OT: Rating the President

[oleg]

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

[Krsqk]

At stake here is not whether the US will invade Iraq, but whether the UN will be relevant to world politics and opinion. Seventeen times now, they have told Saddam, "You stop that or else!" Some of these "or elses" have enumerated the consequences of not stopping. If they fail to enforce their Chapter VI (i.e., binding) resolutions, then they no longer have any authority. They will be like a parent who nags his child rather than disciplines him. (Apologies to you PC types who don't like the use of the masculine gender for the neuter gender, the way English is meant to be. )

Not at all a side note, but rather the crucial (and conveniently neglected) fact of the latest resolution: the inspectors aren't there to find WMDs. They're there for Iraq to prove they longer have them. They haven't found any evidence of the destruction of previous stockpiles; they have found unreported weapons; and previously reported/found weapons have been moved from their locations. That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

The inspectors can't be there to hunt down WMDs, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. I get ~10 years to hide stuff in California. You get to pick 108 people to look for it. World opinion demands that you find at least 15% of it to prove that I have it (and even them some won't believe you).

Also interesting: Nancy Pelosi (Senate minority leader) claimed Iraq doesn't have any WMDs, but later said we shouldn't go into Iraq "because Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons on our troops." I guess when truth is negotiable, anything goes. Ironically, as minority leader, she receives more classified information than all but 3 other members of Congress, so she knows more of the truth than almost anyone (although she can't discuss it in public).

The problem here is that Irag does not have an underclared weapons of mass destruction. At least, there is no any proof of it. What we have is Bush' rhetoric and empty accusations. Prove me that I am wrong.

Again, the onus of proof is on Iraq. That is the 15-0 consensus of the Security Council. They haven't even left what was previously found sealed and in the same places. We have found some undeclared weapons. We can't even find the vast majority (~98%) of what was previously declared or found. Iraq continues testing/production of liquid-fueled missiles with range sufficient to strike anywhere in the Mideast and parts of Europe (far in excess of the UN-required 90km). What more do we want? Saddam to give us a hand-written list of all facilities, along with the keys and launch codes? I have a bridge to sell you, then, too.

[ February 01, 2003, 02:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[oleg]

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ? Because Bush is prosecuter, judge and jury. As to UN relevance, it is a joke. How many times Israel violated UN resolutions and so what ? I have a nugging feeling that in fact it does not matter if Saddam has WMD, Bush wants Saddam' blood and he will get it, UN or no UN.

[Phoenix-D]

"When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it different here ?"

Because this isn't a murder trial. If you want a comparison, try a probation violation. Iraq lost a war and signed a treaty or two dealing with WMDs to end it. It hasn't been living up to that deal. By my logic, that means the treaty is null and the war is still on.

Phoenix-D

[Wanderer]

and your london times aticle does not state that around 70% of the brits and about 80% of the polish people... are against a war without the un.

Do you expect the media to ever give a fair account of anything?

If you read the article, you might notice it never mentions going it alone.

Argh, I can't let this go! It's not an editorial, or an article. Check the bottom of the page - it's a letter from eight European heads of state. Mind, it's interesting that they've put it in the editorial section and not the letters page (maybe it was too big).

I'll admit that whatever happens, various sections of the media will push their own agenda... "Discovered chemical warhead was 'planted by American spy'", "Saddam officially 'worse than Hitler' says scientific report" etc.

When you accuse somebody of murder, the burden of proof lies on you.

He's not being accused of murder (well, he is but that's a separate thorny issue [how many world leaders are responsible for gratuitously killing members of their populace? - sadly all too many to use it as a casus belli]). The analogy to law is that he's already been found guilty of a crime (being caught with an illegal weapons program), and could be guilty of violating his parole (by not dismantling said weapons program in an open and verifiable manner).

In Northern Ireland, the Unionists don't like the fact that although the IRA are decommisioning weapons under the eyes of an independent third party, there's no real way of telling how many weapons they obtained in the first place. If my understanding of what Blix said is correct, Iraq appears to have fairly complete records of weapons built, but incomplete records of them being dismantled. To continue the analogy, this would be enough to get a search warrant and arrest (but probably not yet charge) the suspect.

Like a lot of people, I don't want a war, but if we do invade, I want it to be under the auspices of the UN. Acting alone could cause more problems than it solves - to strain the analogy past breaking point, we don't want the pair of policemen (who initially don't get on but by the end of the film have formed a Lasting bond) to have their badges taken off them and told they're off the case, leaving one to mutter "I'm getting too old for this s**t" and the other to become suicidally paranoid .

[Wardad]

Presidential poll .
The Democratic National Committee is currently polling Americans through the Internet to determine the electability of Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States in 2004. If you would like to show your support for Hillary and encourage her to run for President of the United States in 2004 please click the link below.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~kinho/youare.swf

[Fyron]

She would be a worse president than her husband was...