I agree, although fighting nations that sponsor terrorism … is an integral part of eliminating terrorists backing in the world. …But the one cannot work without the other.
I guess we agree pretty much here.
Something that would come to my mind as a next possible point to discuss is why a nation that sponsored a lot of anti-communist terrorism should be allowed to lead anti-“terrorist-sponsors” action. But it’s not like we really have to discuss that :).
Actually I DID mention the inspections. As I have stated before the only intermittent progress that had been made through the inspections was at the point of a gun.
I can accept that, you mentioned it in earlier posts.
By making it abundantly clear that they would not sanction the use of force to back up the inspectors’ authority, the “anti-war” faction in the UN was playing a losing game. Now I ask you a serious question: if the antiwar bloc in the UN would not sanction war at this stage (as they say,“to allow the inspections to work…”) then tell me–under what circumstances exactly were these powers willing to sanction war? If you can only tell me Germany’s position I would be satisfied. I have seen no clear cut statement by any of the anti-war faction in the UN NOR the anti-war faction in the USA describing the conditions of their support for an attack…
The thing that more or less all of the world’s nations disagreed was the quick automatism to war. None of the US/UK planned ultimatum to “totally disarm and prove it in a week or so, and we are to decide on our own then” was in any way realistic. It all was just a slightly hidden “we will go to war”. That is what the world didn’t want. Had the ultimatum had a longer timescale, and kept the decision of fullfillment to the inspectors or the security council, it would have looked different. Germanys position (not being a veto-member) was rather simple and the most extreme: No agreement to a war. The French, Russians and Chinese all left themselves small backdoors to the war and kept their veto against the UN-uncontrolled automatism of war. So, they very porbably would have agreed to a war after failure of the cooperation iraq-inspectors, or the inspectors finding the “smoking gun”. But, as you said as well, the Iraq increased its level of cooperation, from sec. council meeting to sec. council meeting. I firmly believe the Iraq would even have accepted a “robust madate” for the inspectors, well, we would have had to to avoid armed conflict. And yes, all that cooperation was only due to the threat of force. But, if someone bows to your commands because you threat to beat him up, do you then have to beat him up? Because he bowed? Because he wouldn’t have bowed without the threat? That just doesn’t make sense, next time, you can threat and the other one won’t care, because you are going to beat him up anyway. See what i mean?
So: reasons for France, Russia and China would have been: Iraq not complying, or the inspectors finding proof for either non-cooperation or other new breaches against the resolutions.
Therefore; again I argue that the antiwar faction in the UN (and the USA)would not have favored war under ANY circumstances barring an Iraqi attack on another nation. If they would never sanction war, then the UN presence, the UN sanctions, the UN inspections are for nothing because Hussein will respond only to force or the REALISTIC threat of force.
You take the Germans position as the positions of France, Russia etc. etc… Have you watched one of the sec. councils sessions? The Germans were the only one who had this total anti-war position (and even they left themselves the neutrality, they just would not agree but could say nothing instead of Nay). The others position disagreed with the american position, but hte american position was obvious in its outcomes (this automatism to war), so as long as the US didn’t give the UN a chance (but more used it as its plaything: here play with that, we then can do what we want), why should UN give the US a legitimation?
To convince “not with sugar & whip”? Then with what? Our good looks? That’s diplomacy, bro’. Do not insult my intelligence & suggest to me that France, Germany, Russia etc. are motivated by pure humanitarianism any more than we are.
“Sugar and whip” is very old concept of diplomacy. “Reason” came after it. Sure, noone was motivated by pure humanitarianism.
But blunt “agree and we give you money, disagree and we cut all the money you get from us” is not diplomacy, it’s blackmail. And no country wants to be blackmailed. So, the US should have given the world real proof and evidence, or -lacking this proof- try to buy off other countries without threatening. That could have worked. Instead the US tried to bully smaller nations into agreement. Just think you were a kid, would you join the street gang of the bully or the street gang were everyone is respected and woth equal rights?
Granted: the “Al’Quaeda-Iraq” connection was a huge diplomatic blunder. I agree that the present action in Iraq is “illegal” in the terms of the UN. That is unfortunate. I think it should & should have been otherwise. But BOTH SIDES are guilty of this FAILURE OF DIPLOMACY–that is, war. The inevitablility of armed conflict w/ Iraq should’ve been foreseen as far back as 1991 when–again–the UN would not mandate an invasion of Iraq proper.
I would call the whole affair a huge diplomatic blunder, and mainly from the US side. The German stance wasn’t that smart either, but not agreeing is not necessarily active opposition. But, it lead the US into total stubborness, calling each and everyone not agreeing “irrelevant”. How can the US believe the UN would decide in their way because they would be “irrelevant” otherwise? That again is blackmailing, and giving in to that would have made them irrelevant. The US very soon brought the UN into a position were giving in would have resulted in a massive loss of trust/face/national pride etc. for the UN itself and the member countries. If you are in a lose-lose situation (and that is what the US created), then there is no reason not to fight! There is none to fight, but hey, you don’t have anything to lose! Maybe the one who made you lose can suffer a bit for that. …. That’s the way humans think, and that was not taken into account by the US gov’t at all! So, the US took a stance even less flexible than Germany. I think it is their fault for the failure of diplomacy for the most of it. And it seems the “even distibution of fault” is something that not many except the US see.