Kofi Annan says that he sees no case for war in Iraq just yet. Never mind the fact that the UN inspections are a charade, Iraq continues to fire on allied planes in the no-fly zones, and Saddam Hussein has been lying about his WMD capability to anyone who will listen.
So when would Kofi Annan ever support military action? The short answer is never, because its not in his interests. He wants to see the UN as the body that restrains the US from exercising its power, and the worst thing that can happen is for the US to simply ignore him. That’s why they’re frantically trying to stop the oncoming train of war before it reaches Baghdad. What they’re failing to realize is that there isn’t any stopping it. It’s clear that the US has some information that isn’t public knowledge yet, most likely involving Iraq’s WMD capability. When it comes to the surface, expect another black eye for the UN when it’s found that all the UN inspection teams are no match for the US intelligence services.
“Never mind the fact that the UN inspections are a charade” —
This assertion may appeal to the dittoheads among your readers, but lacks any serious thought-content. The idea that Iraq could continue the large-scale industrial processes needed for a WMD program without detection by in-country inspectors is ridiculous.
“Iraq continues to fire on allied planes in the no-fly zones”–
So what? How is this a causus belli? The no-fly zones are a creation of the US, not of the UN.
“and Saddam Hussein has been lying about his WMD capability to anyone who will listen”–
If a nation’s leader lying were cause for war, no country would ever know peace.
Batting 0-for-3 on this one, jay.
Ah, nothing like the “we find them, time to go to war; we don’t find them, time to go to war” gambit.
So, what are the conditions under which the United States doesn’t invade, and if there aren’t any, why the hell should the U.N. believe a word Bush says?
Phein,
Not that I am “pitching in” here-1st time I am reading this blog, but…
“The idea that Iraq could continue the large-scale industrial processes needed for a WMD program without detection by in-country inspectors is ridiculous.”
—
#1 The fact that intelligence services throughout the world have confirmed Saddam’s ability to not just develop, but OBTAIN WMD and UN inspectors didn’t, actually proves the “uselessness” argument of the latter.
“How is this a causus belli? The no-fly zones are a creation of the US, not of the UN.”
—
#2 I dont think that “no fly zone” activities were ever used as an argument for war. Its used to illustrate the non-compliant erratic behavior of Hussein, who does these stupid things even though he knows better. Plus, no fly zones is the only protection Kurds on the North have against Saddam’s genocide. Plus, the were created by US, UK and FRANCE.
“If a nation’s leader lying were cause for war, no country would ever know peace.”
—
#3 …again, noone is saying Iraq is a threat because it has a lying leader, but I guess you have penchant for pedancy, so u can have that one.
I agree the inspections are a charade – the US intends to invade whatever the inspections outcome (see Perle and Wolfowitz, et al).
As for a lying leader, George W. Bush is just the latest in a line of US Presidents who lie to justify war. McKinley did it over the USS Maine, Johnson did it over the USS Maddox, and Bush is doing it over Iraq. As for genocide of the Kurds. This one is still being trotted out by Bush, specifically referring to the village of Halabja, yet a team from the US War College at Carlisle, PA, concluded that it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds, not Iraq.
What amazes me from my standpoint here in Australia is how much worth is put on the lives lost in the WTC and how little an Iraqi life is worth.