Posted by: JAK ®
03/07/2003, 20:36:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Much as I hate to say this, the “definition” which you seek may be largely irrelevant. In an earlier post, I stated this:
Bush has shifted the conditions as this situation has developed. Having addressed this previously, I would just say that “regime change,” one of the Bush demands, is different than “total disarmament.” Now it is both. Along the way another Bush demand was “removal of weapons of mass destruction.” Total disarmament is vastly different than removal of WMD. You asked at the end of your post: “If you were asked to define the elements of disarming, what would be your answer?” Meaning no disrespect to you, my feeling is that this question is irrelevant. President Bush now has 230,000 (moving to 250,000) troops out there in the sand being worn by weather, worry, and boredom. Iraq is surrounded by the U.S. military. Bush is committed to war. No matter what definitions of that term now, such definitions are largely meaningless. No disarmament measures taken by Saddam will be acceptable. If some missiles are destroyed in Iraq, the Bush administration characterizes this as “deception.” Saddam is accused of “playing more games.” Saddam “has no intention of disarming” says some member of the team. Powell said at the U.N. “Saddam continues to refuse to disarm.” Hans Blix cited specific systems which had been destroyed by the U.N. team. He called Saddam’s behavior as “more active cooperation.” A vote is likely in a few days at the U.N. to set a deadline to comply. To a certain extent, there is a stand-off between George Bush and the United Nations. Bush is now taking the position: you’re either with us or you’re against us; let’s get the vote and see where you stand. In the “press conference” (well orchestrated by the White House) last night, the President made it clear that he regards the U.N. as irrelevant. He does not expect to get China, France, and Russia to side with him. So we may be left with the problems of how much war on Iraq will destabilize the region which is already a very volatile place. How costly will the war be to the U.S.? How will these costs impact on the current American economy? Many other problems will emerge. The war has already begun. JAK
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/07/2003, 21:18:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
I just finished watching Newshour on PBS and one of the commentators, Z. Brezinski (sp?), was saying the smae thing. They have to set precise objectives with definite dealines for Saddam. At least that is what I hope will happen.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/07/2003, 21:47:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,From your brief comment, I am not sure with what particulars you disagree. It would have been a good idea to have set specific definitions about the matter of disarmament much earlier as stated in the PBS NewsHour. Had that been done, we might not be where we are at present. Your question would have been much more applicable weeks, months ago. If I am correct that Bush has made up his mind...it is not a matter of “if” as he said in the news conference. He is not open to any considerations now about meanings for disarmament. When I said the question was irrelevant, I meant that in the sense of the above...namely Bush has decided on war. The train has left the station. On what in particular you consider that we disagree? From your post, I am not sure what you intend. JAK
Modified by JAK at Fri, Mar 07, 2003, 21:48:42
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/07/2003, 22:10:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes! In your statement, "If I am correct that Bush has made up his mind...it is not a matter of “if” as he said in the news conference. He is not open to any considerations now about meanings for disarmament." and others to that effect, we disagree. I believe there is still a chance for peace. As is said, 'ts not over till it's over!
|
Posted by: JAK ®
03/08/2003, 08:37:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,You stated beginning with a quote from me: "If I am correct that Bush has made up his mind...it is not a matter of ‘if’ as he said in the news conference. He is not open to any considerations now about meanings for disarmament." “and others to that effect, we disagree. I believe there is still a chance for peace. As is said, 'ts not over till it's over!” JAK:
Actually, I do agree with the latter part of this. Namely, there is still a chance for peace. Realistically, I think that is extremely slim. I hope you are right and that I am wrong--particularly about Bush having made up his mind. That is surely critical in the path toward war. It is possible that something surprising might happen -- Saddam could make an exit or the disarmament of Iraq in the next two weeks could be so full that only by calling the U.N. inspectors liars could one maintain that Iraq is not disarming. My statement began with an “if” hypothesis. It was an assumption about the Bush mentality. “If” Bush has not made up his mind, there is the opening for your “chance for peace.” Again, I hope my “if” hypothesis is incorrect on the Bush mentality. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sat, Mar 08, 2003, 08:40:28
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/08/2003, 11:47:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
I suppose you agree that people, especially politicians including Bush, can change their mind if circumstances warrant it. Now, you say:"It is possible that something surprising might happen -- Saddam could make an exit or the disarmament of Iraq in the next two weeks could be so full that only by calling the U.N. inspectors liars could one maintain that Iraq is not disarming." I give any of the two above scenarios a good chance of happening. Add to that the possibility that some disaffected scientists or technicians may spill the beans to the inspectors.
All could happen "in the nick of time"! By that I mean, if and when the Security Council passes a strong and well-defined resolution and there won't be any doubt in anyone's mind (including Saddam and his people) that war is the only alternative to disarming, AND is supported by the UN.
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/08/2003, 14:19:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
And then the question. Should this hypothetical change of mind take place, what repercussions.Most regular people don't like to admit their failures, what of the President of a State?Considering the lengths to which (Bush) Jnr has gone to state his intentions for war, imagine the loss of face should Jnr back down now? What of the stern belief Jnr has shown in many instances of the US as some sort of implacable moral watchdog,'the guardian of the free world'.And let us not point out the ongoing image war currently taking place in Jnr's 'War Against Terror'.Every one of these images would be hurt by Jnr backing down now. That being said, I agree with JAK that the only possibility would be if a scenario appeared to cause an even greater loss of face but considering the ambiguity of the reports of the weapons inspectors, this is unlikely to occur. A curious question, I myself have not been watching too much on the news on this matter, to what degree are reports on Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin still occuring, what are the nature of these reports, to what degree are the supposed links between Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda still cropping up. To what degree are Jnr and his staff still using 11/09/2001.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/08/2003, 17:53:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Should this hypothetical change of mind take place, what repercussions.Most regular people don't like to admit their failures, what of the President of a State?"A good question. However, the answer is if Saddam exits (dead or alive) peacefully, then the US has WON its objectives without militarty force. Victory can't be better than that, can it? The other scenario which speculates complete disarmament but with Saddam in place, may be a little more bitter to swallow by Bush. However, the British would accept this scenario (Jack Straw said yesterday) and Bush is likely to follow suit if it ever happens. It still would be a WIN for the US as far as the goal of disarmament is concerned. "A curious question, I myself have not been watching too much on the news on this matter, to what degree are reports on Al Qaeda and Bin Ladin still occuring, what are the nature of these reports, to what degree are the supposed links between Saddam Hussain and Al Qaeda still cropping up. To what degree are Jnr and his staff still using 11/09/2001." I can characterize the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda as "rumors". No one has produced any hard evidence but since it is good for Bush rhetoric, they are still using it here and there.
|
Posted by: ramona ®
03/08/2003, 18:12:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
You write this: However, the answer is if Saddam exits (dead or alive) peacefully, then the US has WON its objectives without militarty force. Ramona - The problem is that if Saddam exists, Saddam perceives he has won. By his own lips, his definition of winning is simply surviving. Ramona
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/08/2003, 18:56:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
"The problem is that if Saddam exists, Saddam perceives he has won. By his own lips, his definition of winning is simply surviving."First, I'd like to clarify that I said "if Saddam EXITS (dead or alive)". In this scenario he'll willingly or unwillingly (more likely) go to exile, Or will be killed in a coup or the like. So practically, there won't be any Saddam to claim victory. However, in the second scnario (disarmament) Saddam is going to be there and would certainly claim victory but only to his own people and maybe a few other sympathizers. But so what? That is what he did in the first Gulf war. That doesn't mean much. The fact is that everyone will see that he has been disarmed. And that is what counts.
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/08/2003, 21:42:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Here is potential hypothetical:
security council meets, decides on complete disarmament with time span of 4 weeks.This tops the other end of hypothetical time allotments, let's be generous;).Within 4 weeks, what would it be neccesary to show in order for complete disarmament to be shown? Quite frankly the only word we have to go on is that of the weapons inspectors (I don't know if I would trust Mr Colin Powells satelite images) and they seem to be playing strange politics.At one point The iraqi government is showing excellent co-operation, Jnr rages.At the next, though things progress, the Iraqi government should surely be able to provide better documentation of their weapons programs, Jnr continues to rage.What next? In the mean time I have started a service, charging to read peoples fortunes by the foam gathered at Jnr's mouth. Somehow, I have this uneasy feeling of impending doom...
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/08/2003, 23:10:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
You've got pretty much the right hypothetical! And note that what has been happening is the "fine-tuning" of the inspections. We've heard that Blix has a list of 29 (or is it 39?) categories of unanswered questions in the area of proscribed weapons in Iraq. The security Counsil can ask Saddam for precise and definite responses in these areas to constitute compliance, or something like that. We only should hope that all 15 members come to a unanimous resolution so that Saddam knows they are serious, and Bush would hopefully abide by the result.
|
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/09/2003, 01:26:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
And thus, the hope for world peace lies within the most contended of political councils, the home of the iron curtain, the world of the Veto, the UN Security Council.Hear Hear, pip pip and are those air raid sirens...
|
Posted by: grendel ®
03/10/2003, 00:15:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
"We only should hope that all 15 members come to a unanimous resolution so that Saddam knows they are serious, and Bush would hopefully abide by the result."they did....in 2002. the security council voted 15-0 on resolution 1441. seems many people have forgotten that. forgive me if i'm skeptical about the latest disarmament developments(the recent destruction of iraqi missiles), but i think everything saddam does should naturally be treated with the utmost skepticism. the burden is on him to show he has destroyed all weapons, not on the US and UN to prove he has them in the first place. he has lied constantly to the UN for the last 12 years about possession of WMD. i have no desire to give him the benefit of the doubt. until proven otherwise, i will assume this latest disarmament is a stalling and deceitful tactic. this would not be out of character.
grendel
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/10/2003, 11:12:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
What you say may be true and acceptable and practical in a perfect world but as you know we are far from it. Our every day life is imperfect, complex, confusing and in need of tolerance and compromise, let alone the complicated sphere of international politics.Yes Saddam is all you say. I don't know if you have any children or not. We should view him as a very naughty child. Be tough but patient with him. That's all I can say.
|
Posted by: grendel ®
03/10/2003, 17:04:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Our every day life is imperfect, complex, confusing and in need of tolerance and compromise, let alone the complicated sphere of international politics."i agree. there are many things we should tolerate. however, i do not find saddam's behaviour and constant defiance of international mandates to be among them. "We should view him as a very naughty child. Be tough but patient with him." no! saddam is not a child. saddam is a grown man, a ruthless dictator, an aggressor, and a pathological liar. the fact that he acts like a child does not mean we should treat him like one.
grendel
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/10/2003, 18:26:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
All I said before and strees now, is not for Saddam's sake; it is FOR OUR OWN SAKE. For the whole world's sake. If we could be sure that we could remove him without much loss of life, property, etc., and without distablizing the region, I'd be the first one to say go ahead. But the problem is that the war remedy may cause more trouble than the present problem. On the other hand, most people are of the opinion that effective disarmament can be acheived thru inspections. If you don't believe in the latter, let's discuss it. Tell me why you think the present RIGOROUS INSPECTION regime (which is much more muscular than the previous one and could become even more muscular!) is not good enough?PS: I'll see you a bit later!
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/09/2003, 02:09:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . .how many of the Iraqi people really believe Saddam Hussein's claims of victory in the first Gulf War, or believe that Saddam has even a ghost of a chance of winning the next one, if and when it occurs.Gunnar
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
03/13/2003, 08:54:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
I strongly suspect that one of the consequences of lack of unity of resolve to go after Saddam Hussein militarily for lack of full cooperation and disclosure on the disarmament of Iraq and destruction of MWD is that this has only made eventual war with Iraq all the more inevitable in the long run, and even more terrible than it would have otherwise been because of the delay that gave Hussein more time to build up his arsenal and military. Isn't it at least possible that the crisis would now be resolved or well on the way to resolution if we and our fellow security council members had been unified in making sure there was no doubt in Saddam's mind of our determination to take drastic action if he did not fully comply? I am sure that this lack of unity has tended to increase Hussein's intransigence, and kept alive his hopes of succeeding in his nefarious ambitions.Another consideration that still bugs me is that I still think it is likely that failure to remove this murderous Despot from power will ultimately be an even greater tragedy for the people of Iraq than war, if that is what it takes to remove him--especially if it is a relatively short war and the people of Iraq (including even much of his own military) are generally as fed up with his atrocities as Iraqis that have left or escaped from that regime have claimed. I have heard reports that some Iraqi military units stationed near the borders have already defected and surrendered to coalition forces surrounding Iraq. I seriously doubt that war, if it occurs, will be anywhere near as bad as the worst case scenarios that have been discussed, though it may not be as good as the best case scenario either. Gunnar
Modified by Gunnar at Thu, Mar 13, 2003, 09:05:38
|
|
