Join 3,374 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections
November 8, 2002 8:47 AM   Subscribe

U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections "The resolution passed unanimously, after Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber." I really hope Iraq takes a new approach, and actually genuinely disarms. Next year will be so much more pleasant.
posted by MidasMulligan (27 comments total)

 
Who needs this when we can clear out the problem(s) with this.
posted by four panels at 8:53 AM on November 8, 2002


This is great news. Now the real fun begins: combing through Saddam's palaces while he stands aside whimpering "Don't damage my porn!"

this was funny:
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said Iraq will be disarmed "one way or another."

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security," Negroponte said.


The U.S. gets exactly what it wanted and Negroponte still has to be an asshole.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:56 AM on November 8, 2002


Before this thread degenerates:

1.) People can discuss opposing opinions without insulting each other.

2.) Now we get to see if the people who swore in Metatalk not to comment on political stories keep their word.
posted by jsonic at 8:57 AM on November 8, 2002


Wow four panels, I don't think that argument is cliched or tired at all.

Try reading this counterpoint for a change.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:59 AM on November 8, 2002


Now we get to see if the people who swore in Metatalk not to comment on political stories keep their word.

I hardly ever go to MetaTalk. Have I missed something? Your comment seems to be implying that political threads are now off limits (though I haven't really seen any decline in them ...). Was this an inappropriate post? (I'm not being sarcastic - I'm not always a daily user of MeFi, and may have missed a change in standards. If so, I apologize).
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:06 AM on November 8, 2002


The real question is: why did Syria vote for it?

I understand why the big 5 went for it: if the UNSC voted no, not only would the veto-er be locked out of Iraq's oil and would debts be repudiated by the post-Saddam govt, but if the UNSC voted no, the US would have gone ahead anyway. If the UNSC was ignored now, it would be ignored in the future, so giving in on Iraq is likely to stall or head off weakening of UNSC power.

But why a non-perm member like Syria needed to vote for it makes no sense. Voting no when everyone else votes yes lets one escape criticism for voting yes while having no meaningful effect on the outcome. Are they that afraid of risking the US wrath over a no vote? Renewed focus on Hizbullah making them nervous? Or is it a gambit to bluff Saddam into accepting and disarming or accepting and stalling until spring, putting a US offensive off for at least a year?

I find their "yes" vote very hard to figure out.
posted by ednopantz at 9:10 AM on November 8, 2002


insomnyuk I'm sorry you find death so cliched. Maybe Life is a little overrated, and I've yet to catch on.
posted by four panels at 9:12 AM on November 8, 2002


Next year will be so much more pleasant.

Has is every occurred to any of you that while Bushie is focused on war he is less able to focus on changing the fundamentals of this country (USA)?

When he gets bored with foreign affairs, our country will be the one in trouble.

I predict that the next six years will be very unpleasant.
posted by eas98 at 9:15 AM on November 8, 2002


'Sept. 11, 2001 drew the curtain on our dreamy, unserious interlude and reintroduced us to fear. It also reawakened our appreciation for the more masculine virtues: determination and strength. Chris Matthews has usefully divided the parties into the "mommy party," the Democrats, and the "daddy party," the Republicans. When times are good, you turn to mom, who promises to provide more services and more compassion, and demands less personal responsibility. But when threats loom, Americans turn to dad, who takes no guff from us but also reaches for the Winchester hanging over the front door when hostile strangers approach.' (Mona Charen)
posted by oissubke at 9:19 AM on November 8, 2002


MidasMulligan: See this MetaTalk thread
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:23 AM on November 8, 2002



posted by four panels at 9:24 AM on November 8, 2002


EAS98 - the less time Bush spends paying attention to the US, the less time he has to spend appointing conservative judges, eviscerating abortion rights, establishing prayer in school, and doing all the things that the Democrats forgot to harp on in the recent election.

