The UNSCOM inspections were compromised by Iraq's well-founded suspicions of Richard Butler's spying.
That's heavily debateable-- here's a hint; believe nothing Scott Ritter says unless you also hear it from two independent, credible sources-- but it doesn't matter. The rules are not ambiguous. They're crystal-clear, and they're on paper. Iraq was to present a declaration of their weapons programs by April 18, 1991. They didn't. They still haven't. Everything that happened subsequent to that was basically irrelevant. The inspectors never even should have gone into Iraq, because the declaration was unacceptable.
I think that Scott Ritter was able to get a lot done, before we yanked the inspectors out for Operation Desert Fox.
Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out in 1998, after Iraq shut down their cooperation for the third time that year. Not "we."
Al-Samoud missles, and their extra 10 km range, aren't weapons of mass destruction without warheads, which was apparently how their range was determined -- but you're right, they were proscribed by the unending, sanctions-preserving Resolution 687 -- so good thing the inspectors found them and started destroying them, right?
Wrong. The fact that the inspectors had to find them, that Iraq didn't declare them and submit them for destruction voluntarily, is evidence of the fact that the disarmament process wasn't working.
Before we go any further with this I want you to fire up Google and read resolution 687. The whole thing, start to finish. Read it, and understand it. Virtually everything you've said on the subject of the inspections so far is indicative of the fact that you just don't understand how the process was supposed to happen, and if you don't understand how it was supposed to happen, you can't understand why it was a failure.
As far as your worries about the dreaded "Marxist-Stalinist" boogeyman that has it out for Israel...
I'm lost now. What are you talking about? The organization formerly known as the PKK, now called KADEK, is a Marxist-Stalinist terrorist organization that used to operate out of Turkey, but since 1999 has been based in northwestern Iraq. Bringing them to the bargaining table, as you suggested, would be a diplomatic nightmare for the United States. But that's okay; it could never happen. Turkey will never negotiate with that group.
...or we mollify Syria by holding Israel's feet to the fire over it's UN obligations.
We can't. You are aware of the difference between chapter VI and chapter VII UNSEC resolutions, yes?
The Ba'athist parties in Syria and Iraq should be allowed to build its economy any way it wants to (that's Democracy)
No, it's totalitarianism. The Baath party maintains control in Iraq through brutal violence. This is your idea of democracy?
Sharon's provocation at Al-Aqsa...
You know what? Drop it. Right fucking now. We are not going to have a conversation about Israel, okay? Your opinion is so utterly wrong, I refuse to even listen to it. If you want to talk about Iraq, go for it. But shut the fuck up about Israel.
My question, however, is how do they define disarmament?
They don't. The resolution says, "Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection," and calls for the "yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above." In other words, first Iraq must present a complete declaration, then they must turn everything declared over to UNSCOM for destruction. It was one, then two: first the declaration, then the inspection and verified destruction. The declaration never happened.
Do the inspectors need to find proof that Iraq is deliberately hiding weapons, or is it enough to suspect it?
It's enough to demonstrate that Iraq's declaration(s) was either incomplete or inaccurate, and proof of that is now common knowledge.
Who decides the point at which Iraq is in material breach?
It's not a matter to be decided; it's a question of fact. If Iraq didn't produce a complete and accurate declaration, they were in material breach. And that's what happened.
Was there a clear methodology in place for enforcing the resolutions?
Yes, it was all there on paper.
Also, have the missiles been positively ID'd as scuds?
One of them definitely has, identified by debris. I've heard reports that at least one more of them has also been. Others are suspected of being Scuds based on where they came from.
This article in the Guardian is the latest I've found, and it suggests that things aren't clear at this point
Are you a regular reader of the Guardian? You should know that it's known for taking a very strong pro-Saddam editorial stance. Be sure to look at more than one media outlet for your news.
You don't need a history lesson. You know exactly what Iraq has done. They've waged a campaign of violent oppression against their own people. They have attempted to assassinate President George Bush. They have hidden some chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program, and they have started others. They have diverted export revenues from food and medicine to materials needed for their weapons programs. The list goes on and on.
No, it's NOT implicit, which is the whole point.
Um. Destabilizing regime, removed from power. Increases stability. It most certainly is implicit.
They have publicly stated that invading Iraq will somehow help solve the Israel-Palestinian problem.
No, they haven't. In point of fact, however, having a stable federal republic within a few hundred miles of all these various hotspots will do wonders. We have seen this again and again, most recently in eastern Europe.
Ansar al Islam is based in a territory outside of Baghdad's control
That's not true. They have camps both in Kurdistan and in northwestern Iraq.
The group's connections to Baghdad and Saddam are tenuous at best
Iraqi military intelligence has a full-time liaison officer assigned to Ansar al Islam. There's nothing tenuous about the connection.
First of all, they're suicide bombers. It's a more precise term, it's better defined, it's more accurate.
I can't believe you just said that. A suicide bomber's purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Suicide bombers are most certainly homicide bombers, and your anti-Israel wisecrack is not helpful.
This is a miniscule effect at best.
Okay. So? Are you going to suggest that it won't have an effect?
Anything involving majority voting (other that an Iraqi general election) must have some element of democracy.
Wrong, for two reasons. First of all, one out of three members of the Council has the ability to veto anything at any time. Secondly, and more importantly, the representatives who make up the Security Council are not elected to their roles, and are not accountable to a constituency.
Even if you do have the legality where is the legitimacy?
You're very insightful to realize that there is a difference; most people, it seems, don't. But legitimacy is subjective; either you believe the Coalition has it, or you don't. I do.
UN is far from perfect but what alternative are you suggesting to allow us to co-habit this world?
A fair question. I don't have an answer. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, but every time I come up with an idea, I end up talking myself out of it.
My opinion today is that the UN is both vital and doomed. The General Assembly, as a body for international diplomacy and humanitarian efforts, is vital. The Security Council, fatally flawed and ineffectual at best, is doomed. I think questions of regional peace are better left for the various regional alliances and also for the superpowers.
ah, the american double standard at work. when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored
You're wrong, dude. It's not a "convenient double standard," and this war is not only sanctioned, it's MANDATED by the UN. Read this.
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction.
No, the bottom line is that Iraq was required to make a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons, and they failed to do that. Every declaration they ever made was either inaccurate or incomplete or both.
Hell, scuds are falling on the Iraqi-Kuwait border RIGHT NOW. These are missiles that are proscribed, and that Iraq SWORE up and down that they didn't have.
You really need to educate yourself before you form your opinions. You are wrong about far too many things.
In this case though, the balif was self-appointed.
Wrong. All member states of the UN were called upon in 1990, with resolution 678, to carry out "all necessary means" to restore peace and security to the area. In fact, nations signatory to the UN Charter are required, by that Charter, to enforce the resolutions. The Coalition consists of the 45-odd countries who are willing to uphold that obligation.
The authority was still in pre-trial hearings, not the sentencing stage.
Also wrong. To stretch the analogy, Iraq was tried and convicted in 1990, and sentenced in 1991. Nobody has carried out the sentence yet; the Coalition is doing so now.
It appears that he hasn't done this nearly to the extent that he did in Kuwait in 1991
We don't really know that. We (the public) have very little information about the Rumiylah oil fields to the northwest of Kuwait City and the Zubayr fields to the west of Basra, but we know that there are giant clouds of thick, black smoke in Kuwait City. And we have basically no (public) information about what's going on in Kirkuk.
Explain how Saddam out of Iraq will somehow stabilize the region.
Instead of "stabilize," let's use the more precise phrase, "improve the stability of." So the question is how will removing the Baath administration from Iraq improve the stability of the region.
One: the Baath government has been in almost a constant state of aggressive war since Saddam came into power. Saddam assumed power in 1978, and in 1980 Iraq started the war with Iran. They fought that war, brutally, until 1988, then in 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and attempted to invade Saudi Arabia. The Baath government is a brutal, warmongering regime. Removing them from power will implicitly improve the stability of the region.
Two: Iraq under the Baath party is a totalitarian autocracy. Those types of states are inherently less stable, both internally and externally, than representative states like federal republics. So replacing the Baath government with a federal republic will inherently improve the stability of the region.
Three: the Baath government provides aid and assistance to domestic terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam. You may have heard of this group; last month they carried out an assassination against the leadership of the PUK. Removing this support for terrorist groups inside Iraq will improve the stability of the region.
Four: the Baath government also supports terrorism outside of Iraq. The Iraqi government pays cash rewards, formerly in the range of $20-25,000 but recently lowered to $10,000, to the families of Palestinian suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers. Removing this source of aid and encouragement to terrorists will inherently improve the stability of the region.
Five: as we saw after the 1991 war, both the Kurds in the north and the Shiite population in the south are extremely unhappy with the Baath government, and will rise up in armed revolt when the circumstances permit. Removing the Baath government and replacing it with a federal government in which all population groups participate will inherently improve the stability of the region.
Does this act differ that much from people in the US donating money at Sinn Fein fund-raisers while the IRA were busy bombing London?
Yes. We're not talking about people in Iraq paying rewards to the families of suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers. We're talking about the government of Iraq doing it. It's very different.
US news in censored heavily and independent journalists are not allowed in Iraq by the USA!
Richard Engel, an independent freelance stringer, is on the 14th floor of the Palestine Hotel on the eastern side of the river in Baghdad. You want his room number?
the u.s. actually has more chemical weapons than iraq. and more nukes.
Yes, that's true. Barring some particular international treaties, the mere possession of these weapons is not illegal, and not just cause for waging war.
However, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and during the war to expel them, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. It was decided, when discussing the terms of a cease-fire that could end the war, that in order to "restore peace and security to the area" (the UN's words) Iraq would have to be disarmed of some specific classes of weapons.
It's just like losing your driver's license. If you get picked up for DUI, you might have your driver's license revoked. You did something wrong, and therefore the authority with jurisidiction over you has decided that you have to give up your license. Along comes the bailiff to take your license from you.
"But that's not fair," you respond. "The bailiff still has a driver's license! He drives even more than I do! Where does he get off trying to take my license from me?!"
It's the same situation. Iraq did something wrong (started a war), and therefore the authority with jurisdiction over Iraq (the UN) decided that Iraq had to give up its weapons. Iraq refused, for twelve long years, to give up their weapons. So along comes the bailiff (the Alliance) to take away their weapons from them.
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
That's not what's happened. We're hitting military and leadership targets, we're not destroying a city. The difference is sometimes hard to tell from the ground-- stuff blowing up is stuff blowing up-- but it's important. The city, for all intents and purposes, is and will remain totally intact.
Feel like backing that up with something other than non-specific assertions, Sparky? What are CNN, MSNBC, and Fox doing, exactly, that you don't approve of?
BTW, where does this leave countries who are *refusing* to enforce the resolution? Is there any sort of sanction process against them for failing in their duty per the charter??
If I recall, there's a clause in the Charter that says that states that persist in refusing to uphold their obligations under the Charter can be subject to various different measures, ultimately culminating in getting kicked out of the UN. But in terms of doing anything specific and serious, no, not really. The UN can't "punish" France for defying their obligations without a chapter VII resolution, just like they can't "punish" the US for acting without explicit authorization (though none was needed, as I explained) without a chapter VII resolution.
Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter
I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.
Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter
I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.
There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.
The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,
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.
So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.
The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,
The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.
The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Well, since you've already made up my mind for me, in a very enfranchising way (thanks, boss!), that "the declaration is neither complete nor accurate,"
Surely you're not going to argue about this. The declaration didn't include Saddam's VX stockpiles, it didn't include his al Samoud program, and it didn't include the Scud or Scuds he fired at our troops yesterday. That's just the stuff that's been in the news over the past week or so.
We must not ignore this, as you seem wont to do. Iraq was told, before anything else, to make a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons programs. They never did that. How would you, armchair president, deal with this fact? You have two choices: let Iraq off the hook, or don't. Which do you do, and how?
Don't read any further until you answer this. If you don't have an answer for this, there is no point in going on.
I would have ended the sanctions back then
On what grounds? Let's look at the facts here. Iraq had not done anything that it was required to do. Nothing at all. So on what grounds would you have lifted the sanctions?
Wait. Before I get to that, would you have done that before or after Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM? In October, 1997, Iraq demanded that the American members of UNSCOM leave the country. UNSCOM pulled them out temporarily, but they went back in in November. Then, in January, Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM entirely on the grounds that too many members of the team were American and British. In February they started cooperating again, but they threatened to stop in August, and then stopped entirely again in October. The US threatened military action, and Iraq started cooperating again in November. Then they stopped again in December, which is the point where UNSCOM pulled their inspectors out.
So be more specific. Would you have lifted the sanctions in early January, while the Americans were still in Iraq, or in late January and February when they weren't cooperating at all? Iraq went back-and-forth all year. Would you have lifted the sanctions during a period of total non-cooperation, or during a period of partial non-cooperation?
Now that we've covered when, let's go back to why. On what grounds would you lift the sanctions? Like I said, and illustrated, Iraq was not cooperating. They spent 1995 through 1998 jerking UNSCOM around. I mean, the resolutions say that sanctions won't be lifted until Iraq cooperates. They're not cooperating. So what reason-- what pretense, if you will-- can you come up with to lift them? And how would you spin it to make it seem like we're not rewarding Iraq's defiance?
I would accuse Hussein (as well as Kissinger and Ariel Sharon, but later for that) of war crimes, with the idea of building respect for future US policy in the area.
Anybody who would accuse Secretary Kissinger or Prime Minister Sharon of war crimes clearly has no concept of what "war crimes" means. I'm this close to shutting this dialogue down right now, because you're sounding more and more like the typical left-wing fool. Please prove me wrong on this.
I would gather representatives from Turkey, Syria, the PKK, and even Iraq (yes, even though I've accused their dictator of war crimes), and work out a solution to the Kurdish question that the parties could agree on.
Sorry, but you're going to have to give me more than just hand-waving here. "What would you do?" "Well, I'd solve the problem." "How?" "By finding a solution to the problem." That's not especially enlighening. How would you gather those representatives? How would you "work out a solution?" And, most importantly, how would you justify the fact to the people of the United States that you are negotiating with a Marxist-Stalinist group with the declared purpose of bringing down a legitimate ally of the United States through terrorist means? Finally, how would you repair our relationship with Turkey after this a
But to quote Scott Ritter: "Today, Iraq no long possesses arms of mass destruction."
