US ready to seize Gulf oil in 1973

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Rubbish. You’ve just argued that history should be written by the victor is morally justified. It’s not.

Actually Corthinian, it has to do with viewing historical events in perspective. If that is meaning writing history by the victor, then so be it (even though that is a completely wrong context of the phrase). If you want a comparable view, look at Mexico educational books and someone named Santa Anna de Lopez. You will see that Mexican officials do not give him an inspiring view of his character qualities much less than a footnote of history. In fact, they give far more relevance to Maxillian, Juarez, and US than they do of Santa Anna

Then for containment to be effective, the pressure on Iraq could not have been lifted - otherwise containment would have effectively also been lifted. Hence, Iraq could never have satisfied the US with her cooperation with the weapons inspectors. This was my original point.

The only way for containment to work is to be enforced. Anything else, containment would have been broken and the intended objective would capitalize on this and further the divide. This is exactly what Saddam did in the 1990's. Once the objective has been obtained, then containment would be lifted. It is a cause and effect political mechanism that has been around for the past four decades. In case you are wondering Corthinian, NPT and the CTBT are containment policies. I am sure you do not want to advocate such a political system in those treaties.

QUOTE]No but semantics is often used as a means of deception which is then called analysis. [/QUOTE]

A more accurate analysis eliminates any grossly defined and loosely organized research that can be interpreted in a hundred ways.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Actually Corthinian, it has to do with viewing historical events in perspective. If that is meaning writing history by the victor, then so be it (even though that is a completely wrong context of the phrase).

In perspective? What’s that got to do with rewriting history after the fact. And we’re not discussing the reinterpretation of the unknown, but the reinterpretation of the known so as to deceive.

If you want a comparable view, look at Mexico educational books and someone named Santa Anna de Lopez. You will see that Mexican officials do not give him an inspiring view of his character qualities much less than a footnote of history. In fact, they give far more relevance to Maxillian, Juarez, and US than they do of Santa Anna

At best it highlights that people can manipulate history to favour some over others, at worst it’s the manipulation of history to promote a political agenda. What I cannot understand, unless you are taking a purely Machiavellian position on political science, is how you can condone this to be morally justified?

The only way for containment to work is to be enforced. Anything else, containment would have been broken and the intended objective would capitalize on this and further the divide. This is exactly what Saddam did in the 1990's. Once the objective has been obtained, then containment would be lifted. It is a cause and effect political mechanism that has been around for the past four decades.

What objective? You still haven’t addressed how this objective was not originally not been regime change and then you claimed that it was simultaneously unofficial regime change. The closest you’ve come to arguing that regime change was not the policy from day one is that it was just the preferred option but not perused actively at the time. Even if you believe this, and this is highly questionable, then the incentive is already there not to lift containment. Ever.

A more accurate analysis eliminates any grossly defined and loosely organized research that can be interpreted in a hundred ways.

That’s pretty meaningless if your “more accurate analysis” is an agenda driven interpretation of history. If you effectively start from the premise that “we were right because we won” then you’ll inevitably interpret whatever facts you choose to see accordingly - or as you succinctly put it - so be it.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
This is too easy!

After reading that so called analysis, I can only say this. They must have talked to my ex girlfriend, former brother-in-law who use to date a blonde in college. In other words, that report was should be labeled as gossip. Again, the only factual evidence (that means verified) was Scott Ritter.

Evidentally you didn't read the article.

Again, how do you draw your conclusion that they were spied upon. Again, allegations does not mean facts Sovtek. I can, or whoever can, allege anything to you, but until there are facts, there is no basis in those allegations.

Kinda like allegations of WMD's eh?
I guess that's why the CIA never denied it.

And you are ignoring what happened with the UN inspectors in August and September. However, while the US attack was eminent, Iraq began comlying for a short time and then withdrew. That is when the attack happened after the UN inspectors were kicked out AGAIN. Iraq was not a victim Sovtek. It was the agressor and must adhere to the consequences of its actions.

The inspectors were never kicked out. They left because of the bombing campaign (nevermind the "no-fly" zones continual bombing).
I guess Iraq must adhere to the consequences that the US decides while Israel is exempt.

