> [U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441]
>
> However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not
> going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the
> `serious consequences' of the resolution.
Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that the
disagreement is over *when* the serious consequences are due?
The resolution set a deadline of 8 December 2002 for Iraq to 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
....
[This and all following quotations from U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441]
In his next report (I cannot remember the date, although I read the
report; I think it was in January 2003), Blix, the head of the UN
disarmament organization for Iraq, said that the Iraqi government had
not provided such a declaration. It was neither full nor complete.
At this point, Iraq had failed its
.... final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations
under relevant resolutions of the Council ....
You can argue that since no time was set for when Iraq would
... face serious consequences as a result of its continued
violations of its obligations ....
so that disagreement is justified. However, since Blix reported that
Iraq was not in compliance, the delay cannot be for other reasons than
practical military issues (such as whether there are troops in the
vicinity).
The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN
support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so?
Because President Bush and other Republicans have spoken frequently
about the need for an `effective' international organization. They
will claim that the UN has showed it is a `paper tiger'. This is in
contrast with those who say that to solve issues of global wa global
warming, human rights, and so on, all you need is a pretense of
effectiveness.
For example, the Bush administration claimed that the Kyoto treaty for
reducing green house gases would be ineffective because countries like
China and India would not have to make restrictions, and that those
countries' outputs would swamp restrictions by Europe and the US.
Moreover, they claimed that the International Criminal court would
gain prosecutors who would go after US soldiers trying to protect the
US from suicide attackers, rather than go after those who fund and
organize suicide attackers.
The Clinton administration, by the way, said the same, but that a
pretense is all that the US could get now, so they were aiming for the
pretense. I have heard it said that as a practical matter, the Bush
administration actions have led to the same consequences for global
warming and for the International Criminal Court as the Clinton
administration actions, but that in the process, the Bush
administration has offended officials in many foreign governments, so
over all, it and we are worse off.
> The US government will decide to act as the `sheriff' on its own,
> will invade Iraq, and, after what may well be a dreadful war, produce
> evidence that the Iraqi government has been as cruel as depicted.
It will? I thought it already says it has produced such evidence?
I am sure that the Bush administration will provide photo ops and
people to tell terrible stories. Some will claim that the new photos
and stories were generated by the Bush administration; others will say
that they fit it with reports from Iraq over the past 30 years.
> US President Bush will point out that pacifists world-wide, Democratic
> Senators and others in the US, and people in France prefer to support
> rather than oppose a cruel dictatorship.
Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose this decision being
labeled "supporters" of the current regime in Iraq.
I think you are going to get more tired. You do not have to support
Bush to expect him to say this. I bet he believes that the key to a
successful ad campaign is repetition, with enough differences in the
repeats so that people continue to pay attention.
I am confident Bush's goal is victory, which is to say, his goal is
his re-election in 2004, which involves keeping a swing vote of the US
population voting form him rather than for a Democratic challenger.
Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of
positions one can take?
Of course, there is a range of positions, but I don't think Bush is
going to accept that, except where it suits his goal.
I think you are confusing what I think about the issue with what I
think Bush thinks. They are different.
Part of my concernt has to do with how different people view reality.
For example, in a recent essay, Thomas Friedman asked whether Iraq a
clear and present danger in itself to the United States? This is how
Friedman frames the question.
But I don't think Bush frames it that way. I think Bush thinks of
this as part of a long and big `war on terrorism'.
As I said earlier, I think Bush now believes the liberals and
Democrats who for years said that US policy in the middle east was
wrong and that more and more people there will die to fight us.
Moreover, I think that Bush thinks that US covert actions help the US
only a little -- that even if Al Qaeda is destroyed, there will be
others who are against the US -- and that in the short run, no US
policy can reverse the hatred of the US. Hence, he figures that an
action that causes the other Moslem dictatorships to fear the US is
best.
Besides, such an action, if successful in his eyes, enables him to
give huge contracts to friends, reduces the relative power of France
and Germany, keeps oil priced in dollars for a while longer, and
enables him to provide people who vote for him something more than
stories about how the US Treasury is confiscating the bank accounts of
those who keep their money in banks.
Put another way, I think that Thomas Friedman's framing of the issue
causes him to fail to discuss the issues that will lead people to vote
for or against a Democratic presidental candidate in 2004. And
without such discussion I think Democrats will lose as badly as they
did in November 2002.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