As to why Syria agreed, one has to assume the answer is "self preservation" since they're in the "Axis of Not Quite As Evil" (Libya, Cuba, Syria) and associated with the "Axis of Weasel" (France) and they realize that when the US gets righteously angry, as we are about world terrorism, which Syria has had an extensive hand in, we do things like blow the living hell out of people. It's not always politic, but it's war, and if, quite frankly, it's us vs. them, well, I choose us. Every time. Hell, I choose me. There, I admit it. Me vs. You, I choose me. I think that makes me a Republican, nowadays.

(the Axis of Weasel thing was meant to be funny, my little francophone friends)
posted by swerdloff at 9:35 AM on November 8, 2002


Midas -- I don't read MetaTalk much either but from what I can tell the workload of MeFi ie. the number of users and posts and thus maintaince and bandwidth and server and money -- is overwhelming to the one person who maintains it all understandably, and he feels MeFi's original charter is he didnt start or design MeFi to run what is essentially a community discussion board which are available in better formats all over the net but yet takes up most of the resources of MeFi. Hopefully I stated it correctly. Kind of like loitering outside after school is out and getting into trouble, MeFi is not a BBS. In any case this discussion is an example of what MeFi is not about. MeFi is a place to find FPPs of things we would not see on our own keeping the signal to noise ratio high (and the maintaince/workload on the backend low) often the best FPP tying together various websites as refrence to a central theme or concept teaching us somthing new similair to what you might find on memepool for example.
posted by stbalbach at 9:37 AM on November 8, 2002


MeFi is not a BBS

...despite all evidence to the contrary. :-)
posted by oissubke at 9:43 AM on November 8, 2002


It's not always politic, but it's war, and if, quite frankly, it's us vs. them, well, I choose us.

So are you saying the Syrians are planning to attack America? Furthermore, did you see Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show, by any chance?
posted by cell divide at 9:43 AM on November 8, 2002


Actually, Cell, the Syrians support Hizbollah, who did attack Americans, and yes, I do believe that they're intending to attack the US once the Iraq conflict starts. Further, after reading about the recent meeting in South America, I'm pretty damn convinced about it. The name "Imad Muniyeh" popped up, and he's a liason between Iran, Syria and Hizbollah. So yes, I'd say Syria is intending to assist in a proxy attack on the US and US interests.

Any support to a claim that they're not would allow me, in my office 10 blocks from the WTC, to sleep far better at night, and would be greatly appreciated.

I missed Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show. Was he good?
posted by swerdloff at 9:50 AM on November 8, 2002


I missed Dennis Miller on the Tonight Show. Was he good?

Is he ever?
posted by oissubke at 10:21 AM on November 8, 2002


MidasMulligan, I was not attempting to imply anything about the appropriateness about your post. As you can see in the link to the metatalk thread above, certain blowhards on both sides of various political issues agreed to no longer argue with each other about them on metafilter.

I personally don't mind seeing these issues discussed here, I just wish people would realize that insulting somebody and saying their opinion is wrong doesn't make for constructive discussions.
posted by jsonic at 10:32 AM on November 8, 2002


Over the next few days, watching Iraq will be very, VERY entertaining. Is there an English or French-languaged site where we can get the Iraqi version of news? And I don't mean Saddam's inbox, which was discussed here a few days ago.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:42 AM on November 8, 2002


jsonic...definitely. I think the partisanship is the reason that the political discussions are frowned upon. "Metafilter is not the site for advancing one's political views" or something like that, and certainly this very complain was shown to be factual within the first few posts in this thread. This post, however, could fairly be discussed without those negative issues creeping up.

For instance, Syria's last minute decision to change their vote (from abstain to pro). I think they changed their vote because they realized that the UN is place where small nations have political power, and to vote against a resolution which asks merely that a nation who the UNSC told to remove weapons should, really this time, remove those weapons, would help bring a bit of legitimacy in international politics back to the organization.

The US
posted by Kevs at 11:49 AM on November 8, 2002


Not to say anything but that I found the phrase eviscerating abortion rights to be ... probably ill-advised, especially considering the uterine images going round in many people's heads from another thread today ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:24 PM on November 8, 2002


does George W.'s new emphasis on - and about face- backing of - weapons inspection - vindicate this man? is'nt weapons inspection all he was advocating while being called a traitor by many? are bush and powell also traitors?
posted by specialk420 at 5:00 PM on November 8, 2002


One explanation for Syria's vote is that they were going along with France, their closest ally in the West, although it appears that they had concerns about isolation and feel the resolution is defensible to the Arab League -- and some not-unjustified concern that if Iraq is dealt with, Syria's own misdeeds become more problematic -- such as its own alleged weapons programs, which apparently the US has seen fit to not make a big deal about this last week. Also, they were not expected to vote against the resolution, which would have had serious political consequences, but merely to abstain. It's not as big a shift as it might appear, then.

In general, though, one has to see Security Council votes as regional proxies -- Syria was voting for the Arabs, in many ways, and France has long "considered its veto as held in trust for Europe", to use words I think of James Fallows.

four panels -- move beyond the politics of insult. I don't want to bomb Iraqi babies any more than you do. But at least I can see some complexity in the arguments against war.

specialk, you too. What a troll. Grow up.
posted by dhartung at 5:03 PM on November 8, 2002


I must admit I more or less said I'd stay out of the political threads, too--until I saw Steve_At_Linwood's rather egregrious lapse and the thread generated therefrom. That said, I see nothing wrong with MidasMulligan's posting here, and furthermore, most of the criticism hre to be a case of making yourself right by making someone else wrong. I don't care for the political threads, in theory, but get sucked in, in practice. Lord knows, I'm not signing off on Midas's line here but it's well within the limits. That said, my worry is this: blowback. Should we lose a city or the equivalent via nuclear weapon, smallpox or nerve gas from this, I think we will see some chickenhawks hoisted by something more than their own petards.
posted by y2karl at 11:56 PM on November 8, 2002


That said, my worry is this: blowback. Should we lose a city or the equivalent via nuclear weapon, smallpox or nerve gas from this, I think we will see some chickenhawks hoisted by something more than their own petards.

I do worry about this too. This, however, is balanced against the worry about doing nothing. Believe it or not, I'm normally not hawkisk (and think economic sanctions are wildly stupdid ... I actually think that in most cases business can do more good than either war or anything else ... ideas travel along with dollars). But I ran through falling buildings and bodies on 9/11. This may have made me jaded, but suddenly I find that when I hear some middle-east dictator calling America "the Great Satan", and publically encouraging the world to attacks its interests, I take the threat quite a bit more seriously.

Further, I do believe the UN has a positive role to play in world affairs. A role that will grow increasingly important in the 21st century. But the only credibility the Security Council will have derives from its ability to enforce its votes. What Saddam has done for the last decade - basically completely ignore the UN, and suffer no ramifications for it - actually increases the liklihood of war in the future. Without a credible threat of armed force behind its resolutions, no country (and certainly not Iraq) will alter its behavior.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:27 AM on November 9, 2002


And with a buildup of 100,000 troops already, Iraq has to know we're serious.
posted by Degaz at 7:57 AM on November 9, 2002


I really hope Iraq takes a new approach, and actually genuinely disarms. Next year will be so much more pleasant.

Pleasantness is nice, don't you think? Now think how pleasant it would be if major arms suppliers like the United States and Russia disarm. Then maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in this kind of shithole.

four panels -- move beyond the politics of insult. I don't want to bomb Iraqi babies any more than you do. But at least I can see some complexity in the arguments against war.

specialk, you too. What a troll. Grow up.


Cazart! "Move beyond the politics of insult" and "what a troll, grow up" in adjoining paragraphs by the same poster.

Looks like hawkishness and hypocrisy are marching hand in hand, goosestepping if you will through these early days of the "first war of the 21st century."
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:39 AM on November 13, 2002


« Older Bet the Farm....  |  Menstrual Art:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments