Double negative?

September 7, 2004 10:32 PM

Banned weapons and WMD parts were shipped out of Iraq after the US forces took power according to the UN. At least thats the best I can make of this article. Does this really say that the UN is upset at us for shipping out of Iraq the exact things they previously said were not in Iraq?
posted by soulhuntre (73 comments total)

Was there an aborted attempt to plant WMD?
posted by inksyndicate at 10:35 PM on September 7, 2004

Note: this is only partially a NewsFilter post. I am genuinely not sure whether this is going to bolster or hurt the contention that Saddam was in violation fo the UN bans and did have weapons that were proscribed. Someone who parses better, let me know :)

Note: as for the NewsFilter thing, hell - everyone else is doing it with the top offenders having a whole lot of blue notches. I indulged.
posted by soulhuntre at 10:35 PM on September 7, 2004

scrap metal, huh?

How will I sleep tonight?
posted by Space Coyote at 10:37 PM on September 7, 2004

"scrap metal, huh?"

That's kind of my point. I fthis is all junk, then why is the UN upset by it? And if it's banned stuff then isn't that vindication of a sort?

From the article...

"American-appointed Iraqi authorities began shipping thousands of tons of scrap metal out of the country, including at least 42 engines from banned missiles, according to a new report from U.N. weapons inspectors circulated Tuesday.

The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.

The report says export of the materials was handled by the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, which was under the direct supervision of U.S. occupation authorities until June 28, when the Americans handed power to Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim government.

The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.

The U.N. inspectors, who are barred from Iraq, said commercial satellite photos show that several important sites once used to manufacture missiles and precursors for chemical weapons have been destroyed or cleaned out. The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons."
posted by soulhuntre at 10:46 PM on September 7, 2004

In Jordanian scrapyards, U.N. inspectors found 20 SA-2 missile engines in June that could be used in banned Al Samoud 2 missiles
...
The scrap exports also included equipment that could be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, said the report, which was to be presented to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
...
The report criticized "the systematic removal" of items subject to U.N. monitoring from a number of sites.

Isn't this saying that they were monitoring material that "could be" used improperly, but now it's no longer under UN supervision and therefore more dangerous?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:03 PM on September 7, 2004

"Isn't this saying that they were monitoring material that "could be" used improperly, but now it's no longer under UN supervision and therefore more dangerous?"

It sure seems like it. The thing is, since conventional wisdom is that the UN inspectors had found no evidence of anything like this (isn't that part of the criticism of the US invasion?) then it wasn't actually under UN monitoring before right?

It was hidden all over Iraq. Now it is out of Iraq. Assuming this was a bad thing to ship out (and I think it might be) doesn't that still mean that it was there all along?

Aw well. I am off to bed so no fear, I won't be 1 for 1'ing the rest of the thread :)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:10 PM on September 7, 2004

The thing is - the UN was montioring this stuff, and up until now, they were certain it wasn't being used illegally. Now nobody will know what it is being used for.
I believe the engines came out of the missiles that were destroyed under UN supervision. Where they will end up now is anyone's guess.
This looks to me like a prime example of the Iraq war making the middle-east, and the world, less secure.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:14 PM on September 7, 2004

It was hidden all over Iraq

It wasn't hidden - it had been tagged and accounted for by UNMOVIC, so they could keep tabs on it.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:15 PM on September 7, 2004

inksyndicate: it sure looks like it.

Either that or the UN is wrong and scrap that the US was claiming was part of a WMD program got sold off and dispersed before it could be officially examined.
posted by bshort at 11:16 PM on September 7, 2004

It wasn't hidden - it had been tagged and accounted for by UNMOVIC, so they could keep tabs on it.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks!

Wow, that was actually informative, non partisan and reasonable. Maybe the wee hours are for the best.

Night :)
posted by soulhuntre at 11:18 PM on September 7, 2004

The Bush administration cited the threat posed by the remotely piloted vehicles in making its case to invade Iraq. But the inspectors reported that their lengthy analysis found no evidence that Iraq's drones could disperse chemical or biological weapons or travel beyond a 92-mile limit, imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991.

