Precedent

[Rhydderch Hael]

ABC News (*ugh*) <_< has said that (i.e., I'll opine is speculation at this moment) that the "sneaky trick" the U.S. pulled off was a piece of disinformation that Terak Aziz, the Foreign Minister, had been captured by the Kurds Tuesday or early Wednesday. Aziz went public to disprove that story, and ABC's saying that our intel apparatus used that public appearance to fix Aziz's position and mark the timetable of any high-level meetings to take place soon thereafter...

...the meeting, the U.S. hopes, having been permanently adjourned by one of the deep-penetration munitions (bunker buster bomb) dropped by an F-117 on the Wednesday decapitation strike.

But then, that's from the flash and dazzle of the TV news machine, so don't write the history books yet... :blink:

[Growler]

Hello, I have some thoughts in response to your post.

1. What are the risks of taking down Saddam? From the American perspective, I see none.

The U.S. has already been the target of spectacular terrorist attacks, and no doubt more would be on the way if the U.S. did nothing.

Saddam's continued existence was a risk to America too great to ignore. Please consider, Saddam no longer needed to be able to build his own nuclear weapons, he could just save a year or two revenues from smuggled oil to buy prefabricated nukular warheads from the North Koreans. Saddam had motive, means, and inevitably an opportunity in the future.

What are the European perceptions of risk?

2. About the odd collections of nations pro/con: I've read that one way to break it down is present and former naval powers (US, UK, Spain, Japan) versus present and former land powers (France, Germany, Russia, China). Being a naval power changes your cultuaral approach to foreign policy, according to this analysis. Naval powers are accustomed to gunboat diplomacy, land powers are either at total war or they are not. This analysis is compatible with the risk avoidance theory you put forward in the first post.

3. I do not understand what risk is perceived by save-Saddam crowd. ~They~ are not doing the fighting, and seem willing to believe protestations by Saddam that he has no WMD, so what risk is perceived from their quarter? I personally get stuck here, and conclude that it is the money trail that counts most.

4. Weak nation diplomacy is to self-righteously protest when a strong nation uses means to achieve its ends which a weak nation cannot match. Early American foreign policy (1792-18XX) with regard to European affairs was quite moralistic, and very affordable. (Except we should have learned even then that boycotts and sanctions are not very practical). The nations against us are all weak, but so are some of those allied with us. The explanatory power of this 'weakness' hypothesis is unclear to me.

5. I am an ideologue and not a cynic because I believe in the power of ideas. One particular idea that I believe is a powerful motivator and analytical tool is the perception of an ideological common thread among the peaceniks is called 'Transnational Progressivism'. This is the new refuge of communists and socialists now that the imperial communism of the Soviet Union no longer has any glamour. John Fonte, "The Ideaological War within the West"

Growler
"These are not books, lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves." -- Gilbert Highet (from my amazon.com bookmarker)

[NuurAbSaal]

Thanks for the Scud info. I was under the impression that their inaccuracy disqualified them from being effective B/C weapons carriers, seems I was wrong :)

Funny how you didn't quote the last bit of my paragraph on the "with us/against us" paragraph talking about Yemen (still not 100% sure about the country, heard it on TV and can't find it online). IIRC US cut financial aid by 100% after Y. didn't support the US, Yemen being the poorest arab country (or it was then)::last bit mostly from memory, keep in mind that I was twelve at that time :) ::. Turkey also comes to mind, though this is admittedly a different situation with them beeing a lot more involved now than Yemen was back then.

I still disagree on the UN inspectors thing but I can understand your point of view. It is (if I understood it correctly) based on your belief that Saddam was definitely trying to put together an arsenal of WMD, whereas I think that he was more or less content with where Iraq and he himself were standing. He had already lost a war against the west and still was in power, completely unaffected by the embargo I'm sure and it looked like he would eventually pass his rule to his sons, without anybody in the world (save the Iraqi people) giving a damn about it.
But that's just my opinion :)

maybe I'm a naive optimist.

Basing the timetable of military intervention on things like the weather and elections seems both reasonable and extreemly sickening to me. It really can't be any other way, as you stated, but it disgusts me all the same.

