Posted on 02/17/2003 12:23:31 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:12:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
February 17, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday urged the United Nations to get tough with Baghdad - saying "appeasement" is no more likely to work with Saddam Hussein than it did with Adolf Hitler.
Her comment came as NATO handed the United States a welcome bit of good news - agreeing to provide military aid to Turkey in case of war.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I still find it curious that for a hundred years people have been commuting between New York and the Mideast, by ship and plane.
But not until a few years ago did West Nile Virus suddenly show up in New York.
I doubt that you know every single statement of Hans Blix.
Is this what passes for an argument? Someone doesn't absolutely, positively know 100% of the statements of Hans Blix, therefore Blix might have said the words that you put into his mouth?? Are you series?
Must be a snow day
Or the DU server went down...
Agree with Rice. The do nothing alternative can be predicted with greater certainity, and it will cost much more in the long run.
If we don't engage 'em, they won't learn nuthin'...
No, as opposed to the thousands of tons that have not been accounted for. If you doubt that thousands of tons are still unaccounted for, go back to your Blix and the inspectors in 1998.
the inspections were gradually uncovering Iraq's weapons program
Yes, and my hair is gradually growing, too, but that doesn't make me want to never visit a barber again.
There have been quite a few wars in the Middle East. Wars do not happen without one country attacking another.
Brilliant analysis. However, in how many of these wars have chemical/biological weapons been used? Which two countries have used them? Are either of these countries included in the Axis of Evil? Can you name the many wars in the Middle-East in the past 50 years that did not involve Israel?
Not that there is any moral difference between murdering your own or another people, the distinction is purely technical.
A technical difference between who is murdered? That's rather callous, isn't it? They're all still dead. I guess Saddam's people are just those members of his own clan.
In any realistic assesment of the responsibilities of a Head Of State, those responsibilities apply to all of the people living within his country.
so funny to see the naievete of fools like powell, getting all flustered with the un. Guess that got powells colon in an uproar. what a surprise, globalists!
Why should Saddam Hussein want to repeat his Kuwait experience? In 1991, he believed that his aggression would be ignored, just like his war of aggression against Iran has not only been ignored, but actively supported by the US. Remember Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq, and the components for WMDs, as well as Anthrax spores, which have been provided by the US.
Today, Saddam Hussein cannot possibly be under the impression, that the US will leave an attack against a neighboring country unanswered. There is also not indication that he is suicidal, which means that Iraq will not attack another country as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
Of course Iraq will rearm. That is a sensible course of action in a region which is armed to the teeth. You may have noticed that recently quite a few countries have scrambled to aquire weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is just the most visible example. One could argue that Bush's policies have been a very effective advertising campaign for WMDs - now everybody wants them.
Disarmament can only work on an international level -- reserving disarmament for a few designated rogue countries is like playing whack-a-mole. Many countries will try to build nuclear bombs, before it is their turn to be disarmed.
"I believe you are a reasonable man. Can you see this as a reasonable course of action?"
After WW2, the UN was created to stop all wars. The idea was, that any country which starts a war of aggression would face serious consequences. Unfortunatly, the UN Charter has been enforced very selectively, and some countries have been free to wage war as they please (i.e. Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war). This defeats the purpose of the UN.
Even more important are military exports. There is no reason to support dangerous regimes -- if they want to fight a war, they should use sticks and stones. Exporting military hardware to troubled regions is bound to create problems, just like the support of religious madmen. Iraq was heavily supported by the US and Europe before 1991. The Mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden received funding and some military equipment from the US and its ally Pakistan.
No longer contributing to any of those problems might be a good start. Whatever remains will be easier to deal with.
I doubt that you know every single statement of Hans Blix.
Is this what passes for an argument? Someone doesn't absolutely, positively know 100% of the statements of Hans Blix, therefore Blix might have said the words that you put into his mouth??
It seems to me that you have understood how difficult a proof of non-existence can be. And because this is about a mundane matter, and not about weapons of mass destruction, you are right to dismiss the "argument" that non-existence has be proven, rather than existence. It is funny how all this suddenly no longer applies when WMDs are involved.
Regarding the success of the inspections regime, I would like to refer you to Blix's report before the Security Council, where he expressed his optimism that, given more time, all outstandig issues could be resolved. Much more outspoken than Blix is former inspector Scott Ritter, an ardent Republican who has voted for George W. Bush. According to him, whatever may be left of Iraq's WMD program does not pose much of a risk.
In short, yes. Every ROUGUE state with WMD should be disarmed at all costs."
Why only "rogue states"? This question is even more important when you consider the sole arbiter for the definition of "rogue states" - so far that has been the US government. It is worth noting that the concept of "rogue state" has a counterpart in other parts of world, where the US is seen as an "evil empire".
As long as you (or a member of the US administration) cannot provide a universal definition of "rogue state", which is shared by the rest of the world, the use of this term will only lead to confusion - and eventually to madmen attacking the US, because they have mistaken this country for a "rogue state".
Attacking another country, because it might possibly some day start a war and use WMDs is not only in direct contravention of international law, but it is also a "right" which cannot be restricted to the US and its allies. Eventually, everybody will be fighting "preemptive" wars.
"Al Queda is known to have training camps in Iraq. There is evidence of financing and other aspects of direct ties between terrorists and Iraq."
There is nothing but anecdotal evidence of a rather unconvincing kind. However, there are strong ties between Saudi Arabia and various terrorist organizations, which receive financing and new recruits from this religious fundamentalist country. If eradicating terrorism were of any concern to the US government, it would look for it in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
Maybe you would like to elaborate on that.
Even if one assumes that Iraq has some grenades or canisters of nerve agent left, this does not justify a preemptive war of aggression. Virtually every country in the Middle East posesses WMDs, one country even has nuclear bombs. So far, no one has proposed disarming all those countries, much less wage war against them.
Ah, but only one of those countries is run by a borderline psychotic with a penchant for internal mass murder and external agression, isn't it?
And one might want to get one's facts straight: Blix did not say that he was successful in disarming Iraq. Blix said that he was making progress. Blix also maintained that he had uncovered "no evidence" of Powell's claims that the Iraqi government was playing a shell game. He also indicated that he had "no evidence" that Powell's claims of an Al Qaeda link were true.
Blix provided no evidence to dispute Powell, of course, because he couldn't.
Powell has the intel and the facts on his side. The UN does not.
Try understanding that.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Ah, but only one of those countries is run by a borderline psychotic with a penchant for internal mass murder and external agression, isn't it?"
Your claim (both parts) can be disputed, however that is a moot point. The only country to have used nuclear weapons against a civilian population was not run by a borderline psychotic at the time. Funnily enough, Saddam Hussein did not use chemical or biological weapons in the last Gulf War, which is remarkable considering he was losing the war.
The answer to this riddle is simple: Saddam Hussein may be crazy, but he is not suicidal. He knows exactly that using WMDs will only get him killed. That is why Hussein can easily be contained. And that is why he is to a certain degree cooperating with the UN inspectors.
On the other hand, North Korea is trying very hard to appear as insane as possible. It has even threatened preemptive strikes against South Korea. The reaction of the US administration is telling -- obviously North Korea can be dealt with diplomatically, very much unlike Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.