There are great problem with waiting from an immediate threat from Iraq. Frankly, if that is what the UN is waiting for they may as well give up. Iraq can continue half-cooperating indefinitely. Surely this is not acceptable.

The Iraq case will never be the immediate threat that the Gulf war entailed until someone finds out Iraq has sold or used WMD's and by then it would be needlessly too late. Better to follow through with disarmament now.

Obviously there is disagreement on that. The cost of war in dollars, lives, M.E. instability, and anti-American spawned terrorism may be the larger threat.

It seems that there are two camps and both are firmly entrenched. I'm sure Bush will settle the matter by having the war...but the outcome and the backlash will be his responsibility to bear and not that of the U.N. as long as it continues to stand firmly against it.
Of course...the other side says the consequences of the doomsday mushroom cloud will be on the U.N.

So we must choose one fate or another I suppose.

A ) Possible mushroom cloud resulting in civilian death at home

OR

B ) Certain civilian death in Iraq, years of occupation and economic crisis at home and renewed energy for terrorist attacks.

Too bad in the simplistic and limited views of our leadership we only have those two choices...there is nothing in between with Bush...he's a limited guy with limited vision and zero understanding of diplomacy or foreign policy...so of course he should be the one to try and bring democracy to the middle East.

IMO, the UN would not be damaged by resisting or blocking war and would survive. They don't become irrelevent just because Bush says so.

When Saddam is labeled "Disarmed" (supposivly) by the UN Inspectors & sanctions are lifted, Saddam will be able to legally buy missile parts & nuclear weapons parts without going to the UN for permission & since we have ships in the Persian Gulf that make sure the ships are not bringing anything illegal to Iraq & they are gone, then saddam will be able to sneak stuff on ships to Iraq that way. So in other words, this inspections thing is a No Win Situation

So in conclusion, I choose B but without the civilian casusalties. As for the Economic Crisis...no. The reason the Stock Market is in the toilet these days is because of the fears of war with Iraq. although the Defense Stocks like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing(half military contracted) & Northrop love this war talk, the rest of the market does not. When the war in Iraq is done, then the economy will start to go back up & recover. The longer we wait for war to come, the more crappy the economy will become. Also, yes we may need to occupy Iraq for a fixed amount of time, but that is common in a war-torn country.

News Flash! The economy was sinking fast even before war in Iraq was an option for Bush.

I'd like to take the civilian casualties out of plan B too...but that is not an option because it's the surest result of war in Iraq.

And all of your assumptions about what Saddam can do once he complies or what he will do are simply that....assumptions. There are alternatives and other paths than anything like what you lay out.

I'm not sure what fate is being tempted, but there has been a further development regarding the missile destruction. I think it is related to this topic so I'll mention it. If its not, the hall monitors will be around to..... well.....monitor the halls.

Iraqi govt spokesman said today that Iraq would stop the missle destruction if the US pressed on with its invasion plans.

Did I miss the part of the UN resolution that said Iraq's disarmament was predicated on the status of US war plans?

I wait with baited breath for the UN response.

To the originator of this topic I say that the President's response should be characterized as realistic rather than 'hawkish'. And each new feint by Iraq makes it that much clearer.

Turnea,

The problem with your logic is that Iraq has a long history of not being an immediate threat to the United States. Sure, there are bad feelings about us there and we wouldn't want to be in a dark alley with them with our back turned, but Iraq has not tried to attack us.

What has changed is that in the post-9/11 world, we are choosing to regulate countries that CAN hurt us more severely. We are moving from a written position against rogue nations having WMDs to a military position that they cannot have them.

So, since we have decided to alter are position in this area because of 9/11 we need a new policy with Iraq because it is a potential source for terrorists and its government has committed atrocities in the past. Since we changed our position, we created the urgency. We could have chosen a path with more stages than comply 100% or get invaded. But we did not. I feel that this is the mistake of our foreign policy. We started this round of diplomacy at the war crisis level and expected the rest of the world to be on the same page with us.

Eeyore, I agree. For instance take the Iraq vs. Korea approach in Washington. If we had a coherent policy on the table instead of some arbitrary list that we will deal with as we see fit the world would be less hostile to our new position. If it made any sense at all it would help. It seems to be decided on a take-it-as-it-comes, war on a whim, unpredictable position. It's arbitrary and doesn't work well for creating order or stability anywhere.

If our only answer to the question of this new foreign policy is that we have to deal with different threats in different ways...that doesn't help much. Especially when we now reserve the right to act pre-emptively when ever and where ever we want and answering to no one.

Where exactly have we moved, let's not forget Desert Fox....

It looks like the new resolution will call for a 'final' disarmament by Iraq on or before March 17. It also appears this will be voted on by the security council on tues March 11.

I like this approach. Date certain. Either Iraq delivers the weapons or documentation that each was destroyed. No if ands or buts. Weapons or documentation. Colin Powell indicated that it wouldn't be necessary to 'drop all the weapons off in the town square' as that would be unreasonable. But 'showing' them or documenting their destruction would be expected, and reasonable. Hell, that would have been reasonable months ago.

From a military standpoint, the extra time won't hurt. It might even give Turkey a chance to straighten out their parliamentary mess and get on board in time.

Now, if we can only figure out a way to 'forget' to notify the French to leave............

What if Blair is forced to pull out? Would America care? Would we start Brittish bashing like petulant children?

It seems that in Britain the Prime Minister has always had automatic war powers unlike the U.S. which traditionally left those powers in the hands of Congress.

Now the U.S. has given the President the sole power and Britain has taken it away. Parliament has now concluded such a "medieval" system isn't good enough. It insisted on a vote. After the one on the 11th Blair promised that he would go back to Parliament for a final vote on the war.

The odds are against him in both places. At least America can say we helped strengthen existing democracy in places like Turkey and Britain proving by example what can happen when it's allowed to become weak. I hope the Senate is ashamed.


link

News today to talk about methinks.

1..CIA reports that al-Queda is preparing to launch attacks on our troops from inside Iraq. (NY Times et al)

No link between SH and terrorists huh? Gimme a break.

2..SH has already ordered his generals to use chemical weapons vs US troops when they approach Baghdad or Tekrit.

I guess they'll be using those weapons they don't have, right?

3..Turkey's parliament has elected new leader who favors allowing our 62,000 troops to stage there. New vote soon.

4..Reports are gaining momentum about France's relationship with Iraq. Weapons sales during the UN imposed sanctions. Sure would explain a lot of things.

Just a little link to help you

Al-Queda attack inside Iraq






They finally will get the Economic aid package that they need. If they reject it again, their stock market will go down another 10%




Another link to help you:

How Iraq's A.F. is strengthened

I guess this is the real reason why Chirac is so against a war

Read past the headline:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/882843.asp

For example:

"The intelligence does not suggest any kind of coordination between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida operatives; instead officials believe the terrorists are looking to capitalize on the chaos created by any military conflict to strike at American and allied troops."

&:

"intelligence officials have generally agreed they have nothing to document that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or that Saddam and Osama bin Laden are coordinating terrorist operations."

So far, the "link" seems to consist of the fact that individuals associated with al Qaeda are in Iraq (as they supposedly are in 59 other countries, including the U.S.) & planning attacks (as it's suspected that they are planning elsewhere, including the U.S.).

If you're looking for a causus bellum against Saddam, this isn't it.

The New York Times article says:

"The administration has said that terrorists operating inside Iraq are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and that they are either tolerated by the Baghdad government or are based in parts of the country where the government exercises little control."

&:

"It is thought the attacks are being planned as 'independent terrorist operations,' conducted by individuals or small groups rather than controlled by Iraqi military planners, one official said."

Key phrases: "independent" rather than "controlled," possibly "tolerated" or "based in parts of the country where the government exercises little control."

How about this one...why would Blix bury in his report the fact that SH has a drone capable of flying unmanned, armed with BCWs far enough to reach many countries in his neck of the woods?

He also says that they believe SH still has the equipment needed to deliver these BCWs, as well as not having accounted for loads of the BCWs that they know he had at one time.

One analysis of Blix's role seems more and more likely. That he will do and say anything to prevent this war solely because he is afraid of what will be found when we finally get in there. ONTOH, if he gives a harsh report he might go down in history as the guy who triggered the war.

This is the price you pay when you won't tell the truth and hang that on 'diplomacy'. If he had laid this out in the beginning, we wouldn't be where we are today. Then again, if he were the type to call a spade a spade he wouldn't have gotten the job in the first place.