JUNE5101 (473.893, Mar-28 10:39 am, in reply to 473.523):
“Why are B-52s needed if the weapons are so advanced and on the spot accurate?”
HWOODCJ (473.1163, Mar-29 12:03 am, in reply to 473.893):
There’re too expensive. A JDAM tail-kit costs $21,000.
Bolted onto a $3,100 2,000-pound dumb-bomb (alias free-fall, alias general-purpose), a B-52 at 45,000 feet can put it through your letter-box from 15 miles away.
But, that same B-52 can also simply carpet-bomb without the JDAM, saving the taxpayer some big bucks. But US commanders only do that when they can find a military objective (eg: massed troops south of Baghdad) far enough away from civilians so that errant dumb-bombs don’t get the press in a tizzy. http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/JDAM.html
JUNE5101 (473.1291, Mar-28 7:36 pm, in reply to 473.1163):
“I heard a radio report that if B 52s are being used then something is severely wrong with US planning.”
HWOODCJ (473.2451, Mar-30 8:35 pm, in reply to 473.1291):
This is a common misperception about B-52s.
The comment you heard is based on the assumption (as I suppose) that the B-52s will be carpet-bombing, as they did, famously, in Vietnam. And yes, were it true that B-52s were now carpet-bombing close to “civilians” and “civilian objects”, then yes, “something is severely wrong with US planning”.
However, B-52s can do *both*: They can carpet-bomb with dumb-bombs (without JDAMs) and they can also target-bomb (dumb-bombs with the JDAM tail-kit, and also air-launched cruise missiles).
And so the term “B-52” is no longer properly the icon of indiscriminate bombing it once was. Many in the public have not yet caught-up with this new reality about B-52s.
Those on the receiving end of a B-52 carpet-bomb run, of course, derive little comfort from such distinctions.
Yet, the sentiment behind the statement you heard on the radio is nevertheless pertinent to what’s going on:
We’re in the middle of body-count war, with a different war-aim (regime-change) from the one the UN Security Council was dealing with (disarmament).
Had Bush advanced this war-aim at the UN (he didn’t), we wouldn’t be watching this war-plan unfolding now.
For regime-change, the Security Council would have been looking towards an ultimatum from Kofi Annan, surrounded by nodding Arab leaders, for Saddam to step-down and, if he didn’t, that stamp of Arab authority would nevertheless likely have given many in the Iraqi armed forces the excuse they needed to surrender, honorably, without feeling unpatriotic. As further encouragement, the Security Council would likely have promised amnesty to most for any past crimes they had participated in.
And, the Security Council would have insisted on control of post-war government, thereby preventing the United States from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and punishing whom they please; preventing the United States from exploiting Iraq’s oil (occupation cost reimbursements, and oil contracts to US oil companies); and preventing the United States from establishing permanent military bases in Iraq.
This trustworthy UN control over post-war government would also have removed much reluctance among the Iraqi armed forces to surrender (they’re patriots, fighting for their oil and to prevent permanent US military bases, as well as their own skins).
And, the war-plan the Security Council might have approved would have as its first objective the preservation of Iraqi life (both civilians and soldiers) and a lengthy patient time-line to serve that objective.
Regime-change, as a war-aim, must obey the rule of proportionality: Are we going to kill more Iraqis (both civilians and soldiers) than Saddam is likely to kill if we leave him in place?
The B-52s so far have target-bombed military targets in Baghdad with extreme accuracy, from the JDAM tail-fin kits (accuracy: less than 10-meters via GPS, less than 30-meters if GPS is jammed or fails, via the backup laser-giro inertial navigation system in JDAM).
And, they have carpet-bombed (unseen on TV) supposedly military targets (troop concentrations) sufficiently distant from civilians and civilian objects such that there has been no ‘collateral damage’ from errant bombs. At least that’s US propaganda. We don’t know if this is true, as there are no journalists witnessing the carpet-bombing.
The US Military has stated that the safety of its own troops is its primary objective. And, they’ve stated that preserving Iraqi *civilian* life is also an objective, but secondary to US life. The US has made no statement about the lives of Iraqi soldiers, and the US Military is doing its best to kill as many of them as possible.
If the US Military decides to attack Iraqi forces disbursed in town centers, *then* the body-count will explode; the United States will kill far more Iraqis (soldiers plus civilians) than Saddam ever dreamed of killing; and the number-one violent international criminal — world public enemy number-1 — will be the United States of America: “Wanted: dead or alive”.
If they go this route, then what you heard on the radio will certainly be the case, B-52s or no: “something is severely wrong with US planning”.
JUNE5101 (473.2595, Mar-31 2:04 am, in reply to 473.2451):
“Interesting analysis. I agree that if the government hadn’t have been so intent on going to war there could have been a solution that could have been an honourable end for everybody since the arab summit agreed in principle that Saddam had to step down. I think saving face is a big thing in politics.”
LEWISXXXUSA (473.2455, Mar-30 8:38 pm, in reply to 473.2451):
“U have too much faith in the UN.”
HWOODCJ (473.2589, Mar-31 1:41 am, in reply to 473.2455):
*My* faith in the UN is neither here nor there (not relevant to the issue). It’s what the Iraqi armed forces have faith in that matters (in my post about how this could be handled differently). The object is to induce the military to surrender and thereby minimize loss of Iraqi life (including Iraqi soldiers).
Iraqi patriots defending their homeland and national wealth will happily cock an attentive ear to any regime-change proposal.
But we complicate their decision by packaging within our proposal: US seizure of their oil fields and another military dictatorship (the post-war US military government). And this scenario is indefinite, because nobody can make the US leave, once they get there. Not to mention a new military dictator (G.W.Bush) who shoots first (and doesn’t even bother to ask questions afterwards) when it comes to detaining indefinitely those who cast him an angry eye.
Now what would you do: Surrender or fight?
But in my scenario, there’re no negatives: The Security Council installed government can protect their oil fields from US exploitation, prevent the US from settling-in for the long-stay on their new military bases, and protect them from a new gun-slinging military dictator.
It’s 100% certain they won’t trust anything G.W.Bush promises, because they just finished watching him double-cross Saddam and launch war in violation of his promise not to (without a subsequent UN resolution under 1441).
Would *they* trust the UN?
I have no doubt they would, because they’re looking for an excuse to surrender with honor. And if the UN (with Arab-leader backing) said it was the right thing to do, that’s all the excuse they need. And though they may have pangs of doubt about their oil fields, I don’t suppose they’ll find those doubts persuasive: Faith in a 15-member public body, instead of a single military dictator (G.W.Bush), is an easy faith to have, a natural faith.
It’s not too late to do this now: A cease-fire in place; a new confab at the UN; an Arab-leader caucus; a US surrender to the UN of its right to install a post-war military government; an amnesty promise for past crimes by members of the Iraqi armed forces (with or without exceptions); public announcements to the Iraqi armed forces with time to think about it; an exile offer to Saddam and his henchmen; and (if necessary) a resumption of war on a new war-plan with a long time-line and a primary objective to preserve Iraqi life (more like a house-to-house search, a police action, for hold-outs).
HITOBITO (473.141, Mar-28 10:23 am, in reply to 473.131):
“Whether you are for or against this war, the accuracy of the precision guided weapons, the ability to deliver these weapons and the command and control has been unparalleled.”
HWOODCJ (473.439, Mar-28 1:32 pm, in reply to 473.144):
This is certainly so: JDAM is the best thing we’ve ever done.
And, it gives us confidence that we can now attack countries in circumstances we wouldn’t have previously, due to public revulsion against our previous weapons.
And, it makes for great TV. I’m particularly grateful to western TV companies for rejecting the despicable policy of Al Jazeera to show the facts of war as they are. It’s in extremely bad taste, and unnecessary, to show mangled bodies, intestines, brains, and such, especially as many children are watching the war. And watching such unnecessary facts might turn them against war as they grow up, and then we might not have such good TV in the future.
WILLIAM2735 (473.2455, Mar-28 1:36 pm, in reply to 473.439):
“Good Point, hiding the realities of war, makes it easier for the next one !!!”
HITOBITO (473.896, Mar-28 7:39 pm, in reply to 473.439):
“Thank you for your reply. On the other side of this coin is the terrible effect our bombing is having on the children of Iraq. The sooner this is over, the better their situation will be. The sanctions against Iraq to punish Saddam, succeeded in punishing those who cannot fend for themselves:— the children. I have a 9 month old grandson who has everything. As I look into his clear eyes, my own eyes fill with tears for the terrible situation of those little children in Iraq. Adults can sure screw things up.”
JPS1142 (473.863, Mar-28 7:00 pm, in reply to 473.677):
“When Donald Rumsfeld was asked today in a news conference to clarify Syrian and Iranian help to the Iraqis, ie their arms shipments and some personnel presence, his response was: anyone aiding the Iraqis would be considered a “combatant”.
So therefore anyone aiding the USA is also a fair target for the other side.”
VILIDBRO1 (473.875, Mar-28 7:15 pm, in reply to 473.863):
“You have a good point:— using the Bush Doctrine of Pre Emptive Strike for any country, and influenced by the US, who can see a threat at the present, or in the future, imagined or otherwise from any country large or small, has the right to run to the UN and make the same demands the US made on the UN to handle their perceived threat with Iraq.”
HWOODCJ (473.1156, Mar-28 11:45 pm, in reply to 473.875):
Syria and Iran have no need to run to the UN. We have an offensive war in progress, not sanctioned by the UN [ and in violation of a UN resolution which the US agreed to (1441), to disarm Saddam peaceably unless the 15-member Council (not the US acting alone) determined that was not possible ].
Any nation who wants to can lawfully attack the US in defense of Iraq. But I don’t suppose many will.
VILIDBRO1 (473.1282, Mar-29 6:55 am, in reply to 473.1156):
“I do. Maybe not directly, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I think the Americans are in for “big time” problems from this day forward. And evidently do many legislators: Security budgets have gone through the roof. The “credibility gap” has started again.
North Korea evidently has nukes that can reach the US, or at least the Hawaiian Islands. Any whacko that throws a ‘Molotov cocktail’ through a school window at 3 o’clock in the morning will leave a note that they were ‘terrorist’ group. The government will try to convince the people that it was unrelated, but nobody will believe the government by then anyway (don’t believe them now, when they show bunker busters on TV and say nobody got hurt) and 75pct of the mothers in the US will drag their children out of school and keep them safe at home. So much for education. In fact last week’s Newsday had article about the class trips that are cancelled this year. Foreign travel is a thing of the past, as is our tourist trade in the US (too much hassle). Our legislators and their families are ‘sitting ducks’. The Suffolk County NY county legislature has three cops assigned to him.
I’m drifting on this, but the point I’m trying to make is where the World in general was sympathetic and cooperative toward the US after 9/11, the attitude now will be “so what”.
“If you’re not prepared for the enemy to shoot back, you don’t go to WAR”.”
Bill Dutton (473.146, Mar-28 10:25 am, in reply to 473.125):
“In Vietnam, there was no goal to take the north ... just hold the south.”
HWOODCJ (473.448, Mar-28 1:38 pm, in reply to 473.146):
...which did not desire to be held by the United States but, instead, to vote for Ho Chi Minh in 1956, as President Eisenhower promised in 1954 he would permit them to do. But, when 1956 arrived, and the CIA assured Eisenhower that 80% of the vote would be for Ho Chi Minh, Eisenhower decided, as you say, to hold the south. No reply
Addendum:
Geneva Declaration, July 21 1954, to hold a nationwide election in July 1956 {copy}. US declaration, July 21 1954, agreeing: “to achieve unity through free elections” and “that it will not join in an arrangement which would hinder this.” {copy}.
“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that—had elections been held as of the time of the fighting {1954}—possibly 80% of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader”
Dwight D. Eisenhower (US President, Jan.20 1953-1961 Jan.20) Mandate for Change: 1953-1956, p.372 (Doubleday and Company, New York City, 1963), quoted by Ralph W. McGehee Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA, pp.133-134 (Sheridan Square Publications, New York City, 1983).
“A CIA ‘national intelligence estimate’ in the autumn {1956} concluded that the Diem regime (which Lansdale himself called ‘fascistic’) “almost certainly would not be able to defeat the communists in country-wide elections.” {CIA Saigon station chief Edward Geary Lansdale}.
William Blum The CIA: A Forgotten History, p.138 (Zed Books, London and Atlantic Heights New Jersey, 1986) citing: Joseph Burkholder Smith Portrait of a Cold Warrior, pp.172-174 (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York City, 1976; Ballantine Books, New York City, 1981). Smith helped install the US-puppet police-state in South Vietnam (the Diem regime), beginning while he was CIA station chief in Singapore.
John F. Kennedy (US President, Jan.20 1961-1963 Nov.22), and his brother Robert (US Attorney-General, Jan.20 1961-1964 Sep.3), felony-murdered the Diem brothers on November 2 1963 (via a violent military coup engineered by the CIA on orders of Kennedy), three weeks before John F. Kennedy himself received swift justice in Dallas (November 22 1963), and 4 years, 7 months before his brother received his just desserts in Los Angeles (June 5 1968). Addendum end
Bill Dutton (473.225, Mar-28 11:00 am, in reply to 473.552):
“In Vietnam, there was no resolve to win the conflict.”
HWOODCJ (473.602, Mar-28 3:41 pm, in reply to 473.225):
I believe the Vietnamese would disagree with your assertion.
It’s understandable that US resolve faded in the face of a
superior resolve.
And I wonder if the unlawful, unjust, and corrupt objective of the US war on Vietnam affected US resolve (to prevent the people of Vietnam from electing the government of their choice, a fundamental human right, according the UN Charter). No reply
Nor (SRIMBERG) (473.168, Mar-28 10:34 am, in reply to 473.155):
Bill Dutton: “The UN had a clear mandate spelled out in 1441. It’s failure to act on it is it’s own undoing. This was yet another in a long list of failures of the UN to enforce it’s resolutions.”
“According to your answer it looks like it’s OK if any country in the UN at any time does exactly what it wants to do. Remember back and think of senator Fulbright (Arkansas) and what he wrote about the Arrogance of Power.”
HWOODCJ (473.492, Mar-28 2:24 pm, in reply to 473.168):
Senator William J. Fulbright (Democrat, Arkansas).
Is that the guy who was told in secret by LBJ about the CIA secret attacks on North Vietnam without a declaration of war by Congress?, providing legal justification [ self-defense ] for North Vietnam gunboats to attack the US warship providing tactical assistence to the CIA in the Gulf of Tonkin — had that attack actually taken place? And that the attack was a fiction? And then sat silent in the Senate as US military officers lied to the Senate about the incident and concealed from the Senate the CIA attacks? And then voted with the Senate for the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’ [August 7 1964], initiating war by the US on North Vietnam?
Nor (SRIMBERG) (473.653, Mar-28 4:40 pm, in reply to 473.492):
“Sorry, but I know nothing of that. Even if it’s true, it does not change the Arrogance of Power and what power/ superpower can lead to.”
