[CLUE-Talk] a new note in the usa/iraq tune

[Nate Duehr]

On Monday, Jan 26, 2004, at 17:34 America/Denver, Randy Arabie wrote:

> I disagree.  The policy of "regime change" in Iraq goes back to 
> Clinton.  It
> was the Bush Administration who insisted that the UN WMD Inspections 
> resume.
> Prior to that, the UN was doing little to stop Iraq's WMD programs, or 
> "Weapons
> of mass destruction-related program activities".  Whatever it is you, 
> the
> press, or David Kay want to call them.  The bottom line is, Iraq was 
> not in
> compliance with the UN Resolutions.  These resolutions would have gone 
> on on
> unenforced, had the Bush Administration not pressed the issue.

Yes, but demanding proper inspections is a far cry from all-out 
invasion without the backing of other members of the Security Council.  
You're saying that they were breaking a *U.N.* resolution -- therefore, 
the proper forum to enforce the resolution is *within the U.N.*.

> After being pressured, the UN passed yet another resolution regarding 
> Iraq and
> WMD.  Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide "a 
> currently
> accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its 
> programmes to
> develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, 
> and
> other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal 
> systems
> designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise 
> locations of
> such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related
> material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, 
> development and
> production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and 
> nuclear
> programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related 
> to
> weapon production or material."
>
> Iraq failed to meet the 30-day deadline, and in fact didn't comply 
> within 90-
> days.  So, this wasn't the "rush to war" scenario you've attempted to 
> paint.

Still the U.N.'s problem -- if the U.N. couldn't come to consensus for 
another six months, what evidence did we have that there was a direct 
threat to the United States?  Apparently none in hindsight, and I 
assume none that we haven't heard about.  If they had such 
intelligence, it should have been brought before the U.N. THEN.

> We *had* as complete a picture as any foreign intelligence could 
> expect to have
> without either Iraqi cooperation and/or inside informant(s).  No one 
> hid the
> fact that the WMD noted in the intelligence reports were based on
> weapons/stockpiles unaccounted for during the 1998 inspections.  The 
> whole
> premise of the UN WMD inspection regime was that Iraq had to account 
> for the
> weapons they had previously admitted to producing.  If Iraq refused to 
> account
> for them (ie hand them over or show credible evidence of thier 
> destruction),
> then the UN was to assume Iraq is in non-compliance.

Again... The U.N.  NOT the U.S.

> We are talking about intelligence assessments here.  They are not 
> mathmatical
> equations where one can get a precise answer.  At the time, no one 
> knew how
> incomplete our picture was.

Our picture was obviously not that incomplete, or David Kay wouldn't 
have said he didn't think anything of substance was there!

> I'm afraid I don't know the technical difference's between a "WMD 
> program"
> or "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".  It 
> sounds like a
> buch of CYA wordsmithing to me.  Either you are working to develop WMD 
> or you
> aren't.

I'm still wondering why we as a country can still maintain enough 
stockpiles of WMD to kill the world numerous times over and then say no 
one else is allowed to.  Want to tour some nuclear silos in North 
Dakota?

Historically, might makes right, I know... but it's still pretty 
silly-looking to the rest of the world.  We're barbarians.  Maybe 
that's okay, I don't know.

> So in this case, Saddam did have a WMD program.  I dunno, it seems 
> pretty clear
> to me that Saddam was hell bent on getting WMD.  The only point in 
> question is
> how far along he was.  Personally, I don't care how far along they 
> were.  The
> Iraq regime had WMD programs and they had no intention to comply with 
> the UN
> Resolutions.  They were beyond diplomacy.  War was the only option.

Again... wait for the U.N. to decide that unless there was 
incontrovertible evidence there was a direct threat to our National 
Security.

> It's only obvious now that the Iraq regime has been removed!  Sure, 
> you can
> look back now, after the fact, and assert that the UN Sanctions were 
> working in
> Iraq.  Perhaps Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.  However, without going 
> to war
> and removing Saddam's regime, it was impossible verify that.
>
> Go back and look at Blix's reports to the UN Security Council.  He 
> never
> concluded that Iraq didn't have WMD, nor did he conclude there were no 
> active
> WMD programs, nor did he conclude that Iraq was in compliance with the 
> UN
> Resolutions.

So every time in the world where intelligence fails us we ASSUME the 
worst and send in the military?  By that logic, it's time to invade 
China, right?

> The UN is supposed to be a great, multinational framework where 
> nations can
> work out issues under a unified, agreed upon set of rules.  Well it 
> sounds good
> on paper, but after 12-years we had no meaningful measure of it's 
> success with
> regard to Iraq.  Hanz Blix and his team did not conclude that Iraq was 
> in
> compliance with the UN Resolutions.  Subsequently, the UN refused to 
> enforce
> any meaningful consequences for Iraqi non-compliance.  This lack of 
> consequence
> only strengthened Saddam's resolve to obstruct the process.

So we invade without evidence just to hopefully prove to the world 
later that we were what?  Smarter?  Better than the U.N.?  I don't 
really think the Administration's reasons for invading were to prove 
anything about the U.N. - they just wanted to go around the U.N. and do 
whatever they wanted to do.

> In my opinion, that's a very dangerous precident to set.  What's the 
> point of
> setting up a system of rules if there are no consequences for not 
> adhering them?

Just like you claim no one knows how far along Saddam's people were 
with WMD, you cannot predict with any certainty that the U.N. wouldn't 
have come to consensus and enforced their rules within a reasonable 
amount of time.  All you're saying is that you believe the 
Administration's line that the U.N. was taking too long.  If we were 
seriously concerned that WMD from Iraq posed a serious threat to the 
U.S. we could have provided that information to the U.N. and there's a 
good possibility some of the fence-sitters on the Security Council 
would have changed their tune.

> Do you honestly believe the UN Security Council would have forced Iraq 
> into
> compliance?

Eventually, yes.  Unfortunately it MAY have been too late to prevent 
another attack on U.S. soil, but the mass hysteria following 9/11 which 
really only has somewhat indirect ties to Saddam and his government 
allowed people to say the U.N. was taking too long.

> Were they "cherry-picking" or were they looking at the body of 
> evidence, the
> information available at a given time, and coming to a worst-case 
> scenario type
> conclusion?

Again, let's apply that to other countries ... North Korea, China... 
should we act the same way towards them?  Hopefully no one is that 
crazy.  God help us if someone in power is.

> The end result is, when presented with all the arguments, rhetoric, and
> evidence (or lack-thereof) for and against the war in Iraq, I chose to 
> support
> the Bush Administration's position rather than that of France, or 
> Germany, or
> the anti-war crowd(s), or Hans Blix and the UN Security Council.
>
> That was my choice.  I stand by it.

And that's part of the greatness of this country -- I salute you for 
standing by your convictions, but I beg to differ on the basis that our 
current Administration is not honorable in their intentions.  Most 
aren't... I tend to vote anti-incumbent in all elections unless the 
politician seems to be honorable and producing more good than evil.

I feel that the short-term gains of the war are small compared to the 
long-term hatred we've just fostered for ourselves, worldwide.  We've 
not only sent our troops into harm's way, but all Americans traveling 
abroad are now in a measurably more dangerous position than we were a 
decade ago.  And we've made it our position that the U.N. are nothing 
but a farce to us -- thus alienating ourselves from that organization 
by a small measure we didn't need.  All things considered the war 
didn't make things better, it made them worse.  For a feeling of 
short-term relief that "something was done" about 9/11.

Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com