"But the world isn't like that"

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: "But the world isn't like that"


> on 18/10/02 9:56 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
>
> > It's not very logical for you to deduce, Jbor, that the Stop the War
crowd
> > thinks it's "totally OK" that Saddam launch an attack first. How did you
> > figure that?
>
> It's actually pretty obvious.
>
> > I think the Stop the War crowd wants to see weapons inspections
> > resume.  And more than a few of us want to see that monster ousted in
the
> > night. But there's a big difference between that and all out attack
American
> > style.
> >
> > In an Australian interview Richard Butler said Dick Chenny's claim that
Iraq
> > has nuclear capabilities is out of line. I'm surprised he would have
said
> soemthing different to the Senate. Go read for yourself.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm
>
> I saw part of that interview. Butler stated that Saddam was starting to
> develop nuclear weapons 20 years ago, and he confirmed that Saddam has had
a
> nuclear weapons program in place since the UN inspectors left Iraq in
1998.
> He spoke about the new evidence in the Blair Dossier which showed that
> Saddam had been acquiring weapons-grade uranium from Africa. Butler said
he
> was absolutely certain that Saddam currently has (biological/chemical)
> weapons of mass destruction. Did you even read the transcript? It shows up
> your "Saddam's got nothin'" argument for the arrant nonsense it is.
>
> best
>
>
> on 16/10/02 3:31 PM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
>
> > Honestly, Otto, have you heard any compelling evidence that Saddam has
> > WDMs?  Let alone nuclear capabilities?  Fuck, he doesn't even have
> > penicillin the last 12 years, how could he have uranium?


Well Barbara, in the case of WMD I see that Rob (I wish you'd address him by
his proper name) is right, but in the case of a unilateral action (which is
what bothers my chancellor & me) Butler states clearly that this would be
illegal if done by the USA and UK, but as far as I can see Rob never has
proposed any unilateral action but has been exclusively spoken about arms
control and the error of relieving the pressure on Saddam.
[please correct me if I'm wrong in this, Rob]

I think this is the crucial part of the Butler-interview:

"well let's just work this through - they say they want to be rid of weapons
of mass destruction. That's an objective which of course I heartily agree
with, and most reasonable people do. Let's say that's their objective, OK -
how do you achieve it? You get a strong resolution out of the Security
Council, global unity around this objective - after all Saddam is in
complete violation of the arms control laws - and you send the inspectors
back to check his claim that they have no such weapons, which is of course a
complete lie. Now, if those inspections are blocked or if he refuses to
accept them, then you have a sting in the tail in that Security Council
resolution that says that if this doesn't work - if you don't behave
properly, we will enforce our law and take our weapons away from you. That
would be a legal action under the charter of the United Nations. Now if
Saddam Hussein remains stitched to weapons of mass destruction as he is, and
I believe he's addicted to them, then of course removing the weapons would
necessarily mean removing him. That raises a great problem because it's -
while it's legal for the UN to take action on the weapons, provided it's
sanctioned by the Security Council, it's not legal for one country like the
United States to do it and let me say that plainly - that's not legal, OK?
While it's legal for the UN to do that, the charter also says that you
shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of governments. You shouldn't
seek from outside to change the government. Now even a coalition blessed by
the UN couldn't ever have that mandate, but as I said if Saddam went down
with his weapons, so be it."
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s695405.htm

Couldn't agree more. The opinion I've expressed recently that Saddam
should've been removed after the Gulf War already would've been an illegal
step if it had been done. I stand corrected.

I repeat (not paraphrase) what Mr. Butler says in the interview: the Iraqi
claim that there are no WMD "is of course a complete lie"; and on unilateral
action "let me say that plainly - that's not legal, OK?".

"If we are not talking about inspections," said the Russian ambassador,
Sergey Lavrov, "but about an attempt to use the Security Council to create a
legal basis for the use of force or even for a regime change of a United
Nations member state, then we see no way how the Security Council could give
its consent to that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/international/18NATI.html

I agree.

But:
Straw: UK and US prepared to act alone
"The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today made clear that Britain and the US
were prepared to go it alone with military action against Iraq, if they
failed to secure a new UN mandate on weapons inspections."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,814536,00.html

I disagree.

Otto

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de