Go look at my statement with the "allegations" of the inspectors as spies. Saddam used every excuse he could not to cooperate. The international race card (figuratively speaking) was accusing the inpectors of being spies.

And the US never supported the inspections.

Actually, the UN resolutions wanted Saddam:
"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;"

"7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;" and

"11. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968; "

This is directly from UN resolution 687 Sovtek. It included research as well as weapons. Both are considered part of the definition of weapons of mass destruction.

And what's your point. That's what the subsequent resolutions are in aid of enforcing.

If you drop or even ammend 687, all other resolutions would have been useless Sovtek.

No sh1t!

This is a universal fact approved by the experts in weapon inspections proceedures.

Some experts while others disagree.

Again, what evidence, other than a newpaper article of dubious inference, do you have. NONE! The no fly zones were approved by the UN security council unanimously and were enforced by the only two nations with the "cajones" to enforce them.

And what evidence do you have that they were unanimously approved by the UN?

I have a very good idea of your solution Sovtek by your advocation of droppiing UN resolution 687 which would have made the UN security council future resolutions not even worth the paper it is printed on.

And when did I say or even imply that?

The solution failed Sovtek because you had several member nations, France, Russia, Germany, who went behind the back of the UN security resolutions for their own political and economic gains.

Ummmm you seemed to have forgotten about Dick Cheney there as well.

Containment only works if all members agree. If one fails, then containment fails.

That's assuming containment is the goal, which statements and actions of successive American governments suggest wasn't.

The other solution would have been to give Iraq a slap on the wrist for what it did and that would have been disastrous internationally for the UN.

As opposed to ignoring the UN Charter and invading Iraq anyway.
The UN is only as strong as it's strongest member's willingness to adhere to the organizations it's largely responsible for creating.

No, they were damned the minute they invade Kuwait for economic blackmail Sovtek. Everything else is related to that single event regardless of your political stance.

Nevermind the 35 year history of US and other western support for Saddam.
What was that about looking at the political reality of the time?

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
But you also have human rights violations with nearly every nation that you can think of. This includes Ireland, UK, US, Russia, Cuba, etc. Each situation is different and you must draw a line somewhere in each sitation. To put it simplistically in a nice little box does not reflect the numerous dynamic political inferences involved in international potitics.

So it isn't ok to invade the US, UK, Russia, Cuba because of human rights abuses... but it is for Iraq?

But what alternative do you have Bonkey? Would you just use the lets not want not idealogy. There are consequences to every action you take or a nation takes whether you recognize it or not.

Unless, of course, you do what the US says.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Evidentally you didn't read the article.

Oh yes I read the article Sovtek. When the article uses evidence like "Bush officials" or "White House officials" without detailing who the bloody well talked to specifically, then that is gossip and nonverifiable, loosely defined, grossly interpretative, and highly dubious links of the story at hand. This is what is defined as sensational journalism (tabloid news) that has about as much facts as a compulsive liar. When an article uses terms like "Bush Officials" or "White House officials" then you have no way in hell to determine if the journalist talked to the janitor, you, the maid, the intern or no one at all and making it all up. In short, you take it with a grain of salt until such evidence that can be examined and verified, through analytical extrapolation. Anything else is just tabloid, sensational journalism.

Kinda like allegations of WMD's eh?
I guess that's why the CIA never denied it.

If you read the IISS report, which is probably the most comprehensive, publically available document, then you will understand the analysis of the evidencee. Howevery, I did give a brief three point summary earlier in the post. Apparently you missed that.

The inspectors were never kicked out. They left because of the bombing campaign (nevermind the "no-fly" zones continual bombing).
I guess Iraq must adhere to the consequences that the US decides while Israel is exempt.

First Israel and Iraq are completely different situations. I am sorry you cannot make that distinction. When Iraq decided not to cooperate anymore with the inspectors, that means they were kicked out. Now, let us look at the "continual bombing in the no-fly zones. What actually happened, like you really care anyways, was SA sites (that surface to air batteries) painted (that means targeted) aircraft patrolling (that means enforcing) the no-fly zone (that means that Iraq could not have any significant movement in those said regions)

And the US never supported the inspections.

