OT: Rolling protest
-
Jeferson
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Vancouver, Canada
Yes, let's have Bush respect the words ot the weapons inspectors if he's not in a rush to enter a war. It's been 12 years since the last one there ended. A bit more patience wouldn't hurt.
Quote after the weapons inspectors news conference on Friday (link to CNN site below). This guy , ElBaradei, is Blix'es cohort: "ElBaradei told CNN he would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs. He also said additional inspectors would enable him to freeze certain sites, conduct simultaneous inspections of various sites and monitor imports of certain materials.
He told the council that the inspections can succeed even without complete cooperation from Baghdad -- contradicting what U.S., British and other officials have said.
He said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said, adding that there are "a number of issues under investigation, and we're not in a position to reach a conclusion about them."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/index.html
Jef
Quote after the weapons inspectors news conference on Friday (link to CNN site below). This guy , ElBaradei, is Blix'es cohort: "ElBaradei told CNN he would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs. He also said additional inspectors would enable him to freeze certain sites, conduct simultaneous inspections of various sites and monitor imports of certain materials.
He told the council that the inspections can succeed even without complete cooperation from Baghdad -- contradicting what U.S., British and other officials have said.
He said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said, adding that there are "a number of issues under investigation, and we're not in a position to reach a conclusion about them."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/index.html
Jef
I was talking to a Quaker friend
last night, who said that it's
too bad the peace movement is
being led by Marxist-Leninist groups,
that Bush is being compared to
Hitler, people's motives
are being attacked, and so on.
He thinks the
peace movement has radically
diminished its strenght this way,
because there are strong principled
arguments against the war.
These actually depend upon
recognizing that there are
some arguments
for the war which deserve
a response other than abusing
the people who make them.
The principal argument for
the war has been presented
by Colin Powell. I think it might
be stated this way. World War II
happened largely because
Germany was allowed to rearm,
though the Treaty of Versailles
forbade it. The League of Nations,
England, France waffled, tried
to give peace a chance. If the
Treaty had been enforced, as
it easily could have been, WW II,
at least in Europe, wouldn't
have happened. Scores of millions
of people died needlessly as
a consequence.
The peace treaty with Iraq, after
the Persian Gulf war, which Iraq
agreed to, required Iraq to destroy
its weapons of mass destruction.
This was supposed to happen in
about a year and a half. The inspectors
were supposed to verify. Twelve
years later, it hasn't happened.
It wasn't until four years
after the inspections began
that a defector alerted the
inspectors the vast Iraqi efforts
to hide these awful weapons--
even at the bottom of rivers, etc.
When the inspectors left in
98, they testified that there
were large stores of biological
and chemical weapons Iraq had.
Iraq refuses to say what has
happened to that stuff, denying
it ever existed. Well, you know...
If treaties requiring belligerent
countries to disarm, and not rearm,
are worth the paper they're written
on, they must be enforceable, and
finally that means that military
force must be an option if nothing
else works. It's been 12 year,
it's time for Iraq to disarm,
not play cat and mouse, but
account for its weapons. If we
don't enforce such treaties sooner
or later, rogue nations will realize
that they can develop whatever they
want with impunity, and the world
is going to become a far more
dangerous and awful place.
The UN not only failed to
enforce the treaty between
91 and 98, Annan cut a deal with
Hussein excluding presidential
palaces from inspection--that
meant something like 28 square
miles of Iraq, plus whatever
Saddam has dug underneath them.
After that the UN began moving
to end sanctions entirely--leaving
Saddam with his weapons and
the treaty unenforced.
It is hardly foolish to
expect that the UN will now waffle
all over again. In this it resembles the
League of Nations during the
30s. Either the treaty will be enforced
soon or it probably will
never be enforced. Meanwhile
Saddam is feeding the inspectors
tidbits to play for time,
while refusing to account for
the large stores of weapons
the '98 inspectors testified
he had. The idea is to stall
and delay, to divide the UN,
until the momentum for enforcement
is weakened. He thinks at the
end he will keep what he's got
and be able to resume his
nuclear program. In this, he seems
to be succeeding.
