The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.
Yes, and no. Iraq accepted the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, which included UNSCR 687. Because UNSCR 687 and the subsequent resolutions were enacted under chapter VII of the UN Charter, they are binding on UN members, and the members of UNSEC are authorized to take action to enforce those resolutions. It's an obscure but vitally important point of international law.
Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91
Yes, I agree. There were, in fact, many points on which we could look back and say, "That's when we should have done something." I think the point is that we don't want to be sitting around a year from now saying, "We really should have done something back in February, 2003."
His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. UNSEC set the conditions. Until they withdraw them-- which they have not done-- they still stand.
It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged).
We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.
F-18s would streak above Bagdad every day, constantly reminding the people who's really in charge.
Um. Unless we put troops on the ground and defeat the Special Republican Guard, Mr. Hussein is really in charge.
With regular combat jet patrols over most of Iraq, the jobs of UN inspectors would be expedited.
You're assuming that the inspectors have a list. They don't. Iraq has never made a complete declaration of all of their weapons programs and materials. The inspectors cannot inspect it if they don't know about it. And it's unreasonable to expect that they could just visually inspect every square meter of a country that's twice the size of Idaho.
Without Iraqi cooperation, inspections can never work.
With air cover provided by the US, a ground force of local troops could challenge Saddam.
Believe me, if we could figure out a way to make that happen, we would. The danger is that we'd just be replacing one dictator with another, and that doesn't help anybody.
Turkey could invade- they'd like to expand their borders.
That would not be okay. The Turks and the Kurds do not get along well.
Iran could invade- they'd love to claim some oil fields.
That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!
The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it?
There are some important differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. First, Afghanistan had a cohesive, organized opposition that could easily reach a consensus about a plan for their country. Mr. Karzai, from the majority Pashtun ethnic group and the well-respected Populzai clan, stood out as the obvious man to run the Afghan Interim Authority. The Taliban was very weak in comparison to their opposition; all we had to do was put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.
Iraq is a completely different situation. You've got the Kurds in the north, who are organized and democratic; the Shiites in the south, who would like to see a fundamentalist theocracy in the style of Iran; and the Sunnis in the middle who have been living under the Baath government for so long that they'd rather just hang the whole thing up and join Jordan. (A partition plans along those very lines has been floated, but the Turks shot it down quick. A sovereign Kurdistan would cause no end of problems for the Turks with their Kurdish minority.)
Overthrowing the Hussein regime will be a lot harder than defeating the Taliban, and building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.
Your argument is, as near as I can see, entirely irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that the United States is not perfect, and therefore is not qualified to lead a coalition to enforce UNSEC resolutions. Whether you're right or wrong-- some of what you said is correct, some incorrect-- the argument has no bearing on what the correct course of action is at this time.
I respect your opinion, but you need to understand that nobody is under the illusion that the United States is beyond reproach. The United States is, however, a member of the United Nations Security Council, and is therefore obligated to carry out its chapter VII resolutions. If you want to argue that the US should be kicked off of UNSEC, go right ahead. I would leave you to it, however; I'm not particularly interested in having that argument, because it could be applied equally well to every nation on Earth.
No, countries are already broadly assumed to have the right to defend themselves from an imminent attack.
The time has come to refine our definition of "imminent." It is not possible to predict a terrorist attack. (At least, that's the theory. In practice, sometimes it's possible and sometimes it isn't.)
Hmm. I don't think even the Bush administration agrees with you on this one.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Secretary Powell, speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration, has said in recent weeks that he believes UNSCR 678 gives the US the mandate to carry out an invasion of Iraq should one be necessary. Why? Because the Gulf War is technically in a state of temporary cease-fire, and Iraq is in violation of the terms of that cease-fire.
The Gulf War ended with a surrender.
Please check your facts again. This is not correct. The hostilities were put on hold when Iraq accepted-- i.e., agreed to be bound by-- the Safwan Accords on April 6, 1991. Because Iraq never complied with the terms of those accords, which included UNSCR 687 and all subsequent relevant resolutions, a peace treaty has never been offered or signed.
He had weapons that he didn't use. How is that a funny notion of deterence?
Okay, I'll be more specific. You have a uselessly narrow notion of deterrence.
You seem awfully convinced that this is a great idea for a war. Why?
Several reasons, including some you either don't care about or don't want to hear. The first, though, is both the most important and, both legally and pragmatically, sufficient in and of itself: the supremacy of the UN Security Council as a peacekeeping body is in jeopardy. Some would argue that UNSEC is dead already, but my mind is not made up yet. I do know that if UNSEC fails to enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement, they will have ceased to serve any meaningful purpose. Two-bit tyrants with delusions of grandeur-- I'm talking to you, Kim Chong-il-- will get the idea that they can bully the international community, and they'll be right. That sort of blatant defiance must not stand.
Two: Saddam Hussein is a threat to the peace and stability of the Arabian peninsula. His ambition, about which he isn't even trying to be coy, is to dominate or conquer the other nations of the peninsula. This is unacceptable. We must prevent him from acquiring the weapons he needs to do the job.
Three: the Baath government in general, and Mr. Hussein in particular, are ruthlessly tyrannical. If the word "evil" can be said to have any meaning at all, they are it. Their brutality is almost beyond imagining. It starts with torture and summary executions and just gets worse from there.
Four: we already know that Iraq provides aid and comfort to terrorists and terrorist groups. Iraq provides aid and assistance to Ansar al Islam, a fundamentalist group currently carrying out attacks against the Kurdish peoples of northern Iraq. (Ansar al Islam, incidentally, being an organization that was started with assistance from al Qaeda and between $300,000 and $600,000 of Osama bin Laden's own money. Back then they called themselves Jund al Islam, "Soldiers of Islam.") Iraq offers cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The probability that Iraq would, if given the chance, sponsor a terrorist group that strikes out at the people of the United States or at our allies is too great to ignore.
Five: the Middle East is in a terrible state right now. You've got a fundamentalist theocracy in Iran, a terrorist regime in the Palestinian territories, a monarchy just barely maintaining control of a fundamentalist, Wahhabist populace in Saudi Arabia... the whole region is unstable. Establishing a democratic government and a free society in Iraq will have a powerful effect on the region. As we saw in Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, tyranny (be it monarchical, dictatorial, or oligarchical) is powerful, but freedom tends to spread. A free Iraq will lead to a free Palestine, which will lead over the years to freedom throughout the region.
To put it succinctly: the consequences of our failure to act at this time are even worse than the consequences of a war.
Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums.
That's the million-dollar question, isn't it. The UN Security Council has failed-- not just in this case, but repeatedly-- to prevent war. What's the point of continuing to have the meetings, then?
Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either.
In all fairness to both sides of the argument, that's not precisely how it happened. What happened is that on August 5, 1998, Iraq sent a letter to the UN saying that they intended to stop cooperating with UNSCOM. On October 31, they followed through on that intention. On November 11, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler decided that there was no reason for the inspectors to be in Iraq any longer, and told them to come home.
Just to reiterate, Iraq did not kick the inspectors out. They just decided to stop cooperating with them. The inspectors-- understandably-- decided to leave on their own.
Threatened with Allied air strikes, Iraq invited the inspectors to come back in, but still refused to cooperate with them. After three weeks, UNSCOM reported that Iraq still wasn't complying, and pulled the inspectors out once again.
Of course, unilaterally declaring that the inspections were over wasn't all that bright an idea. It bought them four days of bombings. It should have bought them an all-out invasion and a military governor-general, but at the time we (the US, and the Allies) didn't have that kind of political will, or, for that matter, that kind of ready military force.
Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.
Sorry, but that's demonstrably false. If you could have decimated the German Panzer brigades on the eve of the invasion of Poland, would it have been right or wrong?
But more importantly, there's nothing pre-emptive about this war. This was started on August 2, 1990, remember? When Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went through a period of temporary cease-fire from April, 1991, to December, 1998, but since December, 1998, we've legally been in a state of all-out war. Only without the shooting.
Recall that Iraq didn't use chem/bio weapons during the 1991 war, even though they had them. Why not? Because the military power of the US and the condemnation of the global community provided sufficent deterrent.
You have a funny definition of "deterrence," I think. If Iraq was so deterred, how come they rolled their tanks into Kuwait City?
After all, India and Pakistan have much better reasons for invading one another than we have for invading Iraq.
I don't understand how you could say that unless you grossly misunderstood either the India/Pakistan conflict or our reasons for invading Iraq.
Take nearly any statement about Iraq and the United States, swap the two countries names throughout and see if it doesn't still hold.
The United States invaded a neighbor country, started a war, launched ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks against a non-combatant neighbor, and ultimately got it's butt kicked by a coalition of allies led by the Iraq. Consequently, the United States has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, and has spent the past twelve years refusing to do so.
This has already been addressed by other responders, but I just want to reiterate.
But in the first place, there was never a reason to start the process that's now leading to war in Iraq.
The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.
Weapons of mass destruction? So how come the US can have them, and Iraq can't?
Because Iraq started a war, and lost. UNSCR 687 referred specifically to "the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles." If Iraq hadn't lobbed Scuds at Israel, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe Iraq would have been allowed to keep its chemical and biological weapons and programs, its nuclear programs, and its ballistic missiles. Of course, since they did, they now have no choice in the matter.
How come North Korea isn't even getting slapped on the wrist for restarting their nuclear program, against UN directives?
The biggest reason is that we don't believe the DPRK actually presents a threat to its neighbors. We know that Iraq presents a threat; Iraq attempted to invade Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq attempted to invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq attacked Bahrain, Iraq attacked Israel. The DPRK, on the other hand, has more-or-less minded their own business since 1953, modulo some events that, while individually significant, pale in comparison.
But another important reason is that we believe we know what the DPRK wants. The DPRK wants to be seen as a viable world power, despite the fact that their people are starving by the thousands. They want trade concessions and respect. And they're using their missiles to try to get that respect. But most of all, Kim is sick of being shown up by the ROK. Witness the missile test the DPRK conducted on the day of President Roh's inauguration. They weren't trying to threaten. They were just trying to upstage.
The biggest argument against war with Iraq is that there's no reason for it
Are you saying that because you haven't seen the reasons, or because you refuse to see them?
Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.
Then check again. UNSEC resolution 687 defined the conditions for ending the Gulf War. Iraq has refused, for the past 12 years, to comply with them. If Iraq were to comply, the sanctions imposed by the UN would be lifted and the Allied Coalition would be able to stand down. Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.
Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all?
Two things. First, we've got tons of proof. Read Dr. Blix's 1/27 report to UNSEC for examples of that proof. (Skip down to the section entitled "VX Nerve Agent.")
Second, the burden of proof is on Iraq to demonstrate that they do not have WMD, and to allow UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to verify their claims. They have categorically refused to do this.
And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine.
Oops. That's an oft-repeated by false assertation. In fact, UN sanctions have never limited Iraq's imports of medicine, school supplies, food, or other humanitarian goods or contributions. Quite the contrary; the UN has urged Iraq to order more medicines, but Baghdad has refused. The Iraqi government has been roundly criticized for hoarding medicine for military use instead of distributing it to their people, then blaming inadequate medical care for ordinary citizens on sanctions. Unfortunately, a goodly fraction of the world media has fallen for this lie.
The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.
Please educate yourself on this subject. A few minutes research will reveal that Iraq has never settled the Gulf War. We don't need "a new excuse" because we're still trying to deal with an old problem.
(Try googling for "resolution 687." It's a good starting place. In it you'll be able to see what Iraq is required to do, and from there you should be able to learn about Iraq's 12-year history of non-compliance. Or, if you prefer a summary, you can just read this post.)
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist.
Actually, US public opinion is just barely in favor of attacking Iraq. The latest poll, which came out about two weeks ago, indicated that about 60% of Americans support the administration's plan to invade Iraq with support of a coalition of allies and at least tacit UN approval.
War is not a popular thing. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately, whether or not it's popular has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it's right.
Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not. The Bush Doctrine says that the threat of international terrorism is so great that regimes that support, encourage, or tolerate terrorist groups post a direct threat to the United States, but that's just one more nail in the Baath government's coffin. For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms.
We Americans know exactly why we're doing this. I sometimes think that the rest of the world doesn't, though.
I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I'd like to know why not. I've been looking for somebody, anybody, who could convince me that war is not the best option in this situation. What's your argument?
You don't have to respond here, but if you've got a minute, come post a reply in any of my journal articles. I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say.
Care to post a link to these alleged articles? No offense, but given what I know about you, if you told me that the sky is blue I'd go outside just to be sure.
No he didn't get inside any occupied building, but I'm sure there is a decent amount of stuff lying around down there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to.
Trust me, there is absolutely nothing lying around out there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to. The only reason these facilities are still classified is because they were classified in the past, and there's no real reason to declassify them. The secure areas of these sorts of places are really incredibly secure.
Ah, yes. When Feynman demonstrated how easy it was to open safes without the combination, the higher-ups issued a new security directive: "Keep Feynman away from your safes!"
Sadam Hussein has quit Iraq and is now providing his services to the US arms establishment as a consultant specializing in making defense laboratories bloody difficult to find.
Dude, just this morning Dr. Blix announced that Iraq has disclosed that they have an R-400 aerial bomb filled with some kind of liquid at a site where the Iraqis have disposed of biological weapons in the past. The R-400 is likely to be filled with aflotoxin.
What's important about this? The UN inspectors searched that site already.
It's not that Iraqi security is that great. It's that UNMOVIC is evidently made up entirely of retired umpires and referees.
Word XP can do non-consecutive text selections (you have _no_ idea how nice this is until you have it). 2000 introduced a multiple-item clibboard, and it doubled in size in XP.
The OP mentioned non-consecutive text selection, then mentioned the multiple-clipboard "feature" separately. He was talking about multiple non-contiguous selection of text, a feature that Word for the Mac has had at least since version 4.0.
You're absolutely right. Select some text, hold down the command key, and select some more text. Like I said, I'd forgotten all about that feature. Seems like it's been there all along.
Word XP can do non-consecutive text selections (you have _no_ idea how nice this is until you have it).
I do know how nice it is, because I did have it. In Microsoft Word 4.0 for the Macintosh, in about 1988 or so. I'd forgotten all about it; in truth I didn't use it too much at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.
Yes, and no. Iraq accepted the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, which included UNSCR 687. Because UNSCR 687 and the subsequent resolutions were enacted under chapter VII of the UN Charter, they are binding on UN members, and the members of UNSEC are authorized to take action to enforce those resolutions. It's an obscure but vitally important point of international law.
Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91
Yes, I agree. There were, in fact, many points on which we could look back and say, "That's when we should have done something." I think the point is that we don't want to be sitting around a year from now saying, "We really should have done something back in February, 2003."
His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. UNSEC set the conditions. Until they withdraw them-- which they have not done-- they still stand.
It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged).
We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.
F-18s would streak above Bagdad every day, constantly reminding the people who's really in charge.
Um. Unless we put troops on the ground and defeat the Special Republican Guard, Mr. Hussein is really in charge.
With regular combat jet patrols over most of Iraq, the jobs of UN inspectors would be expedited.
You're assuming that the inspectors have a list. They don't. Iraq has never made a complete declaration of all of their weapons programs and materials. The inspectors cannot inspect it if they don't know about it. And it's unreasonable to expect that they could just visually inspect every square meter of a country that's twice the size of Idaho.
Without Iraqi cooperation, inspections can never work.
With air cover provided by the US, a ground force of local troops could challenge Saddam.
Believe me, if we could figure out a way to make that happen, we would. The danger is that we'd just be replacing one dictator with another, and that doesn't help anybody.
Turkey could invade- they'd like to expand their borders.
That would not be okay. The Turks and the Kurds do not get along well.
Iran could invade- they'd love to claim some oil fields.
That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!
The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it?
There are some important differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. First, Afghanistan had a cohesive, organized opposition that could easily reach a consensus about a plan for their country. Mr. Karzai, from the majority Pashtun ethnic group and the well-respected Populzai clan, stood out as the obvious man to run the Afghan Interim Authority. The Taliban was very weak in comparison to their opposition; all we had to do was put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.
Iraq is a completely different situation. You've got the Kurds in the north, who are organized and democratic; the Shiites in the south, who would like to see a fundamentalist theocracy in the style of Iran; and the Sunnis in the middle who have been living under the Baath government for so long that they'd rather just hang the whole thing up and join Jordan. (A partition plans along those very lines has been floated, but the Turks shot it down quick. A sovereign Kurdistan would cause no end of problems for the Turks with their Kurdish minority.)
Overthrowing the Hussein regime will be a lot harder than defeating the Taliban, and building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.
Your argument is, as near as I can see, entirely irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that the United States is not perfect, and therefore is not qualified to lead a coalition to enforce UNSEC resolutions. Whether you're right or wrong-- some of what you said is correct, some incorrect-- the argument has no bearing on what the correct course of action is at this time.
I respect your opinion, but you need to understand that nobody is under the illusion that the United States is beyond reproach. The United States is, however, a member of the United Nations Security Council, and is therefore obligated to carry out its chapter VII resolutions. If you want to argue that the US should be kicked off of UNSEC, go right ahead. I would leave you to it, however; I'm not particularly interested in having that argument, because it could be applied equally well to every nation on Earth.
No, countries are already broadly assumed to have the right to defend themselves from an imminent attack.
The time has come to refine our definition of "imminent." It is not possible to predict a terrorist attack. (At least, that's the theory. In practice, sometimes it's possible and sometimes it isn't.)
Hmm. I don't think even the Bush administration agrees with you on this one.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Secretary Powell, speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration, has said in recent weeks that he believes UNSCR 678 gives the US the mandate to carry out an invasion of Iraq should one be necessary. Why? Because the Gulf War is technically in a state of temporary cease-fire, and Iraq is in violation of the terms of that cease-fire.
The Gulf War ended with a surrender.
Please check your facts again. This is not correct. The hostilities were put on hold when Iraq accepted-- i.e., agreed to be bound by-- the Safwan Accords on April 6, 1991. Because Iraq never complied with the terms of those accords, which included UNSCR 687 and all subsequent relevant resolutions, a peace treaty has never been offered or signed.
He had weapons that he didn't use. How is that a funny notion of deterence?
Okay, I'll be more specific. You have a uselessly narrow notion of deterrence.
You seem awfully convinced that this is a great idea for a war. Why?
Several reasons, including some you either don't care about or don't want to hear. The first, though, is both the most important and, both legally and pragmatically, sufficient in and of itself: the supremacy of the UN Security Council as a peacekeeping body is in jeopardy. Some would argue that UNSEC is dead already, but my mind is not made up yet. I do know that if UNSEC fails to enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement, they will have ceased to serve any meaningful purpose. Two-bit tyrants with delusions of grandeur-- I'm talking to you, Kim Chong-il-- will get the idea that they can bully the international community, and they'll be right. That sort of blatant defiance must not stand.
Two: Saddam Hussein is a threat to the peace and stability of the Arabian peninsula. His ambition, about which he isn't even trying to be coy, is to dominate or conquer the other nations of the peninsula. This is unacceptable. We must prevent him from acquiring the weapons he needs to do the job.
Three: the Baath government in general, and Mr. Hussein in particular, are ruthlessly tyrannical. If the word "evil" can be said to have any meaning at all, they are it. Their brutality is almost beyond imagining. It starts with torture and summary executions and just gets worse from there.
Four: we already know that Iraq provides aid and comfort to terrorists and terrorist groups. Iraq provides aid and assistance to Ansar al Islam, a fundamentalist group currently carrying out attacks against the Kurdish peoples of northern Iraq. (Ansar al Islam, incidentally, being an organization that was started with assistance from al Qaeda and between $300,000 and $600,000 of Osama bin Laden's own money. Back then they called themselves Jund al Islam, "Soldiers of Islam.") Iraq offers cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The probability that Iraq would, if given the chance, sponsor a terrorist group that strikes out at the people of the United States or at our allies is too great to ignore.
Five: the Middle East is in a terrible state right now. You've got a fundamentalist theocracy in Iran, a terrorist regime in the Palestinian territories, a monarchy just barely maintaining control of a fundamentalist, Wahhabist populace in Saudi Arabia... the whole region is unstable. Establishing a democratic government and a free society in Iraq will have a powerful effect on the region. As we saw in Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, tyranny (be it monarchical, dictatorial, or oligarchical) is powerful, but freedom tends to spread. A free Iraq will lead to a free Palestine, which will lead over the years to freedom throughout the region.
To put it succinctly: the consequences of our failure to act at this time are even worse than the consequences of a war.
Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums.
That's the million-dollar question, isn't it. The UN Security Council has failed-- not just in this case, but repeatedly-- to prevent war. What's the point of continuing to have the meetings, then?
Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either.
In all fairness to both sides of the argument, that's not precisely how it happened. What happened is that on August 5, 1998, Iraq sent a letter to the UN saying that they intended to stop cooperating with UNSCOM. On October 31, they followed through on that intention. On November 11, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler decided that there was no reason for the inspectors to be in Iraq any longer, and told them to come home.
Just to reiterate, Iraq did not kick the inspectors out. They just decided to stop cooperating with them. The inspectors-- understandably-- decided to leave on their own.
Threatened with Allied air strikes, Iraq invited the inspectors to come back in, but still refused to cooperate with them. After three weeks, UNSCOM reported that Iraq still wasn't complying, and pulled the inspectors out once again.
Of course, unilaterally declaring that the inspections were over wasn't all that bright an idea. It bought them four days of bombings. It should have bought them an all-out invasion and a military governor-general, but at the time we (the US, and the Allies) didn't have that kind of political will, or, for that matter, that kind of ready military force.
Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.
It certainly looks that way.
In other words, if Iraq chooses any path but complete compliance with UN resolutions, they shall be attacked.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Tally ho.
pre-emptive war is *always* wrong
Sorry, but that's demonstrably false. If you could have decimated the German Panzer brigades on the eve of the invasion of Poland, would it have been right or wrong?
But more importantly, there's nothing pre-emptive about this war. This was started on August 2, 1990, remember? When Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went through a period of temporary cease-fire from April, 1991, to December, 1998, but since December, 1998, we've legally been in a state of all-out war. Only without the shooting.
Recall that Iraq didn't use chem/bio weapons during the 1991 war, even though they had them. Why not? Because the military power of the US and the condemnation of the global community provided sufficent deterrent.
You have a funny definition of "deterrence," I think. If Iraq was so deterred, how come they rolled their tanks into Kuwait City?
After all, India and Pakistan have much better reasons for invading one another than we have for invading Iraq.
I don't understand how you could say that unless you grossly misunderstood either the India/Pakistan conflict or our reasons for invading Iraq.
Take nearly any statement about Iraq and the United States, swap the two countries names throughout and see if it doesn't still hold.
The United States invaded a neighbor country, started a war, launched ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks against a non-combatant neighbor, and ultimately got it's butt kicked by a coalition of allies led by the Iraq. Consequently, the United States has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, and has spent the past twelve years refusing to do so.
Nope. Doesn't work.
This has already been addressed by other responders, but I just want to reiterate.
But in the first place, there was never a reason to start the process that's now leading to war in Iraq.
The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.
Weapons of mass destruction? So how come the US can have them, and Iraq can't?
Because Iraq started a war, and lost. UNSCR 687 referred specifically to "the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles." If Iraq hadn't lobbed Scuds at Israel, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe Iraq would have been allowed to keep its chemical and biological weapons and programs, its nuclear programs, and its ballistic missiles. Of course, since they did, they now have no choice in the matter.
How come North Korea isn't even getting slapped on the wrist for restarting their nuclear program, against UN directives?
The biggest reason is that we don't believe the DPRK actually presents a threat to its neighbors. We know that Iraq presents a threat; Iraq attempted to invade Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq attempted to invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq attacked Bahrain, Iraq attacked Israel. The DPRK, on the other hand, has more-or-less minded their own business since 1953, modulo some events that, while individually significant, pale in comparison.
But another important reason is that we believe we know what the DPRK wants. The DPRK wants to be seen as a viable world power, despite the fact that their people are starving by the thousands. They want trade concessions and respect. And they're using their missiles to try to get that respect. But most of all, Kim is sick of being shown up by the ROK. Witness the missile test the DPRK conducted on the day of President Roh's inauguration. They weren't trying to threaten. They were just trying to upstage.
The biggest argument against war with Iraq is that there's no reason for it
Are you saying that because you haven't seen the reasons, or because you refuse to see them?
Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.
Then check again. UNSEC resolution 687 defined the conditions for ending the Gulf War. Iraq has refused, for the past 12 years, to comply with them. If Iraq were to comply, the sanctions imposed by the UN would be lifted and the Allied Coalition would be able to stand down. Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.
Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all?
Two things. First, we've got tons of proof. Read Dr. Blix's 1/27 report to UNSEC for examples of that proof. (Skip down to the section entitled "VX Nerve Agent.")
Second, the burden of proof is on Iraq to demonstrate that they do not have WMD, and to allow UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to verify their claims. They have categorically refused to do this.
And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine.
Oops. That's an oft-repeated by false assertation. In fact, UN sanctions have never limited Iraq's imports of medicine, school supplies, food, or other humanitarian goods or contributions. Quite the contrary; the UN has urged Iraq to order more medicines, but Baghdad has refused. The Iraqi government has been roundly criticized for hoarding medicine for military use instead of distributing it to their people, then blaming inadequate medical care for ordinary citizens on sanctions. Unfortunately, a goodly fraction of the world media has fallen for this lie.
Please refer to the State Department's "Myths and Facts About Iraq" page for more information.
The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.
Please educate yourself on this subject. A few minutes research will reveal that Iraq has never settled the Gulf War. We don't need "a new excuse" because we're still trying to deal with an old problem.
(Try googling for "resolution 687." It's a good starting place. In it you'll be able to see what Iraq is required to do, and from there you should be able to learn about Iraq's 12-year history of non-compliance. Or, if you prefer a summary, you can just read this post.)
Why Iraq?
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question.
Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist.
Actually, US public opinion is just barely in favor of attacking Iraq. The latest poll, which came out about two weeks ago, indicated that about 60% of Americans support the administration's plan to invade Iraq with support of a coalition of allies and at least tacit UN approval.
War is not a popular thing. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately, whether or not it's popular has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it's right.
Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not. The Bush Doctrine says that the threat of international terrorism is so great that regimes that support, encourage, or tolerate terrorist groups post a direct threat to the United States, but that's just one more nail in the Baath government's coffin. For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms.
We Americans know exactly why we're doing this. I sometimes think that the rest of the world doesn't, though.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq.
I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I'd like to know why not. I've been looking for somebody, anybody, who could convince me that war is not the best option in this situation. What's your argument?
You don't have to respond here, but if you've got a minute, come post a reply in any of my journal articles. I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say.
Be honest. You originally wrote "google for" and then you erased it and wrote "search on," didn't you?
;-)
Care to post a link to these alleged articles? No offense, but given what I know about you, if you told me that the sky is blue I'd go outside just to be sure.
No he didn't get inside any occupied building, but I'm sure there is a decent amount of stuff lying around down there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to.
Trust me, there is absolutely nothing lying around out there that the everyday joe shouldn't have access to. The only reason these facilities are still classified is because they were classified in the past, and there's no real reason to declassify them. The secure areas of these sorts of places are really incredibly secure.
Ah, yes. When Feynman demonstrated how easy it was to open safes without the combination, the higher-ups issued a new security directive: "Keep Feynman away from your safes!"
Sadam Hussein has quit Iraq and is now providing his services to the US arms establishment as a consultant specializing in making defense laboratories bloody difficult to find.
Dude, just this morning Dr. Blix announced that Iraq has disclosed that they have an R-400 aerial bomb filled with some kind of liquid at a site where the Iraqis have disposed of biological weapons in the past. The R-400 is likely to be filled with aflotoxin.
What's important about this? The UN inspectors searched that site already.
It's not that Iraqi security is that great. It's that UNMOVIC is evidently made up entirely of retired umpires and referees.
You're absolutely right. Select some text, hold down the command key, and select some more text. Like I said, I'd forgotten all about that feature. Seems like it's been there all along.
Word XP can do non-consecutive text selections (you have _no_ idea how nice this is until you have it).
I do know how nice it is, because I did have it. In Microsoft Word 4.0 for the Macintosh, in about 1988 or so. I'd forgotten all about it; in truth I didn't use it too much at the time.
I guess everything old really is new again.
To use iSync you still need to install Palm Desktop 4.0 to get Palm's hotsync software.
Actually, you can just install HotSync Manager. Even if you choose to install the whole thing, you don't ever have to actually run Palm Desktop.
Hell, how many people call the Mac the BMW of computers?
Practically nobody. The Mac is the Mercedes of computers.