blade and assuming she'd be smart enough to get out of the way.
The news spent even more time on the "peace rallies" in town tonight, pretending that there were "thousands" of people such rallies around the country. More like a couple hundred misguided Catholics in the local catherdal plus a few dozens others at local hot spots. Don't even get me started on how these rallies were apparently inspired by an "invitation" from Archbishop Tutu (he who likens Israel to Hitler's Germany).
I live in ^#&!@ Baghdad. When can I go home to NY again?