Thadius
Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
Evening Mike,
I suppose the blockade using actual ships was just aggressive diplomatic negotiations? I do agree though that diplomacy should at least be attempted, if for no other reason to make clear what the stick is, and that there is a possible carrot.
But more to the topic at hand, stating that diplomatic negotiations will be entered into with a hostile nation (party) with no conditions, seems a bit naive to me. Afterall, many times the meeting itself is a reward, as it allows for headlines and grandstanding about how they refused to give into the American oppressors. You know what I mean?
As always,
Thadius
Damm right it was diplomacy and it remains diplomacy till those ships fire those weapons.As for talking with hostile nations,what you say is a point well taken,but you don't seem to take into acount this is a knife that cuts both ways...Having talked ,any subsequent action on our part can be justified in the court of world opinion much easier...and Thad you know full well how unilateral action is costing us in the court of public opinion...we seem to have come full circle to a little thing called... diplomacy
Unilateral action implies that one nation does what it is going to do on its own. Do I need to point to all of the post ceasefire resolutions from the UN dating all the way back to 1991? Even if we ignore all of those, and focus on just UN 1441 which passed in Nov '02, the US, UK, and Spain continued to pursue diplomatic answers. Hans Blix made a series of reports to the UN during that time and even as late as Mar 7th '03, claimed that Iraq was not in compliance. What did the US do? It acted unilaterly to call for another meeting of the security council. To which our good friend French President Chirac came out before the meeting even took place vowing to veto any resolution that called for action. Which meant even if the other 15 members of the council agreed, the resolution would not carry. So claiming there were no attempts at diplomacy is incorrect. Claiming the US acted unilaterally simply ignores all the other nations that provided troops.
One more thing, to claim Bush is the one that changed the policy of dealing with Iraq to a policy of "regime change", is patently false. Clinton started that policy, look up the Iraq Liberation Act. The purpose of the law is stated as "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR: (since I know this site doesn't like subdomains it thomas . loc . gov)
As to the claims about WMD...
quote:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/ Bill Clinton stated:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....
I hope that clears up a few common misconceptions out there. It probably won't do any good for those that have repeated the mantras about Bush lying, but for those that are intellectually interested in the facts... there they are.
_____________________________
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb
|
RE: Obama ups the stakes... - 
Profile
. 
Americans could stand to learn that Europeans were playing these games long before we were ever a nation, and we may want to listen to them a bit more. Europeans could stand to accept that when they have a big guard dog in their back yard, every so often it's going to eat the neighbors cat, and that when it barks at an intruder, sometimes its not the cable guy coming to check our connection.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread