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.
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.
...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.
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.
<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.
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.
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.
<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.
Bunge and Anders are absolutely correct. Just go back and read the news from the day the resolution was passed. I can't belive you didn't catch this. Can it have something to do with what kind of press you read?
1441 does not address the question of regime-change at all. The US has no UN mandate for this claim. And this is currently losing you the support of even our minority christian right government.
[quote]by groverat:
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. <hr></blockquote>
Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"...
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>What's this? an international continuation of your silly "three strikes and your out", justice policy? My God, the most powerful nation in the world can only speak about foreign policy in baseball terms...
[quote] Yeah, treaties are a great idea, we know how Saddam honors his agreements! <hr></blockquote>
Your government is setting a good example theese days.
[quote]by Randycat99:
'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? <hr></blockquote>
Go back and read the post, I said that the US pressure probably is what has made Saddam comply. And then I'm suggesting that there are ways of keeping up this pressure, like armed UN forces supporting the inspectors.
What does it matter if Saddam complies or not, if we're gonna have a war anyway? Suddenly its just a ploy to remove the last threats to US invading forces. That's pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Comments
<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.
<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.
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.
<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?
<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.
<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.
<strong>
Scream for more...appeasement if you like....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Straw-man.
<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.
<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.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
The US and a few other members seem to think it means forced disarmament.
Others seem to think it means, uhh... not forced disarmament.
[ 03-03-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
We should have more talks before we be hasty and decide on what to eat for lunch.
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.
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.
<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.
1441 does not address the question of regime-change at all. The US has no UN mandate for this claim. And this is currently losing you the support of even our minority christian right government.
[quote]by groverat:
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. <hr></blockquote>
Why the hell is time up? what's up with this Micky Mouse language? What's gonna happen if you don't "do this thing", "go in and set up shop"...
[quote] 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. <hr></blockquote>What's this? an international continuation of your silly "three strikes and your out", justice policy? My God, the most powerful nation in the world can only speak about foreign policy in baseball terms...
[quote] Yeah, treaties are a great idea, we know how Saddam honors his agreements! <hr></blockquote>
Your government is setting a good example theese days.
[quote]by Randycat99:
'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? <hr></blockquote>
Go back and read the post, I said that the US pressure probably is what has made Saddam comply. And then I'm suggesting that there are ways of keeping up this pressure, like armed UN forces supporting the inspectors.
What does it matter if Saddam complies or not, if we're gonna have a war anyway? Suddenly its just a ploy to remove the last threats to US invading forces. That's pretty cowardly if you ask me.