Thread seems to have gotten off track a bit... Point 15 of the resolution, yes I read it, the pdf is on CNN.com, says that UN or Iraqi Governing council has control of the Iraq monetary fund and another point gives Iraq the option for the US military to leave (But must pass a UN Security Council vote). Now, the US has veto power on the UN Security Council. If this resolution passes... What happens after a year and Iraq asks the US to leave and we say.."um no.. we don't feel like you can take care of yourself? I mean, you just took off your training wheels a year ago?" Basically I see this little loophole as a way for the US to keep its hands in the pie for a long time. We’ll see what Jr has to say…
A valid concern. I haven't read the whole thing yet. I hope that gets amended or struck all together.
let's take a look at that claim, shall we? Here are some of the Facts: During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Saddam’s military used sarin and other chemical agents against Iran and the Kurdish population. They primarily employed helicopters equipped with agricultural-type sprayers, as well as a crude type of chemical warhead that required the ingredients to be mixed on the battlefield immediately before firing. There is no evidence that Saddam’s military employed more sophisticated “mix-in-flight” binary chemical artillery shells during the Iran-Iraq war, nor even that they possessed such technology at that time. After the First Gulf War, Iraq was required to declare to UN weapons inspectors all aspects of its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, to include a complete inventory of all existing or destroyed munitions. They did NOT declare any binary chemical warheads. In October 1995 (after the UN discovered some previously undisclosed documents), Saddam revised his weapons declaration, admitting that his scientists had developed “prototypes” of shells capable of delivering binary sarin, but claimed that the project had never reached full production. UN inspectors noted at the time, however, that “new documentation shows production in quantities well beyond prototype levels.” The artillery shell recently discovered, according to General Kimmitt, contained a “mix-in-flight” binary chemical warhead. This type of warhead, as noted above, was not used in the Iran-Iraq war, and was not included by Saddam in his 1991 weapons declaration. What does this mean? -Sometime between 1988-95, Saddam developed and manufactured sophisticated, “mix-in-flight” binary chemical weapons. -He failed to declare these weapons, as required, to UN weapons inspectors. -Iraq did not destroy all of its chemical weapons. -A stockpile of artillery shells, including at least some that contain chemical warheads, has been found by “insurgents” in Iraq.
batman, how many warheads would we have to find together to constitute a "stockpile?" 20, 30, 50, 100, 1000? i just want to nail down a number so we're all agreed on what the definition is.
The weapon they found was a WMD. It was a Weapon of Minimal Destruction. The thing wasn't a biological threat to anyone. There may be more out there like this one. It doesn't prove Saddam had an arsenal, it doesn't prove Saddam was stockpiling, or even hiding any WMD's. It only shows that some folks used an old, ineffective warhead to try and make a bomb. If they find a dozen more Weapons of Minimum Destruction it won't make what the pro-war crowd said prior to the war correct.
Basso, Can you tell us what size of a stockpile of WMDs justifies invading Iraq at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars?
Concerns over U.S. transfer plan for Iraq Iraqi council, France among those seeking revisions at U.N. MSNBC News Services Updated: 11:27 a.m. ET May 25, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S.-British blueprint for Iraq now before the U.N. Security Council was met Tuesday with concerns from other governments and even the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, whose chairman said the proposal fell short by not granting greater control over Iraq's own security forces. “We found it less than our expectations,” Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer told reporters after a meeting of the council. “We as Iraqis see the necessity of the presence of (outside) forces,” he added. “But in the period to come we want to have the right to ask that these forces leave.” And France was among the countries urging revisions to the proposal, which would provide the framework for an interim Iraqi government being sworn in on June 30. “This draft ... contains positive aspects as well as others on which discussions should be continued so that the resolution helps open up a clear political horizon in Iraq,” President Jacques Chirac’s office quoted him as having told President Bush in a phone conversation Tuesday. Chirac “reiterated his conviction that the transfer of sovereignty must be real and perceived as such by the Iraqis themselves -- the date of June 30 must mark a real change,” his office said in a statement. Control of security, oil revenue In Baghdad, the Iraqi Governing Council issued a statement saying it wanted to discuss full Iraqi control of “the activities of the Iraqi armed forces and security forces,” as well as over oil reserves and the Iraqi Development Fund, established last year by the United States to use oil revenues to pay for reconstruction. Al-Yawer said Iraqis should control revenue from oil sales, which Washington proposes should remain subject to international audit. Council member Ahmad Chalabi went further, saying the draft resolution “will fail the test for Iraqi sovereignty... One of the foundations of sovereignty is that the Iraqi government must control the armed forces regarding recruitment, supplies or movements.” Iraq’s defense minister, Ali Allawi, said he expects Iraq’s security forces to be ready to replace foreign soldiers within a year. “The timing of a presence of a multinational force, it is a question of months rather than years,” Allawi said in London at a news conference with British Defense Minister Geoff Hoon. “The multinational force will need to be replaced by an indigenous force, an Iraqi force, in the course of a year.” He said an Iraqi security force should be in place “by and large” before national elections set for January. Foreign soldiers immune from courts? Another council member, Mahmoud Othman, said Iraqis were frustrated by the absence of Iraqi input in the drafting of the joint U.N. resolution and that Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari would travel to New York to raise Iraqi concerns to Security Council ambassadors. Othman said the Governing Council also objected to provisions making U.S., British and other foreign soldiers immune from prosecution under Iraqi law. “They would not be locally accountable when they do anything wrong,” he said. The introduction of a draft U.N. resolution Monday set the stage for intense negotiations with longtime critics of the war, such as France and Germany, who are demanding that Iraq’s interim government be the key decision-maker on security issues. The United States and Britain unveiled the long-awaited plan hours before President Bush said in a nationally televised address that American forces would stay in Iraq until it was free and democratic. Question of sovereignty Under the resolution, the multinational force would be authorized to take “all necessary measures” to maintain security and prevent terrorism, while no mention was made of the Iraqi army — except the need for training. The mandate for U.S.-led forces in Iraq would be reviewed after a year — or even earlier if a transitional government due to take power after January elections requests it. But U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham said the United States will keep its promise “that we will leave if there’s a request from the government to leave,” which he called highly unlikely. Security Council members said one of the major concerns raised during closed-door discussions was the question of whether sovereignty is really being restored — or whether the occupation would continue under another guise. Many in Iraq and in Europe fear that the interim government will not be seen as legitimate if it doesn’t have a credible voice in the operations of armed forces on its own soil. The resolution is an attempt by the Bush administration to win international backing for the post-occupation plans in Iraq, which have been severely shaken by violence. With his approval ratings sinking after repeated setbacks in Iraq, Bush is also seeking to rebuild support at home. Coordination of multinational force unclear With the June 30 transfer of sovereignty looming, Washington and London decided to start negotiations on the 2,400-word resolution, even though U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is still working on the makeup of the interim government. Key areas of the text will need to be filled in after Brahimi returns and the interim government is established — including how it will coordinate with the multinational military force. U.S. and British officials said once the government is formed, the multinational force commander is expected to send a letter spelling out how the force will relate to the interim government. The new Iraqi leadership is also expected to send a letter welcoming the Security Council resolution and U.N. help in the political process, and agreeing that the multinational force should remain in Iraq, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the interim government would have veto power over major military operations — like April’s offensive in Fallujah that outraged many Iraqis. “If there’s a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government. That’s what the transfer of sovereignty means,” he told reporters. Othman, a Sunni Kurd member of the Governing Council, said the multinational forces should be under United Nations’ command — a possibility ruled out by the Americans and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. “If that is not possible, then the Iraqi side must play an important role,” Othman told the Arab television station Al-Jazeera. “Why cannot we have a joint command, Iraqi-American? Why only American? ... This is important to Iraqis.” Germany’s U.N. Ambassador Gunter Pleuger called the draft “a good basis of discussion” and said “we will have to make sure that this process provides Iraqi ownership for the political process as well as for the process of economic reconstruction.” Algeria’s U.N. ambassador Abdallah Baali, the only Arab representative on the Security Council, called the text “a good basis for negotiations.” In Moscow, a foreign ministry spokesman Russia said the proposal "leaves Russia and other members of the Security Council asking many questions and needs further work." The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
So you're ok with invading pakistan then, at least as far as being "justified" goes? They have nuclear weapons and state sponsored terrorists that have attacked the US in the past decade, unlike pre-invasion Iraq. Also, how much damage would an equivalent volume of c4 do on a NY city subway as opposed to Sarin? Please advise.
depends on how the sarin was dispersed. but if your point is we shouldn't deal with any threats to our security because we can't deal with all such threats, then I guess we should just pack our bags and go home. but's let's not limit it to iRaq, let's pull out of Korea, Japan, Germany, hell let's just recuse ourselves from the whole damned world! -- America, Recuse Thyself! By P.J. O'ROURKE May 25, 2004 John Kerry says America shouldn't cut and run. George Bush says America mustn't. But we don't have to retreat ignominiously from the war on terrorism and from our other international responsibilities and commitments; we can recuse ourselves. We can explain to the court of global public opinion that, because America possesses the largest economy, the widest network of business relationships, and the only effective military force on earth, we have too great a vested interest in world events to render fair and impartial judgment. On every issue of geopolitical adjudication, from 9/11 to the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, America is a jury of cops and crime victims. A change in venire has already been called for by noisy street protestors, France and suchlike. Let's accede to the pre-emptory challenge and go home. The benefits will be immediate. We can cut $300 billion from our defense budget. This will be almost enough to pay for the aging baby boomers' prescription drug benefits, which can now include Levitra, Botox and medicinal cannabis. America will enjoy cleaner air and less traffic congestion as oil goes to $200 a barrel due to chaos in the Middle East. A U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East will cause chaos, of course. Then again, a U.S. intervention in the Middle East has caused chaos already. And, during those periods of history when the U.S. was neither intervening in nor withdrawing from the Middle East, there was . . . chaos. The situation is akin to the famous complaint women have against men: failure to acknowledge that not every problem can be fixed. Sometimes the best thing is just a little sympathy. America had everyone's sympathy after the World Trade towers were attacked. We can get that sympathy back if we limit our foreign policy objectives to whining. One thing to whine about will be the fate of Israel. Without American safeguards that nation is certain to be militarily attacked. To judge by previous Israeli wars, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, the result will be serious headaches for Israelis as the Knesset furiously debates the status of Jewish settlements outside Damascus and on the west bank of the Euphrates. Elsewhere, however, Islamic fundamentalists will likely triumph. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Our own country was founded by people who, today, would be considered religious extremists. Perhaps a bond of fellow-feeling will grow between puritanical Muslims and heirs to American Puritanism. Maybe cultural exchanges of the old U.S.-Soviet type can build people-to-people-based peaceful coexistence such as we had during the Kissinger era of detente. Visiting America on fellowship programs, even the most fanatical members of al Qaeda will be moved by the story of the Salem witch trials and their pious outcome. And while Hester Prynne was not stoned to death, her crime may be said to have been treated with the letter, if not the spirit, of sharia law. Meanwhile various unpopular rulers who have held onto power with American support will be forced to submit to the will of their people. Tony Blair comes to mind. Other positive effects are to be expected. The United Nations, freed from superpower interference, will assume its rightful role exercising peacemaking functions -- and getting plenty of exercise at it. Scores of belligerents, freed from superpower interference, will create opportunities for U.N. peacemaking functions such as sending numerous bureaucrats, functionaries, commissions and inspection teams to keep combatants too busy with meetings and paperwork to have time to fight. A NATO alliance that does not include the U.S. will acquire a new sense of mission and purpose, especially in Gdansk, Istanbul and maybe Hamburg, when Russia resumes its historic quest for warm-water ports. The threat of nuclear proliferation will abate as dangerous stockpiles of atomic weapons are quickly used up. The loss of life will be regrettable. But this will be counterbalanced by the welcome disappearance of long-standing international flashpoints when the India-Pakistan border is vaporized, Tehran disappears in a mushroom cloud, and whatever is left of the Korean Peninsula becomes reunited. China will assume its proper role in the world. A booming China can be expected to concentrate on economic issues. Look for Beijing to create a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," so to speak. And China won't