The report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, cautioned, however, that it did not have access to information from U.S. inspectors in the Iraq Survey Group who are still in the country and expected to produce a major report later this month. Their chief, Charles Duelfer, told Congress on March 30 that one of Iraq's drones went far beyond that limit.


So the UN said the drones were not dangerous, the US is about to say that they were dangerous, and the US has now destroyed/removed the evidence that could confirm one view or the other.
posted by bashos_frog at 11:21 PM on September 7, 2004

It was hidden all over Iraq

No, that's the point. It wasn't hidden; this was junk left over after the first gulf war, that the UN (and the US) knew about all along, and was monitoring to make sure it stayed put.
posted by ook at 11:22 PM on September 7, 2004

(oops... should've previewed again; bashos_frog beat me to it. Sorry for the redundancy.)
posted by ook at 11:22 PM on September 7, 2004

Anyone know why UN inspectors are still banned from Iraq?
posted by bashos_frog at 11:23 PM on September 7, 2004

Guess UN inspections are still tabled for discussion.
posted by eatitlive at 12:17 AM on September 8, 2004

Anyone know why UN inspectors are still banned from Iraq?

Great question. Why would the US be preventing UN inspectors from working in Iraq?
posted by nofundy at 5:28 AM on September 8, 2004

Maybe some of them had names of American, Brittish, German etc. companies printed all over them. Plus, I'm sure there were good bucks to be made in the trade free zones around Iraq by some enterprising army gentlemen. Also what bashos_frog said.
posted by acrobat at 5:31 AM on September 8, 2004

Why would the US be preventing UN inspectors from working in Iraq? - well, they're fairly independent and might notice a lot of other things while doing their job, things the US government wouldn't want coming to light - secret detention/torture facilities, rampant corruption, civilian casualties.........
posted by troutfishing at 6:32 AM on September 8, 2004

Or depleted uranium everywhere ... ;-)
posted by nofundy at 6:44 AM on September 8, 2004

The UN lost its last shreads of credibility some time back in the 1990's; it's about as important as the student government at the University of Whatever, so, so what?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:15 AM on September 8, 2004

Which is why Bush uses them as justification for invading Iraq on occasion?
Oh, that's right, the UN is not on the wingnut Likudnik train so they have no credibility. Thanks for clearing that up PP!
posted by nofundy at 7:36 AM on September 8, 2004

so, so what?

So going to war to enforce a UN resolution seems even stupider if one accepts your assertion.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:37 AM on September 8, 2004

The proximate cause of going to war wasn't UN resolutions. It was the perceived need to defend the United States. Attention was paid to the UN, and the UN resolutions in deference to, in effect, world community procedure.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:55 AM on September 8, 2004

OK.... so there has been a lot of looking into what this coudl mean, and I am happy about that. Heck there are even the beginnings of a what will someday grow up to be tinfoil hat level conspiracy theories here if treated with care.

On looking at it again though, a few things spring to mind:

"The U.N. inspectors, who are barred from Iraq, said commercial satellite photos show that several important sites once used to manufacture missiles and precursors for chemical weapons have been destroyed or cleaned out. The report also said it was impossible to know what happened to U.N.-monitored equipment with the potential for making banned weapons. "

Regardless of whether you are happy about this or not, doesn't this amount to UN verification that these sites existed and that both missles (including banned types) and chemical weapons precursors existed? I see this as a poke in the eye to those extremists who have been shouting "no WMD's! they weren't even developing them!" as a anti-Bush rallying cry.

Of course most reasonable people knew that Saddam was in violation of UN sanctions... even the UN knews it. Whether or not it justified war is a reasonable debate. The extremists that have taken the stance that Saddam was not in violation at allare hopefully a fringe element.

On the bright side, I think it is reasonable to be happy that "...the Al Samoud Factory, a major missile facility about 20 miles west of Baghdad, that was razed." and that "...the report said, the Fallujah 2 and 3 units, which were part of Iraq's main Muthana chemical weapons production establishment, "have been completely emptied and destroyed."

Because I can't imagine how it would be a good idea to leave them functioning and functional.

"So going to war to enforce a UN resolution seems even stupider if one accepts your assertion."

Straw man. Neither Bush nor reasonable supporters claim any such thing. We went to war for reasons specific to the US (obviously there is debate here on what they were)... the existence of UN resolutions that justify and allow the use of force are simply useful as a response to those who keep hand wringing over Un approval of US foriegn policy.
posted by soulhuntre at 7:58 AM on September 8, 2004

Here's a question: Should only go to war with the approval of the United Nations?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2004

(Should the US only go to war...)
posted by ParisParamus at 8:10 AM on September 8, 2004

Regardless of whether you are happy about this or not, doesn't this amount to UN verification that these sites existed and that both missles (including banned types) and chemical weapons precursors existed? I see this as a poke in the eye to those extremists who have been shouting "no WMD's! they weren't even developing them!" as a anti-Bush rallying cry.

Good grief. Talk about a pyrrhic victory.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:13 AM on September 8, 2004

Scrap in these contexts doesn't mean destroyed. It means surplus and/or defective.

For example I've got a friend who buys tractors for the value of the scrap metal. He then either strips it for parts and sells the remainder for the metal or rebuilds it using parts off of other machines. A hydrolic cylinder may mass 40 pounds and be worth 4 cents as scrap metal but as a hydrolic cylinder in may be worth $40. Buy it for 0.04, remove and store it for a while, sell it for $40, profit.
posted by Mitheral at 8:16 AM on September 8, 2004

Should only go to war with the approval of the United Nations?

No, but if you're going to launch a preemptive war that is opposed by nearly every nation on earth, you should be damn sure of your reasons for doing so, as well as your objectives once you do. You know, the UN doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It's comprised of, like, member states and stuff? To thumb your nose at the UN is to thumb your nose at most of the world.

You could at least have the balls to get a vote on it. After all, if it's only "as important as the student government at the University of Whatever", why should you be afraid of their opposition?
posted by jpoulos at 8:24 AM on September 8, 2004

I see this as a poke in the eye to those extremists who have been shouting "no WMD's! they weren't even developing them!" as a anti-Bush rallying cry.

Stating facts makes one an extremist? No new banned weapons have been found. The scrap that was being exported contained items that were known about and being monitored by the UN weapons inspectors.

From the article:

The report says export of the materials was handled by the Iraqi Ministry of Trade, which was under the direct supervision of U.S. occupation authorities

This isn't an article about pre-occupation Iraq building or using WMD. It's an article that is making a case regarding the systemic removal of items that could prove or disprove the claim that the Bush administration made to justify the war: potential dual use items were being fitted to deploy chemical or biological agents, specifically unmanned drones.

Neither Bush nor reasonable supporters claim any such thing.

Perhaps you don't live in the US, which would explain why you missed the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. During the build up to the war, one of the justifications for the war was, in fact, to enforce UN resolutions.

the existence of UN resolutions that justify and allow the use of force are simply useful as a response to those who keep hand wringing over Un approval of US foriegn policy.

Despite the way you have phrased this, the UN and the security council's resolutions exist for a number of reasons you don't cite here, but that don't support your argument.

Should only go to war with the approval of the United Nations?

Paris, the US has been to war many times without the approval of the UN, considering the UN is more modern than the birth of the US. I don't know of a source that would show me what wars the UN has approved of since its inception, but I have to believe our nation building strategy has been almost entirely without the official support of the UN.

I believe it is still useful for the US to participate in the UN, especially when considering war as an option. I don't believe such participation is in search of approval. Instead, it's one of the many fronts on which the US can and should persue diplomatic resolutions to problems.
posted by sequential at 8:30 AM on September 8, 2004

No, but if you're going to launch a preemptive war that is opposed by nearly every nation on earth, you should be damn sure of your reasons for doing so, as well as your objectives once you do.

Well, what if you can't be more sure than we were? Since the overwelming consensus was that Iraq had WMDs; had used them in the past; had be a major supporter of terrorism in the world, taking out Saddam was a reasonable decision.

Would invading Afghanistan pre-9/11 been a reasonable decision? Unclear.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 AM on September 8, 2004

What if Iran is a year away from acquiring one or more nuclear weapons, but hasn't bombed Israel yet? Does Israel have the right to attack Iran? Absolutely.

Certainly the most lame comment I've read here recently is the one, to the effect of, "well, since nuclear proliferation is inevitable, even if we go to war, it's not worth going to war."

No thanks.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:48 AM on September 8, 2004

Since the overwelming consensus was that Iraq had WMDs;

The "overwhelming consensus" was that Iraq was contained. The UN inspectors did their job; the Bush administration didn't do their homework.

had be a major supporter of terrorism

Had been? Had to be? Only a fool?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:51 AM on September 8, 2004

The proximate cause of going to war wasn't UN resolutions. It was the perceived need to defend the United States.

So.. the bush administration are liars? Yeah, we knew that already. Also: "Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says"
posted by Space Coyote at 8:52 AM on September 8, 2004

I disagree. And that's why Kerry will lose.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:53 AM on September 8, 2004

What if IranIsrael is a year away from acquiringhas one or more nuclear weapons, but hasn't bombed IsraelIran yet? Does IsraelIran have the right to attack IranIsrael? Absolutely.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:59 AM on September 8, 2004

I disagree. And that's why Kerry will lose.

He will lose because you disagree? Hee.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:01 AM on September 8, 2004

June 7 (Bloomberg) -- "Two engines from Iraqi surface-to-air missiles, including one from an Al Samoud 2 missile banned by the United Nations, have turned up in a scrap yard in the Netherlands, according to UN arms inspectors.

Representatives of the unidentified scrap yard said at least five and as many as 12 similar engines were sent to the Rotterdam location earlier this year, and more may have passed through, according to a report dated May 28 from the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

Unmovic, which ran inspections in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion, said some of the materials may have been taken out of Iraq by looters and sold as scrap. Satellite photos show Iraqi sites subject to international monitoring that have been cleaned out or destroyed, according to the report.
The UN inspectors said the discovery shows the difficulty of accounting for how many banned missiles the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed before he was overthrown in a U.S.-led invasion last year. The U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group is hunting for banned arms in Iraq in the absence of the UN team."

We had a post showing a looter being caught with a possession of wood. Then the wood(building material) was destroyed on the spot by a US tank or like vehicle. So what happened to similar looters' stolen goods? Were they confiscated and returned, or destroyed ending up in the scrap heap which may have been sold as scrap material?
posted by thomcatspike at 9:03 AM on September 8, 2004

I'm glad that the lunatic fringe may predominate in certain Mefi threads, but not exert much influence on the Presidential election. What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:12 AM on September 8, 2004

SA-2 missile engines now count as weapons of mass destruction? That's nuts...

Does anyone know how big an SA-2 missile is? They're not that big. They have a maximum range of 36-50km. They're anti-aircraft missiles from early 1960's Russia, so they're about 45 years behind the times. So then the question becomes, why would Iraq use 45 year-old surface to air missiles engines that have a pratical maximum range of 50km as their chemical weapon delivery device if they wre plainning an attack on the United States...

They wouldn't...
posted by SweetJesus at 9:15 AM on September 8, 2004

*thwacka thwacka thwacka* (Mefi comment masturbation.)
posted by eatitlive at 9:15 AM on September 8, 2004

The US should go to war without anyone's support or feedback or permission if it is being attacked. Defensive wars are always OK.

The US should look for global support and permission if it is attacking. Offensive wars are generally not OK.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 AM on September 8, 2004

Define . When Israel took out Iraq's nuclear facility, was that offensive or defensive? What about when President Clinton bombed sites in Afghanistan? What about the Cuban missile crisis? You need to pull back the camera, and view combats more broadly
posted by ParisParamus at 9:20 AM on September 8, 2004

"What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?"

I know! Without the worst man ever to wear the ill-fitting suit of the presidency, how will we get our populace to care enough to vote???
posted by hoborg at 9:24 AM on September 8, 2004

What about the Cuban missile crisis?

Yeah, that whole Bay of Pigs invasion worked out great....

*blinks eyes*
posted by SweetJesus at 9:25 AM on September 8, 2004

I'm glad that the lunatic fringe may predominate in certain Mefi threads, but not exert much influence on the Presidential election.

From Devoter

For those of you who, like me, reload the Electoral Vote Predictor every five seconds all day, the latest figures are: Kerry - 264, Bush - 222. As the votemaster eloquently puts it: If you are a Democrat, you can stop crying in your beer; if you are a Republican, carefully try to pour the champagne back into the bottle. It is still very close.

Also, from PollingReport.com:

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

posted by Space Coyote at 9:26 AM on September 8, 2004

What about when President Clinton bombed sites in Afghanistan?



Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in August 2000. Unilateral strikes. Those actions were criticized as "Wag the Dog"...and "No War for Monica"

The Right: Hypocritical to the bone.

(aside: clinton's treatment of terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and not giving Bin Laden and Co. what they wanted in the form of grandious declarations of wars, was the better approach, IMO.)
posted by Space Coyote at 9:30 AM on September 8, 2004

Wow, I checked the Electoral Vote Predictor 2 days ago and it had Bush leading by about 10. Did something happen?
posted by destro at 9:31 AM on September 8, 2004

aye, fff.
posted by AwkwardPause at 9:31 AM on September 8, 2004

What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?

Hee Hee. I see blue people.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:38 AM on September 8, 2004

Holy crap! Between preview and post, Space & Co. beat me.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:40 AM on September 8, 2004

For those of you who, like me, reload the Electoral Vote Predictor every five seconds all day

That's silly. The main content is updated daily.
posted by sequential at 9:46 AM on September 8, 2004

Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:55 AM on September 8, 2004

So you have found a pro-Kerry Electoral Vote web site--big deal. The Rebublican electoral vote site says otherwise--also, big deal. We'll see who is slitting their wrist on November 3, 2004.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:15 AM on September 8, 2004

destro: the media keeps focusing on the national polls, but the only thing that's going to matter is the outcome in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Colorado, maybe Florida.
posted by bshort at 10:22 AM on September 8, 2004

FreedomP: So you have found a pro-Kerry Electoral Vote web site--big deal.

So are you dismissing this site just because it's saying Kerry is going to win now, or do you have actual issues with its methodologies, analysis, etc.? Cuz, you know, the first option is just an ad hominem attack.
posted by bshort at 10:48 AM on September 8, 2004

We'll see who is slitting their wrist on November 3, 2004.

Damn, PP. Is that a cry for help?
posted by eatitlive at 10:52 AM on September 8, 2004

Yes, it is a cry for help. Please e-mail me.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:41 AM on September 8, 2004

So are you dismissing this site just because it's saying Kerry is going to win now, or do you have actual issues with its methodologies, analysis, etc.? Cuz, you know, the first option is just an ad hominem attack.

The site admits that the latest polls do not accurately reflect the post-convention bounce. I also find the Kerry jump suspect, as Bush went from 275 to 222 overnight without any evident reason. I normally monitor the left-wing electoral-vote.org and the right-wing electionprojection.com.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:45 AM on September 8, 2004

Wow, I checked the Electoral Vote Predictor 2 days ago and it had Bush leading by about 10. Did something happen?

Florida.
posted by jpoulos at 11:48 AM on September 8, 2004

I'll bet it was fraud by the Kerry campaign! You know how those bastards did all sorts of hijinx in Florida to put the Republicans in power, so Bush would have to be the fall-guy for 911.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:52 AM on September 8, 2004

krrlson: you should read the full text on his front page

"In the 3-day rolling average poll, Rasmussen now has Kerry and Bush exactly tied at 47.3% each nationally, with Kerry 1.2% ahead in the battleground states. If we compare this to the 3-day rolling average poll published Aug. 30, Bush is at exactly the same level he was then and Kerry is 0.9% higher. From these data, it appears that the postconvention bounce is already played out. In short, all the hand-wringing and cheering based on the Time and Newsweek polls was a bit premature. If you are a Democrat, you can stop crying in your beer; if you are a Republican, carefully try to pour the champagne back into the bottle. It is still very close.">
posted by bshort at 12:19 PM on September 8, 2004

bshort: in your hopes and dreams, but not in the real world.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:20 PM on September 8, 2004

bshort: in your hopes and dreams, ... and according to the latest polls ... but not in the real world.