An argument against war is that
we will kill maybe 10,000 Iraqi
civilians, and lots of soldiers,
which is awful and worth avoiding.
The counter-argument is that
more Iraqi's will die under the
incredibly ruthless Iraqi police
state, plus continuing sanctions,
and that the war will free the
Iraqi people. Salmon Rushdie has
argued vigorously that we should
invade Iraq out of simple compassion
for the Iraqis. Of course this
argument against disarming Iraq
by force could have been made
against disarming Hitler by force,
too.
I think the above is best argument
for war to be waged in the next
few weeks. I don't think it's a stupid
or mindless argument, and it seems to have
learned some of the lessons of the last
century. It deserves an intelligent
response--something better than
calling names the people who give it, questioning their motives, and so on.
I think what's going on now
is very much a judgement call. Personally
I feel sympathy for the people who
want peace and those who are arguing
that Saddam needs to come clean
now or face immediate consequences.
Best
last night, who said that it's
too bad the peace movement is
being led by Marxist-Leninist groups,
that Bush is being compared to
Hitler, people's motives
are being attacked, and so on.
He thinks the
peace movement has radically
diminished its strenght this way,
because there are strong principled
arguments against the war.
These actually depend upon
recognizing that there are
some arguments
for the war which deserve
a response other than abusing
the people who make them.
The principal argument for
the war has been presented
by Colin Powell. I think it might
be stated this way. World War II
happened largely because
Germany was allowed to rearm,
though the Treaty of Versailles
forbade it. The League of Nations,
England, France waffled, tried
to give peace a chance. If the
Treaty had been enforced, as
it easily could have been, WW II,
at least in Europe, wouldn't
have happened. Scores of millions
of people died needlessly as
a consequence.
The peace treaty with Iraq, after
the Persian Gulf war, which Iraq
agreed to, required Iraq to destroy
its weapons of mass destruction.
This was supposed to happen in
about a year and a half. The inspectors
were supposed to verify. Twelve
years later, it hasn't happened.
It wasn't until four years
after the inspections began
that a defector alerted the
inspectors the vast Iraqi efforts
to hide these awful weapons--
even at the bottom of rivers, etc.
When the inspectors left in
98, they testified that there
were large stores of biological
and chemical weapons Iraq had.
Iraq refuses to say what has
happened to that stuff, denying
it ever existed. Well, you know...
If treaties requiring belligerent
countries to disarm, and not rearm,
are worth the paper they're written
on, they must be enforceable, and
finally that means that military
force must be an option if nothing
else works. It's been 12 year,
it's time for Iraq to disarm,
not play cat and mouse, but
account for its weapons. If we
don't enforce such treaties sooner
or later, rogue nations will realize
that they can develop whatever they
want with impunity, and the world
is going to become a far more
dangerous and awful place.
The UN not only failed to
enforce the treaty between
91 and 98, Annan cut a deal with
Hussein excluding presidential
palaces from inspection--that
meant something like 28 square
miles of Iraq, plus whatever
Saddam has dug underneath them.
After that the UN began moving
to end sanctions entirely--leaving
Saddam with his weapons and
the treaty unenforced.
It is hardly foolish to
expect that the UN will now waffle
all over again. In this it resembles the
League of Nations during the
30s. Either the treaty will be enforced
soon or it probably will
never be enforced. Meanwhile
Saddam is feeding the inspectors
tidbits to play for time,
while refusing to account for
the large stores of weapons
the '98 inspectors testified
he had. The idea is to stall
and delay, to divide the UN,
until the momentum for enforcement
is weakened. He thinks at the
end he will keep what he's got
and be able to resume his
nuclear program. In this, he seems
to be succeeding.
An argument against war is that
we will kill maybe 10,000 Iraqi
civilians, and lots of soldiers,
which is awful and worth avoiding.
The counter-argument is that
more Iraqi's will die under the
incredibly ruthless Iraqi police
state, plus continuing sanctions,
and that the war will free the
Iraqi people. Salmon Rushdie has
argued vigorously that we should
invade Iraq out of simple compassion
for the Iraqis. Of course this
argument against disarming Iraq
by force could have been made
against disarming Hitler by force,
too.