WILLIAM2735 (473.244, Mar-28 11:12 am, in reply to 473.225):
“Vietnam is and always will be relevant to any war we fight from now on. It is the shining example of how anything and everything can be done wrong.
It is the yardstick for all US wars from now ’til my generation has been dead and buried for a long time. Only an idiot does not use lessons learned in the past to avoid those same mistakes in the future.
And saying that Vietnam should not be used in this way is showing disrespect to those of all the Americans (including my relatives and friends) who died.
Because the only good thing that resulted from Vietnam was those lessons learned !!”
HWOODCJ (473.620, Mar-28 3:58 pm, in reply to 473.244):
And which lessons are those?:
• If the politicians had let the military “take the gloves off”, we would have won?
• If you aren’t with us you’re against us?
• It’s a criminal offense to advocate a third-way (negotiation with the North)?
• The US public will accept unlimited enemy deaths but not more that 50,000 US deaths?
• A war based on a lie will bite you in the ass?
• A people are entitled to elect the government of their choice?
• We should not stand-by and permit a people to vote for a government with policies we don’t like?
I’m confused. Where is the book where the agreed lessons of this war have been written down?
WILLIAM2735 (473.908, Mar-28 7:51 pm, in reply to 473.620):
“Some of what you listed, but the major one is DON’T BELIEVE the ADMINISTRATION when it comes to WAR !!!”
BDTHRILL (473.668, Mar-28 4:53 pm, in reply to 473.647):
“The Vietnamese, a vastly inferior army, beat back the US using exactly the same tactics.”
HWOODCJ (473.1075, Mar-28 9:52 pm, in reply to 473.668):
I presume you mean inferior-*equipped* army. I never heard a US Vietnam Vet say his enemy was inferior. I’ve heard many describe their enemy with a string of superlatives, to do with their valor, endurance, resourcefulness, determination, and such.
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.167, Mar-28 10:33 am, in reply to 473.126):
“Perhaps, but the UN was unwilling to provide Iraq with a deadline for compliance and enforce any “serious consequences” if they failed to do so. Endless inspections and “containment” is not what the unanimously passed Resolution 1441 demanded ! The Security Council took a “pass”.”
HWOODCJ (473.482, Mar-28 2:12 pm, in reply to 473.167):
And the United States agreed, in voting for S/Res/1441, to *not* impose a deadline but, instead, to disarm Saddam peaceably, without resort to war, if that was possible. And, it agreed that the decision whether this was possible was for the 15 of them acting together, not the US acting unilaterally.
The United States launched a war in violation of the Security Council resolution it agreed to obey. No reply
CASEYC69 (473.173, Mar-28 10:36 am, in reply to 473.167):
“Oddly it was Britain and Spain (on behalf of the US) that tried to get a resolution authorizing war, but when they couldn’t convince anybody else but Bulgaria they ‘took a pass’ and pretended they didn’t need it anyway.
The security council was quite happy to vote, and the US would have lost.”
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.180, Mar-28 10:39 am, in reply to 473.173):
“Only because France said it would veto *any* resolution with an ultimatum and consequence ! That arrogance in pursuit of the “Le Monde, C’est Moi” strategy of Chirac erased any need for a vote on a new resolution.” {asterisk-emphasis added}
HWOODCJ (473.526, Mar-28 2:55 pm, in reply to 473.180):
France said it would veto the March 17 deadline resolution [ war-now ]. It promised to vote for war later *if* Saddam could not be disarmed peaceably.
I see Bush’s lie about what France said worked with you.
KIWIMARACUJA (473.191, Mar-28 10:46 am, in reply to 473.180):
“Not quite right. Bush would have gone for a second resolution if he would have been sure to get 9 votes — but as we know now, Bush wouldn’t have gotten more than 4 votes. Blair had suggested as well, that an “unreasonable veto” wouldn’t stop him, as long as there would be at least a majority for the war, he would have taken that as a “yes” from the world. ”
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.477, Mar-28 2:06 pm, in reply to 473.191):
“I don’t agree. An important part of the failure to get nine votes was France’s statement that it would veto it.”
HWOODCJ (473.860, Mar-28 6:55 pm, in reply to 473.477):
On the contrary, France’s announcement let the little nations off the hook: They could suck-up to the United States by voting with the US/UK, knowing that France would save the day.
So what are we to make of this? That even though they could have done that, they had decided not to and, instead, to vote on principle against the US/UK, because no rational impartial informed reasonable adult could reasonably vote for what the US demanded in the face of the progress then occurring with the inspections. They could only vote with the US/UK in good conscience if they — like the US — decided to disobey a resolution they had agreed to obey.
CASEYC69 (473.189, Mar-28 10:44 am, in reply to 473.180):
“So then they could have voted on it, got the moral majority, and then let France veto it. Having a moral majority they would have got support of 80pc of the British public easily (including mine). ... But as everyone knows, they couldn’t have got even half the security council.”
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.475, Mar-28 2:05 pm, in reply to 473.189):
“Why bother when France states in advance that it will veto *any* meaningful resolution ! {asterisk-emphasis added}
I am not anti-Clinton, but note that he failed with the Camp David negotiations — not through any personal fault or lack of effort, but — because the two parties involved could not agree. So, I am not at all certain that diplomacy would provide a solution.”
HWOODCJ (473.856, Mar-28 6:47 pm, in reply to 473.475):
I see Bush’s lie is working with you. France said nothing of the sort. France said it would veto war on a March 17 deadline (the then pending US/UK resolution). France promised to vote for war later, if inspections reached impasse.
jimaniprivac: “So, I am not at all certain that diplomacy would provide a solution.”
But could inspections provide a solution? This we’ll never know, because Bush abruptly terminated the inspections, violated his agreement to obey S/Res/1441, and attacked Iraq.
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.531, Mar-28 2:57 pm, in reply to 473.526):
“That is incorrect. The French favored unlimited inspections and stated that they would veto any approach that contained an ultimatum and consequence. See you have fallen for the leftist dogma !”
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.891, Mar-28 7:33 pm, in reply to 473.856):
“No lie involved, but you are engaged in a lot of spin !”
HWOODCJ (473.900, Mar-28 7:44 pm, in reply to 473.531):
France certainly said it would veto the US March 17 deadline [ war-now ].
But the rest of your claim is your misunderstanding, which G.W.Bush successfully installed in your mind by his lie about what France said. Here’s a few actual facts to face:
“The President – Not sufficiently. But it isn’t for you or for me to decide that, that’s for the inspectors to whom the UN has entrusted the responsibility of disarming Iraq to say.
The inspectors have to tell us: “we can continue and, at the end of a period which we think should be of a few months” — I’m saying *a few months* because that’s what they have said — “we shall have completed our work and Iraq will be disarmed”.
Or they will come and tell the Security Council: “we are sorry but Iraq isn’t cooperating, the progress isn’t sufficient, we aren’t in a position to achieve *our goal*, we won’t be able to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament”.
In that case it will be for the Security Council and it alone to decide the right thing to do. But in that case, of course, regrettably, the *war would become inevitable*. It isn’t today.”
Jacques Chirac (President of France), interview on TF1 and France2 television, Mar. 10 2003 {asterisk-emphasis added}: http://special. diplomatie.gouv.fr/article_gb91.html and http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/ statmnts/2003/chirac_irak031003.asp.
Addendum:
“The President – They { inspectors } have to go on with their work, to find these weapons *if there are any* and then destroy them. And the inspectors are telling us: “This is a job we can do”.
So when for one reason or another, it appears that they can’t or can no longer do it, then of course, it will be the time to resort to other methods, *including war*.”
Jacques Chirac (President of France), interview, CBS and CNN television, Mar. 16 2003 {asterisk-emphasis added}: http://special. diplomatie.gouv.fr/article_gb91.html Addendum end
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.926, Mar-28 8:04 pm, in reply to 473.900):
“There are many factual errors in your reply but I will concentrate on just one:
“The President – Not sufficiently. But it isn’t for you or for me to decide that, that’s for the inspectors to whom the UN has entrusted the responsibility of disarming Iraq to say.”
The inspectors were not sent to disarm Iraq, as Resolution 1441 made it clear that it was Saddam’s responsibility to comply, and that he was in breach. The inspectors were sent to VERIFY that Saddam had disarmed !”
HWOODCJ (473.1172, Mar-29 12:32 am, in reply to 473.926):
And that’s exactly what Chirac meant. The inspectors said they need a few more months to verify Saddam’s accountings; instead, Bush has given us a few more months of war.
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.1299, Mar-29 7:20 am, in reply to 473.1172):
“Another few months would have effectively forestalled any “serious consequences” for another year because of the onset of the hot season ! It was a disingenuous delaying tactic once again displaying the incestuous nature of the Chirac/Saddam relationship.”
HWOODCJ (473.1819, Mar-29 5:46 pm, in reply to 473.1299):
By all means, we don’t want our boys and girls sweating while they’re doing their killing; it’s unhygienic.
But what’s the alternative?— Dead Iraqis. Is concern for Iraqis a “disingenuous delaying tactic”?
The *threat* of military action is what broke the ice with Saddam: It took him awhile, but his impending doom finally began to dawn on him and, in his own mind, he began to make the adjustments in his thinking that would take any of us some time to get used to.
So, war may not have been necessary and the troops could have watched TV in air-conditioned comfort. Had Bush not terminated the inspections, Saddam’s accountings (which he gave Mr Blix in the previous two weeks) might have proven true.
But if needs be, our troops can fight in the heat. They train for it in the US deserts. [ And, they can fight in the cool of the night, with their night-vision gear. ]
“The military agenda must not dictate the calendar of inspections. We agree to timetables and to an accelerated calendar. But we cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting cooperation.”
Dominique de Villepin (French Minister of Foreign Affairs), UN Security Council, March 7 2003: http://special.diplomatie.gouv.fr/ article_gb70.html and http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/ 030307_cs_villepin_irak.htm
“The Minister – I have a lot of respect for Jack Straw, and he’s a friend. So I respect what he said, and I believe that he believes what he said.
But I’m forced to say that behind this presentation, there is the idea of an ultimatum. 17 March, this is a war-based approach. We don’t accept it. Why? Because the inspectors are saying that they have active cooperation on the part of Iraq. You don’t go to war because of a timetable.”
Dominique de Villepin (French Minister of Foreign Affairs), press briefing, March 7 2003: http://www.un.int/france/frame_anglais/latest_news/ new_york/frame_ang_iraq.htm
“Question – Because the military threat, surely Minister, is what is keeping Saddam on his toes?
The Minister – So we should go to war because we have an army there? We should use it? A military threat is made to put pressure. If you change your position, and if you go from a military ... to taking the risk to go to war — saying that because you have an army there, you want to use it — then you are taking a very strong risk. President Chirac said that already the US have achieved most of their goals because we are in the process of disarming Iraq. We should face reality.”
Dominique de Villepin (French Minister of Foreign Affairs), interview on NewsNight, BBC TV, March 14 2003: http://special. diplomatie.gouv.fr/article_gb141.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ programmes/newsnight/archive/2857249.stm
jimaniprivac: “... the incestuous nature of the Chirac/ Saddam relationship.”
HWOODCJ:
Chirac was questioned on US TV about this supposed relationship:
“Question – The fact is that in America many people think it’s just because you are a friend, a pal of Saddam Hussein, that you have had contacts with him for a long time, that you helped build the nuclear reactor, that there are the oil contracts. You invited Saddam Hussein to France. There is a famous picture of you toasting him. They think your relationship is a personal, business one.
The President – That’s what you call a tall story or, if you’re less indulgent, being polemical. I met President Saddam Hussein when he was Iraqi vice president, twice, in 1974 and 1975 or 1976. I haven’t had a meeting with him since. That was a time when everybody had excellent relations with Saddam Hussein and with the Ba'ath party, which was then seen as a modern party. Everybody.
Personally, I’ve not had any contacts since. That isn’t the case for everybody. Some important figures of the current US administration had contacts with Saddam Hussein as late as 1983. I haven’t. So let’s not confuse things and let’s not be polemical.
As for our interests, which you mentioned, here too, things must be clear. France’s trade with Iraq accounts for 0.2% of total French foreign trade, i.e. we have no economic interests. As far as I know, Iraq isn’t in the list of the 60 trading partners, with whom France’s trade is even significant. As for our oil imports, these account for only 8% of Iraqi exports. The US is importing five or six times more Iraqi oil than us. So the motives you’re talking about, if you don’t mind me saying, aren’t serious.
Question – There have also been persistent allegations that Saddam Hussein put money into one of your electoral campaigns. How do you respond to that?
The President – That’s preposterous. Anything can be said about anyone of course. As we say in French, “The more exaggerated it is, the more likely people will believe it.” I think that is the level of that sort of statement.”
Jacques Chirac (President of France), interview, CBS and CNN television, Mar. 16 2003: http://special.diplomatie. gouv.fr/article_gb91.html
JIMANIPRIVAC (473.2119, Mar-30 7:33 am, in reply to 473.1819):
“Whatever spin Chirac wants you to believe.”
HWOODCJ (473.2228, Mar-30 2:10 pm, in reply to 473.2119):
So killing Iraqis (soldiers and civilians) is justified by your doubts that Jacques Chirac is telling the truth, when he (and the rest of his officials) said France would vote for war if inspections reached impasse?
You demand a stiff price that others must pay for your speculations, imaginings, suppositions, supposings, and suspicions. [ And, you’re in a rush to collect your blood-price: If Jacques Chirac were a liar, when he promised to vote for war-later, we’d have found out soon enough, because the inspectors only wanted another “few months” ].
The price you demand, a majority of those on the Security Council (unlike you) had the responsibility to ensure was a fair price.
They decided that price was not justified, at this time, because the goal they set themselves (which the US agreed to) was disarmament of Saddam peaceably via verification through the inspectors.
And (unlike you), the vast majority of the 190 member nation governments of the United Nations agreed with France as well as the overwhelming majority of the population of the world.
So the next time you see a skyscraper collapsing on TV, grieve by all means for the innocent victims. But don’t whine about it.
Those grieving for the victims in Iraq (both Iraqi civilians and innocent, patriotic, valiant Iraqi soldiers) are justified in whining about what they are justified in viewing as unlawful killings by the United States, which the United States is responsible to pay for, in the future.
DOUG1213 (473.130, Mar-28 10:13 am, in reply to 473.87):
“The UN has no will. And, it is not a democratic forum. It is an international forum with many flavors. We discovered that long ago. The UN is a failure in that the ideas it shares within its forum cannot be effectively brought to action. Prime examples: Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, need I go on?”
HWOODCJ (473.408, Mar-28 1:08 pm, in reply to 473.130):
DOUG1213: “The UN is a failure in that the ideas it shares within its forum cannot be effectively brought to action.”
This is certainly true. The UN was unable to disarm Saddam peaceably. They had to remove their inspectors to protect them from US bombs.
DOUG1213: “The UN has no will.”
Are you suggesting a UN army to attack the United States for violating a Security Council resolution (1441)? No reply
WILLIAM2735 (473.141, Mar-28 10:21 am, in reply to 473.137):
KIWIMARACUJA: “To get inspectors into Iraq was a good start.”
“The inspectors were put there 12 years ago, the only reason these did any better was the stationing of US troops in Kuwait and the threat of invasion.”
HWOODCJ (473.425, Mar-28 1:21 pm, in reply to 473.141):
So? The threat of invasion was working ... and ... ? No reply
Bill Dutton (473.148, Mar-28 10:27 am, in reply to 473.126):
KIWIMARACUJA: “...‘serious consequences’ is NOT the UN-term for war.”
“Sure it is ... that is what is called ‘diplo-speak’ for military action. That was the clear intention of 1441.”
HWOODCJ (473.452, Mar-28 1:40 pm, in reply to 473.148):
...*if* Saddam could not be disarmed peaceably. No reply
Bill Dutton (473.155, Mar-28 10:30 am, in reply to 473.128):
Nor (SRIMBERG): “When the UN passes a resolution, it is up to the UN to tell when there is no compliance.”
“The UN had a clear mandate spelled out in 1441. It’s failure to act on it is it’s own undoing. This was yet another in a long list of failures of the UN to enforce it’s resolutions.”
HWOODCJ (473.458, Mar-28 1:46 pm, in reply to 473.155):
Let’s see if I understand your assertion: The UN agreed to send in inspectors with the aim of disarming Saddam without resort to war. And this, the UN failed to do? No reply
Bill Dutton (473.202, Mar-28 10:48 am, in reply to 473.175):
“More inspectors? They were not there to detect ... they were there to verify whatever the Iraq’s were telling them ... which were lies and coverups.”
HWOODCJ (473.546, Mar-28 3:07 pm, in reply to 473.202):
And the two accountings Saddam provided of his chem/bio weapons (their destruction) — in the two weeks before Bush intervened and declared war? Mr Blix verified these and pronounced them “lies and coverups”? No reply
Bill Dutton (473.216, Mar-28 10:57 am, in reply to 473.175):
Nor (SRIMBERG): “A collective decision should be changed by the same collective.”
“1441 did not require any additional resolution for the use of force. Certain UNSC members forced the issue of another resolution even though they knew full well that the purpose of 1441 was the full compliance of Iraq (although this was not expected by anyone given 12 years of deception) or face military action.
The other UNSC members opposed to the US position essentially stabbed Britain and the US in the back on this.”
HWOODCJ (473.566, Mar-28 3:19 pm, in reply to 473.216):
Bill Dutton: “... the purpose of 1441 was the full compliance of Iraq ...”
So why did the United States prevent “the full compliance of Iraq” by attacking Iraq instead?, in violation of what the United States agreed to do?, namely: abide by the inspection process which sought to verify Iraq’s compliance? No reply
SEEPLAN (473.385, Mar-28 12:57 pm, in reply to 473.371):
“Anyhow, it was not up to the inspectors to find the WMD, it was up to Saddam to prove he didn’t have them or show them to the inspectors so they could be destroyed. A lost opportunity for him.”
HWOODCJ (473.707, Mar-28 5:23 pm, in reply to 473.385):
An opportunity taken from him by force by the United States in violation by the United States of its agreement (1441) to allow the inspectors time to verify Saddam’s accountings.
SEEPLAN: “Now, I wonder if he’s wishing he would have disposed of the WMD or at least proved he had.”
Now I wonder if he’s wishing he hadn’t been so foolish as to destroy his missiles, trusting that the United States would obey the UN resolution it had agreed to obey, and give Mr Blix time to audit the accountings of the WMD he destroyed. He knew better: You can’t trust a liar and a violent thug.
JUNE5101 (473.737, Mar-28 5:38 pm, in reply to 473.707):
HWOODCJ (473.1106, Mar-28 10:33 pm, in reply to 473.737):
I’m surprised Saddam didn’t regognize his own reflection in Bush.
SEEPLAN (473.413, Mar-28 1:12 pm, in reply to 473.396):
“Iraq had the opportunity to prevent this and did not.”
HWOODCJ (473.728, Mar-28 5:34 pm, in reply to 473.413):
Iraq had the opportunity to prevent this and — while in the process of doing so — the United States abruptly attacked them, in violation of its agreement not to do so without prior Security Council consent.
HOLWAY5 (473.1072, Mar-28 9:48 pm, in reply to 473.1072):
“They were absolutely NOT in the process of doing so. The inspectors were in the disarmament actions of a compliant Iraq. Iraq didn’t comply and Hans Blix said so many times. The burden of proof as stated many times was not on the inspectors, but on Iraq. Instead Iraq chose to play hide and seek. The inspectors did their job—they proved that Hussein had no intention of complying. On with the show.”
HWOODCJ (473.1208, Mar-29 1:44 am, in reply to 473.1072):
An excellent summary of the US propaganda; I see you’ve been paying close attention to the lies of Bush & Co. But, don’t go to Blix’s site on the UN webpage — it would spoil your fantasy.
[ Had I elaborated, I would have confronted his two erroneous claims with the facts, namely:—
(1) Saddam’s two chem/bio accountings in the two weeks prior to Bush’s declaration of war, illustrating Saddam’s evolving compliance, and
(2) the inspector’s statements that these accountings were promising, that their audits of them were underway, and that this and other developments promised reasonable expectation at that time that the inspectors could succeed in their goal (verifying Saddam’s disarmament).
And, I would have recalled the objective of S/Res/1441 (not a pretext for war but, instead, disarmament without recourse to war, if such was possible) and the mechanism for authorizing war, made plain by all members, including the US, in statements at the time of adopting S/Res/1441, namely: a collective decision by the 15 members, not the US acting alone, that inspections had reached an impasse.
I had confronted this claim previously: 469.1024 (above) ].
DIANNEF51 (473.1210, Mar-29 1:47 am, in reply to 473.1208):
“Iraq had 12 years to comply. Do you really think a couple more weeks would have made a difference? You can’t negotiate with the Hitlers, Husseins and Bin Ladens of the world.”
HWOODCJ:
I didn’t reply to this. But had I done so, I would have said this:
What *I* think is not relevant. The inspectors stated that *they* thought a “few more months” would have made a difference, and held promise that they could accomplish the objective of the Security Council, namely: disarmament of Saddam without resort to war.
The inspectors destroyed an extremely large amount of WMD during those 12 years. And, following a 4-year hiatus, the Security Council again seized control of this issue, to finish the job. The United States agreed with the other 14 members of the Security Council, unanimously, to decide as a group whether inspections had reached an impasse.
Instead, the United States abruptly terminated the inspections with the threat of death, if they didn’t leave on 24-hours notice; defied the will of the international community; and launched a war in violation of a Security Council resolution it had agreed, instead, to obey.
YAKYAK3 (473.521, Mar-28 2:50 pm, in reply to 473.454):
“Apparently each member of the UNSC has its own interpretation of the term, “serious consequences”. Some say that a serious breech then means war, while many others say it means something less than that.”
HWOODCJ (473.884, Mar-28 7:27 pm, in reply to 473.521):
All 15 members of the Security Council knew what they agreed to, namely: war with Iraq, *but only if* Iraq could not be disarmed peaceably.
The confusion which you perceive in their thinking does not exist in reality, only in the propaganda of G.W.Bush who — besides lying about what France said — pretended to the American public that the state of mind of the 15 members was as you describe it, namely: that they would not agree to war under *any* circumstances:— a blatant lie.
You confusion is precisely the result G.W.Bush sought to achieve. Victory to him.
YAKYAK3 (473.1589, Mar-29 1:36 pm, in reply to 473.884):
“The words in UNSC resolution are Iraq is given “one final opportunity” to carryout its disarmament obligations or face serious consequences. It goes on to say that Iraq will give its full and complete cooperation to the UN inspectors in the disarmament process. Since the war started the Chief UN inspector stated that while there was some progress, Iraq did not fully cooperate with the inspection process. That is after 12 years of resolutions and nearly four months of UNSC resolution 1441. Remember this, at the time of UNSC 1441, Iraq was already in material breech of a multitude of UNSC resolutions propagated since 1991. I don’t know what “one final opportunity” means to you. Obviously, it doesn't mean “one final opportunity”.
I did not perceive any confusion; it was obvious. Two of the five permanent members of the UNSC interpreted resolution 1441 one way, and three interpreted it another way. That is defined as confusion. It should also be noted that in its history the United Nations has never taken military action against any country except at the insistence of the United States. So, without the United States it is not too far off the mark to say the United Nations would not agree to war under any circumstance.
On November 8, 2003, George II stood in the rose garden and said if Iraq did not cooperate fully and disarm immediately it would face the “severest consequences”. He was saying in effect if Iraq did not cooperate with the UN Inspectors and fully disarm there would be war. That is something different than “serious consequences”.
My post did not support, neither did it attack George II's actions. So, your point, whatever it might be, is lost.”
HWOODCJ:
I didn’t reply to this. But had I done so, I would have said this:
“One final opportunity” is not a moment in time, it’s a period of time. And during this period of time, Saddam’s percentage cooperation increased, and dramatically so during the two weeks prior to Bush’s abrupt, unilateral declaration of war (Saddam’s two accountings, for his chem/bio weapons).
S/Res/1441 was not a pretext for war. It was a path to peace. And perceptions regarding Saddam’s percentage cooperation are subordinate to the objective of the resolution. namely, disarming Saddam of WMD without resort to war, if such was possible. This could possibly be done with less than 100% cooperation, and his cooperation might grow to 100% during the period.
It was only *if* the Security Council, relying on the opinion of the inspectors, determined that inspections had reached an impasse that a resolution for war was called for. According to Mr Blix, this was not the case at the time Bush panicked and declared war (fearing, as I suppose, that Mr Blix would succeed in his mission, preempting Bush’s war for regime-change).
Your imaginings about what the Security Council would have done, are contradicted by what France *actually* said (not Bush’s lie about what France said). Jacques Chirac (President of France) promised, in TV interviews on March 10 and March 16, to vote for war, if inspections reached impasse. Ditto, his Foreign Minister on several occasions. Quotes and links.
I elaborated on this previously: 469.1024 (above).
War now?