have to bomb Pearl Harbor. There will be nothing there but cruise ships -- all in mothballs as a result of $200-a-barrel oil. America's protestors against globalization will be able to relax. An inward-looking America is bound to link military and diplomatic disengagement with higher trade barriers. There will be domestic political pressure to create jobs for the hundreds of thousands of returning military personnel, State Department employees, Peace Corps volunteers, network foreign-correspondents, etc. Unfortunately, the jobs will be mostly mowing lawns and taking care of the children of husband/wife lawyer couples, since a decreasing involvement with foreign affairs will lead to an increasing resentment of foreign immigrants. (At a theoretical level there may be no reason why Isolationism, Protectionism and Nativism should be conjoined. But we can hardly have Larry and Curly without Moe.) Yet in a sensitive, diverse 21st-century America, we probably will be spared past excesses. Perhaps we'll see the rise of an In-Klusive Klux Klan. Plus, an increase in the minimum wage will solve the problem of employment inequities. And the best thing about Americans recusing ourselves from global entanglements is that we will be loved again. Imagine a world where American manners and mores set the standard almost everywhere, where American fashions, American ideas and American lifestyles are universally sought out and copied. A world where people avidly listen to American music, eagerly watch American TV and movies, and try to imitate Americans in every way. Imagine a world where the U.S.A. is so admired that people by the millions want nothing more than to come to America and recuse themselves from global entanglements.
My point isn't that you can't deal with all such threats, my point is that it is a gigantic blunder when you commit massive amounts of time, resources, and destroy all of your political and moral capital and goodwill at home and abroad in order to address a low level threat at the expense of ignoring high level threat. This view has been expressed numerous times by numerous individuals, before and after the war, by people within and without the US, from A to Zinni
well, first it was clark, and now zinni is the general-du-jour, next i'm sure you'll find some other ex-military official who knows best. if you'd listened to the reception W got last night from the men and women at the army war college you realize his support w/in the military remains pretty high. do you think kerry will try and have military ballots disqualified this time?
Al Gore didn't try that in 2000. At least not ones that were filed with the proper date. Those after the deadline he did try and have not counted. Do you think Bush supporters will try and spin as if the democrat wants military ballots dq'd this time like they did before?
Cute the way you keep turning it around. It was the administration who used the term "stockpiles." In fact I think they said massive stockpiles. How do you think they'd define stockpiles (or massive stockpiles)? One? Two? 100? For me, I'd define 20, 30 or 50 as "piles." I might start around 1000 for "stockpiles." I don't know how many it would take to get to massive stockpiles. We have always known one of these weapons could cause a lot of damage -- they're called weapons of "mass" destruction -- so your NYC subway retread doesn't much counter the fact that this administration exaggerated the threat when they said there were stockpiles. So far we haven't found a single WMD that's even been proven to have been developed after the Gulf War. And we certainly haven't found anything that could have hit us here. And if we do find one or two or fifty, we still won't be a fraction of the way to what the admin said. You're one of the very last people (after most of the admin itself) still clinging to the idea that what was presented to us back then was the truth.
What does that have to do with anything? If you want to know what views individuals at the army war college have of the Iraq war, rather than using an "applause-o-meter" a la Amateur Night at Showtime at the Apollo, why not read their analysis: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/bounding/bounding.htm
I can't believe the liberals are still trying to cling to this flimsy argument. How many times has this been corrected? Did Saddam have the chance to reconcile his previously accounted for WMD or not? Huh? Did he? Of course he did. He failed to do so. "They said it" because it was the only rational, logical thing to do when Saddam says he can't find all the WMD and offers zero evidence. When you are protecting national security, you don't accept Saddam Hussein at his word with no proof.
Let's deal with this one at a time. I said the administration said "hundreds of thousands of tons." You called it a flimsy argument. Did they say it, or not? * POOF*