I think the above is best argument
for war to be waged in the next
few weeks. I don't think it's a stupid
or mindless argument, and it seems to have
learned some of the lessons of the last
century. It deserves an intelligent
response--something better than
calling names the people who give it, questioning their motives, and so on.
I think what's going on now
is very much a judgement call. Personally
I feel sympathy for the people who
want peace and those who are arguing
that Saddam needs to come clean
now or face immediate consequences.
Best
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
JaniceOn 2003-02-16 13:34, janice wrote:
You all forgot that us Canadians are not 'on side' either. Canadian position has maintained no action against Iraq unless sanctioned by the UN........
(Patrick Buchanan referred to us as "Soviet Canuckistan!!!")
The dishonorable Mr. Buchanan DOES NOT speak for me or for any intelligent US American. I'd happily trade him for anything Canada would offer, although I doubt you folks would be that stupid. I'll even throw in Rush Limberger.
-
chas
- Posts: 7707
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: East Coast US
I think it's also worth pointing out that Mr. Powell is the dove of the administration, having publicly voiced his skepticism six months ago about the advisability of a war. Recently, he's become so fed up with Hussein's antics that even he's backing the war idea.On 2003-02-16 17:10, jim stone wrote:
Thanks for your kind words.
It's neat that Colin Powell
is finally getting some
exercise. Best
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
-
dakotamouse
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Bismarck, ND
- Contact:
Thanks Jim for putting my own thoughts into words.
And Thanks everyone for the thoughtful debate.
We all play whistles and love music but that doesn't mean we all have to hold the same opinions.
The freedom to express our differences is a freedom to be treasured.
And Thanks everyone for the thoughtful debate.
We all play whistles and love music but that doesn't mean we all have to hold the same opinions.
The freedom to express our differences is a freedom to be treasured.
Mary
Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a
listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of
which have the potential to turn a life around. -Leo Buscaglia, author
(1924-1998)
Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a
listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of
which have the potential to turn a life around. -Leo Buscaglia, author
(1924-1998)
-
Paul
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Well said. I couldn't have said it any better if I tried. You know, most of the differences in the world are politics and religion. People, no matter where you go are the same. Generally kind and hospitable and desirous of helping those less fortunate than themselves.On 2003-02-16 19:06, dakotamouse wrote:
Thanks Jim for putting my own thoughts into words.
And Thanks everyone for the thoughtful debate.
We all play whistles and love music but that doesn't mean we all have to hold the same opinions.
The freedom to express our differences is a freedom to be treasured.
-
WyoBadger
- Posts: 2708
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: "Tell us something" hits me a bit like someone asking me to tell a joke. I can always think of a hundred of them until someone asks me for one. You know how it is. Right now, I can't think of "something" to tell you. But I have to use at least 100 characters to inform you of that.
- Location: Wyoming
Jim,
thank you for stating the real issues. I have great pity for those who are having to make this decision. I can see a lot of truth in both sides, but it has been twelve years. If the U.N. is going to mean anything in the world, it is going to have to act.
Peacefully, with no anger of malice, I would just like to point out a few things to those who accuse Americans in general and the Bush administration in particular or unilateralism, racism, and lack of restraint:
A little over a year ago a brutal attack was perpetrated against innocent citizens of our nation, along with those of several other nations. This attack was intended to inflict maximum casualties to innocent civilians.
We could have responded in kind. No one could have stopped us, and Bin Laden and his boys would have been vaporized as they surely deserved.
We didn't.
We do not need the United Nations to wage war, and we will do it without their approval if our leaders deem it necessary.
Yet we still, even now, seek their approval.
Many members of the U.N., those "unworthy" of the security council, are third-rate dictatorships who would be bombing us too if they could just figure out how. Some of them are even darker skinned than many Americans.
Yet we let them alone because they are no threat to us.
Unilateral? Unrestrained? Hardly. Please don't confuse power with arrogance. America can pretty much do whatever it wants, yes. But if we didn't care what the world thought, if we didn't value the lives of those far-off people of other races and cultures, if Bush were even remotely comperable to Hitler (how dare anyone even make that comparison???), Afghanistan would be a sea of radioactive glass and Iraq would be reduced to perhaps a few wandering nomads.
You don't have to agree with Bush (I often don't, though I believe he is an honest man), you don't have to love America, but at least be fair. We aren't holding back because we have to.
Still praying for peace--
Tom
thank you for stating the real issues. I have great pity for those who are having to make this decision. I can see a lot of truth in both sides, but it has been twelve years. If the U.N. is going to mean anything in the world, it is going to have to act.
Peacefully, with no anger of malice, I would just like to point out a few things to those who accuse Americans in general and the Bush administration in particular or unilateralism, racism, and lack of restraint:
A little over a year ago a brutal attack was perpetrated against innocent citizens of our nation, along with those of several other nations. This attack was intended to inflict maximum casualties to innocent civilians.
We could have responded in kind. No one could have stopped us, and Bin Laden and his boys would have been vaporized as they surely deserved.
We didn't.
We do not need the United Nations to wage war, and we will do it without their approval if our leaders deem it necessary.
Yet we still, even now, seek their approval.
Many members of the U.N., those "unworthy" of the security council, are third-rate dictatorships who would be bombing us too if they could just figure out how. Some of them are even darker skinned than many Americans.
Yet we let them alone because they are no threat to us.
Unilateral? Unrestrained? Hardly. Please don't confuse power with arrogance. America can pretty much do whatever it wants, yes. But if we didn't care what the world thought, if we didn't value the lives of those far-off people of other races and cultures, if Bush were even remotely comperable to Hitler (how dare anyone even make that comparison???), Afghanistan would be a sea of radioactive glass and Iraq would be reduced to perhaps a few wandering nomads.
You don't have to agree with Bush (I often don't, though I believe he is an honest man), you don't have to love America, but at least be fair. We aren't holding back because we have to.
Still praying for peace--
Tom
-
jim_mc
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: I'm a New York native who gradually slid west and landed in the Phoenix area. I like riding on the back seat of a tandem bicycle. I like dogs and have three of them. I am a sometime actor and an all the time teacher, husband, and dad.
- Location: Surprise, AZ
Just as the Marxist/Leninist element of the anti-war movement makes the whole peace movement suspect, the oil/military-industrial profiteering element in the U.S. government makes the pro-war stance suspect.
Ties to oil and corporate America are going to be the fundamental difficulty of the Bush administration. His motives will always be questioned.
In any case, there is no doubt that we need to be able to hold the threat of war over Sadam's head. If we don't show that we are able to and at least make people believe we are willing to, there isn't much incentive for Sadam to change. That being said, I think the threat will be sufficient, if we give it enough time. I hope and pray that we do, and that it is.
Ties to oil and corporate America are going to be the fundamental difficulty of the Bush administration. His motives will always be questioned.
In any case, there is no doubt that we need to be able to hold the threat of war over Sadam's head. If we don't show that we are able to and at least make people believe we are willing to, there isn't much incentive for Sadam to change. That being said, I think the threat will be sufficient, if we give it enough time. I hope and pray that we do, and that it is.
Say it loud: B flat and be proud!
-
claudine
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: Hi, I am a choir singer from Luxembourg trying to get back to Irish flute playing after a few years of absence from ITM.
- Location: Luxembourg
Shoot him! So he'll make sure that this driver won't do it again.On 2003-02-17 11:02, goesto11 wrote:
So a cop sees a car driving down the road VERY erratically. The driver is weaving in and out of lanes, and even crosses over the center line before veering back into his lane. He completely disregards stop signs and traffic lights. So what should the cop do?
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
Call the Kennedy compound, and ask them to come get him off the road.On 2003-02-17 11:02, goesto11 wrote:
So a cop sees a car driving down the road VERY erratically. The driver is weaving in and out of lanes, and even crosses over the center line before veering back into his lane. He completely disregards stop signs and traffic lights. So what should the cop do?
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden