On the brink of war

[Crusher]

So, although there have been claims of classified intelligence showing Iraq currently has WMD, that hard evidence has not been made available to the public. Fair enough, since that might compromise the invasion... But, at some point during the war, the coalition had best uncover those WMD -- otherwise, there will be a real loss of credibility. And if there are substantial civilian casualties as well, the world community will be outraged.

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the one hand, you have a ruthless dictator, who has usurped his country's finances and waged war on neighboring countries for territorial and religious reasons, and has not provided overwhelming evidence or records that he has complied with the agreement set for him over a decade ago.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

 

[Vince]

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

From what I heard last night, the command of the Basra region (eg. South Iraq) was given to a man named Ali Hassan al-Majid. He's a cousin of Saddam's whose better known by the name Chemical Ali for his orders to use Chemical munitions against the Kurds. Appearently, he's one of the best Iraq generals at using Chemical weapons and did so sucessfully in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[Silent_One]

'Chemical Ali' ready to kill Iraqi civilians
http://www.americasnewspaper.com/left.shtml

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is planning attacks on his own people in the event of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and his top operative, a general nicknamed "Chemical Ali," has been put in charge of southern Iraq to quell any civilian uprisings, U.S. officials say.
........ A U.S. military official said that at least two Republican Guard divisions are believed to be armed at this moment with chemical artillery shells.
The belief among military planners is that Saddam has nothing to lose in unleashing weapons of mass destruction, as the goal of the coalition troops is to capture or kill him and oust his hard-line Ba'ath party regime.
A sign that Saddam is serious about attacking civilians comes in reports from inside Iraq that Gen. Ali Hassan al Majid, or "Chemical Ali," has been placed in charge of military activities in southern Iraq.
Considered a war criminal by human rights groups, Majid commanded the 1988 chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds.
He also oversaw the brutal occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and 1991. After the 1991 war, he commanded the Republican Guard divisions that brutally put down a rebellion by Shi'ites in Iraq's southern marshlands.
"He is a senior adviser to Saddam. He is known as an enforcer for the regime," said a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named. "He is used to put down uprisings and maintain order."

 

[PurplePigeon]

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the one hand, you have a ruthless dictator, who has usurped his country's finances and waged war on neighboring countries for territorial and religious reasons, and has not provided overwhelming evidence or records that he has complied with the agreement set for him over a decade ago.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Actually it's two elected leaders

As far as it betting a matter of who you believe... Well, I too tend to believe the latter, but that is tempered by the realization that elected officials are still prone to: (1) deception (or the milder variant, 'spin'), (2) poor judgement. That belief has to be justified at some point by producing concrete evidence that the war is necessary when all is said and done.

I disagree with the comment that the elected leaders "have everything to lose." Actually, the stakes seem much higher for Saddam Hussein -- ie. death. For Bush and Blair, I think the worst that could happen is that their political career would go down the tubes and history would think poorly of them.

In a way, I would be more assured of the correctness of the decision to go to war if the stakes were higher for the elected representatives in some way, as a type of "checks and balances" approach. ie. if Iraq's capabilities were severly overestimated and additionally many innocent people died, some higher level of accountability is required (maybe something along the lines of the international criminal court).

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

They would, if there's hard evidence. Intelligence information might suggest that, and it may well be true... But until those missiles are captured or used, those reports don't count as evidence to me.

 

[pascal]

More negative reactions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867913.stm

Blix criticises US 'impatience'

Many inspectors felt their missions was prematurely ended
Former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has expressed regret over US "impatience" to go to war with Iraq - and suggested Washington had little interest in peaceful disarmament from the outset.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2867027.stm

"If we install the rule of force in place of international security structures, no country in the world will feel secure," Mr Putin said.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the military operation violated the principles of international law.

"They ignored the opposition of most countries and peoples of the world and went around the UN Security Council to being military action against Iraq," he added.

The Vatican said it was "deeply pained" by the conflict and deplored the interruption of peace efforts.

Now everybody will blame US if anything goes wrong. IMHO it was not smart going without UN consensus.

 

[pascal]

More on Putin:

Putin Demands Swift End to War With Iraq

Thursday March 20, 2003 11:50 AM


MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded Thursday that the United States quickly end its attack on Iraq, and said the use of military force against Saddam Hussein was not justified.

Russia, along with France and Germany, opposed any resolution in the U.N. Security Council that would have sanctioned the use of force. President Bush withdrew the resolution on Monday.

``Russia demands the swiftest end to military action,'' Putin said at the start of a meeting with top officials. ``The military action against Iraq is a big political mistake.''

Putin reiterated his belief that military action wasn't necessary to determine if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and if so, to disarm Saddam Hussein.

``The military action in Iraq is being conducted in spite of world opinion, in spite of the principles and norms of international law and the U.N. Charter,'' Putin said. ``This military action cannot be justified.''

Putin said the U.N. Security Council should quickly address the crisis. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of military action in recent days, after weeks of silence while diplomats at the United Nations wrestled over the standoff.

``If we allow international law to be replaced by the right of might ... then one of the main principles of international law, the principle of the inviolability of the sovereignty of states, will be thrown into question,'' he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2494683,00.html

 

[chavvdarrr]

I am fairly confident they will. It basically boils down to who you believe.

On the other hand, you have the elected leader of a free country, who is making a fixed salary from doing his job, and has intelligence from one of the best government agencies in the world backing him, who is waging war in order to protect his own country in response to terrorist attacks brought upon it, and has everything to lose by doing so if he isn't right in his position.

Elected?? by whom? by Kondoleesa, or his brother? Is there someone who believes that US people are so dumb that they can't count BY HAND ?
Waging war to protect his country??? sheeeesh that's good. I never know Iraq was attacking USA. When ? Or maybe you can show evidense ?
Everything to lose? What can he lose? USA pretend to be ABOVE the law. So much above that NOT ANY AMERICAN SOLDIER, NEVER to be put on trial i in other country. WHATEVER he did. Perhaps being US citizen means USman is a BETTER man? Another , better race?
How long before deciding to clear inferior people off the face of the planet? After all USA have the biggest chem arsenal in the world. All these war-facilities need to work, to make "goods", money. And besides money don't smell. Even oil money don't smell. Can you believe that wasn't discovered by USA ??? Can you believe this war is for "rights" not for the oil?
If you do believe then you're brainwashed. Letting others to decide what's good/bad/moral is easy. Thinking with your head is hard. Yet that's what makes a man different from the monkey.

I would tend to believe the latter, no matter how much you may hate his speaking abilities.

Also, as far as the reports not being made to the public, I've heard numerous reports that missles loaded with VX have been moved into southern Iraq. Those still count as weapons of mass destruction, don't they?

Nope. You can believe in Church, in God. Believing in politic, whatever is his name is STUPID. Even if his name is Bush 2nd. Or Putin, Saddam, Blair, Hitler, Stalin.

So Iraq perhaps has "mass destruction" weapons. Are you saying that USA, UK, Russia, China, etc DON'T HAVE ? The stronger can have, the smaller can't ? See above. 70 years ago there were people who believed in this. more than 50 mln paid the prize.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Putin said the U.N. Security Council should quickly address the crisis. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of military action in recent days, after weeks of silence while diplomats at the United Nations wrestled over the standoff.

Perhaps Putin will author a new UN resolution demanding the U.S. cease action or face "serious consequences."

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Elected?? by whom?

The people of the United Sates.

Is there someone who believes that US people are so dumb that they can't count BY HAND ?

Hmmm...perhaps the same people who believes the US people are so dumb that they would punch the wrong hole in a ballot?

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.

Waging war to protect his country??? sheeeesh that's good.

Yup. Good indeed.

I never know Iraq was attacking USA.

That's because they aren't. That's not why we're going to war, nor was it EVER the reason stated for going to war. I thought that was perfectly clear?

Everything to lose? What can he lose?

Reelection which is what motivates shallow people into taking courses of action....they fear not getting re-elected so they take the popular position, rather than what they feel is the right position.

USA pretend to be ABOVE the law.

No, we prefer to enforce a law agreed to unanimously by the UN security council.

Perhaps being US citizen means USman is a BETTER man? Another , better race?

Nope. Not at all.

How long before deciding to clear inferior people off the face of the planet?

Inferior people, or oppressive regimes that are a threat to us, and in material breach of unanimously approved resolutions.

After all USA have the biggest chem arsenal in the world.

And like Sadam, we've demonstrated such wreckless use of them as well, right? And every nation in the world as agreed that the U.S. , like Iraq, should not posess or develop them, right?

but I guess the nations of the world supporting 1441 did so just because they felt they were a superior race compared to the Iraqis...is that it?

All these war-facilities need to work, to make "goods", money. And besides money don't smell. Even oil money don't smell. Can you believe that wasn't discovered by USA ??? Can you believe this war is for "rights" not for the oil?

Yes, I can. Can you believe this war is to disarm Iraq and not for oil?

If you do believe then you're brainwashed.

Thanks for letting me know.

Letting others to decide what's good/bad/moral is easy.

Absolutely. Deciding for yourself what is good/bad/moral is what should be done, after consdering all the information and arguments on the issue.

Thinking with your head is hard.

Yes, and so is doing the morally right thing, particularly in the face of opposition. It's so much easier to give in to pressure and not do what you feel is right.

So Iraq perhaps has "mass destruction" weapons. Are you saying that USA, UK, Russia, China, etc DON'T HAVE ?

No, whatever gave you that idea?

The stronger can have, the smaller can't ?

No, the more responsible can, the less responsible can't. The ones who were so irresponsible that the UN drafted a resolution PRHOBITING them from having them can't.

 

[Silent_One]

I found this a little bit interesting for those who like to talk of nations for and against this action-http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm

"Coalition of the Willing" Already Larger than the 1991 Gulf War coalition"

To date, there are 42 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

 

[Heathen]

Perhaps Putin will author a new UN resolution demanding the U.S. cease action or face "serious consequences."

He can try except that the US and UK would use their veto the second he opened his gob, of course he could get together with France and Germany and decalre 'an axis of countries that while not evil are generally disagreeable' to conduct military action. Hmm, us (UK & US) vs them. Well I'd know who I'd back looking at their track record in wars.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

He can try except that the US and UK would use their veto the second he opened his gob,

Heh...what would be funny and pointed actually, is if such a resoltion were drafted, and the US/UK did sign it! Then leave it up to the UN to implement the "serious consequences."

 

[chavvdarrr]

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.

Personally I don't care WHO is president of USA. All nations deserve people who rule them - democracy right? However, watching from distance, last elections were a fars. IMHO. And I do care if man who have so much power in his hands can keep it under control - there was an old song "when a man with the power can't keep it under control... some heads are gonna roll" - that's what I'm afraid.

Reelection which is what motivates shallow people into taking courses of action....they fear not getting re-elected so they take the popular position, rather than what they feel is the right position.

Hey, loosing reelection.... how about to compare with loosing his life?

No, we prefer to enforce a law agreed to unanimously by the UN security council..........

Inferior people, or oppressive regimes that are a threat to us, and in material breach of unanimously approved resolutions

1st there is no resolution for war.
2nd You do think THERE ARE inferior people? Who decides who good who's bad? CIA?
3rd 1441 has nothing to do with war.
4th Which oppresive regimes? Do you make difference between "oppressive regimes that are threat to us" and "oppressive regimes that are not threat to us" ? What about Israel (possesing nukes and killing palestinians), what about Saudi Arabia (hardly a democracy), Turkey (20% of their 50mln are kurds, and saying "I'm a kurd" is a crime) etc, etc.
Back in 80's Saddam was "good". In 90s, talibans were "good" . He who seeds wind, will harvest storms....

Yes, I can. Can you believe this war is to disarm Iraq and not for oil?

No. Sorry, but I can't. Yes, Iraq will be disarmed. But that is NOT the primary motive. That's a lame excuse, for US citizens.

Thanks for letting me know. (brainwashed)

Sorry. But I think you're not stupid.

Absolutely. Deciding for yourself what is good/bad/moral is what should be done, after consdering all the information and arguments on the issue. Yes, and so is doing the morally right thing, particularly in the face of opposition. It's so much easier to give in to pressure and not do what you feel is right.

(Y)

 

[chavvdarrr]

nations supporting...

Which nations? Albania, Macedonia, etc. etc
They "support" because that's what suppose to be "safe". No one wants to be next target. And many of these are simply "bought" - with promises for investment, for taking part of "after-war dining table", money (for those who want money)
Bother to see how big is support from simple people in these countries?
2% where I live. But we "support". Who needs such support?
Obviously - CNN. After all winners write the history. 42 nations. More than in 1991. Pheewwwwww. How great!

 

[DemoCoder]

I can see you're another disgruntled liberal who just can't "accept" the fact that Bush won the election. Please, just get over the shock of it all and move on.

Personally I don't care WHO is president of USA. All nations deserve people who rule them - democracy right? However, watching from distance, last elections were a fars. IMHO. And I do care if man who have so much power in his hands can keep it under control - there was an old song "when a man with the power can't keep it under control... some heads are gonna roll" - that's what I'm afraid.

Well, maybe you should learn a bit more about the American electoral process before you open your mouth.

#1 The US president is elected by the electoral college, not by the popular vote
#2 Bush won the electoral college by a statistically insignificant amount
#3 Gore won the popular vote, by a statistically insignificant amount

Conclusion: The election was a wash, because there was no clear majority. Every voting system has an error rate, and there are always the people who didn't get to vote because they got caught in a traffic jam, when the margin comes down to less than 1/2% of 100 million people, I simply do not care which one "got more" under either the popular vote, or the electoral college system.

But it is disingenous to say that Bush "stole" the election. He was elected, by roughly 1/2 of the people. Gore was also elected, by roughly 1/2 the people. Both had statistically equal numbers of people behind them, and in such a situation, you may as well flip a coin, and choose one. Instead of "flipping a coin", Bush won on a technicality. He is the legitimate president of the US, elected by the people.

To here Europeans tell it, Bush had no popular support, was a minority candidate, and won by a coup d'etat. They simply don't understand that something truly amazing happened: Americans were almost evenly divided.

