Iraq

[calbert at hslboxmaster.com]

Terrance:

"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."


Its been well established by now that I am a little dense.....under what
monniker have any "nation states with a vote in the UN" participated
here...or are you just using this place as some kind of forwarding service? 


> 
> B) The arguments for action against Iraq cannot be sustained under either
> of the primary foreing policy paradigms - principled/pragmatic..... 


"The UN can order troops into Iraq based on the resolutions it has.
...... The UN can act  legally and without violating its principles."


I spoke inexactly... I was referring to unilateral action on the part of
the US.....Of course, the UN can act as you describe - though I think that
it must avoid a situation where it is seen selectively enforcing binding
resolutions...and I say this as a supporter, in most respects, of
Israel.... 

"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."

This I don't see.....There was no great urgency, either on the part of the
UN or the US, to "get cracking" on Iraq until after 9/11......there seemed
to be considerable satisfaction with the status quo - the embargo, which I
have supported here before was sufficiently devastating that Saddam was not
far from exhaustion.....The UN has been driven to this by the naked
ambition of the Scrub administration, and to the extent that it has served
to thwart such, I too applaud its efforts......should this have the
collateral effect of further hastening Saddam's demise, even better......


"You can't take
the energy out. You can't take the terrorists out."

Here again we must distinguish between the UN and US. I don't see the UN
having any axe at all in the "energy" debate, at least with respect to Iraq.

Neither can I discern a mandate with respect to terrorism on the part of
the UN......That it might be an effective body with which to engage it is
not in dispute - but I don't see the current issue as part of some
historical effort on the part of that organization to tackle the
issue.......


"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."

Again, the opinions of member states is irrelevant unless they sit on the
security council.......  

> 
> 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."

the glib conflation of Iraq and 9/11.........Even ex- 9/11 Iraq has not
been a significant part of the terrorist problem. Iran, Syria and Saudi
Arabia have....

 
"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."

I'm not an ends justify the means kind of guy.....particularly should such
means serve the ends of entities I hold in even greater disregard than I do
Saddam....


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

Though I pray it is so, I have no confidence that it is...I see this nation
drifting closer than ever to REX 84....I really believe that Scrub wants to
instigate terrorist attacks on Heimat, I mean, the Homeland. This will
offer a pretext for him to engage in all manner of perfidy. Consider, for
just a moment, what much the same crew did with the "Sandinista threat"
against Harlingen, TX......You are a guy with a professed finance bent -
what part of the S&L tab do you feel should be assessed to the Iran Contra
account? Read the DeCamp book referred to earlier, and you can see how
other publically owned financial institutions and corporations swindled
their equity holders to support this program.......IF, in such a pretext
the administration could rationalize financing its aims with the proceeds
of DOMESTIC cocaine sales, if it can rationalize the sheltering of
pederasts for the purpose of pursuing its objectives of compromising both
foreign and domestic opponents with sexual blackmail (See Craig Spence,
Lawrence E. King, The Finders, Paul Bonacci) - where is the freakin limit
if fanatics are blowing themselves up in crowded manhattan discos?

"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."

I suspect that there is some reluctance on the part of the UN based on its
historical experiences in the ME and Africa to engage in long term
occupation...unless the US can help fashion a blue print for doing so more
effectively, I'm gonna hedge.... 


"What's absurd about it? The UN is dealing with a serious crisis and
doing a good job.'

I consider the Iraq crisis entirely "constructed"......it is a 'Yahoo wing
of the GOP' wet dream.......and a useful distraction for a grossly
incompetent administration....
  
"If the UN manages to resolve this crisis the entire
world should applaud it."

I hope they get the opportunity...


love,
cfa


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .