Posted by Ev (22.214.171.124) on March 12, 2003 at 21:41:06:
In Reply to: Re: UN efficacy posted by 5 (126.96.36.199) on March 12, 2003 at 13:26:06:
5, you make many points in your reply that I believe are erroneous.
You seem to have bought into this idea that the US and its allies are ‘rushing’ into war. Let’s see, there’s really nothing new or more effective to tell you than what has already been pointed out time and time again. I ‘has’ been 12 years since Iraq was defeated in war and entered into a ceasefire agreement. This agreement ‘did’ have provisions that the Iraqis would have to comply with, or face “serious consequences”. The Iraqis ‘have’ failed to live up to any of the provisions of the ceasefire. The UN ‘has’ passed an additional 16 resolutions over this 12 year period in an effort to force Iraqi compliance. It ‘has’ been several months since Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by the Security Council. Resolution 1441 ‘did’ call for Iraq to make “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; “. If Iraq failed to make this prescribed complete and truthful declaration they ‘were’, under 1441, to be found in further material breach.
Well, did the Iraqis live up to any part of Paragraph 3 of Resolution 1441? They’ve had plenty of time. Actually, time was never the problem. The problem all along has been that Saddam has no intention of disarming in the manner prescribed in 1441. Not 12 years ago, not today, and not in the foreseeable future. To believe otherwise, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, is to chase a pipe dream. I believe this is the road the true pacifists have chosen.
I don’t believe that countries like France, Russia, China, and Germany are fooled as the pacifists are. These countries have a whole different set of reasons for not backing forced Iraqi compliance. They won’t favor forced compliance a week from now, a month from now, or a year from now. They have their own interests in the region and these interests are not best accommodated by military action. For them it’s not about weapons of mass destruction. For them it has nothing to do with liberating an Iraqi population that is in desperate need. For them it’s truly about the oil and trade agreements they brokered with Saddam. Their main fear is that the government replacing Saddam will not allow them sufficient room at the table. It’s also about their earnest desire to ‘rein in’ the US and fetter its military power. This is the truth of the matter.
These countries, and those who support their position, are well aware that the US cannot leave its troops and weaponry in place indefinitely. There are many reasons that this is true. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to quickly realize that there’s a staggering cost in dollars and troop morale associated with leaving our forces lingering in the region. There’s also the problem of ‘force protection’ associated with leaving these troops in a vulnerable situation. I’ve noticed that these aren’t French, German, or Russian troops we’re choosing to leave exposed. For that matter, we’d be hard pressed to find a Canadians contingent, either. Would you be fine with leaving Canadian troops in a vulnerable situation any longer that was absolutely necessary? [I’m assuming that you’ll answer no, but I’ve learned not to rule anything out.] We don’t want to leave ours there any longer than necessary either. If it were the French, German, Russian, Canadian, and Chinese troops who were sitting in the middle of the desert exposed to possible WMD attack we, the US and our allies, might be a bit more amenable to slow-rolling the negotiations. I think I’ve made the point as to why the US and Britain want action taken quickly.
Btw, do you think there’s a chance in hell that those inspectors would be back in Iraq without the ‘credible’ use of force bringing about Iraqi compliance? And by ‘credible’ I exempt the use of UN forces.
5, this one point has gotten quite lengthy and I’d really like to know your thoughts on ‘rushing to war’ before going further. Well?
> OK that's two mistakes the UN made. But I ask you who would have even went to try to resolve those issues if the UN hadn't?
> Here's a quote from www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/speeches/21-feb-02_e.asp
> "We were also kept busy in the past year on missions around the globe with our UN and NATO allies. Last year, our troops returned from successful UN missions in East Timor, in Ethiopia and Eritrea and in the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. At the same time we are maintaining a significant presence in Bosnia, working with our NATO allies to ensure a secure environment for the local population."
> I think the Bosnian peace keeping mission didn't go so well. But once again without the UN who would have fixed the problem America, Canada, Britain. Who? No one. And with out the UN no one would have went to East Timor, Ethiopia, Eritrea, or the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia.
> For every problem where you UN made things worse, where a problem would have resolved itself or some other nation would have come in to fix a problem. There are at least three examples where the UN helped solve a problem or at least was the only group who were willing to go in and try.
Post a Followup