Let's say that after a full and complete tally, Bush wins by 1 popular vote. Do you really think this means Bush actually "won" in any real sense? How many people tried to vote that day, but were disenfranchised because of circumstances beyond their control? Do you really think any election this close can truly represent the will of the people?

In most elections, one president soundly beats the other, in both the electoral college and the popular vote, and there is absolutely no ambiguity in the result. Even if you through away 5% of the figures to "error" or "accidental disenfranchisement", usually one candidate wins by a large margin.

The 2000 elections were a dead heat, a bizarre occurance.

The worse you can say about the 2000 elections is that Americans couldn't decide who to elect, and Bush merely won by default on a legal technicality.

But to take moral outtrage and claim a "stolen" election is ridiculous. Gore wouldn't have been any more legitimate. 50% of the country would have simply thought that Gore stole the election.

 

[Gubbi]

What puzzles most europeans is that Gore got half million more votes than Bush, yet still did not become president. This doesn't harmonize well with most peoples notion of democracy

The fact that is was due to some technicality in the U.S. voting system doesn't change that.

Most other countries use a system of electorates but with compensation electorates for the individual error (vote remainders)

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[DemoCoder]

In voting theory, it is well known that every voting system has flaws that can cause bizarre outcomes that do not reflect the popular will, or balance of power. Choosing between each one, simply depends on which bad outcomes you are willing to accept. e.g. "run off" systems have their own "bizarre-once-in-a-lifetime" circumstances that can come up.

The US founders were deeply mistrustful of the masses. They also needed to balance the powers of the states. So they designed a system to prevent the popular election of dictators, and they designed a system that forces presidents to cater to the interests of minority states as well.

I am not saying the electoral college is the best system possible, nor is the Senate. However, it was very successful in creating a strong union of states, something the EU is struggling with now.

You have to remember that we didn't even elect Senators in the beginning (not until 1913). You voted for your local state governor and legislature, they they appointed Senators to the Senate, almost as a sort of ambassador to Washington, since before the Civil War, states had way more autonomy.

It would help Europeans if they stopped viewing the US as the modern centralized nation state it is today, and look at the US from a historical perspective, as it was a collection of states that formed a strong union, just like the EU. The constitution, as setup for the original states, hasn't changed much since then. (rightfully, it was intentionally made difficult to alter, so that rights could not easily be taken away)

The Electoral College system is the last line of defense against electing a Hitler. It is possible for some states to use a "faithless elector" to "dissent" against the popular mass vote of the US, and essentially "veto" the choice of the people, if the election is close. It may seem like it would never have to be used, and it may seem unfair, but the majority if not always right.


What I like about the US system is it has so many levels of indirection, that it prevents radicalism, and allows balances to be checked at many levels. It splinters up power and puts it in opposition against itself. Grid-lock is built in. I prefer slow, deliberative bodies, that take a long time to do something, and only after there is overwhelming consensus.

Thus, not only does the current whim of the people, the popular vote, have to be in place, but past whims of the people, electors, governors, senators, judges, also have to agree. This means people cannot change their minds too quickly, too radically, because any current political fad is held in check by judges, senators, and governors who were put into place years before. Progressive change requires popular agreement not just among *current people*, but also has to be in agreement of those a few years ago.

Now, the executive branch is a different matter. Theoretically, the executive branch should be held in check by Congress when declaring war, thus, it should be more deliberative. Moreover, the judicial branch could judge whether or not the legal basis for a particular action is consistent with constitutional law. Unfortunaltely, since WW2, the checks and balances against the hoops the executive branch has to go thru in order to declare war has been watered down.

In other areas, the executive branch is fairly restricted (e.g. spending authorization). But ironically, while the president's can unilaterally declare new spending, he can unilaterally carry out foreign wars (not convert missions, which are a different matter)

I don't like the way European states don't need super-majorities to enact radical changes, the way coalitions can form and alter the direction of the government almost instantly, e.g. how radical greens, being a minority, can actually wield much power. Basically, I don't like any political structure that accelerates political change, rather than attempt to slow it down and make it more deliberative. I especially don't like structures that give radicals a powerful voice, instead of forcing them to make their views become the mainstream view, before they can wield such power.

 

[Gubbi]

The only thing that requires large majorities to change something in my country (Denmark) is "grundloven" which is equivalent to your constitution, changes has to get two thirds majority. I would expect something similar in the U.S.

As for multi-party governments vs. two party states: I guess it is a matter of taste. I prefer the former because I believe it represents the popular vote better (especially in broad coalitions).

Both systems has potential negatives. Italy is the scary example of multiparty governments gone wrong, with umpteen different governments in the past 40 years. Two party systems can get majority "tyranny" when the two parties has widely varying views on issues, but almost the same popular vote.

Cheers
Gubbi