Um. Mr. Ritter was obviously seriously wrong. We have found proscribed weapons in Iraq since he made that statement, including the al Samoud 2 missiles that caused such a fuss last month. Hell, Iraq fired a Scud missile-- we believe; we think we have confirmed this, but it's always possible that it's not correct-- just today, a weapon that Iraq swore up and down and left and right that they didn't have.
Furthermore, I think we could both agree that El-Baradei and Blix are both more credible than either of the previous mission leaders. Why not let them work?
Because they weren't getting the job done. Imagine we're trying to get from Chicago to New York. We get on the highway and I head west instead of east. I realize my mistake and start to turn the car around, and you say, "No, no, don't do that! We're making great time! Let's keep going!" Yes, we're making good progress, but no matter how long we keep at it, we're never going to get where we're going.
It's not that UNMOVIC or the IAEA are bad guys, but simply because it's not possible to do the job in that way that they were trying to go about it. Iraq was hiding weapons, which they were specifically told not to do. All the inspections in the world wouldn't have solved that problem.
How much bending over does Iraq have to do, before they are allowed out from under the sanctions?
It's all right there on paper. Among the other terms dealing with prisoners and whatnot, Iraq had to make a complete and accurate declaration, and then submit to the destruction of the weapons and associated materials and facilities included in that declaration. That is precisely how much bending over Iraq was required to do.
They decided they didn't want to do that. That wasn't anybody's first choice, but we're willing and able to work with it.
As to your specific points... I'm just not going to bother. It seems fairly clear that you've got your mind made up that things happened in the way that you remember them, so I'm not going to waste time and keystrokes trying to argue with you. I'll just say that your account of the events doesn't even remotely jibe with what I saw as they transpired.
I mean, isn't unilateralism a failure of diplomacy by definition?
Some forty nations representing over a fifth of the world's population. You have some definition of "unilateralism" that is new to me.
This administration had already proven that they don't like to talk to others with regards to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocols, the ABM treaty (how do you unsign a treaty?) and other accords.
The ICC is a mess. The structure of the court as defined by the Rome agreement runs completely counter to our American tradition of checks and balances. There is absolutely nothing preventing the abuse of the ICC for political motivations. That, among other less important reasons, is why we didn't support the ICC.
Kyoto is a crock of shit. It's a terrible treaty, and was rightly shot down by the Senate. President Clinton signed the treaty but never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would never pass. All President Bush did was acknowledge that the United States would not be ratifying or implementing the treaty.
As for ABM, it's easy to "unsign" a treaty, when the treaty includes a procedure for withdrawing from it. At any point, all either side had to do was notify the other side within six months that they would be withdrawing, and poof! All nice and formal. And, of course, since ABM had served its purpose-- putting the brakes on the Cold War arms race-- and was preventing the US from moving in an important new direction, it was entirely appropriate for the treaty to end.
And that's not bullshit, and that queers the outcome of diplomacy a hell of a lot more than some French veto.
Virtually all current HDTVs take 1080i in and output 720p.
You have this backwards. Most HDTV's take either 1080i or 720p and display 1080i. Some low-end rear-projection units do it the other way around, but those are pretty rare.
And it depends what you watch, there's a lot of 720p stuff out there, and there's a lot of 1080i.
ABC is the only network that broadcasts in 720p. That's nothing to sneeze at, but NBC, CBS, PBS, HDNet, WB, HBO, and Showtime all broadcast 1080i. As a fraction of 1080i content, there's hardly any 720p content out there at all.
Wrong. Only 540 lines are drawn in each vertical refresh. All 1080 lines are shown at the same time. See, the device-- projector or tube or whatever-- draws the even lines. Then it leaves those lines alone, and it draws the even lines. Then it goes back and refreshes the odd lines, leaving the even lines alone. Lather, rinse, repeat.
720p is a little better on static pictures and much, much better on moving scenes.
Depending on your preferences, you might like 720p better because it's frame-based instead of field-based. (Most people can't tell the difference.) But 1080i has considerably higher spatial resolution. I really have no idea where you got this idea.
1080i is 540 line per field. There are two fields per frame. The projector or tube or whatever will draw the odd lines first, then the even lines. The projector or tube has to be able to draw all 1080 lines, just not all at once.
You really need to get a clue before posting publicly.
Right back atcha. You're completely off-base about this one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's heavily debateable-- here's a hint; believe nothing Scott Ritter says unless you also hear it from two independent, credible sources-- but it doesn't matter. The rules are not ambiguous. They're crystal-clear, and they're on paper. Iraq was to present a declaration of their weapons programs by April 18, 1991. They didn't. They still haven't. Everything that happened subsequent to that was basically irrelevant. The inspectors never even should have gone into Iraq, because the declaration was unacceptable.
I think that Scott Ritter was able to get a lot done, before we yanked the inspectors out for Operation Desert Fox.
Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out in 1998, after Iraq shut down their cooperation for the third time that year. Not "we."
Al-Samoud missles, and their extra 10 km range, aren't weapons of mass destruction without warheads, which was apparently how their range was determined -- but you're right, they were proscribed by the unending, sanctions-preserving Resolution 687 -- so good thing the inspectors found them and started destroying them, right?
Wrong. The fact that the inspectors had to find them, that Iraq didn't declare them and submit them for destruction voluntarily, is evidence of the fact that the disarmament process wasn't working.
Before we go any further with this I want you to fire up Google and read resolution 687. The whole thing, start to finish. Read it, and understand it. Virtually everything you've said on the subject of the inspections so far is indicative of the fact that you just don't understand how the process was supposed to happen, and if you don't understand how it was supposed to happen, you can't understand why it was a failure.
As far as your worries about the dreaded "Marxist-Stalinist" boogeyman that has it out for Israel...
I'm lost now. What are you talking about? The organization formerly known as the PKK, now called KADEK, is a Marxist-Stalinist terrorist organization that used to operate out of Turkey, but since 1999 has been based in northwestern Iraq. Bringing them to the bargaining table, as you suggested, would be a diplomatic nightmare for the United States. But that's okay; it could never happen. Turkey will never negotiate with that group.
We can't. You are aware of the difference between chapter VI and chapter VII UNSEC resolutions, yes?
The Ba'athist parties in Syria and Iraq should be allowed to build its economy any way it wants to (that's Democracy)
No, it's totalitarianism. The Baath party maintains control in Iraq through brutal violence. This is your idea of democracy?
Sharon's provocation at Al-Aqsa...
You know what? Drop it. Right fucking now. We are not going to have a conversation about Israel, okay? Your opinion is so utterly wrong, I refuse to even listen to it. If you want to talk about Iraq, go for it. But shut the fuck up about Israel.
My question, however, is how do they define disarmament?
They don't. The resolution says, "Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection," and calls for the "yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above." In other words, first Iraq must present a complete declaration, then they must turn everything declared over to UNSCOM for destruction. It was one, then two: first the declaration, then the inspection and verified destruction. The declaration never happened.
Do the inspectors need to find proof that Iraq is deliberately hiding weapons, or is it enough to suspect it?
It's enough to demonstrate that Iraq's declaration(s) was either incomplete or inaccurate, and proof of that is now common knowledge.
Who decides the point at which Iraq is in material breach?
It's not a matter to be decided; it's a question of fact. If Iraq didn't produce a complete and accurate declaration, they were in material breach. And that's what happened.
Was there a clear methodology in place for enforcing the resolutions?
Yes, it was all there on paper.
Also, have the missiles been positively ID'd as scuds?
One of them definitely has, identified by debris. I've heard reports that at least one more of them has also been. Others are suspected of being Scuds based on where they came from.
This article in the Guardian is the latest I've found, and it suggests that things aren't clear at this point
Are you a regular reader of the Guardian? You should know that it's known for taking a very strong pro-Saddam editorial stance. Be sure to look at more than one media outlet for your news.
What have they done in the past 12 years though?
You don't need a history lesson. You know exactly what Iraq has done. They've waged a campaign of violent oppression against their own people. They have attempted to assassinate President George Bush. They have hidden some chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program, and they have started others. They have diverted export revenues from food and medicine to materials needed for their weapons programs. The list goes on and on.
No, it's NOT implicit, which is the whole point.
Um. Destabilizing regime, removed from power. Increases stability. It most certainly is implicit.
They have publicly stated that invading Iraq will somehow help solve the Israel-Palestinian problem.
No, they haven't. In point of fact, however, having a stable federal republic within a few hundred miles of all these various hotspots will do wonders. We have seen this again and again, most recently in eastern Europe.
Ansar al Islam is based in a territory outside of Baghdad's control
That's not true. They have camps both in Kurdistan and in northwestern Iraq.
The group's connections to Baghdad and Saddam are tenuous at best
Iraqi military intelligence has a full-time liaison officer assigned to Ansar al Islam. There's nothing tenuous about the connection.
First of all, they're suicide bombers. It's a more precise term, it's better defined, it's more accurate.
I can't believe you just said that. A suicide bomber's purpose is to kill as many people as possible. Suicide bombers are most certainly homicide bombers, and your anti-Israel wisecrack is not helpful.
This is a miniscule effect at best.
Okay. So? Are you going to suggest that it won't have an effect?
Anything involving majority voting (other that an Iraqi general election) must have some element of democracy.
Wrong, for two reasons. First of all, one out of three members of the Council has the ability to veto anything at any time. Secondly, and more importantly, the representatives who make up the Security Council are not elected to their roles, and are not accountable to a constituency.
Even if you do have the legality where is the legitimacy?
You're very insightful to realize that there is a difference; most people, it seems, don't. But legitimacy is subjective; either you believe the Coalition has it, or you don't. I do.
UN is far from perfect but what alternative are you suggesting to allow us to co-habit this world?
A fair question. I don't have an answer. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, but every time I come up with an idea, I end up talking myself out of it.
My opinion today is that the UN is both vital and doomed. The General Assembly, as a body for international diplomacy and humanitarian efforts, is vital. The Security Council, fatally flawed and ineffectual at best, is doomed. I think questions of regional peace are better left for the various regional alliances and also for the superpowers.
ah, the american double standard at work. when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored
You're wrong, dude. It's not a "convenient double standard," and this war is not only sanctioned, it's MANDATED by the UN. Read this.
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction.
No, the bottom line is that Iraq was required to make a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons, and they failed to do that. Every declaration they ever made was either inaccurate or incomplete or both.
Hell, scuds are falling on the Iraqi-Kuwait border RIGHT NOW. These are missiles that are proscribed, and that Iraq SWORE up and down that they didn't have.
You really need to educate yourself before you form your opinions. You are wrong about far too many things.
In this case though, the balif was self-appointed.
Wrong. All member states of the UN were called upon in 1990, with resolution 678, to carry out "all necessary means" to restore peace and security to the area. In fact, nations signatory to the UN Charter are required, by that Charter, to enforce the resolutions. The Coalition consists of the 45-odd countries who are willing to uphold that obligation.
The authority was still in pre-trial hearings, not the sentencing stage.
Also wrong. To stretch the analogy, Iraq was tried and convicted in 1990, and sentenced in 1991. Nobody has carried out the sentence yet; the Coalition is doing so now.
It appears that he hasn't done this nearly to the extent that he did in Kuwait in 1991
We don't really know that. We (the public) have very little information about the Rumiylah oil fields to the northwest of Kuwait City and the Zubayr fields to the west of Basra, but we know that there are giant clouds of thick, black smoke in Kuwait City. And we have basically no (public) information about what's going on in Kirkuk.
Explain how Saddam out of Iraq will somehow stabilize the region.
;-)
Instead of "stabilize," let's use the more precise phrase, "improve the stability of." So the question is how will removing the Baath administration from Iraq improve the stability of the region.
One: the Baath government has been in almost a constant state of aggressive war since Saddam came into power. Saddam assumed power in 1978, and in 1980 Iraq started the war with Iran. They fought that war, brutally, until 1988, then in 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and attempted to invade Saudi Arabia. The Baath government is a brutal, warmongering regime. Removing them from power will implicitly improve the stability of the region.
Two: Iraq under the Baath party is a totalitarian autocracy. Those types of states are inherently less stable, both internally and externally, than representative states like federal republics. So replacing the Baath government with a federal republic will inherently improve the stability of the region.
Three: the Baath government provides aid and assistance to domestic terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam. You may have heard of this group; last month they carried out an assassination against the leadership of the PUK. Removing this support for terrorist groups inside Iraq will improve the stability of the region.
Four: the Baath government also supports terrorism outside of Iraq. The Iraqi government pays cash rewards, formerly in the range of $20-25,000 but recently lowered to $10,000, to the families of Palestinian suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers. Removing this source of aid and encouragement to terrorists will inherently improve the stability of the region.
Five: as we saw after the 1991 war, both the Kurds in the north and the Shiite population in the south are extremely unhappy with the Baath government, and will rise up in armed revolt when the circumstances permit. Removing the Baath government and replacing it with a federal government in which all population groups participate will inherently improve the stability of the region.
I'd go on, but my fingers are tired.
Without the UN we have no democratic mandate to carry pre-emptive actions affecting other countries.
Two things. First: the UN is a completely non-democratic organization. There's absolutely nothing democratic about it.
Second: the UN gave us a specific mandate to conduct this action. Go read the UN Charter, and resolution 678, and resolution 687. Or just read this.
Does this act differ that much from people in the US donating money at Sinn Fein fund-raisers while the IRA were busy bombing London?
Yes. We're not talking about people in Iraq paying rewards to the families of suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers. We're talking about the government of Iraq doing it. It's very different.
US news in censored heavily and independent journalists are not allowed in Iraq by the USA!
Richard Engel, an independent freelance stringer, is on the 14th floor of the Palestine Hotel on the eastern side of the river in Baghdad. You want his room number?
Are you just making stuff up, or what?
the u.s. actually has more chemical weapons than iraq. and more nukes.
Yes, that's true. Barring some particular international treaties, the mere possession of these weapons is not illegal, and not just cause for waging war.
However, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and during the war to expel them, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. It was decided, when discussing the terms of a cease-fire that could end the war, that in order to "restore peace and security to the area" (the UN's words) Iraq would have to be disarmed of some specific classes of weapons.
It's just like losing your driver's license. If you get picked up for DUI, you might have your driver's license revoked. You did something wrong, and therefore the authority with jurisidiction over you has decided that you have to give up your license. Along comes the bailiff to take your license from you.
"But that's not fair," you respond. "The bailiff still has a driver's license! He drives even more than I do! Where does he get off trying to take my license from me?!"
It's the same situation. Iraq did something wrong (started a war), and therefore the authority with jurisdiction over Iraq (the UN) decided that Iraq had to give up its weapons. Iraq refused, for twelve long years, to give up their weapons. So along comes the bailiff (the Alliance) to take away their weapons from them.
Does that clear it up any?
If you could so so, how would you remodel it?
Already covered this one.
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
That's not what's happened. We're hitting military and leadership targets, we're not destroying a city. The difference is sometimes hard to tell from the ground-- stuff blowing up is stuff blowing up-- but it's important. The city, for all intents and purposes, is and will remain totally intact.
Feel like backing that up with something other than non-specific assertions, Sparky? What are CNN, MSNBC, and Fox doing, exactly, that you don't approve of?
BTW, where does this leave countries who are *refusing* to enforce the resolution? Is there any sort of sanction process against them for failing in their duty per the charter??
If I recall, there's a clause in the Charter that says that states that persist in refusing to uphold their obligations under the Charter can be subject to various different measures, ultimately culminating in getting kicked out of the UN. But in terms of doing anything specific and serious, no, not really. The UN can't "punish" France for defying their obligations without a chapter VII resolution, just like they can't "punish" the US for acting without explicit authorization (though none was needed, as I explained) without a chapter VII resolution.
I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.
Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter
I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.
There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.
The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,
So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.
The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,
These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.
The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,
Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:
Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.
And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership
Well, since you've already made up my mind for me, in a very enfranchising way (thanks, boss!), that "the declaration is neither complete nor accurate,"
Surely you're not going to argue about this. The declaration didn't include Saddam's VX stockpiles, it didn't include his al Samoud program, and it didn't include the Scud or Scuds he fired at our troops yesterday. That's just the stuff that's been in the news over the past week or so.
We must not ignore this, as you seem wont to do. Iraq was told, before anything else, to make a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons programs. They never did that. How would you, armchair president, deal with this fact? You have two choices: let Iraq off the hook, or don't. Which do you do, and how?
Don't read any further until you answer this. If you don't have an answer for this, there is no point in going on.
I would have ended the sanctions back then
On what grounds? Let's look at the facts here. Iraq had not done anything that it was required to do. Nothing at all. So on what grounds would you have lifted the sanctions?
Wait. Before I get to that, would you have done that before or after Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM? In October, 1997, Iraq demanded that the American members of UNSCOM leave the country. UNSCOM pulled them out temporarily, but they went back in in November. Then, in January, Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM entirely on the grounds that too many members of the team were American and British. In February they started cooperating again, but they threatened to stop in August, and then stopped entirely again in October. The US threatened military action, and Iraq started cooperating again in November. Then they stopped again in December, which is the point where UNSCOM pulled their inspectors out.
So be more specific. Would you have lifted the sanctions in early January, while the Americans were still in Iraq, or in late January and February when they weren't cooperating at all? Iraq went back-and-forth all year. Would you have lifted the sanctions during a period of total non-cooperation, or during a period of partial non-cooperation?
Now that we've covered when, let's go back to why. On what grounds would you lift the sanctions? Like I said, and illustrated, Iraq was not cooperating. They spent 1995 through 1998 jerking UNSCOM around. I mean, the resolutions say that sanctions won't be lifted until Iraq cooperates. They're not cooperating. So what reason-- what pretense, if you will-- can you come up with to lift them? And how would you spin it to make it seem like we're not rewarding Iraq's defiance?
I would accuse Hussein (as well as Kissinger and Ariel Sharon, but later for that) of war crimes, with the idea of building respect for future US policy in the area.
Anybody who would accuse Secretary Kissinger or Prime Minister Sharon of war crimes clearly has no concept of what "war crimes" means. I'm this close to shutting this dialogue down right now, because you're sounding more and more like the typical left-wing fool. Please prove me wrong on this.
I would gather representatives from Turkey, Syria, the PKK, and even Iraq (yes, even though I've accused their dictator of war crimes), and work out a solution to the Kurdish question that the parties could agree on.
Sorry, but you're going to have to give me more than just hand-waving here. "What would you do?" "Well, I'd solve the problem." "How?" "By finding a solution to the problem." That's not especially enlighening. How would you gather those representatives? How would you "work out a solution?" And, most importantly, how would you justify the fact to the people of the United States that you are negotiating with a Marxist-Stalinist group with the declared purpose of bringing down a legitimate ally of the United States through terrorist means? Finally, how would you repair our relationship with Turkey after this a
At least some sets take the 1080i, treat it as 540p, drop the top and bottom 30 lines to get 480p, and then display that.
Well, yeah, but those can't really be called HDTV's, can they? They're HDTV-compatible, but they're not HDTV.
