Iraq

[Terrance]

"calbert at hslboxmaster.com" wrote:
> 
> Terrance:
> 
> "Saddam has  been very successful. Why? Because he's played this game
> before. And, he's had time, while the world sat on its collective ass,
> to develop more deceptive programs and tactics. Everyone seems to know
> this except for the defenders of Saddam."
> 
> Twaddle generator turned to 11.....
> 
> A) I've made clear that I have always detested Saddam, and wish him the
> maximum degree of harm.........This feeling extends to his manifestation of
> Baathism, for which I have no more sympathy than I do for its Syrian
> branch..."defenders of saddam" is a rhetorical tactic well beneath you.

Well, since you are not a nation state with a vote in the UN I was not
talking about you. I think if you read what I wrote it's clear that I
was  talking about nations and not Pynchon-List persons. 


> 
> B) The arguments for action against Iraq cannot be sustained under either
> of the primary foreing policy paradigms - principled/pragmatic. The former
> is self evident. THe latter breaks down both as "terrorist strategic" AND
> "energy strategic". Again the first is obvious, the second because action
> as proposed will most likely increase risks relative to price and
> availability of oil.

The UN can order troops into Iraq based on the resolutions it has.
However, an additional one is on the table and it is very likely that it
will pass. The UN can act  legally and without violating its principles.
In fact, the risks of not solving this crisis, with violence or
negotiations or some combination of violence and diplomacy, are great
for the UN. It must act. It is acting. It should be applauded for it's
efforts thus far. 

The UN anti-terrorist efforts are indeed strategic. Of course they are.
And of the course energy is a factor. Of course it is. You can't take
the energy out. You can't take the terrorists out. They are part of the
problem and they must be part of the solution. There is simply no
avoiding the oil
and the terrorists. How will the UN deal with these parts? That's what
is being worked out. And, based the statements of the UN and its member
states, it seems that most states are satisfied (I still don't think
France is playing a very smart hand and will ultimately fold) with the
deal.  

> 
> it is the irrationality of the cheerleaders of the apocalypse which demands
> that they eschew reason for such base forensic strategies....

I don't know what this means. 



> 
> "Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
> Egypt, Iran and Syria, know it and have public stated that Iraq must not
> continue its program of deception and cease all attempts to limit and
> frustrate UN efforts."
> 
> Gee, this doesn't evidence "strategic thinking" in the cause of self
> service does it? But perhaps, given the committment these nations have
> evidenced in the cause of controlling muslim extremist terrorism in the
> past, perhaps my skepticism is unwarranted.......

Iraq has not a friend in the world. There are nations that have been
permitted to sell more oil because Saddam has fouled up his oil
production and his economy. There are nations that prefer the devil they
know to the one they don't. There are nations that don't care if Saddam
& Co. go to hell as long as they get a reasonable debt payment plan out
of the new government. And so on... Everyone having all sorts of
conflicting interests, but still the world has gotten behind the UN on
this crisis. And it looks like Saddam's days are numbered. That's a good
thing for just about everyone except Saddam and his party. 



> 
> " While the peace mongers play up the rift in old
> Europe, Europe is solidly behind the UN.  Germany has come if not into
> the tent, just outside it and will provide support. Even pawny France
> (with its Kingly Veto) is getting closer to the tent now that war is
> beginning to look like the only option. If a second resolution is voted
> in the UN, it will be voted unanimously by the SC."
> 
> I failed to keep count of the latest vote regarding use of force, but last
> I checked, the US had ONE other backer on the security council....

Keep checking. Bush won't go minus the UN. 

> 
> I have no doubt that the UN would be pleased to tease Scrubby by offering
> to debate and frame a "second resolution".....But at the current pace, he
> will not get his authorization of force from this organization.....

I'm of a different opinion. I've not changed my thinking on this from
the get-go. 

Short of a full cooperation and the destruction of the hidden weapons
programs or a regime resignation and exile, the UN will send troops
into Iraq. 


> 
> not that I expect that will stop him....just don't demand that I cheer this
> absurdity....


What's absurd about it? The UN is dealing with a serious crisis and
doing a good job. 
What's not to cheer? If the UN manages to resolve this crisis the entire
world should applaud it.