OT: Rating the President

[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...

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by 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.

So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

That alone is "material breach" according to UN Sec. Council Res. 1441, which demands military repercussions.

As to whether or not this constitutes a material breach can be (and is being) argued. And furthermore, I don't remember anything about material breaches demanding military repercussions. IIRC, the word was that a material breach would have "grave consequences". Bush takes this to mean "We get to bLast 'em, an' right now!", whereas the "old" Europeans take this as "We shall pass another resolution saying that we get to bLast them, should we see fit". This double interpretation was to my knowledge generally acknowledged as the reason why the US and OE were able to agree on 1441, as it "gave" them both what they wanted...

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. )

Um, no. No, no, no. English isn't meant to be anything in particular, other than whatever Anglophones make it into. There is no fixed "standard" of what English should be (no, not even the OED ), and to claim otherwise is pushing an agenda. Yes, English traditionaly used the masculine as the default gender (but not the neuter gender, mind; one can and must make a distinction 'twixt the two), but that doesn't mean that Anglophones ought to continue to speak thusly (argumentum ad antiquitatem). I'll spare you examples of analogous reasoning, but I reiterate: smiley or no, language can change, will change, and must change, and to demand that it oughtn't is naught but to jam one's finger into one of the multitude holes in the dike whilst ignoring all others...

As an aside (and likely a rant, but still), I'm annoyed by the lack of a generally recognized neuter gender in English. Yes, you can use "one", but if you speak to an average Anglophone, they'll think you're rather odd. And you can refer to people in the third-person plural, but again, if an average speaker is addressed, one will regard you strangely. And I'll admit, neither of the preceding solutions really sound "right" to my ear, tho' I personaly tend towards they-ing.

Eh, 'tis naught but the whimsy of the current structure of the language clashing with my worldview; for comparison, French has a nice, common neuter gender (tho' yes, it also has a masculine default, but word gender has slightly different implications en français), but I'm maddened by the lack of an equivalent to "Ms.". What it comes down to is that language is formed by consensus, so I either need to find a language tied to a culture that matches my worldview very tightly, bend my own langauge to my worldview, or get over it and accept that people will use and change language in ways that might trouble me...

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Wanderer:
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 .

Try as I might, I just can't picture Kofi Annan as the grizzeled veteran police lieutenant popping antacids and shouting obcenities at his hotshot detective team.

Geoschmo

[Krsqk]

So then I suppose the UN needs to follow up military action against Iraq with military action against Isreal? As another person pointed out, they've been glibly ignoring numerous UN resolutions for years. Or perhaps one can establish one's authority through non-military means, hmm?

The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken. "If you do that again, I'm going to tell you what's going to happen if you do that again after I talk about what I should tell you I'll tell you if it happens again..."

RE: the English thingy: It was a joke. That's why it had a . Maybe it needed another smiley.

[ February 03, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[E. Albright]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
The UN has two different chapters in its charter regarding resolutions: Chapter V and Chapter VI. Chapter VI resolutions are binding. They require enforcement when breached. The resolutions on Iraq have all been Chapter VI resolutions. Chapter V resolutions are non-binding. They are equivalent to saying, "We think you should _______, but we aren't going to enforce that." The majority (if not all) of the resolutions RE: Israel have been Chapter V resolutions. No one seems to be mentioning that difference (especially Arafat and Hussein). If the UN really wants someone to do something, they should 1) pass a Chapter VI resolution, and 2) actually enforce it when it broken.

Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V. And let's see what they say re: resolutions:

Article 14
Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen. This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions?

(Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

[Edit: script cleanup, typos]

[ February 04, 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: E. Albright ]