1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How Much More Time?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Sierra Mike, Jan 23, 2003.

  1. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    How much more time should UNMOVIC inspectors be given?

    I think we can agree on the following certainties:

    1) Iraq has had four years to move its eggs.
    2) The release of information by Iraq is apparently less than compelling; even Blix said the declarations are incomplete.
    3) Iraq has refused to allow the UN to utilize its U-2 recon jets.
    4) UNMOVIC has only had a couple of months on the ground.
    5) Over a dozen biochem-capable arty shells were found.
    6) UNMOVIC has detailed that Iraq has sought missile technology and parts, which is absolutely proscribed by UN Resolution 1441.
    7) Iraq agreed to the establishment of the No-Fly Zones, then contested them after the fact. They continue to fire upon coalition aircraft on a routine basis.

    Errata:

    1) Gas attacks on the Kurds and Iranians.
    2) Bloody attacks on the Shiites in the south.
    3) Same attacks on the Shiites came via armed attack helicopters, which were mistakenly allowed due to Schwarzkopf's inability to recognize what attack helicopters had done for his own forces; admittedly, this is the fault of the US, but clearly the Iraqis did not confess their intent.
    4) Continued persecution of those who might dissent with Hussein.
    5) Resale of food and medicine--and misappropriation of oil-for-food--to rebuild the Iraqi military.

    Given these truths, how much longer should Iraq be given?

    SM
     
  2. saber11

    saber11 Veteran Member

    We have exercised a great deal of patience. It seems the global reaction is to run and hide your head in the sand while IRAQ continually violated one resolution after another. It seems almost daily, his forces shoot at aircraft patrolling the "NO FLY" zones.

    It is clear that he has no intention of complying with any sanctions, or other orders, yet nothing to this point has been done.

    For almost 10 years, IRAQ has been given great leeway. Being that the UN has no stones.
     
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    As soon as we have the power in the region I believe we should act. I reiterate that I would like for Bush to present overwhelming evidence first, but I think the list above is enough.
     
  4. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Well, that's hardly debatable. :)

    In essence, to me at any rate, the UN has sidelined itself by being too slow to respond, and extending Iraq more than its fair share of courtesy in manning up and living to the agreements they signed.

    I also wonder how France and Germany--and now Russia and China, who have clear oil-related interests--can look at their collective faces in the mirror and take themselves seriously.

    They couldn't possibly penalize the US if it were to choose to act unilaterally. Most certainly, Russia and China couldn't, as they depend on the US to support them. France does not, insofar as I can tell, and I don't think Germany has really considered the potential economic fallout that might be forthcoming should the US elect to downgrade its military commitment to the European continent.

    SM
     
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Ya, we are just the world's bully if we act in our own interest and rate the threats ourselves. But they are glad to call on our services when their interests are threatened and they want big brother there. There is nothing diplomatic about allowing yourselves to be shoved around.
     
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Rumsfield just called both Germany and France, "old Europe." Which, as you can imagine, got the old verses of "arrogance" piled on to America.
     

Share This Page