Unless you use Satellite, there's not many options as far as HDTV sources.
Rabbit ears, dude. Most places around the country have over-the-air HD.
Any digital cable I've seen doesn't do HDTV, maybe some do but I've not seen any.
If I remember right, Comcast, Adelphia, TWC, and AT&T are all deploying HD in the major markets; it should be in your town real soon.
But to quote Scott Ritter: "Today, Iraq no long possesses arms of mass destruction."
Um. Mr. Ritter was obviously seriously wrong. We have found proscribed weapons in Iraq since he made that statement, including the al Samoud 2 missiles that caused such a fuss last month. Hell, Iraq fired a Scud missile-- we believe; we think we have confirmed this, but it's always possible that it's not correct-- just today, a weapon that Iraq swore up and down and left and right that they didn't have.
Furthermore, I think we could both agree that El-Baradei and Blix are both more credible than either of the previous mission leaders. Why not let them work?
Because they weren't getting the job done. Imagine we're trying to get from Chicago to New York. We get on the highway and I head west instead of east. I realize my mistake and start to turn the car around, and you say, "No, no, don't do that! We're making great time! Let's keep going!" Yes, we're making good progress, but no matter how long we keep at it, we're never going to get where we're going.
It's not that UNMOVIC or the IAEA are bad guys, but simply because it's not possible to do the job in that way that they were trying to go about it. Iraq was hiding weapons, which they were specifically told not to do. All the inspections in the world wouldn't have solved that problem.
How much bending over does Iraq have to do, before they are allowed out from under the sanctions?
It's all right there on paper. Among the other terms dealing with prisoners and whatnot, Iraq had to make a complete and accurate declaration, and then submit to the destruction of the weapons and associated materials and facilities included in that declaration. That is precisely how much bending over Iraq was required to do.
They decided they didn't want to do that. That wasn't anybody's first choice, but we're willing and able to work with it.
As to your specific points... I'm just not going to bother. It seems fairly clear that you've got your mind made up that things happened in the way that you remember them, so I'm not going to waste time and keystrokes trying to argue with you. I'll just say that your account of the events doesn't even remotely jibe with what I saw as they transpired.
I mean, isn't unilateralism a failure of diplomacy by definition?
Some forty nations representing over a fifth of the world's population. You have some definition of "unilateralism" that is new to me.
This administration had already proven that they don't like to talk to others with regards to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocols, the ABM treaty (how do you unsign a treaty?) and other accords.
The ICC is a mess. The structure of the court as defined by the Rome agreement runs completely counter to our American tradition of checks and balances. There is absolutely nothing preventing the abuse of the ICC for political motivations. That, among other less important reasons, is why we didn't support the ICC.
Kyoto is a crock of shit. It's a terrible treaty, and was rightly shot down by the Senate. President Clinton signed the treaty but never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would never pass. All President Bush did was acknowledge that the United States would not be ratifying or implementing the treaty.
As for ABM, it's easy to "unsign" a treaty, when the treaty includes a procedure for withdrawing from it. At any point, all either side had to do was notify the other side within six months that they would be withdrawing, and poof! All nice and formal. And, of course, since ABM had served its purpose-- putting the brakes on the Cold War arms race-- and was preventing the US from moving in an important new direction, it was entirely appropriate for the treaty to end.
And that's not bullshit, and that queers the outcome of diplomacy a hell of a lot more than some French veto.
Everybody inv
Virtually all current HDTVs take 1080i in and output 720p.
You have this backwards. Most HDTV's take either 1080i or 720p and display 1080i. Some low-end rear-projection units do it the other way around, but those are pretty rare.
And it depends what you watch, there's a lot of 720p stuff out there, and there's a lot of 1080i.
ABC is the only network that broadcasts in 720p. That's nothing to sneeze at, but NBC, CBS, PBS, HDNet, WB, HBO, and Showtime all broadcast 1080i. As a fraction of 1080i content, there's hardly any 720p content out there at all.
But only 540 lines are shown at any one time.
Wrong. Only 540 lines are drawn in each vertical refresh. All 1080 lines are shown at the same time. See, the device-- projector or tube or whatever-- draws the even lines. Then it leaves those lines alone, and it draws the even lines. Then it goes back and refreshes the odd lines, leaving the even lines alone. Lather, rinse, repeat.
720p is a little better on static pictures and much, much better on moving scenes.
Depending on your preferences, you might like 720p better because it's frame-based instead of field-based. (Most people can't tell the difference.) But 1080i has considerably higher spatial resolution. I really have no idea where you got this idea.
1080i is 540 lines of resolution.
1080i is 540 line per field. There are two fields per frame. The projector or tube or whatever will draw the odd lines first, then the even lines. The projector or tube has to be able to draw all 1080 lines, just not all at once.
You really need to get a clue before posting publicly.
Right back atcha. You're completely off-base about this one.