About half of all inspectors were Americans and some were active in programs that involved the US government (this is not to say that they were part of the CIA). Nearly two thirds of all inspectors came from the UK and the US. These two nations have the expertise in dealing with weapons inspections and nuclear monitoring (as well as part of the Arms Control International, a nonprofit organization). The US supported the inspections, especially from 1992 through 1998 (by allowing the inspections and following with the UN security council) and did so in 2002-2003 even though you had an incompetent head named Blix who only cared about his own ego and political agenda, but not his job. When the UN said one last chance for Iraq, it should mean one last chance. However, Blix wanted to give another chance and another after failing to comply with UN resolution 1441.

And what's your point. That's what the subsequent resolutions are in aid of enforcing.

That was part of UN resolution 687, you know the one you want to get rid of, and expect Saddam to comply because he is such a good boy. LMAOLOL

No sh1t!

And yet, you still believe that dropping the resolution would have Iraq to still comply with the cease fire agreement. But then again, you never implied or said anything of the sort.LOLLMAO

Some experts while others disagree.

The ones that will disagree only think in limited concepts, and most do not even think.

[QUORW]And what evidence do you have that they were unanimously approved by the UN![/QUOTE]

Go look at the UN resolutions, ALL OF THEM, and you will see.

And when did I say or even imply that?

And yet you said no **** about dropping UN Resolution 687 would effectively negate all other resolutions at that time. Oh wait, you never said that, didn't you.

Ummmm you seemed to have forgotten about Dick Cheney there as well.

Don't you mean Dick Gephardt. They are easily confused since they have the same first name.

That's assuming containment is the goal, which statements and actions of successive American governments suggest wasn't.

And what do you think containment means Sovtek, Do think it means planting daisies in the field in Hyde Park. Or do you think they should place a dunce cap and go and sit in the corner without any superivision.

As opposed to ignoring the UN Charter and invading Iraq anyway.
The UN is only as strong as it's strongest member's willingness to adhere to the organizations it's largely responsible for creating.

And which Iraqi (And I ONLY MEAN IRAQI) UN resolution did they ignore? Oh wait, the US is the evil Satan while the Soviet Union was the bastion of peace and prosperitiy. LOL

Nevermind the 35 year history of US and other western support for Saddam.
What was that about looking at the political reality of the time?

What 35 year old history? Oh wait, its those tabloid news organizations again with their truth, justice and the American way. NOT!

So it isn't ok to invade the US, UK, Russia, Cuba because of human rights abuses... but it is for Iraq?

And yet, you do not want to extend the same courtesy to Israel as with your proposal to drop a specific UN resolution on Iraq.

Unless, of course, you do what the US says.

Unlike Chirac who demanded the ten new EU members to shut up or otherwise face the consequences as that of being humanitarian in your book, huh Sovtek.

sovtek

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox

That has to do with Bush Jr, not Bush Sr. Sovtek. It also has to do with the Clinton Admin starting in July of 1998. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS BEFORE JULY 1998!

As I have stated, regime change became official policy in July 1998, not 1992. You and Corithian hold the view, as I understand from your posts, that regime change was always official policy from the day of the UN resolutions and sanctions. Huge difference from my analysis and yours.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
In perspective? What’s that got to do with rewriting history after the fact. And we’re not discussing the reinterpretation of the unknown, but the reinterpretation of the known so as to deceive.

History is always revised at one point or another. The more appropiate question is it legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimate revision attempts to take on the mainstream or traditional view of historical events and motivated by didactic pursuits. This is historical revision. Illegitimate revisionist history attempts to play historical events without the ocntext of adherent timelines, using known knowledge of the facts at the time of the facts, misrepresentation of known facts, making up facts through false pretenses, and serving a very particular agenda

At best it highlights that people can manipulate history to favour some over others, at worst it’s the manipulation of history to promote a political agenda. What I cannot understand, unless you are taking a purely Machiavellian position on political science, is how you can condone this to be morally justified?

Since I am not Mexican and neither are you, it is very presumptious to pass judgement on a society with events that have no historical reference to you.

What objective? You still haven’t addressed how this objective was not originally not been regime change and then you claimed that it was simultaneously unofficial regime change. The closest you’ve come to arguing that regime change was not the policy from day one is that it was just the preferred option but not perused actively at the time. Even if you believe this, and this is highly questionable, then the incentive is already there not to lift containment Ever..

No Corinithian. The objective with 1992 was containment. Containment was a policy which made Iraq not to attempt to invade, irritate, or bully its immediate neighbors, the Arabian Pennisula, and the ME and Med in general. It was to limit Saddam's capacity not only to make war but not to influence adversely, intentionally, or accidentally in the regions describe just previously. What I was referring to, and you were not listening, was the fact that many people would want voluntary regime change. It would be the easiest, quickest and politically correct action. However, it was not even realistic. Several Arab nations called for Saddam to leave after the first Gulf War. It included Egypt and Jordon. This is not to say that regime change was an official policy. Let me put it to you this way, I want a lot of things to happen or wish for with certain regions, political leaders, business leaders, etc, but in nearly all cases it is not going to happen. Does this mean that thinking of such results without writing them down condemns me to a life of prosperity or importance or even crime. Hell no it is not until I take such action, written or verbal, that could link me to such action.

That’s pretty meaningless if your “more accurate analysis” is an agenda driven interpretation of history. If you effectively start from the premise that “we were right because we won” then you’ll inevitably interpret whatever facts you choose to see accordingly - or as you succinctly put it - so be it.

Whose history is agenda driven when they ignore, misrepresent, and flat out lie about certain known facts before hand. But it could also be said that everybody has an agenda (this includes you!).

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
History is always revised at one point or another. The more appropiate question is it legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimate revision attempts to take on the mainstream or traditional view of historical events and motivated by didactic pursuits. This is historical revision. Illegitimate revisionist history attempts to play historical events without the ocntext of adherent timelines, using known knowledge of the facts at the time of the facts, misrepresentation of known facts, making up facts through false pretenses, and serving a very particular agenda

Very good. Meanwhile, I was discussing the latter.

Since I am not Mexican and neither are you, it is very presumptious to pass judgement on a society with events that have no historical reference to you.

I was responding to your judgement “that Mexican officials do not give him an inspiring view of [Santa Anna de Lopez]” – so please don’t pull that line with me as, apart from everything else, it’s not the first time you’ve expressed a judgement or opinion on another Society. You brought it up as an example of historical airbrushing, I pointed out how this is not a good thing.

No Corinithian. The objective with 1992 was containment. Containment was a policy which made Iraq not to attempt to invade, irritate, or bully its immediate neighbors, the Arabian Pennisula, and the ME and Med in general. It was to limit Saddam's capacity not only to make war but not to influence adversely, intentionally, or accidentally in the regions describe just previously. What I was referring to, and you were not listening, was the fact that many people would want voluntary regime change. It would be the easiest, quickest and politically correct action. However, it was not even realistic. Several Arab nations called for Saddam to leave after the first Gulf War. It included Egypt and Jordon. This is not to say that regime change was an official policy. Let me put it to you this way, I want a lot of things to happen or wish for with certain regions, political leaders, business leaders, etc, but in nearly all cases it is not going to happen. Does this mean that thinking of such results without writing them down condemns me to a life of prosperity or importance or even crime. Hell no it is not until I take such action, written or verbal, that could link me to such action.

I would not deny that an objective was containment. However, containment is not a solution, it is simply a means of dealing with the effects of a problem. You, on the other hand, have already admitted that there would have been a preference for the removal of the Ba’ath regime (or at least Saddam) by the US, from 1992 onwards. I would contend that this preference was in effect an unofficial policy that ultimately became so blatant as to become official policy in the late 1990’s.

Nonetheless, even were this not the case (and I accept that it is arguable), containment alone would have precluded that sanctions would ever be lifted. Simply removing Saddam’s WMD capabilities would hardly have eliminated his ability to menace his neighbours - after all he never needed WMD to invade Kuwait, did he? Thus, containment and sanctions could never have been lifted as ultimately only regime change would have solved the Saddam issue.

Which returns me to my original point which was that Saddam could hardly be blamed for the sanctions being lifted, because they were never going to be lifted, regardless of his cooperation or lack thereof with the arms inspectors.

Whose history is agenda driven when they ignore, misrepresent, and flat out lie about certain known facts before hand. But it could also be said that everybody has an agenda (this includes you!).

