quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Really , the Hans Blix speech confirmed one thing. More time should be given to the UN to finish what they have to do

really? and what do they have to do? i was under the impression the inspectors were there to find out if iraq was cooperating immediately, actively, and unconditional. do you need more time to check if this cooperation exsists? i think the three months have been plenty for the world to come to a desicion on that and act accordingly.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy really? and what do they have to do? i was under the impression the inspectors were there to find out if iraq was cooperating immediately, actively, and unconditional. do you need more time to check if this cooperation exsists? i think the three months have been plenty for the world to come to a desicion on that and act accordingly.

First of all, there was some accomplishment, since the inspectors went to places where the Iraquies didnt know that it was planned for the UN to go to. It was actually substantial evidence, until now that they really dont have any dangerous weapon. A war is not a game. Sooner or later, Saddams bombs will be found, if theres any.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Just having a thought, if the UN resolution is breached, what business does the US have with that anyway? It should be the UN and not the US that insures the resolutions are not breached, no?

Cuz the UN is composed of a bunch of pansies that would finally take action on something when hell freezes over. Cmon even you have to admit it's an incompetant administration. To be honest I can't remember one successful thing the UN has done. They failed in Bosnia, they failed in Somalia, they failed in Rwanda ... do you really expect them to succeed now?

I think the Blix report was pretty much what everyone expected: that Iraqi co-operation is still not perfect, but that it is improving.

I thought that the French speech was brilliant, well deserving of the applause it registered. As I said in the other thread, Powell seemed beseiged and frustrated - and with good cause given that he had to speak after the Russians, the Chinese and the French (among others) who made it pretty clear that they are not likely to support military action for a while yet. He keeps on stressing that "time is running out" or that "Saddam Hussein has been given too many chances" but he fails to realise that that's merely his subjective summation. There is no objective clock ticking away which dictates that full and complete co-operation must be acheived by a certain date. There is no-one crossing off the predetermined chances that Saddam Hussein has had and squandered. Whether Iraq is disarmed quickly by military force or disarmed by a long and lengthy inspections process (it needn't be long though, given the increasing level of co-operation, Hans Blix seemed quite confident that disarmament could be quite swift) it makes little difference. Saddam Hussein is no threat to anybody. With the eyes of the international community. He is not about to launch an attack on Kuwait, Isreal and especially not the US. Time, it seems, is not an issue.

What is an issue, however, is the large difference in cost (in terms of both human life and money) between the two operations. Inspections cost tens of millions of dollars, and come without any cost of life. War costs tens of billions of dollars (not counting the $100 billion the UN has speculated it will cost to rebuild Iraq over a period of many years) and will takes hundereds of thousands of lives. Unless someone can show me the clock that Powell speaks of, I think our duty - as moral agents - is quite clear.

Nonetheless, I believe that the US will get its own way regardless of what the UN decrees. Still, I hope that the members of the UN security council remain principled and don't give this war the legitimacy it most certainly does not deserve merely to appease Bush and his puppet-masters. Given what Hans Blix has said with regards to the future of inspections - and given the resolute, "now is not the time" stance displayed by the French, Chinese and Russians (each of whom have veto power of course) - I can't see Bush's war getting the legitimacy it, when all is said and done, doesn't really require.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Cuz the UN is composed of a bunch of pansies that would finally take action on something when hell freezes over. Cmon even you have to admit it's an incompetant administration. To be honest I can't remember one successful thing the UN has done. They failed in Bosnia, they failed in Somalia, they failed in Rwanda ... do you really expect them to succeed now?

I agree that the UN is slow on its decisions, but you can't expect it to act as a single entity because it is composed of so many nations. However I still believe it is good to have an organization where nations can meet and discuss their problems and their opinions. Also I believe that it is good that the above organization can also act as an influence on most of those nations at least to some degree. Sure some actions would be taken sooner if there wasn't for the UN, but then who's to say if those actions were right, or if they were supported by the rest of the world? One single country doesn't have the right to decide if it is on a moral high ground compared to the other countries, and it definitely doesn't have a right to attack any other country unless attacked first. It's same thing like in a court. Sometimes a guy that's being on a trial is obviously guilty of a crime, but you still have to go to the procedure although you know he is guilty. It would be faster and less costly to kill him on the scene of a crime. But I think we all agree courts are necessary although they are slow, because without them many innocent people would die because their innocence is just based on a judgement of a person who first appeared on the scene. How often has it happened that someone has been killed without a proper trial only to find later that the person was innocent.

If there weren't for the UN, you'd have thousands of bilateral meetings between all the countries, which ends up being much more complicated and the end result is that much more would be hidden from the view of the public or other nations. Partial reason why the UN is so ineffective is that many great powers including the US are often trying to obstruct it and make it seem irrelevant when it suits their interests. Also UN doesn't have much of a military of its own, so it can at best talk some of its members into actively supporting its resolutions. But the UN is just a cover organization, it's not a world police, so you can't expect from it to act like one.

And while UN's engagement in many cases wasn't as successful as it should have been, it wasn't a total failure either. In Bosna, the UN did act, although not as good as it should, but its peacekeepers did help put an end to the fighting, and they did talk opposing sides into meeting.

___________________
1+1=10

I'm not sure when giving your enemy several months notice that you're going to attack became a good strategem. If Saddam Hussein has not accelerated his WOMD development/production by tenfold, he is a fool.

The longer we wait, the more people who will die on both sides. I guarentee it, because it is only to Iraq's advantage to have more time to plan, organize, and develop weapons. So why wait - so that we can pretend we're really interested in a "diplomatic solution," or perhaps in the naive hopes that some sort of "compliance" could be demonstrated?

The U.S. is not going to be satisfied unless Saddam Hussein proves he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Analyzed logically, you'll see that is a requirement that would be literally impossible to fulfill. So the realist accepts that war is going to happen. The realist, then, assuming he did not desire higher casualties, would find no meaningful purpose in the continued implementation of weapons inspections.

Whether or not you support the war, weapons inspections are a totally preposterous proposition with no function other than create a facade of diplomacy. "No blood for oil!" cry the anti-war activists. But when they support weapons inspections, they most certainly seem to be willing to trade blood for an empty hope.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure when giving your enemy several months notice that you're going to attack became a good strategem. If Saddam Hussein has not accelerated his WOMD development/production by tenfold, he is a fool. The longer we wait, the more people who will die on both sides. I guarentee it, because it is only to Iraq's advantage to have more time to plan, organize, and develop weapons. So why wait - so that we can pretend we're really interested in a "diplomatic solution," or perhaps in the naive hopes that some sort of "compliance" could be demonstrated? The U.S. is not going to be satisfied unless Saddam Hussein proves he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Analyzed logically, you'll see that is a requirement that would be literally impossible to fulfill. So the realist accepts that war is going to happen. The realist, then, assuming he did not desire higher casualties, would find no meaningful purpose in the continued implementation of weapons inspections. Whether or not you support the war, weapons inspections are a totally preposterous proposition with no function other than create a facade of diplomacy. "No blood for oil!" cry the anti-war activists. But when they support weapons inspections, they most certainly seem to be willing to trade blood for an empty hope.

What I found funny in your comment is that you said that Saddam has to prove that they dont have weapons. The real deal is that the US has to PROVE that, not Saddam, its not Saddam who started all this , it was not the US, but Bush's administration ( I dont want to genearilize, since majority of Americans want to attack with UN support)..As for the activist, you are probably getting the wrong point of view. If you heard Villepin's speach, I though it was brilliant, and thats what everyone will go for. As opposed to what Powell and Bush have said, its what actually causes all the movement against war... if you see, the majority of rallies are against the actions that Bush wants to take.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)