Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Given the situation at the end of the Gulf War, though, don't you think Saddam had to pretty much accept any terms the Security Council put before him? The point I wanted to get settled with you was this... if the Gulf War was about getting Saddam out of Kuwait, pure and simple, then what justification was there for the Security Council to go beyond that in Resolution 687?
|
Yeah...he sure stepped in that one.
Interesting question...one that could possibly lead to some other answers as to the why we didn't dissuade him from going into Kuwait...bear with me for a minute...
687 exercises some clout through this interesting statement...
Quote:
Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,
Recalling that Iraq has subscribed to the Declaration adopted by all States participating in the Conference of States Parties to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and Other Interested States, held in Paris from 7 to 11 January 1989, establishing the objective of universal elimination of chemical and biological weapons,
Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,
Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying this Convention
|
So, I do believe they had a pretty persuasive argument defending the notion.
But the question that comes to mind is, since Saddam had apparently been in violation for some time...what kind of UN sanctioning was he under prior to Kuwait? I don't recall any...hell, he was our buddy fighting the Iranians and although we had him on some bad guy lists...it didn't stop Reagan/Bush and gang from dealing with him...so why the change of heart and let him screw up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
We're paying an indirect cost in Afghanistan - every US soldier in Iraq is one that isn't fighting there, and so casualties among all the combatants there - US & Canadian alike - are higher there than would otherwise be the case.
|
Well done...how many troops and casualties?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Absolutely leaders should cherry pick! What are you arguing? That the public should be privy to every piece of intelligence that crosses the President's desk?
|
Hell no, it's not necessary for the public to be privy to every piece of intelligence but we should be able to feel secure in the feeling that the government is looking out for us...and that there is sufficient oversight to keep a bit of honesty in the process...I remember full well the Condi interviews where she was saying that the aluminum tubes "could only be used for"...knowing full well there was intelligence available at the time that said they were not suitable for what she was claiming they were...a little honesty would be appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
And if Saddam were truly interested in a peaceful settlement, he could have given the inspectors unfettered access starting in 1991. He was given every opportunity to comply with Resolution 687, Areyou. For 11 years. Why didn't he bother? And even after all of that, when he was given a final opportunity to comply by finally submitting his long-overdue WMD declaration, he still didn't cooperate. How many chances was he supposed to get?
|
Yeah...we really put him in a tough spot...we took away his power and he felt a need to project that wasn't the case...it's a screwed up region of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
As far as US and UK information-sharing with the inspectors, was it ever a complaint from Blix (or Butler before him) that that information wasn't forthcoming?
|
I dont recall a complaint but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordelier
Where was the evidence of "full cooperation" from Saddam, though? The WMD declaration was a test of Iraq's sincerity to comply and they failed it. What makes you think that they would have been any more forthcoming with the inspectors?
|
Blix indicated progress was being made...wouldn't it be our responsibility to present it to Blix if we wanted to prove our claims?