Not everybody. History will tend to be driven by academic opinions and interpretations, however there is a difference between taking a slant and the systematic suppression of facts that counter your agenda combined with invention to the same end. Surely, you can’t mean to lump all historical revisionism in the same boat?

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
That has to do with Bush Jr, not Bush Sr. Sovtek. It also has to do with the Clinton Admin starting in July of 1998. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS BEFORE JULY 1998!

If you mean that Bush the kid' statement has nothing to do with anything prior to 1998 regarding Clinton, maybe...maybe not as he's not very specific.
If you are saying that there weren't efforts by previous administrations prior to '98..your wrong

As I have stated, regime change became official policy in July 1998, not 1992.

Official or not, attempts at regime change have been around since 1991 through 2003.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
If you mean that Bush the kid' statement has nothing to do with anything prior to 1998 regarding Clinton, maybe...maybe not as he's not very specific.
If you are saying that there weren't efforts by previous administrations prior to '98..your wrong

With Clinton, a definite yes. From your own source and a brief page summary, former President Bush Sr asked the Shiites of Iraq to overthrow Saddam. In other words, encouraging Iraqis to take charge in their own government. If such an event were to happen however, it would have created more instability in the region with a Kurdish and Shiite enclaves. The surrounding nations would fear that an ethnic civil war would emerge and opening Iraq to influences from its neighbors of Iran, Syria, and Turkey. In other words, the surrounding nations of Iraq would have unduely influenced the intentions and wills of the Iraqi people and cause great chaos in the region. To Corinthian, this is why ME countries are weary of any outside influence, including other muslim nations, from entering into their sphere of national prestege and politics. The report, which CRS was briefly describing, was a proposal and was never set into action. That is the difference. Governments, generally speaking, do this all the ******* time.

Furthermore, the report specifically gives detailed analysis of the various anti-Saddam groups and the support of the international community on those same various groups. Those groups met in Vienna in 1992 with mainly Kurdish groups and in October, the INC had Shiite groups as part of its consortium. They even approved a platform that included to match US values and interests, "federalism," democracy, human rights, complying with UN resolutions, and the preservation of Iraqi territorial integrity. The report gives additional details of the various groups within the INC of which nation supported which group in the INC. This involves the US, but also include Kuwait, and Iran. However, the report does not go into full detail, probably because of the scope of the report was limited, of additional nations that supported a regime change in Iraq, unofficially or officially. In conclusion Sovtek, the previous administrations ruled out military action for regime change, believing such action would be risky and not neccessarily justified by the level of Iraq's lack of compliance on WMD disarmament. It also concludes that such efforts failed because of a limited committment, disorganization of the Iraqi opposition groups, and the ruthless and efficiency of Iraq's several overlapping security agencies (from the report itself).

Official or not, attempts at regime change have been around since 1991 through 2003.

Trying to lump official and unofficial regime change into a single category as official is spin at the very least, propoganda as a tool, and complete deception at the very worst. It ignores specific facts in evidence and specific events at the time it occured. This is a pure illegitimate revisionist historical agenda brought by a pure political agenda.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I was responding to your judgement “that Mexican officials do not give him an inspiring view of [Santa Anna de Lopez]” – so please don’t pull that line with me as, apart from everything else, it’s not the first time you’ve expressed a judgement or opinion on another Society. You brought it up as an example of historical airbrushing, I pointed out how this is not a good thing.

First, when is an observation a judgement on a society Corinthian? Second, if you had paid particular attention, the reference was made by your assertion that history is written by the victors and which you do not agree with. I guess I assumed you wanted history to be written by anybody but the victors. That is the case with the reference I was pointing out.

I would not deny that an objective was containment. However, containment is not a solution, it is simply a means of dealing with the effects of a problem. You, on the other hand, have already admitted that there would have been a preference for the removal of the Ba’ath regime (or at least Saddam) by the US, from 1992 onwards. I would contend that this preference was in effect an unofficial policy that ultimately became so blatant as to become official policy in the late 1990’s.

It was the principle policy of the UN. It has been the principle policy of the UN for the last fifty years. Israel, South Africa, Libia, the security council come to mind (and I am not debating the merits of those countries either). I will agree with you that containment, with the current political environment of the UN. What I was referring to was personal beliefs held not only by the US, but by most nations, especially the ME nations at that time. But how do you also account with Secretary-General Annon last year when he said it would be best for President Taylor to step down and allow new elections. That is regime change Corinthian.

Nonetheless, even were this not the case (and I accept that it is arguable), containment alone would have precluded that sanctions would ever be lifted. Simply removing Saddam’s WMD capabilities would hardly have eliminated his ability to menace his neighbours - after all he never needed WMD to invade Kuwait, did he? Thus, containment and sanctions could never have been lifted as ultimately only regime change would have solved the Saddam issue.

Which returns me to my original point which was that Saddam could hardly be blamed for the sanctions being lifted, because they were never going to be lifted, regardless of his cooperation or lack thereof with the arms inspectors.

The whole purpose of the sanctions was for Iraq to follow them through and completely. If they were followed, then they will be lifted regardless of the regime change argument you are implying. The problem is that containment, like boycotts, do not work. And the UN has a very dismal record of international politics.

Not everybody. History will tend to be driven by academic opinions and interpretations, however there is a difference between taking a slant and the systematic suppression of facts that counter your agenda combined with invention to the same end. Surely, you can’t mean to lump all historical revisionism in the same boat?

No, see the difference between legitimate and illegitimate historical revision for your answer.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
First, when is an observation a judgement on a society Corinthian?

When it ends in a conclusion.

It was the principle policy of the UN. It has been the principle policy of the UN for the last fifty years. Israel, South Africa, Libia, the security council come to mind (and I am not debating the merits of those countries either).

The only case that would be comparable to Iraq there is Libya. Gaddaffi could well have ended up much like Saddam, but his situation was marginally easier (he didn’t have several US divisions sitting on his doorstep for a start).

I will agree with you that containment, with the current political environment of the UN. What I was referring to was personal beliefs held not only by the US, but by most nations, especially the ME nations at that time. But how do you also account with Secretary-General Annon last year when he said it would be best for President Taylor to step down and allow new elections. That is regime change Corinthian.

But that does not contradict what I said.

The whole purpose of the sanctions was for Iraq to follow them through and completely. If they were followed, then they will be lifted regardless of the regime change argument you are implying. The problem is that containment, like boycotts, do not work. And the UN has a very dismal record of international politics.

No. This is where we differ. Even without an active policy of regime change, a policy of containment would have precluded this. With or without WMD Saddam was still a regional problem and would have required containment.

No, see the difference between legitimate and illegitimate historical revision for your answer.

Arguing that someone standing next to Stalin was historically unimportant is a legitimate interpretation, airbrushing him out is an illegitimate interpretation, or propaganda. In between those two extremes you have grey areas whereby interpretation becomes more and more dubious, until your interpretation is based upon falsities.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
When it ends in a conclusion.

Only when a conclusion implicitly states a value judgement. `My anology did not make a judgement, agreeing or disagreeing with the decision. It was an observation pointed out to me from a Mexican-American collegue who lives on one of the border towns.

The only case that would be comparable to Iraq there is Libya. Gaddaffi could well have ended up much like Saddam, but his situation was marginally easier (he didn’t have several US divisions sitting on his doorstep for a start).

Actually no. The NPT and the CTBT are perfect examples of containment policy without regime change as a primary focus. You could look at NK where even its closest ally, China, does not want NK to develop offensive nuclear capability, not to mention South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan with the US as an afterthought.

No. This is where we differ. Even without an active policy of regime change, a policy of containment would have precluded this. With or without WMD Saddam was still a regional problem and would have required containment.

They are mutually exclusive in this particular case and were only linked in 1998 whenn former President Clinton made it official policy. However, Lybia was also a regional threat but was fully abandoned by the Arab League after the Lockerbie diaster. Not even the Soviet Union could trust Ghadaffi with a similar goal in mind.

Arguing that someone standing next to Stalin was historically unimportant is a legitimate interpretation, airbrushing him out is an illegitimate interpretation, or propaganda. In between those two extremes you have grey areas whereby interpretation becomes more and more dubious, until your interpretation is based upon falsities.

But how does one determine falsities Corinthian. Without detailed analysis and explicit and implicit evidence, a single news stories or even several news stories that you may agree with does not make the fact true. But even explicit evidence that is limited in scope can lead to false interpretation. It is only until you have a full set of evidence and prioritize those pieces of evidence is when you have a more legitimate analysis of the facts in hand.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Only when a conclusion implicitly states a value judgement. `My anology did not make a judgement, agreeing or disagreeing with the decision. It was an observation pointed out to me from a Mexican-American collegue who lives on one of the border towns.

Fair enough.

Actually no. The NPT and the CTBT are perfect examples of containment policy without regime change as a primary focus. You could look at NK where even its closest ally, China, does not want NK to develop offensive nuclear capability, not to mention South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan with the US as an afterthought.

Even were North Korea to comply, containment would continue.

They are mutually exclusive in this particular case and were only linked in 1998 whenn former President Clinton made it official policy. However, Lybia was also a regional threat but was fully abandoned by the Arab League after the Lockerbie diaster. Not even the Soviet Union could trust Ghadaffi with a similar goal in mind.

Note the use of the word official. You have already effectively contended that there would have been a preference for regime change by the US administration, even prior to this official policy shift. What I contend is that it was unofficial policy to peruse a strategy of regime change prior to the official policy shift.

A policy need not be officially sanctioned to be pursued or executed. Just ask Laos.

But how does one determine falsities Corinthian. Without detailed analysis and explicit and implicit evidence, a single news stories or even several news stories that you may agree with does not make the fact true. But even explicit evidence that is limited in scope can lead to false interpretation. It is only until you have a full set of evidence and prioritize those pieces of evidence is when you have a more legitimate analysis of the facts in hand.

I’d tend to agree that the gap between interpretation and falsification can be somewhat grey. However, when one fabricates evidence or consciously lies, then I can’t say there’s a Hell of a lot of ambiguity. Regrettably we have seen a disturbingly large number of instances of this in the last eighteen months.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even were North Korea to comply, containment would continue.

On the Korean Pennisula, there has been a political process called reunification for the past two decades. I would not call this a containment policy. And the reunification process is still going on while the nuclear situation is still not resolved. In order for the SE Asian community to prosper, NK cannot have offensive nuclear capability because it jeapordizes the entire region for China, South Korea (its reunificaiont efforts), Taiwan, and Japan. Japan is the primary target, not the US, when NK develops offensive nuclear capability. I think you and I will agree that because of the past Japanese agression on the Korean pennisula is why NK is still bitter toward the Japanese.

Note the use of the word official. You have already effectively contended that there would have been a preference for regime change by the US administration, even prior to this official policy shift. What I contend is that it was unofficial policy to peruse a strategy of regime change prior to the official policy shift.

A policy need not be officially sanctioned to be pursued or executed. Just ask Laos.

We all have preferences Corinthian, but do not take an active part on obtaining or denying those goals. Even most of Europe, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordon, and Turkey all supported the INC, Iraqi National Council, along with its established protocols when and if Saddam left as its preference for a more stable Iraq. The INC was the opposition group comprised of Kurds and Shiite groups oppressed by Saddams regime.

I’d tend to agree that the gap between interpretation and falsification can be somewhat grey. However, when one fabricates evidence or consciously lies, then I can’t say there’s a Hell of a lot of ambiguity. Regrettably we have seen a disturbingly large number of instances of this in the last eighteen months.

I would argue that some of the information presented was misinterpreted on particular facts of Saddams capability. In order for your premise that the evidence was fabricated or lied, one must hold that the Administration had prior knowledge that Iraq was not even remotely possessing or trying to possess such weapons. All experts agree that no such conclusion could be drawn upon given the defectors testimony and evidence as well as Saddams decoded messages that Iraqi officers could release such weapons if an attack came. IISS has a book out on the thousand of pages of evidence on Iraq's capability and desired results. What is questioned is whether the inspectors should have been given more time or not. I understand and respect such an argument even though I would tend to disagree. I can also accept and understand arguments that better enforcement methods, such as smart sanctions would have better served the policy. However, not even all the security council was behind such actions (and I am not limiting myself to the US) when you have had Russia wanting to maintain Saddam in power and not have any sanctions in the first place.