Define "the real world" if it doesn't include all the information we've been posting here.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:32 PM on September 8, 2004

What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?

destroy him. make him wish he was bill clinton.
posted by quonsar at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2004

ParisP: So.... is that all you've got? You know, if you're such an expert on polling you might want to consider a second career.
posted by bshort at 1:52 PM on September 8, 2004

What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?

Grit my teeth and pray fervently that the administration screws up so badly that scandals completely cripple them, if not oust them entirely. And hope their screwups don't kill a lot of people and gut the US economy.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:08 PM on September 8, 2004

Zoogleplez: believe it or not, me too!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:11 PM on September 8, 2004

What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?

Move to Japan, cause I'll tell you right now, my ass is not getting drafted to take part in some neo-conservative "freedom" experiment.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:54 PM on September 8, 2004

Paris, I'm familiar with where Paramus stands, but where do you? You refuse to explain why you think the invasion of Iraq was a preventative measure against nuclear terrorism, and now you claim that you agree with zoogleplex and:

pray fervently that the administration screws up so badly that scandals completely cripple them, if not oust them entirely. And hope their screwups don't kill a lot of people and gut the US economy.

So, come on, Hoss. You ain't cute enough to tease so, and if'n you don't, you ain't important enough to be taken seriously, as I shall bring up in every single thread in which you comment. What is it that you believe? By your comments here, you obviously have a nuclear fetish that gets your panties in a bunch every time. So you appear to believe that any nation that "seems" like it might go nuclear someday is okay to kill, crush and slaughter. After you establish that, you just deride the rest of us as being out of touch with reality. Tasty, but lacking any substance save your quivering fears. I think eveidence is required, with the amount you cry "There's a wolf, you stupid bitches". You bitch about being called a troll, but that's all you do ... troll. Take a stand. Tell us what you're on about here. Show your evidence, and state your position.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:13 PM on September 8, 2004

Hear, hear.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:41 PM on September 8, 2004

to what "administration" do you refer, then?

face facts, 'cause you are in denial if you believe the US is anything but a rogue nation. bullies live short, nervous lives - hegemony and imperialism are states of major change, not cyclic or "sustainable" systems.

what is curious about the UN article is where these items went... and why noone regulated their dispersion - if that is what the UN suggestively points toward?

sure they aren't very long range engines, but is the veil so thin that little attempt is made at concealing trade and trafficking of weapons materials post invasion?

it really feels like the gloves are off these days, huh?

it's because there's nowhere to hide. the shitpile has a thousand eyes, and it's a very scary world with a burgeoning communication system thickening in all around you where you cannot CONTROL it nor necessarily even detect or monitor it.

time churns along as it is, of course - my guess is that the list of countries affected rather directly by members of government in the US during this "administration" is rather long - Afghanistan & Iraq are token distractions. Haiti is a ridiculous narrative of US led aggression, and domestic tendencies toward a military state are no longer cynicism but reality as civil liberties erode under the tide of fascism.

business requires regulation - read Daniel Guerin's Fascism and Big Business illustrating the nature of fascism in the distinctive attributes of its emergence during pre-war Italy & Germany for both European confliicts.

why the US policy is still piracy, policing & bravado is a question we should ask... as the public sector encompasses the private, not the other way around

just realize there is a big world out there, and it is increasingly anti-US in no small part due to rogue action & policy - what is termed alpha in the psychology of individuals: self-centered, imbalanced, anxious... as Neal Stephenson puts it, "POOR IMPULSE CONTROL"

yet the "administration" of a great many similarly hierarchical institutions worldwide are trailing the feast with chops bared drooling for scraps, and the bloodbath gravy train of human history rolls onward, lurching along the precipitous path toward enlightenment - collective unifying awareness - seeking neither pleasure nor pain due to knowledge of their equivalency.

there is no US and THEM... depleting uranium and oil for more of the same gives US ALL a(h!) bad name
posted by gkr at 5:09 PM on September 8, 2004

Are we tired of this yet?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 PM on September 8, 2004