News

January 2, 2003 9:37 PM

UN head sees no reason for war with Iraq. The BBC is reporting that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that he sees no basis at present for the use of force against Iraq.

Fun's over, now put away your toys and go home.
posted by CrazyJub (64 comments total)

This is Bush's War. If he doesn't bomb Iraq, he'll have to bomb North Korea, and that won't be any fun because North Korea will use its nukes. It's far more fun to obliterate a weak and feeble country, make your pappy happy and get re-elected.
posted by fleener at 9:44 PM on January 2, 2003

Oh, I forgot... and it's fun to get all that yummy oil, too.
posted by fleener at 9:46 PM on January 2, 2003

The inspector said Iraqi officials had faster cars and better radios with which to warn colleagues where they were going and what they were looking for.

They were forced to behave like spies, he said, passing information to each other on paper to avoid bugs and often driving in circles in an attempt to confuse their minders.

Yeppers ... absolutely no reason to think anything is being concealed. Everything's on the up and up. Clearly, all pressure, and any threat of force, should immediately be removed.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:47 PM on January 2, 2003

Yeppers ... absolutely no reason to think anything is being concealed. Everything's on the up and up. Clearly, all pressure, and any threat of force, should immediately be removed.

Shit....er...I mean "yeppers". I guess that means we can believe everything the Bush administration says now, and stop our incessant, biased, leftist skepticism.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:54 PM on January 2, 2003

Fun's over, now put away your toys and go home.

Troll
posted by Beholder at 10:09 PM on January 2, 2003

It occurs to me, Midas, that the Iraqis have excellent reasons to keep a close watch on the UN teams. There are certain people, unfriendly to the current regime, that wouldn't be above taking a few shots at the inspectors, in hopes of provoking an American invasion.
posted by SPrintF at 10:09 PM on January 2, 2003

Also, didn't the US use inspectors to spy, the last time around?

The fact that the Iraqis aren't welcoming inspection teams with open arms is not surprising and is not sufficient reason to go to war.

If the Bush regime is so darned sure that the Iraqis are lying then why don't they cough up some evidence? You'd think they'd be falling all over themselves to show off nice glossy satellite photographs showing whatever it is they seem to think the Iraqis are doing.
posted by bshort at 10:19 PM on January 2, 2003

From the BBC article: United States President George W Bush later said no decision had yet been taken to go to war with Iraq.

"I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully," he told journalists at his ranch at Crawford, Texas.

We're not at war yet. What the US is doing is called strong diplomatic pressure backed by a military, and it's proven to be the most effective diplomatic pressure in the history. Fun's over, now put away "Manufacturing Consent" and go home.
posted by Kevs at 10:25 PM on January 2, 2003

well, I'm sure anyone familiar with the Left Behind series of books would know where to tell the UN to stick it.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:26 PM on January 2, 2003

I think war is unavoidable. Not just with Bush, but as a whole. As long as we have religion, we will have war. As long as there are land disputes, war will be there.
posted by Kevin Sanders at 10:35 PM on January 2, 2003

We're not at war yet. What the US is doing is called strong diplomatic pressure backed by a military, and it's proven to be the most effective diplomatic pressure in the history.

True, but you can hear in every Bush speech (for some reason it doesn't matter the topic) that when Iraq slips up a little bit, then that pesky UN resolution won't matter anymore and we can launch our forces that we have been putting in position in Suadi Arabia, Kuwait, and who knows where else. You can read between the lines and see that the inspection teams don't matter to Bush at all. It's just a matter of time to him, and then by default, the rest of us.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:43 PM on January 2, 2003

Then why are they bothering to do anything? Why all the threats and sanctions and condemnations if nothing means anything anyway? Why not just pack up the place and go home? Turn the UN into something useful like some apartments and a Starbucks.
posted by HTuttle at 11:20 PM on January 2, 2003

eppers ... absolutely no reason to think anything is being concealed.
Everything's on the up and up. Clearly, all pressure, and any threat of
force, should immediately be removed.

Quick! The UN inspectors are coming! Take all that equipment for developing, testing and manufacturing nuclear weapons and put it under the rug or something so they don't find it.

Right.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:31 PM on January 2, 2003

Fast cars don't mean squat. You can't just pick and move everything and remove all perceptible traces of your weapons program because the other guys arrived there 10 minutes sooner. Gimme a big goddamn break! We're talking about sensitive equipment that would pick up the flea poop on my dog's rump and distinguish it from the dog's own fecal residues, after I washed the dog 10 times. If the inspection teams aren't finding anything it's because nothing is there.
posted by fleener at 11:31 PM on January 2, 2003

In other words, the inspection teams were decked out with kickass gear to go in there and unquestionably get the goods on Saddam. Slam dunk. Oops, not.
posted by fleener at 11:34 PM on January 2, 2003

Bush and his cronies will find 'something'. Even if the Mossad or the CIA has to plant it first. Then in Jan or Feb as soon as this 'something' is found the US will launch its holy war to liberate Iraq's oil. You war supporters are high on Bush's exhaust. Please remove your heads from the sand, and admit that the strategic takeover of Iraq is the goal and this inspections charade is just a lame excuse to cover for the very calculated invasion. It will happen whether the UN finds anything or not. There are several thousands of troops in the area right now. The US will be marching on this Iraq without evidence of anything and thousands or millions of innocent people will die. I'm so sick of this corrupt government we're living under. It's becoming the United Socialist States of America.
posted by letterneversent at 11:52 PM on January 2, 2003

Doesn't it occur to the UN that Saddam Hussein probably had any damning evidence hidden away long before inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. He could have seen the writing on the wall as far back as September 12th 2001, and began dismantling his chemical and biological warfare equipment almost immediately afterwards.
posted by Beholder at 11:58 PM on January 2, 2003

It's becoming the United Socialist States of America.
I think you mean United Fascist States of America

Socialists are stupidly idealistic, fascists are soul-destroyingly pragmatic.
posted by Ryvar at 1:10 AM on January 3, 2003

Trouble is, Beholder, where would Saddam hide this equipment? The Weapons Inspection Team can go anywhere they like with no warning. This includes Saddam's own palaces. If US intelligence had any idea about what was there before, they'd also have an idea about where it is now.

Also, letterneversent, Blix and his team are not Bush's patsies. If there's nothing there, they will report as such, and Bush will sit fuming. I don't doubt that Saddam will obstruct the inspectors as much as he dares. As bshort pointed out, the last time the inspectors were there, the US couldn't resist abusing the process by doing a little spying.

The question is now, what will happen if nothing is found? Bush's rhetoric has made it clear he intends to go to war. He may well still find some pretext to do it, but he will be alone. Britain will probably stand with him, and America has sufficient leverage in the area to drag Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Turkey along with him. However, the long-term damge it does to America's foreign standing might be much much worse.

If Bush decides not to invade, then he has the much thornier problem of North Korea. By any scale, North Korea is much more threatening than Iraq. North Korea is open about the fact it already has weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, North Korea has very little strategic value, and no oil. We shall see whether Bush's war is about removing bad regimes, or pragmatic self-interest.
posted by salmacis at 2:30 AM on January 3, 2003

I think you mean United Fascist States of America

Jello Biafra would be so proud.

Saddam Hussein is playing hide the salami with the inspectors, and issuing dishonest nonsensical statements after months of squirrelling away or selling his goodies.

Satellites have a funny way of seeing past the in-jokes.

North Korea, on the other hand, can do little harm except to itself in a desperate lunge for extorted cash.
posted by hama7 at 3:39 AM on January 3, 2003

Can anyone remember before King George II sneaked into power? It'd been a decade since Iraq was in the news. Since his dad was in power in fact. Then, suddenly, within a few days of King George II taking the throne, Iraq is suddenly this great threat all over again. It makes me sad and angry to think how easily we peasants are led to a fate that causes our economic misery and even death. What if we all just ignored the bullshit and told the Government (if there still is one) to get back to running the country for the people, by the people, of the people (etc)???? Instead of for their own power and wealth.
posted by stephencummins at 3:49 AM on January 3, 2003

Why the UN doesn't impress me:

1) Slightly more than half of the 185 U.N. representatives believe that having your picture taken "steals your soul."

2) The 'Official Snack Food' of the U.N. is termites and grasshoppers, which has been voted by the general assembly 11 times.

3) Theodore Guisel (Dr. Suess) is believed to have ghostwritten about 600 resolutions, simply, with lots of cartoons, so that representatives could understand them.

4) The average representative has a 4th grade education, and the majority are of the belief that the world is flat, to
varying degrees. There is also a consensus that the US landing on the moon was just a Hollywood movie production.

5) Dozens of resolutions proposing animal and human sacrifices to alleviate natural disasters have been narrowly defeated by the General Assembly.

6) You wouldn't know any of this by looking at their official news website.
posted by kablam at 3:53 AM on January 3, 2003

hama7 - North Korea has a crappy economy, crumbling infrastructure, growing unrest (due to the fact that South Korea is doing oh so much better) and an army of a million or so and lots of missiles. Oh and an unstable leader. I'd say there's more chance of North Korea being a threat than Iraq. As it is, I doubt the current government will last past another 10 years as its currently going and I bet they realise that.. Desperate/nutty people do stupid things.

Also, why not ship a couple of harriers over there for the inspectors instead of cars - then lets see how fast the Iraqis can hide their mega-weapons of mass death under the nearest sand-dune..
posted by Mossy at 4:06 AM on January 3, 2003

kablam: care to give us a source for your assertions? Or am I missing the joke?
posted by gd779 at 4:19 AM on January 3, 2003

Amazing home may posters are so moronic as to attribute the coming war to a revenge thing. As if our entire political process was the President. As if Iraq providing a shite declaration, which fails to account for materials known to exist means nothing. No wonder you hold the UN in such esteem. Grow up. Wake up. How sad. How appeasing.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 AM on January 3, 2003

Well, I, for one, am glad that Kofi Annan sees fit to make decisions based on reports that are to be given three weeks in the future. I'll sleep more soundly tonight knowing that.

I mean, what's the difference between the third of january and the twenty seventh between friends? After all, the few weeks they've had are plenty of time to search an entire country for well hidden things, right? I mean, really.

That's it. War averted. *phew*
posted by swerdloff at 5:43 AM on January 3, 2003

gd779

you're missing the (desperately unfunny, borderline racist) joke
posted by matteo at 5:53 AM on January 3, 2003

Borderline? It's a long time since I've seen something so idiotic written on Mefi (by kablam, not you matteo).
posted by Summer at 6:10 AM on January 3, 2003

It is probably relevant that the inspectors are now talking about maybe using helicopters to travel around Iraq. A MONTH after they were granted that power by UNSC 1441.

These guys aren't serious about looking. The whole inspection regime has been doomed from the start because the inspectors aren't nearly tough enough. The gave advanced warning to the Iraqi regime on some inspections, tolerated locked doors, and haven't taken advantage of their right to take Iraqi scientists abroad for interviews. They are either deliberately sabotaging any effort to find weapons or are hopelessly naive.
posted by ednopantz at 6:17 AM on January 3, 2003

Mossy, I think NK's growing unrest (if you mean the populace, not the government itself) would be more likely due to the immediate problem that they're starving and freezing in the dark than any envy of their capitalist brethren below the 38th.

NK's lack of resources is so acute that its sheer desperation has caused them to try this saber-rattling (or fuel-rod rattling). Pyongyang now is trying to take advantage of perceived SK distrust/dislike of the USA, telling SK, "This is all America's fault; they pushed us into this corner and they're treating you like vassals; let's unite against the round-eyed menace."

We're not likely to start bombing NK anytime soon. This NK hissyfit is best handled by diplomatic and economic pressure -- which the USA is doing -- and not by kneejerk "Sounds bad -- can we invade?" mentalities that don't really exist in the Bush Administration, despite snide comments to the contrary.
posted by alumshubby at 6:17 AM on January 3, 2003

Summer, it may be idiotic to you, but I thought it was uproariously funny.
posted by alumshubby at 6:18 AM on January 3, 2003

well, I'm sure anyone familiar with the Left Behind series of books would know where to tell the UN to stick it.

Yeah, let's start making policy decisions based on apocalyptic wingnut fiction.
posted by anapestic at 6:24 AM on January 3, 2003

Summer, it may be idiotic to you, but I thought it was uproariously funny.

Why? I'd be interested to know. Really.
posted by Summer at 6:33 AM on January 3, 2003

The whole inspection regime has been doomed from the start because the inspectors aren't nearly tough enough.

Serious inspectors would be a teach of soldiers from several NATO and Russian militaries. The UN, which is more focused on good food in their cafeteria than weapons inspection, is a disgrace. Just as most of its members' governments are.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:01 AM on January 3, 2003

There are an awfull lot of accusations about the UN and it's inspection team on this thread. I'd be more convinced by claims of the the incompetent, and/or biased nature of the UN weapons inspections in Iraq if people on this thread would make informed criticisms, with (linked) reference to source material.

Some comments here read a bit too much like the Western counterpart to, say, Egypt's "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" propaganda push.

Try facts (cross referenced is good). And logic. And more facts. And more logic.

Otherwise it's a race to the bottom. "Nazi" comments, anyone? (Godwin's Law).
posted by troutfishing at 7:37 AM on January 3, 2003

Beware those "borderline" racists, they might upset your smug multi-culti pretensions!

the inspectors aren't nearly tough enough.

Prancing around Iraq-allowed sites has really been a lot of fun.

Merry.. nothing, and a Happy New, well, nothing.
posted by hama7 at 7:37 AM on January 3, 2003

Personally, I thought kablam's comments were extremely offensive and unfunny...

I'm with troutfishing. There's an awful lot of UN-bashing here, despite the fact that the UN is the only organisation seemingly capable of preventing a war. We have to accept the possibility that Saddam really doesn't have these weapons, or the capability to make them. If that is the case, there is no justification for war. The only way to know is to go looking for them, and that's what the UN team is doing. I find it hard to believe that with the USA intelligence gathering capability, they wouldn't be able to direct the team straight to the weapons if they existed.
posted by salmacis at 8:12 AM on January 3, 2003

I think ParisParamus is right. The governments of the U.N.'s member nations, especially the ones on the permanent security council, are definitely a disgrace.
posted by hank_14 at 8:18 AM on January 3, 2003

kablam - very very unfunny. If you feel the need to post racist jokes you should really do it on your own blog.
posted by bshort at 8:26 AM on January 3, 2003

hama7Beware those "borderline" racists, they might upset your smug multi-culti pretensions!

So you´re saying that a few ignorant, racist, unfunny jokes will make those of us who have actually read books, travelled or (gasp) been born somewhere other than the US or Europe suddenly chuck out all our factual knowledge of the world and become redneck, UN-bashing hicks like kablam and yourself?
posted by signal at 8:36 AM on January 3, 2003

Ask, Troutfishing, and ye shall receive:

Blix resists taking Iraqis out of Iraq to interview them

Probably worth noting that one scientist interviewed in Iraq was so scared he insited on the presence of an Information Ministry minder and later denied giving the UN any indications of a NBC program. Perhaps the fact that the regime has tortured scientists in the past is somehow related to his denials.

On the proposal to finally use helicopters.

On the advance warning given to Iraq.

Report on the quantities of NBC material unaccounted for.

The basic problem is that the UN doesn't seem to understand that it is dealing with a regime that has committed genocide, tortured anyone who opposes it, and starved its people to maintain NBC programs.
posted by ednopantz at 9:16 AM on January 3, 2003

despite the fact that the UN is the only organisation seemingly capable of preventing a war.

And where's that list of wars? The best the UN has been able to do is act as after-the-fact buffer.



Thanks for the complement, but no one can look underground, under lakes, and God knows where else, from a distance.





posted by ParisParamus at 9:28 AM on January 3, 2003

but no one can look underground, under lakes, and God knows where else, from a distance.

I think we're all forgetting a certain someone named Superman.
posted by Skot at 9:36 AM on January 3, 2003

I'm not sure I understand. The current regime in Iraq has done a lot of bad things. It's killed and gassed Iran and the Kurdish population, it's tortured or killed political detractors, and it cares little for those in the population at the bottom of the social food chain. Is there anyone who disagrees with this? But there's a leap being made between these facts and the justification for war, a leap that seems to be bridged by a particular rhetorical strategy - the so-called "material breach" of U.N. resolutions. So a few options: a) they have ongoing WMD programs, which the U.S. says we can verify with high-profile intelligence (though they have yet to do so), in which case the U.S. can make the case for military action within the framework of the U.N. This path rests on proof of WMD programs, not necessarily the prospect of future proliferation, but extant programs; b) Iraq hides their WMD program exceptionally well, so proof becomes somewhow unobtainable, in which case the U.S. must engage in more sabre-rattling or unilateral action without U.N. support. In this scenario, the U.N. becomes largely irrelevant and preemptive war becomes a normative precedent for resolving supposed international crises.; c) Iraq has no ongoing WMD programs, and the U.S. and the world accepts that, and there is no war. Are there other options besides these?

There remain some rather pressing questions. First, what do we mean by war? Or by WMD? The sanctions currently in place against Iraq, which ban the import of baby food, blood supplies, and graphite pencils under the moniker of potential dual-use technologies, have crippled the Iraq health care system and entrenched chronic malnutrition. Knowing that the Iraqi regime is evil and will, when faced with a shortage of goods, keep them for themselves, the sanctions then knowingly doom the population of Iraq to death and starvation. Over half a million Iraqi children have died from hunger and health problems since the so-called Gulf War in 1991. Why are sanctions not already WMD? We bomb Iraqi targets routinely, destroying infrastructure (some military, some potential military, and some civilian) and killing soldiers and civilians alike. Why does this not count as war? Second, given the propaganga sprouted by Iraqi media against the U.S., and given the record of U.S. spying via UNMOVIC, why wouldn't Iraqi scientists be concerned about talking alone with Hans Blix and friends? The next U.S. preemptive strike (Operation Northern Shield) could easily be blamed on said scientist and repurcussions could be visited upon the scientist and his/her family. There are a few other, similar reasons why scientists might not wish to talk to inspectors alone, all of which have little or nothing to do with secret knowledge of a secret program. Third, what makes the DPRK and Iraq so different in terms of our policy response? Everything that ednopantz finds in terms of Iraq human rights abuses can be found for the regime in Pyongyang. Given some terminological allowances and history at home in the States, our military has done some rather horrific things (nuclear tests on Native American reservations and the Mariana Islands, for example, radiation testing on prisoners unaware of their test status, Japanese internment during WWII in the Korematsu decision, the widespread and discriminate use of the Death Penalty, when almost every other democracy has agreed to an international norm against the DP as a barbaric and torturous practice (note the second optional protocol to the ICCPR, which the U.S. refused to sign because it wanted to reserve the right to execute its citizens, especially juveniles), or add to the list military incursions and collateral damages of a strange nature (killing to save in Vietnam, the recent destruction of a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan, the bombing of the Chinese embassy), etc. etc.). The U.S. does a lot of good things as well, but if history is the yardstick by which we isolate and note abuses, and if those abuses constitute reasons for regime change and suspicion, then one cannot reserve the tar and feathers for such a select few. Fourth, and finally, how does one prove a negative? What standards and proof and timeline can and should exist for Hussein to prove he is NOT doing WMD? How will we know? When will we be satisfied? And what are we willing to risk or do to seek that satisfaction? I'm reminded of the movie Minority Report, which was somewhat strangely released within months of the annoucnement of the so-called Bush doctrine (justifying preemptive military exercises), in which law enforcements arrests people for crimes they have yet to commit. There the police action happens based upon precogs who are never wrong, never inaccurate. Here we're considering military action based upon an FBI/CIA/NSA that has yet to even reveal its supposedly damning intel and has a somewhat less than perfect track record regarding national security interests of late (9/11 being a good example). This doesn't seem a question of whom to believe (Bush vs. Hussein), but rather a question of what degree of belief ever justifies what degree of action.
posted by hank_14 at 9:42 AM on January 3, 2003

Again, ParisParamus with the goods. "Where's the list of wars the U.N. prevented?" Indeed, at first I thought Paramus was serious, but now I realize he's just being ironic and funny. I'm going to help out by polling some mefi friends and coming up with a list of the top ten things no one has ever thought of.
posted by hank_14 at 9:45 AM on January 3, 2003

I can't figure out why Bush is having such a hard time proving that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. After all, Rumsfeld and Cheney have the receipts.
posted by JackFlash at 9:58 AM on January 3, 2003

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said

Well... who'd have thought. The Secretary-General of the UN says we should not have a war. In other news, your dog likes steak. Maybe this post should have been titled "An opportunity for every pseudo intellectual pompous blowhard on MeFi to push their one issue agenda".

OK, thats it. We Americans give up. From now on we're letting France be the superpower and opening up our elections so that everyone in the world (except Israel, because everyone hates them too) gets to vote for our president. We're taking our football and going home.
posted by cmdnc0 at 10:12 AM on January 3, 2003

...chuck out all our factual knowledge of the world and become redneck, UN-bashing hicks like kablam and yourself?

The MeFi obsession with Potential Racists continues. And the moronic backlash rears its head....
posted by dhoyt at 10:16 AM on January 3, 2003

salmacis We have to accept the possibility that Saddam really doesn't have these weapons, or the capability to make them. If that is the case, there is no justification for war.

Even if that is not the case it is still no justification for war. Or should that read "an escalation" since Hank_14 is spot on in his assessment that we are at war already -- just as we are with North Korea. Hell, lets through in Cuba as well to satisfy the continuing Cold War camp.

Perhaps the coalition did err by not pursuing Saddam in the Gulf War and yes, Saddam is an incredible poopy-head (to use the technical diplomatic term). An upcoming strike will not play well on the world's stage, either today in or the history books of tomorrow -- except for maybe US history books.

Arghhhh.
posted by Dick Paris at 10:17 AM on January 3, 2003

I personally don't think Saddam does have any weapons, becuse he had plenty of time to see what was coming and didn't want to give the United States an excuse.

hank_14

First: You say that just because Saddam kills, tortures, and represses Iraqi people is no reason for war. I'm not so sure about that.

Second: You claim the sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. I agree. But I blame Saddam for that. I would love for Iraqi children to have pencils, but do I see Saddam taking the graphite out of those pencils to make detonating devices. Yes.

Third: You say that all of these human rights abuses can be found in Pyongyang, so why isn't the US going after them? This is circular reasoning. Would we also not be able to go to war with Pyongyang, because of Iraq?

Fourth: You point out the US has done bad things, so it has no right to be a moral arbiter. Ever look at the bios of some of the people at the UN?

All of these points really make clear why the US has no choice but to go to war. Saddam would rather torture his own people rather than give up his military objectives. He is a despot that no one else (besides Iraqis) cares to depose. Iraq will support and shelter terrorists, who, wrap your mind around this - want to kill us.

My question to you is: How can we not go to war?
posted by xammerboy at 10:17 AM on January 3, 2003

My question to you is: How can we not go to war?

Seems pretty easy. All we have to do is not bomb or invade them. Simple.

Where are all these terrorists that Saddam is supposedly hiding?

So which of your 4 points is justification for war again?
posted by bshort at 11:01 AM on January 3, 2003

All due respect to the Secretary-General, but he has no vote on the Security Council, which alone is empowered to choose whether or not to exercise force or accept a formal cease-fire. The criteria they will use in making those determinations are outlined in Resolution 1441, called the "final opportunity to comply", and Resolution 687, which sets out the conditions for the UN to finally accept the cease-fire agreed to by Iraq at the end of the Gulf War.
posted by dhartung at 11:05 AM on January 3, 2003

Xammerboy: Here's our disagreement. You find in the lack of clear moral authority the justification for moral action. I find in the lack of moral authority the fundamental question of what constitutes moral action. In my very humble opinion, either we live in a world and take actions that celebrate human life in a radical way - where every individual death and suffering matters - or we laud human life under the banner of pragmatism, and we are willing to kill some in order to save others. You ask "how can we not go to war" - I answer: "we are already there." The more fundamental question is this: given the uncertainty of the future, who are we and under what pretense of agency do we decide who deserves to die so that others might live?

Consider as a case in point your reading and reaction of my noting that the "U.S. has done some reprehensible things". For you, this becomes a question of relative authority - those in the U.N. do bad things as well, Iraq does worse, the DPRK does worse, so the relative difference between the U.S. moral ethos and the Iraqi moral ethos justifies a particular act, certain killing of our soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and numerous civilians to ward off one possible future for the sake of another (for who knows what escalation and future threats may emerge from our treatment of Iraq, just as no one can predict with certainty what would happen if we tried negotiating with Hussein in a manner mirroring our negotiations with the DPRK). I could care less about this moral differential', about who does more or less bad acts; I want to know how it is those bad acts were justified in the first place - by whom, for whom, under what standard and banner of reason. And then I want to assess the impact of that standard - this isn't a circular line of reasoning, it's a fundamental indict of how we reason, how reasoning gets us to justify one act over another, or the loss of one life for others.
posted by hank_14 at 11:07 AM on January 3, 2003

North Korea, on the other hand, can do little harm except to itself in a desperate lunge for extorted cash.

With their one or two soft rubber tipped NERF plutonium warheads, no doubt.
posted by y2karl at 11:18 AM on January 3, 2003

First up thanks to Jackflash for giving me the first smile my hangover has allowed.

It seems odd to me that we have two countries in the so called "axis of evil" that are being dealt with in very different way. One country is starting up its nuclear program again, has kicked weapons inspectors out and has been causing alarm about a missile attack on it's neighbours for a number of years.

The other one is allowing inspectors in.

Whatever you think of the competence of weapons inspectors it seems incredible to me that we are gearing up for war against the latter of these two countries while stating that "we are not trying to create a crisis atmosphere by threatening North Korea".

posted by ciderwoman at 11:21 AM on January 3, 2003

He is a despot that no one else (besides Iraqis) cares to depose. Iraq will support and shelter terrorists, who, wrap your mind around this - want to kill us.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of 19 9/11 Hijackers were from, as well as Osama. Remind me how many Iraqis terrorists there are? So if we're concerned about terrorism, why not go after Saudi Arabia?

The war has very little to do with terrorism, and much more to do with looking tough on terrorism. Iraqi's aren't terrorists. Most are educated, hard working people who are living in a war zone. The United States has been bombing Iraq on an almost weekly basis since 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. It's ironic that Iraq invaded Kuwait with the same military equipment it was given by the United States to fight against Iran in the 80's.

So now, after the US's complete inability to catch Bin Laden, after all the Enron-esque scandals, after our economy has tanked, Bush needs to look tough on SOMETHING before the elections. Why not a war? Historically a war time president has a better chance of being re-elected than a peace time president. It makes perfect political sense.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why we need to preemptively invade Iraq. Any political discourse on the war is eventually bogged down into a mishmash of circular logic, littered with meaningless buzzwords like "axis of evil" and "weapons of mass destruction". In order to justify a preemptive strike, there needs to be an imminent danger of an attack in the very near future. Can anyone honestly see Iraq attacking the United States, an act which would certainly cause the United States (with the largest free standing army in the world) to retaliate with extreme prejudice? Iraq doesn't even have the missile technology to fire a missile at the United States. It would take a long range, transcontential ballistic missile. Very few countries have these.

Iraq's not a threat to the United States. It never really has been. It's a small country ruled by a despot (there are lots of those, and we don't invade each and every one), that just so happens to sit upon the world's second largest oil deposits. It's a perfect political scapegoat.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:39 AM on January 3, 2003

Hank_14, while you seek out the purest nation with both the power and the moral purity to eliminate Saddam, here is the reality we have before us (Taken mainly from Ken Pollack's excellent book):

Saddam has often expressed his wish to make Iraq a superpower by building nuclear weapons and dominating the world's energy supplies. (If you think that he intends to dominate said supplies peacefully or that the US would let him, you are nuts.) This goal is not possible, but while a 2006 war with a nuclear-armed Saddam would still be winnable by the US or other powers, it would be a disaster. This is a guy who has a history of disastrous miscalculation of the sort that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths (probably half a million so far). (Stop and think about that for a second. This guy has killed more Arabs than all the Israelis put together. He has killed more Arabs than anyone since the Mongols.)

Moreover, he had often made his disastrous moves at moments of extreme weakness over the advice of experts who told him he was getting into fights he couldn't win. He convinced himself that he would win the Gulf War without NBC weapons. This last fact tends to go against any notion that this monster is deterrable.

Containment isn't going to last much longer. Deterrence won't work. Appeasing Saddam has never made him less of a dictator or less of a meglomaniac in the past. So which is it: 1) continued sanctions that starve the people yet damage the regime less every day, 2) reliance on deterrence of a delusional meglomaniac, or 3) removing this monster while we have the chance. If we are smart, we can also lay the groundwork for the Arab world's only democracy. (Pressing for the last goal rather than trying to get Saddam off the hook is somewhere the Left could actually do some good.)

And while I think W is a cretin, I think Saddam is a monster. The NK leaders are monsters too, but Saddam is as weak as he will ever be. Slay your dragons one at a time and slay them when you can do it quickest and easiest.
posted by ednopantz at 11:47 AM on January 3, 2003

Well said ed (who goes without trousers), but that's still an amazing crystal ball being used. Predicting not only war by Saddam but the actual year it will occur?

What Saddam does best is stay in power. Has he reached his end? Maybe.
posted by Dick Paris at 12:00 PM on January 3, 2003

The MeFi obsession with Potential Racists continues.

I think kablam has fulfilled his/her potential.
posted by Summer at 1:10 PM on January 3, 2003

what was the point of the inspectors if we're so sure saddam has something nasty under a rug somewhere? is it because, in his dementia, reagan forgot what all he gave?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:36 PM on January 3, 2003

Beware those "borderline" racists, they might upset your smug multi-culti pretensions

And where's that list of wars?

Ah, hama7 and PP working in unison. A mesmerizing sight...

I once noted a post by hama7 that was the first post I'd seen that did not make me want to wander off and think up my own world without him. I hope it was not the last.

Many will fight. We must fight, too. But I do not want to fight like this, nor for this fight to be in my name. It is folly.
posted by azazello at 2:43 PM on January 3, 2003

You can read between the lines and see that the inspection teams don't matter to Bush at all.

Well, if Bush seemed like he didn't mean what he was saying, the "diplomacy backed by threat" wouldn't work. Now would it? If you believe Bush is eager to go to war, then probably Saddam Hussein believes it too -- which is the entire point of rattling one's sabre.

If you can tell what Bush "really" wants to do, when is strategy requires him to make credible threats whether or not he really intends to back them up with actual force, you're a far better between-the-line reader than I.
posted by kindall at 3:10 PM on January 3, 2003

Damn I want fusion power right here right now. Somebody get that cold fusion theory back on the workbench.
posted by elpapacito at 4:13 PM on January 3, 2003

With their one or two soft rubber tipped NERF plutonium warheads, no doubt.

North Korea so much as looks squiggle-eyed at a nerf-warhead and the world has seen the end of the chubby lunatic totalitarian-ruled backwater.

And good riddance.

The Iraq countdown continues.
posted by hama7 at 4:26 AM on January 4, 2003