posted on March 12, 2003 07:39:18 AM new
"The United Nations is in diplomatic disarray today as the foreign ministers from the world's most powerful nations scramble to find some scrap of common ground on the question of war with Iraq.
What a difference a few months makes. Last November, under the leadership of the United States, the 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, strengthening the weapons inspection regime and giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.
The rapidity with which that unity has unraveled is astounding. What began as a constructive process to gain international support for war against Iraq has disintegrated into insults, accusations, and finger-pointing among the key members of the Security Council. Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States. With his insistence that the United Nations declare the inspection regime a failure and immediately authorize war against Iraq, the President has opened a chasm between the U.S. and Great Britain on one side and the remaining permanent members of the Security Council on the other.
The White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant if it does not authorize immediate war against Iraq, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is countering that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations will violate the U.N. charter.
The knock-down, drag-out in the Security Council has tarnished the images of both the United Nations and the United States, and it has imperiled the political career of at least one world leader, President Bush's staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
What a high price to pay for the President's insistence on blindly following a war-first, war-now policy on Iraq.
Despite feverish activity this week on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain to persuade a majority of members of the Security Council to support a second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, the President and his chief advisers have made it clear that the activity is merely window dressing and that the United States is prepared to act with or without U.N. support. For the Bush Administration, war with Iraq seems to be no longer a question of if, but when -- and the window on "when" is rapidly closing.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, declared over the weekend, "There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it's important to know that we believe the authority is there."
In other words, the die has been cast. The rhetoric has hardened. U.S. forces are in place and poised to attack. The U.N. Security Council has been relegated to a classic Greek chorus of tragic protest while the United States takes center stage. The President has stopped listening.
The Administration's strategy for war with Iraq is so far advanced that not only does the President have war plans on his desk, he also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.
On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is soliciting bids from a handful of U.S. firms for a contract worth as much as $900 million dollars to begin the reconstruction of Iraq. According to the Journal, the contract would be the largest reconstruction effort undertaken by the United States since the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II.
With post-war contracts already in hand, can the onset of war be far behind?
My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein, but we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this nation, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq.
In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the UN on war with Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work. Citizens by the thousands have taken to the streets in countries around the globe, including the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, to protest the war.
The day after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, "We are all Americans!" Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed September 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this Administration's heavy-handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq.
The latest report of the U.N. weapons inspectors only heightened the tensions in the Security Council and helped to precipitate the current scramble for a new resolution. On Friday, (March 7) Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reported progress in the disarmament of Iraq and predicted that the inspection process could be completed in months -- "not years, nor weeks, but months."
At the same meeting, Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush Administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts -- by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. El Baradei said the inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked.
Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq.
The world is awash in anti-Americanism. The doctrine of preemption enshrined in the Bush Administration's national security strategy -- the policy on which the war with Iraq is predicated -- has turned the global image of the United States from that of a world class peacemaker into what many believe is dangerous warmonger.
The President is on the wrong track in insisting on rushing into war without the support of the international community, and specifically the United Nations. Not only is America's reputation on the line, but so is our war on terror. The recent arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two of his cohorts in Pakistan is evidence that the United States is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al Qaeda organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the Middle East.
Pakistan's cooperation is particularly important in the war on terror, yet the majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to war with Iraq. How or whether Pakistani opposition to the war against Iraq will affect the war against terror is one of many unknowns.
The United States cannot bring down al Qaeda alone. We need support and cooperation from friendly nations in the region. We risk losing their friendship, and possibly causing major upheavals in the Middle East, if the President defies world opinion and launches a U.S. led invasion of Iraq. The cost of war and the potential casualties -- not only to American military personnel but also to innocent civilians in and around Iraq -- are unknowns. The impact of war on the fragile fabric of the Middle East is also unknown. The Administration seems to think that war with Iraq will pave the way to peace and democracy in the Middle East, but I believe that is merely wishful thinking. Saddam Hussein is not the cause of the strife between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and his downfall will not erase the deeply rooted conflict between the two sides.
War against Iraq may prove to be a fatal distraction from the war on terror. The danger to Americans today is from al Qaeda. Intelligence officials predict that war with Iraq will precipitate a new wave a terrorism against the United States and its allies, and will serve as a powerful recruiting tool for anti-American extremists.
We need to keep the pressure on al Qaeda. We need to strengthen our defenses against a terrorist attack here at home. We need to focus the resources of our nation on the war on terror and dismantle the al Qaeda network before it can mount another catastrophic attack on the United States.
The hour is late, the clock is ticking, but if the President would only listen to voices outside his war cabinet, he might discover that it is not too late to stop the rush to war. There is still a chance that Saddam Hussein can be disarmed and neutralized short of war. As long as that possibility exists, the United States should drop its resistance to any slowdown in the march to war and should begin to talk with, and listen to, the other members of the Security Council.
The prospect of regaining unanimity within the United Nations on the question of Iraq is dim at best, but as long as there remains even a glimmer of hope, it is in the best interests of both the United States and the other members of the Security Council to regroup and strive to achieve that goal. The world community deserves nothing less."
posted on March 12, 2003 08:15:53 AM newByrd Basics: First elected to the Senate in 1958 Born: Nov. 20, 1917
Almost 86 and senile as hell...but good orator... which is too bad he had to do something like this.
Even more reason that term limits should be put into effect...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 12, 2003 09:28 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2003 08:21:26 AM newhe also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.
Hope those who thought he didn't read this.
with post-war contracts already in hand can the onset of war be far behind? I hope not. Each day that we continue to wait Saddam's forces have more time to plan their evil for our troops.
pleaded for more time. Yes, some think 12 years wasn't long enough.
The cost of war and the potential casualties....not only to American military personnel...are unknowns. As they have been in any war we've entered. Same as when Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998....many unknowns then too.
The impact of war on the fragile fabric of the ME is also unknown....just as it was in 1991, 1998 and when we bombed Afghanistan.
There is still a chance that Saddam can be disarmed and neutralized short of war. He states that, but gives no suggest as to how this can happen. Maybe he means we should just continue to wait it out another 12 years.
Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq. Great point....they're not concerned about this threat...but we are.
...is evidence that the US is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al-qaeda organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the ME.
Some here have denied even that was true. At least he can honestly say we are.. hope others see that too...since many here have stated we haven't made in progress in this area.
Last night I saw Winston Churchhill's grandson interviewed last night, and he repeated his Grandfather's statement that if the world had banded together, against Hitler, the war would never have been necessary.
posted on March 12, 2003 11:13:23 AM new
While I realize that history is irrelevant
to many of the posters...I nevertheless believe the following might be of interest:
The feeling was very similar to that in the United States during 1937 and 1938 when most of our opposition to Nazis was based on its injustices to its own people rather than on any potential menace which it might be to us. Like England's, ours was a detached criticisim of a form of government, rather than a realistic grasp of the implications of that form of government on the welfare of the world. And this is not the sort of feeling that calls for building up armaments for defense, but rather for speeches pointing out how fortunate we are not living in Germany."(108)
[ edited by pandorasbox on Mar 12, 2003 11:17 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2003 12:11:56 PM new
You have to admit that Germany in the 1940's was an equal to the US in technical ability and economic power. Fortunately the US had such a better huge land mass to work from with resources and isolation from harm by geographic distance that they could overcome the Germans in a long haul by sheer production if not quality.
Still it was a closer thing than the history books might make it sound. They came damn close to winning.
I don't think you can compare Iraq to the Germans as having any physical equality to the US. Attitude means little without resources to project your policy.
Should we fear Tonga if it is sufficiently belligerant?
[ edited by gravid on Mar 12, 2003 12:15 PM ]
But the point of asymetrical warfare is that sponsoring states can and do use & supply third parties...with funding, safe harbor & a reasonable asumption has to be made, with WMD.
The great equalizer(s) are these weapons.
You do not need the Wehrmacht to deliver anthrax or nerve agents.
posted on March 12, 2003 01:32:04 PM new
Then I must ask you.
Why haven't we seen MUCH more terror using WOMD?
There have been states with gas and poison most of the last century.
If it were so easy to hand these weapons off and remain hidden while the few nut cases do your work why hasn't it been happening for decades? Indeed the borders used to be much more open than at present - making it childishly easy to strike.
I have some opinions on that but would like to hear other's explainations.
posted on March 12, 2003 02:47:22 PM newWhy haven't we seen MUCH more terror using WOMD?
C'mon gravid, how much do you want to see? The object of the terrorists is to use just enough death and destruction to prevent the world from uniting to take countries like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea out. It would do them no good to stir things up to a point where our military could become effective.
Look how they do it in Israel. The terrorists back off as Israel gains world approval to use its military to go house to house. There is a political arm to the terrorists actions. They do not want a much stronger military called into action upon their populations and regimes of support. They do not want and can not fight a conventional fight, and they will attack accordingly. Terrorists can not chop the head of their enemy off, so they attaempt to bleed him to death slowly.
But after 9-11, what responsible public official would wait until a chemical, bio, or nuclear attack to "justify" military action ?
posted on March 12, 2003 03:09:26 PM newBut after 9-11, what responsible public official would wait until a chemical, bio, or nuclear attack to "justify" military action ?
A intelligent person,9/11 has not been tied to Iraq.
posted on March 12, 2003 03:26:14 PM new
junquemama - BUT, there have been A-Q spotted in Iraq. One was even there for a surgery. And if you think for one minute that Saddam would have any problem at all selling bio/chem weapons to them, then you're not thinking very clearly.
posted on March 12, 2003 04:24:10 PM new
None of these countries, including Iraq, is going to admit they support al Qaeda or provide easy evidence, it would assure their destruction. Look what happened to the Taliban.
al Qaeda is in Iraq and Iran. There are a number of countries that will harbor, supply, and support the terrorists, provided the terrorists do not let it be publicly known about the association.
posted on March 12, 2003 05:43:17 PM new
I can't believe how stupid some people can be.
Just because there isn't evidence to support it, doesn't make it true.
Unless you want me to report you to the CIA as a terrotist. No evidence...it must be true!
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both boldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar
posted on March 12, 2003 11:05:07 PM new
Al Qaeda were/are in the US too. They have regular jobs, go to the dentist, and make friends. Did we support, and harbor them?
I would rather have all the nations that are against us on this war, with us on the hunt for terrorists. I'm embarrassed and ashamed that day by day we lose our credibility. You know power isn't only measured in who has the biggest gun.
posted on March 13, 2003 02:44:32 AM new
It's pure conjecture to claim any unproven connection. The bush administration itself relies on that fact when it uses taxpayer funds to subsidize US arms makers and exporters who selll weapons to terrorist organizations.
Saying so over and over don't make it so, nor does a report on fox news make it so.
If there were solid proof why would bush, blair, and powell resort to fabricated evidence to support their false claims?
posted on March 13, 2003 04:56:41 AM new
"Byrd Basics:
First elected to the Senate in 1958
Born: Nov. 20, 1917
Almost 86 and senile as hell...but good orator... which is too bad he had to do something like this.
Even more reason that term limits should be put into effect... "
The post of an ignorant coward.
Byrd's comment was well though out and very intelligent. Whether you agree or disagree with him he deserves respect when being discussed.
The fact that he is 86 shows that he has seen life during wartime and experianced much more than the toad that wrote the quote above. The fact that he has served his country for this long says that he also deserves respect.
I may not respect or admire George Bush, but I do have respect for the office of the President of the United States.
If you are anyone disagrees with Mr. Byrd then challenge the ideas.
Challenge the comment.
To make insults is simply a sign of your ignorance and cowardice.
posted on March 13, 2003 05:14:30 AM newWhether you agree or disagree with him he deserves respect when being discussed.
Oh really? Does that same call for respect apply to all those who make the hate filled comments about the President of the US? Didn't see you telling them that calling ANY president of the US a Nazi wasn't right...to just disagree with his policies. Works both ways.
posted on March 13, 2003 06:09:04 AM new
Gee Canvid, how many relatives do you have in West Virginia that have had to be under his "leadership" for the last few years? Or better yet how long have you lived in West Virginia?
Why not do a look up on twelve pole and see what you find...
I stand by my words, yes he was a great orator but now senility is starting to set in...
Term limits would be the best thing we could ever do for this country... just like the President only 2 terms allowed and then you move on...
posted on March 13, 2003 02:14:49 PM new
Anyone that would quote Byrd is an Imbecile.
The man is a joke, Former Klansmen, Fought Civil rights, maybe the biggest pork barrel mover in history and has had his feet in his mouth more then on the ground.
I was going to edit the word imbecile out but I can't find a better word.
If I'm going to quote someone. It will be someone with a little dignity, somebody with a bit of honor.
Many of you ranters just grab a headline that fits your agenda at the moment. It could be Byrd, Marx or Joe Pine (wish he was still alive today). If it's something that Seems to jive with your motives.."That's your man" (or women).
Next time check out their stance on all the issues.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
