Going to War

[Rayen]

Well spoken.

Swordsman and the rest of you hit the nail on the head when it was said that media is a business. All of these 'Top Secret' reports that we see flashed on CNN's tickers are either fake or not very secret. Even if they ARE genuine reports that have somehow been leaked to Wolf Blitzer, why do they air it and sometimes risk national security? Because secrecy sells.

These days it seems that the Osbournes get more privacy than the Generals of the U.S. military and the politicians that are the backbone of our country.

The media is going to give us what we demand. What we demand however...is up to us.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Umm...is it just me, or did the UN Security Council unanimously pass a resolution last week saying that if Iraq doesn't comply completely with everything, they'll let the US lead a force in? It's not just US policy anymore, it is UN policy now. And any attack now won't be unilateral.

It's just you.

The resolution was very carefult to not state that a failure to comply by Iraq would provide the justification for a U.S. attack. This was a precondition for the support of France and Russia who have a veto.

The resolution provides that upon a breach by Iraq, the matter will be referred back to the Security Council which will immediately convene to consider the matter.

--Philistine

[civiltech]

Just a side note here:

When George Bush senior recieved his blessing from the US congress to invade Iraq, the bill, or legislation (whatever it's called) formally stated that the US was to use every diplomatic, and peaceful route possible to obtain their goals. Only after every other route was exhausted, could he use force as the last resort. This wasn't the exact wording, but the emphasis of an armed invasion as a last resort, and the seriousness of the matter has the same spirit.

Anyways, four days later, G. Bush senior gave the order, and his military invaded Iraq! 4 days!

Regards,

[Philistine]

Originally posted by civiltech
Just a side note here:

When George Bush senior recieved his blessing from the US congress to invade Iraq, the bill, or legislation (whatever it's called) formally stated that the US was to use every diplomatic, and peaceful route possible to obtain their goals. Only after every other route was exhausted, could he use force as the last resort. This wasn't the exact wording, but the emphasis of an armed invasion as a last resort, and the seriousness of the matter has the same spirit.

The wording was:

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and

(2) that those efforts have not been and would not be successful in obtaining such compliance.

1991 Joint Resolution

Anyways, four days later, G. Bush senior gave the order, and his military invaded Iraq! 4 days!

Yes, but aren't you ignoring the fact that the UN had set a deadline for January 15, an despite last minute negotiations, between Iraq and the UN, among others, Iraq remained defiant, refused to withdraw or comply with the UN resolutions and stated that if it was attacked it would attack Israel?--All prior to the air attack beginning on January 16?

--Philistine

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Philistine
It's just you.

The resolution was very carefult to not state that a failure to comply by Iraq would provide the justification for a U.S. attack. This was a precondition for the support of France and Russia who have a veto.

The resolution provides that upon a breach by Iraq, the matter will be referred back to the Security Council which will immediately convene to consider the matter.

--Philistine

I didn't say a U.S. attack; I said the U.S. would be allowed to lead a force in. The force would be multinational.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Swordsman
I didn't say a U.S. attack; I said the U.S. would be allowed to lead a force in. The force would be multinational.

You're still jumping the gun. The resolution said nothing about the result of an Iraqi failure to comply. There is no authorization in this resolution for any attack--U.S. led or otherwise.

It is anticipated that to the extent a breach of the resolution makes an attack warranted, there will be another resolution which will authorize it.

--Philistine

[Swordsman]

Right you are. Allow me, then, to interject a prediction:

If Iraq does breach the resolution (and I think it will), the UN will pass a resolution allowing an invasion. Because if they don't, I think we would invade anyway. And that would just make the UN look shamefully toothless.

Note: I am not commenting on the right or wrong of this. I am simply predicting what I think will happen. You all know where I stand on the right and wrong of it, anyway.

[civiltech]

As far as any of us have heard, the UN inspectors have not found anything yet. (Still a lot to see though.)

I still think the US will war whether they find anything or not.

It is my understanding though, that the UN's formal investigations upto today, still have not been released to the public. We only have the 'media' to go off of. I am realy curious to see what the UN (mainly US personel?) inspectors find.


Regards

[Philistine]

Originally posted by civiltech
As far as any of us have heard, the UN inspectors have not found anything yet. (Still a lot to see though.)

Apparently, on Thursday, inspectors found artillery shells containing mustard gas.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/63758.htm

{snip}
I am realy curious to see what the UN (mainly US personel?) inspectors find.

It's my understanding that the inspectors are multi-national--I don't believe the nationalities/identities have been released, though. Hans Blix is Swedish.

--Philistine

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Philistine


Apparently, on Thursday, inspectors found artillery shells containing mustard gas.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/63758.htm




It's my understanding that the inspectors are multi-national--I don't believe the nationalities/identities have been released, though. Hans Blix is Swedish.

--Philistine [/b]

I believe they have. There are four Canadians on this tour. I do believe the bulk majority of personnel are American. I could very well be incorrect though. (?)

question: Is mustard gas really what the UN are looking for? It is a pretty common agent. Used in WW I, and any of us could make it a home relatively easily. Is it considered an item they are looking for?

Regards,

[civiltech]

Just a further note, I havn't hear boo about this mustard gas in Canadian Media. Though they may not have the resources to report it as quickly as the Americans. Has it been widespread reported anywhere else?

After reading the article as you noted in the NY Post, some interesting comments:


"Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer made it clear that the inspection that sparked Saddam's ire is nothing compared to the aggressive approach that the White House wants to implement after Iraq files its declaration of all weapons of mass death this weekend....


...A U.S. official said Rice made the same point privately to Blix on Monday but not as a demand, since Blix doesn't work for the United States - and U.S. officials have spoken positively about Blix and his team, with one senior official saying it's unfair to criticize him."

Havn't really seen any other statesmen talking like this either. But I don't surf every single newspaper. Does anyone have any input on what other countries are reporting?

Thanks.

[Inquartata]

It all depends on what's in the actual UN inspection protocols, I'd guess. Iraq has been denying that it has any NBC weapons, but mustard gas may not have been so defined...or preexisting stocks found by the last inspection regime may be exempted...or the shells may be inert...or they may be part of the stocks the Iraqis claimed had been "lost" after the Gulf War. Bureaucratic nitpicking can result in some startling definitions and loopholes. We'll have to wait and see, but if they did indeed find gas shells---and I'm skeptical, because the inspection teams haven't exactly been opening their findings to the press---then I daresay it's only because the Iraqis didn't care if they were found, and thus they aren't considered "material breaches"...

[Swordsman]

An article in USA Today sometime last week had two columns by two different authors, giving the opposite viewpoints of the issue:

1. Saddam walked right into our trap. Now he has to declare everything he has, and let us inspect the country. If he has anything, he gets rid of it or we go in and kick his butt, because the UN will let us.

2. We walked right into Saddam's trap. What looks like a really tough position on the part of the US will dissolve into nothing. He'll let inspectors in, and declare everything. But all he has to do is come up with enough of a lame little story or excuse to make Russia or France or somebody to get cold feet and not want to attack. We'll never find anything in a country the size of France, anyway.

I personally hope for #1, as I think most do. Unforunately, I think #2 is also pretty likely. Possibly moreso.

[135711]

media everywhere is partly to blame for fanning the flames, so to speak. the problem is without 'news' we wouldn't know what was happening anywhere and things could get worse, for example: the nazi's got away with murder for quite some time before the press started visiting germany and writing stories; but it's really the attitudes of the press, or their mentality. the people have changed dramatically since wwii. i feel that drugs have completely changed the way people think and feel from 1960 to 2002; in the past 40 years, people are less able to distinquish right from wrong; and don't mind making things up to sell a story. it's reallly the same with ceo's of corporations, but it's the same everywhere, not just america. we seem to be the target of everyone who doesn't want to share in some of the responsibility. europeans typically try to scream at americans for the problems of the world, but if it weren't for americans, the nazi's would have killed everyone, remember they were making their way into africa and bombing enland too.

[civiltech]

135711:
Your statements about America in WW II are incorrect. However, if American Media, and popular cinema WERE anything like it is today, I think I understand where your misconceptions have come from.

Yours comments on current media and today's issues are well taken, and thoughtful. Thank you.

Regards

[civiltech]

A further observation:

There was an oil spill off the coast of spain a while ago, roughly twice the disaster that the Exxon Valdez was. Not only more oil, but the fishing industry in that particular coastal area of spain is all but destroyed. Not making light of the Valdez, but that spill was in the middle of nowhere, but recieved unbelievable media attention proportionate to the spanish disaster. Spain is a mere footnote on CNN.

I was ready to go on again about American Media, but I now believe the same happens elsewere in other country's national media. While on CTV,and CBC oil spills, and cloning recieve attention, America's Showdown with everyone else (Iraq / S. Korea) is a mere footnote. I had recieved an email from a friend in Germany, and she concurs their as well. There is more media attention in Germany on the anti-war protesters than the actual possibility of war. Go figure.

[Swordsman]

Does this ACTUALLY suprise anybody? Of course any nation's media is going to cover primarily that nation's concerns. Man is inherently selfish - he cares about what concerns him. The poor don't care about what's going on in college athletics; the rich don't want to pay taxes for Medicare, welfare, etc. Americans don't care about Spain's oil spill problems; Spain doesn't especially care what the US and Iraq do to each other. We hear the occasional comment about something going on in Venezuela with their president and it's stopping oil from coming in, but don't really know what's going on. I'll be they have near-24/7 news of it (Maybe one side, anyway. Don't know how free their press is), and don't give a crap about what people think of Bush.

[Sara]

well i hope we dont go to war, and if we do, i really hope we dont use the draft. but i do agree that i would feel safer if one less country had nukes...but then again, its not a country full of nukes i fear that has to deal with diplomacy, its the one nuke in the posession of a madman who is crazy enough to deploy it. thats probably my biggest fear. nuclear war. :-( i dunno.

[Swordsman]

It won't go nuclear, and we won't have to use the draft.

[135711]

you're sure about the nuke thing? i'm not