Somebody watching the UN report ?

KaRl

You're right, it seems nothing will stop the incoming war. You should perhaps begin sealing now, IMHO it may start in the next hours :|

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: For the moment, Peace leads 3-0 vs War. (Syria, France, Chile) Well, everyone knew Syria and France would come down against war. It wasn't as clear which side Chile would take. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

KaRl

Brit wrote: It wasn't as clear which side Chile would take. I was very surprised too. Is it the end of the monroe doctrin? :rolleyes:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Ed Gadziemski

It's interesting that Spain is supporting the U.S. I guess they've forgiven us for that little misunderstanding in 1898.

Brit

KaЯl wrote: Is it the end of the monroe doctrin? The end? I thought it was gone a long, long time ago. The existence of a Russian-communist backed Cuba is probably the best example. Besides I don't quite understand how the vote of Chile is related to the issue of "europeans pushing influence in the New World" (unless you're saying that Chile was pressured into its decision). ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

JoeSox

KaЯl wrote: it seems nothing will stop the incoming war. I thought this last night but today's UN meeting gave me hope. "...'France threw up an obstacle to U.S. plans by proposing another ministerial meeting of the council on March 14, after the best time for an invasion from the military point of view. ...Now we will retire back to our capitals, talk to our heads of state and government and decide what next steps are appropriate," Powell told reporters. ...We often have strong disagreements. You do it with respect and with the understanding that we will find a way forward. None of this is personal. We are trying to get to the right answer and often this produces fireworks,' he said. In Washington, Bush said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) "will be disarmed one way or the other." He did not rule out a second U.N. resolution, which could authorize a U.S. attack. But the White House said Bush remained optimistic that Iraq would heed international calls to disarm, averting the need for the United States to lead an invasion. " http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030214/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc[^] :-D Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com

Load my Sig here.....

Brit

But, that's not the whole story. As Iraqi defector has said that the scientists are being intimidated by Iraq. The UNs own people have reported one case where a scientist was so nervous talking to inspectors that he didn't stop shaking for an hour. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_scientists030210.html[^] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/Iraq_scientists030210_Q&A.html[^] Interviews with Iraqi scientists: there have been three private interviews (one of the interviewees was a minder for other Iraqi scientists, so he is probably trusted by the Iraqis not to say anything). There have been no private interviews since those initial three. It smacks a little bit of tokenism - we'll give you those private interviews (but only with a handful of people that we trust). Iraqi defectors have talked about mobile weapons factories. While I'm generally skeptical of such reports, there have apparently been reports from four different Iraqis about their existence. The inspectors are simply unlikely to find much if Saddam has taken adequate precautions and as long as Saddam can intimidate Iraqi scientists into not talking (which he apparently is doing). So the end result is this: the US/Britain can dismiss reports that we haven't found any WMD simply as "we haven't found any". But, the French and the Germans have a lot harder time explaining why Iraqi scientists are scared to death and why Saddam is intimidating them. Your failure to even present the US/British case in any reasonable manner is simply a case of disparaging any arguement which is in opposition to what you have already decided. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

Kant

Brit wrote: Your failure to even present the US/British case in any reasonable manner is simply a case of disparaging any arguement which is in opposition to what you have already decided. My point of view : War is the last option. :rose: I agree Saddam is evil. But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. After 12 years Iraq is cooperating (of course not 100%) with the inspectors. I agree they are cooperationg only when the threat of war is at them. What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Follow live World Cup Cricket scores here[^]

Brit

I can agree with waiting a few months, but there are some complications: I have to wonder if Saddam is always giving just enough that UN opinion will be split, but not enough to actually disarm. Further, even if harder evidence does appear, there may never be a resolution (the UN couldn't get a resolution on the Balkans because Russia always vetoed it). However, even if a UN resolution is forever out of reach, it is still useful to get more hard evidence and gather more allies. If inspections continue, I feel that Iraq will slowly sneak out of them. I will do the same things it did before e.g. declare presidential palaces off-limits. It will take small enough steps towards the erosion of inspector's usefulness that no single step justifies military action. IMO, it's already begun the buildup towards that strategy - for example, it talks about how the ordinary Iraqis are "angry about inspections". This is simply part of the political game which, in a few months or a year, will be used to justify Iraq's gradual withdrawl from inspections. Saddam will then say that he is following the will of his people or some such nonsense. So, yes, and no. There is a great deal of political gaming going on. Saddam's cooperation seems to be proportional to the threat of war. (And his cooperation will subsequently decrease as war-talk subsides.) Considering that the US is closer to war with Iraq right now that at any time in the last twelve years, it's not surprising that Saddam is so cooperative. That's both good (that we have such a good opportunity right now) and bad (because it will inevitably end). Certainly, Iraq is not going to accept inspections forever. I have to wonder what will happen then, too. Kant wrote: If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. I don't think the UN (or legal rules of engagement) stops anyone from attacking anyone. It's the political fallout and possibility of counterstrikes that prevent war in those regions. India and Pakistan are restrained by fear of each other's nuclear weapons (not by the UN). China is restrained from invading Taiwan by fear of US intervention, US economic ties (the US is China's largest importer), and world opinion (not the UN). And North Korea is held in check by the South Korean military and the mutual defense pact that South Korea has with the US. ----

KaRl

Brit wrote: "europeans pushing influence in the New World" I don't think it happens either, but it probably the first time Chile doesn't strictly follow US since 1973. I'm happilly surprized of this independance, but don't think Chile is specifically following Germany and France. Brit wrote: unless you're saying that Chile was pressured into its decision I suppose Chile was pressured by both sides, I've no illusion.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Sometimes I wonder if France and US are not playing the good cop and the bad cop, the police usual tactic. JoeSox wrote: But the White House said Bush remained optimistic that Iraq would heed international calls to disarm, averting the need for the United States to lead an invasion. :cool:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Brit

KaЯl wrote: I don't think it happens either, but it probably the first time Chile doesn't strictly follow US since 1973. Really? I haven't really paid much attention to what Chile does. I guess I figured they would still be angry over that whole 'Pinochet incident', so it surprises me that, as you say, Chile has strictly followed the US since 1973. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

David Wulff

Kant wrote: If that happens, UN will be in shambles If that happens, the World will be in shambles.

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

JoeSox

KaЯl wrote: Sometimes I wonder if France and US are not playing the good cop and the bad cop, the police usual tactic. Very awesome point:omg: French intel. is supposed to be the best in the world right? The USA and French has always been allies. hhhmmmmm. This makes me feel even better!!:-D Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com

Load my Sig here.....

David Wulff

Just out of curiosity - and keep it confined to this one aspect, ingoring any relation with Iraq if needs be - what makes you give *any* credibility to a defector? They ran for a reason. I sure as hell wouldn't give them any unless they could back it up with hard proof, and any proof should be treated with extreme caution because they are first and foremost out for number one. What do you think? :~

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

Brit

Well, defectors are certainly of questionable credibility. The few instances that I mentioned (i.e. mobile weapons) had four confirmations (hopefully, these confirmations occured BEFORE the US mentioned the idea otherwise they're pretty worthless). The other one regarding intimidation of Iraqi scientists by Iraq seemed to be confirmed by the UN when one of Iraq's scientists was so nervous that he was shaking for an hour. So, I'm always looking for ways to confirm what defectors said - that goes for all defectors in general: look for confirmation from other sources, look for outside evidence which supports or disproves the allegations, see if they know what they're talking about (i.e. if someone claims to be an Iraqi biological weapons scientist, see how much they actually know about biology and biological weapons), etc. ------------------------------------------ I used to really like alf, but I dislike him now, He sold out. F***ing puppets......

KaRl

JoeSox wrote: French intel. is supposed to be the best in the world right? I thought it was the british one, till the "exquisitely detailed" dossier on Iraq :-D

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael A Barnhart

Kant wrote: My point of view : War is the last option. I think most do agree with that opinion. What is at issue is when do you decide all other options are gone. Kant wrote: But UN Inspectors are working and producing the results too. To what degree? My personal opinion of all of the info I have seen the most credible evidence to justify war has come from what I read in the report. I have heard more than one inspector comment that they will not find what Iraq wishes to hide from them and that Iraq is only complying with the process not the intent. So what I hear from the inspectors is why spend the time. Now the answer to that is of course have we really used all of the options available. Kant wrote: I agree they are cooperation only when the threat of war is at them. And they are only agreeing to the process not the spirit. This lead me to question is this just a game to continue doing what they want. Lets see how far we can be disobedient. Take the missiles, yes just a little beyond the limits but is that a big deal. I say it show a deliberate attempt to not obey and test how far can they away with it. Kant wrote: What boggles my mind is what's harm in waiting few more months? On one hand nothing. On the other the "Allied Nations" can not keep their forces poised forever. Saddam appears to only be reacting to an imminent threat. Disarm it and see if the world has the resolve to come back. Kant wrote: Let the UN approve the war, instead of going solo. My number one frustration. IMO Legally the UN did approve in 1441. If France did not agree they should not have then. I wish I had a clear understanding of what and when France thinks action is justified. I do not. I can not accept an endless cycle of lets evaluate it again next month. I also agree doing it solo (or with just a few such as with the UK) would be a disaster. Kant wrote: If US/UK attack Iraq without UN approval, What if in the future other countries do the same? (Ex: India attacking Pakistan , China invading Taiwan, North Korea.....) If that happens, UN will be in shambles. Agree strongly. What I fear is the UN is close to being a shambles now. It needs to be a forum where each side can be very honest about what it feels (like it or not) and not so much as a diplomatic play ground. Until it is very clear what is important to each side you