Btw, I really enjoy this discussion (if not the topic), it's nice to be able to keep it all civil and on topic. I've seen enough of bad forums/posters to appreciate the Lounge and it's members.

Nuur

[smithy]

Evidence:

Iraq is not allowed to have SCUD missles. Sadamm said he didn't have any SCUD missles (said recently even).

Iraq just fired a SCUD at Kuwait a few days ago.

Take that lie one step further. It seems reasonable to conclude, based on past actions by Hussein, that if he lied about having SCUD missles that he lied about having WMD.

Granted, I haven't seen the missle that was supposedly a SCUD that was supposedly shot down by one of our pac3 patriot missles. I've just heard that through the media (Kuwaiti officials IIRC), and will assume that it is true until I heard something contradictory.

Smithy

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not much to add to what I've said.

You again repeat that, "your belief that Saddam was definitely trying to put together an arsenal of WMD, whereas I think that he was more or less content with where Iraq and he himself were standing." But I don't see how you can hold that opinion in light of the history. Saddam could have disarmed and given evidence of that any time in the twelve years after '91 and had the economic sanctioned lifted. That would have been to his good, but he didn't. He could have given evidence that he was complying with the UN requests any time after 1441 and thus headed of further pressure, but he didn't. When the inspectors went back into the country, Saddam could have had them taken to where the evidence was that showed he was complying with the disarmament requirements. He didn't.

His choices all along are not those of a person who is complying with a disarmament agreement. And yet, those choices are causing the sanctions to continue, the tension to escalate, and finally a war to begin. Do you really think that he had nothing to hide and just went the way he did out of stupidity or arrogance? I don't.

The only hypothesis that accounts for the behavior of Saddam since '91 is that he was trying to rearm, and trying to do so with weapons that were banned by the agreement he entered into in '91. The only alternative is that he is insane, and there is no other evidence for that.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Well, I informed myself a bit for the last two days and apparently everybody (at least the ones who should know about it, like Middle East experts etc.) except me is at least 99% sure that Iraq in fact has weapons of mass destruction. So I was wrong on that part.

I would still appreciate ANY comments on the Yemen part, perhaps somebody can confirm that the US canceled financial aid after a negative UN vote of Yemen in 1991 as I'm not entirely sure of this.


My view of the whole situation has changed somewhat with knowledge of the fact that Iraq has WMD. I understand that something has to be done about countries (regimes to be precise) which possess WMD and have shown in the past that they are willing to use them. But if a preventive strike is the only means to neutralize this threat, wouldn't the US have to attack North Korea as well, and as soon as possible, before the North Korean's have missiles that can reach the American West Coast? The regime in NK seems to be more than willing to use threats of any kind to get what it wants.

Perhaps I'm a bit rash with my assumptions, I just had my opinion more or less changed for me, so forgive my somewhat incoherent lie of reasoning :)

The question what to do about other countries with WMD or programs for their manufacturing (a German Middle-East expert said that would be about 20) and unstable governements looks to be a tricky one.

Greetings
Nuur

[--Pete]

Hi,

The situation of Yemen in '91 was a bit more complex. For a reasonable summary, see http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/delega...16/467174EN.pdf Apparently financial aid was cut off to Yemen from most (all?) members of the coalition. And, as I stated in my original analysis, it was only a short term effect -- apparently that financial aid was restored in ten years or less. Cheap enough for *actively* backing our enemy.

But if a preventive strike is the only means to neutralize this threat, wouldn't the US have to attack North Korea as well, and as soon as possible, before the North Korean's have missiles that can reach the American West Coast?

But, as you said in the sentence just prior to this one: "something has to be done about countries (regimes to be precise) which possess WMD and have shown in the past that they are willing to use them."

The regime of North Korea has *not* shown this to be the case, although they are making a lot of noise. However, unlike Saddam who has used such weapons on enemies and on his own population within the last twenty year, Korea has not been actively in any war for half a century. There is little more reason to suspect that Korea will use WMD than will Pakistan, India, Israel, France, England, any of the former Russian republics, or the USA. The threat is not just the weapon, but the regime having control of the weapon. Perhaps the ultimate outcome will be war, but I think the world can afford to give Korea at least a fraction of the 12 years it gave Iraq.

The question what to do about other countries with WMD or programs for their manufacturing (a German Middle-East expert said that would be about 20) and unstable governements looks to be a tricky one.

It is indeed tricky. For many reasons. For one, the more countries that have WMD, the more likely it is that a country having them will come under the rule of someone crazy enough to use them. And the more of the weapons there are, the more likely it is that a group unaffiliated with any government will get control of one, either by purchase, theft, or "donation". So, an international agreement *with teeth* controlling the research, development, and use of WMD is desperately needed. Steps in that direction were taken by the world powers years ago. Included in these steps were the various agreements between the USA and the former USSR in regards to weapons limitations and decommissions.

The problem is that many nations feel that they "need" such weapons to protect themselves from their neighbors. And few nations are willing to put their trust in the UN, and considering the UN's inability to do anything constructive, they might be right. So, yes, we need a solution. One that protects everyone, that everyone can trust, that will not fall into the hands of a power hungry group. And there's the rub. Most people trust their own governments, barely, and don't trust anyone else's governments at all.

Putting the genie back into the bottle is not an easy task.

--Pete

[concre+e]

I'll just comment on some selected parts of your post, especially wher you cover Germany and the perils of being semi-informed really show! So...

The immigration of Slavs into nice European neighborhoods was a security concern, as was the concern for either human rights, or the appearance that defending human rights was a good enough fig leaf to cover the real reasons behind the action!

German had >1 million Yugoslavian refugees before that, had many more then and still has >1 million people from Yugoslavia. It has the highest rate of refugees of all western countries (per head), which is a good thing. Refugees, no matter from where don't stay in "nice neighborhoods". It's far from nice where their camps were/are. The reason the German governement had agreed to join the campaign despite this causing problems regarding the German constitution. Germany had not taken part in any non-UNO military actions since 1945. The main point was "nie wieder Auschwitz" as being the stronger argument than "nie wieder Krieg". That was what the discussion was about - not any possible number of refugees that Germany had before during and after that time.

As well the Germans and Chinese, all of whom exercise their sovreign power to do what they think is right, to act or not to act.

It's .. um.. interesting that everything that is not war is "not acting" to you. What a poor mankind this would be if all options that ever existed for anything were "do nothing" or "war". OTOH, it does tell quite a bit about you, I guess.

So I am not surprised that French, German, Russian, and other businesses are voicing their concerns,&nbsp; powerfully, to their governments

Hm, just because it's that way in USA doesn't mean it's that way everywhere else. German companies don't talk to the German governement very much anymore... they want it gone, nothing more nothing less. They're not happy with the German governement's decicion about Iraq/USA, they fear negative consequences, ie losing business with US companies, which has already occured by the way "Sorry, but due to your governement's position on Iraq, we have to cancel ...bla").

There may be the fear among German, Dutch, French, and maybe even a few American,&nbsp; businesses

Especially the "maybe even a few American" part is cute - let's not forget who made Iraq the probably third strongest Army worldwide before the second Golf war in 1991 for the good old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" reason. Or that it was Donald Rumsfeld personally that brought his good friend Saddam everything he needed in the first Gulf war during the 1980ies- like material for building chemical weapons, plus the satellite pictures on where to use those weapons on Iran's soldiers etc.

Is it only acceptable to act collectively if local European security is the issue, and when there is little risk? That is the cynical message I am getting from Paris and Berlin.

As explained above, local European security was not the real issue in this decision, at least not in Germany. The message that you would be getting from Berlin, if you listen that is, is: as long as not all peaceful means have been tried to achieve a goal, it is not right to kill people. Especially when the reasons to to so are changed on an amost daily basis. And when the goal is very close. However, what is cynical, if not sickening, is to call not killing people "inactivity".

he who will not risk cannot change that which needs changing.

Yes, alot of things need changing, one of the most important things in the world is that US goverments should stop supporting dictators and fundamentalists like Taliban and Saddam Hussein because it seems to support US interests for a while.

[AtomicKitKat]

The USG's policy with regimes seems to be "teach the pitbull to kill(because the other dogs in that area are dangerous), and when your neighbour complains his kids got bitten by it, file down his teeth, neuter him, and then put him to sleep"

[Dani]

There is little more reason to suspect that Korea will use WMD than will Pakistan, India, Israel, France, England, any of the former Russian republics, or the USA.

Well, frankly I'm more scared of Kim Jong Il than just about anyone else. I also consider Israel to be slightly more likely user.
As for Ex Soviet states. At least Russian sources claim, that they took the Nukes after the split.
Might be propaganda or overtly wide statement. I pretty much lost interest in the whereabouts of Soviet nukes after USSR ceased to exist.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I pretty much lost interest in the whereabouts of Soviet nukes after USSR ceased to exist.

While I, on the other hand, only really started getting concerned about their whereabouts when they were no longer under the control of a reasonably balanced nation.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Thanks for the info on Yemen, I'll read it as soon as I have some time, hopefully before tomorrw.

The regime of North Korea has *not* shown this to be the case, although they are making a lot of noise. However, unlike Saddam who has used such weapons on enemies and on his own population within the last twenty year, Korea has not been actively in any war for half a century. There is little more reason to suspect that Korea will use WMD

IMO letting literally millions of people starve to maintain the fourth (right?) strongest army in the world nicely shows the ethics of the NK regime. To me it looks like they've completely lost touch with reality and with the absence of any moderate members the NK "governement" qualifies as being capable of anything for me. Even a nuclear strike. NK forces are involved in incidents with SK troops on a regular basis (though not THAT often) and escalation seems enough likely for me to be somewhat scared. A hell of a lot more scared than thinking about Iraq.

Your last two paragraphs contain everything I meant to say (and more) but was too lazy to write :) . I agree with almost everything except your UN comment:

And few nations are willing to put their trust in the UN, and considering the UN's inability to do anything constructive, they might be right.

You almost sound as if a world without UN would be a better place to settle conflicts/deal with problems on an international level. Surely I misunderstood?!

I think the future (a very distant one, mind you) will show that only a global scale institution such as the UN (more likely a different version than ours) can hope of achieving something like World Peace™, if such a thing is actually possible, but maybe that belongs in a new thread.

Again I show signs of being a naive optimist, with the exclusion of NK, of course :)

Greetings
Nuur

[Occhidiangela]

In the months before the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the abount of debate as to how and how much was immense within US Military circles. The decision to take the VIIth coprs from Germany to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia and then home, versus just home, (our troop reductions were just beginning) was the subject of months of planning and feedback between CentCom and the JCS. The restraint shown once the ground war started, since Iran was the more important long term 'threat' as seen from DC, was based on some rather mixed long term predictions as to what the post War Gulf would look like.

Powell is an adherent to the Weinberger doctrine, which he helped implement. There are six critical considerations before committing US Troops, I need to go back and look them up, I don't have them ingrained in memory any longer as that doctrine was tossed out the window by the Clinton Administration.

There is some justifiable questioning of G.Bush senior, Powell, and Cheney in re their pressure to "stop the war after 100 hours' and their being influenced by the images on CNN. The pressure they put on General Schwarzkopf was considerable. And so, the success was not followed up for a variety of reasons, some of which had to do with considering the feelings of Arab allies, and George Bush (SR)'s belief that the UN, now that he had galvanized it, would continue to be an effective agent of international will in the region once the shooting stopped. He believed in the UN, as did his successor, and it let both him his successor down in re the desarmament protocols. He f**ked up, he trusted them.

Powell's reluctance to go to war back then was a combination of his own experiences and his views on the Weinberger doctrine, or that is how I read it.

Given his background, I understand his reservations. I looked at the enrivonment, and fact that the attacking force has much tougher chore in combat, and I too was worried. To claim that his plan would have been worse is to completely misunderstand how our system works. The plan executed, the plan developed by the men in CentCom, was briefed and approved, and then resourced and backed, by the CJCS and the Secretary of Defense. The planning process examined a bunch of options, and success was determined to be more likely via the plan that was adopted. Again, the process worked, and Powell, like any good senior leader, understood that he did not have a monopoly on good ideas. The better idea prevailed, in the long run, which is how the system is supposed to work.

[Occhidiangela]

Go ahead.

Having operated at a level with which you are completely unfamiliar, I do not expect you to be able to see what I saw from your little spot on the ground, and how it played out from levels that the average citizen of any country simply never gets to see.

1. First of all, you completely missed the reference to "nice neighborhoods," as it is an American phrase related to urban 'white flight' in the 1950's and 1960's. I know full and well where the Gast Arbeiter live, and in West Berlin in the early 1970's, it was not in Dahlem, but in Moabit, a bit rougher part of town back then. I doubt much has changed in that regard in any country, regarding where immigrants/refugees get stuck. It was Western Europe as a whole that is the 'Nice Neighborhood' and that these desparate folks were intruding upon, and putting strain on, the social welfare systems in countries with 8-12% or so unemployment in the mid 90's was not a tirvial policy matter.

You make me laugh with your naivete, but really, you make me want to weep. How old are you?

2. I am fully aware of the tension between acting in a support role and acting with troops. Japan acted in 1991 by opening thei rcheckbook for billions of dollars. Ireland acts still in many places as a peacekeeper, so too the Nordic nations, and many African nations. I am also keenly aware of why German Ground Troops were not in Yugoslavia, generally. (Some German folks were about in various HQ's and support organs, as well as non military German's in many international NGO's, or charitable organizations.) Too much bad history. However, I see the choice of Germans to contribute with limitation as a case much like the Japanese: afraid of their own shadow, when in fact Germany is a stalwart representative government. That is for the Germans, of course, to sort out in time as their sovreign interests, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, is shaped by German considerations.

But acting on 1441, which is what I was referring to as action, the resolution that threatened 'serious consequences' if Saddam did not quit his evasion, non cooperation and non compliance, has NOT been done by the German Government, other than to TALK. Hell, The Arab Leage took more action than Germany, as they asked Saddam to abdicate for the good of his country. That is more than Germany or many others even attempted other than TALK. Nothing new, no harsher measures, just TALK.

TALK is NOT ACTION.

Now, is war the only possible action? No. In that you and I most likely agree.

The problem remains, given that actions in place for 12 years -- embargo, trade restrictions on certain materials under UN ruling -- that nothing has changed other than life continuing to suck for a lot of Iraqis. What action would Germany, who SIGNED 1441 and supported it, suggest? More inspectors to be obstructed? Actually enforcing trade sanctions, which a few governments have been most vocal about trying to take down even without Iraqi compliance with the UN mandates (See Russia and France for the past few years in lobbying to lift the embargo even in a state of non compliance). What real and EFFECTIVE action to imlement the alleged will of the UN Security Council in 1441 has been proposed that is not just more of the same ineffective INACTION.

3. FYI, read your history, not the crap on the Internet. US was not the major source of defense materials to Saddam Hussein 1980-1990. Try France and USSR, and please remember who built the Iraqi Nuclear Facility that Israel bombed. France. The fact that he received some assistance vs Iran was realipolitick in action. History moves forward, or do you forget who else we allied with for a time: Stalin's USSR, our political, ideological and economic enemy in the 1930's, versus Hitler's Germany, for good reasons: USSR then became our enemy for 50 years, since they did not like us all that much, and we did not like them all that much once our common opponent was gone. And please do your homework about the German companies who supplied Khadafi with the technical capability to build his gas works. The German corporations have been at this for quite a while, and not just in Iraq. Ask the former minister of Education of Iran, his country also worked with German firms in that regard. Germany and Iran have been trading partners for a long time. Such business and sales represent profit, though the German government may have been kept in the dark on some detail, though I suspect that practicl myopia was the policy. They would not be the only government to practice in such a way . . . see the U.S. and some Latin American leadership for the past 50 years.

4. Every government has to listen to its native businesses, but to a certain extent, not as much anymore due to so much multinationalism in corporate structures. The simple reason is that business is the engine that drives tax revenue, which is what makes governments able to function. Without resources, no government education, not health care, no pensions, no social services. If you think that German based businesses do not interact with your government on a variety of levels for lucrative contracts, you are dreaming, and grossly misinformed. Suffice to say that big ticket, high tech items like the Euro FIghter, the Horizon Frigate, and the ACCS European anti air network are all rife with business and govt relationships of the most incestuous sort, in multiple nations.

5. You can pretend that Germany welcomed the refugees with open arms. The Germans I know personally were not keen to see the large volume in that short a time. Big picture wise, Germany as a nation did extend an open hand, which is why the Slavs and others went there: nicest social welfare system in Europe. :)

The Italians lived with the fact that they could not control the flow along their coastline of illegal refugees, not to mention the legal ones. The burden placed on their governments was real, and there were very clear signals that they wanted it to stop. I won't go into the special relationship between Croats and Germans, because that gets us back into Genocide versus Serbs 1941-1945, and because this post is not about Yugoslavia.

6. Where you sit determine what you see.

I do not believe that Chancellor Kohl would have responded as Herr Schroeder did, but neither am I sure that he would have participated militarily in Iraq, nor that he would not have driven harder for a different sort of effective solution. Too bad he was not in office for us to find out, but the German people have spoken. Schroeder's "principles" are just enough to get him elected, like most politicians, and that runs true all over the globe. The French have been playing this "we are important too!" game for a long time. Their actions are, if disappointing to me, at least consistent with their WEU, EuroCorps and ESDI stands for the past 10-12 years.

[AtomicKitKat]

Occhi: You have a rather arrogant air sometimes, treating other people as ignorant children is not exactly very nice behaviour. Also, you MIGHT want to check your words as you type them.

"You can pretend that Germany opened the refugees with open arms."

German surgery? :D

Anyway, I imagine this ridiculous "Aw Shucks" conflict is getting on everybody's nerves, so I shall now offer all of you a drink.

[Occhidiangela]

What I need to do is use preview more often. Bad on me. I read my post again and edited it to make sense. It had more than that error in it. I have now read your response, which was after I had edited the post, so why not go back and re read it, it may make more sense.

If you don't like my style, fine, sometimes the emotion bleeds in when perhaps it should not, but I will ask you not to presume to tell me how to express myself. If I wish to talk down to someone who I see as naive, I will do so. If a flame is warranted, I will on occasion resort to that.

That is the RoE.

But maybe more jokes are in order, now that you mention it. :)

[AtomicKitKat]

Just figured that perhaps your being a father might colour your style of expressing emotions as words. Like they say, parenthood changes everything. *shrugs* I don't know about that yet. I guess we'll find out when I finally get some sprogs of my own.

And yes, more jokes are in order.

[--Pete]

Hi,

As to Korea, I guess we will have to see how things play out. While I do not consider them to be a modern or progressive nation, neither do I consider them to be threat to anyone outside their borders. And I've made my position on interference in the internal affairs of other nations clear in the past -- basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better.

You almost sound as if a world without UN would be a better place to settle conflicts/deal with problems on an international level. Surely I misunderstood?!

In general, I think that super-national organizations are both a necessity and the hope for the future. A congress of nations where fairness prevails, where the good of humanity is put before national agendas, where disputes can be settled without bloodshed is a desirable goal. Although how the force needed to back up that organization will come about is not clear to me. And the danger of that organization becoming the ultimate tyrant is very great and very real. But, at least in principle, I do believe that that is the way we should go.

However, when looking at that goal and then looking at the UN, I don't see the UN becoming that organization. Or at least not without so many and so great a set of changes that the resulting organization would be, at best, only the UN in name. The very structure of the UN with permanent members of the Security Council, term members of the Security Council, Members of the General Assembly, and Observer Stares reflects a word situation of half a century ago, only slightly modified for the realities of the present. The unconditional veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council reflects the necessities of WW II, not those of the start of the third millennium. The inability of the UN to generate the funds it needs except at the pleasure of the member nations makes a joke of any "power" it might have. The lack of a substantial independent and powerful military force makes the enforcement of UN policy a question of the willingness of certain individual nations, thus effectively making that policy the policy of the nations willing to enforce it.

No, as it is I don't see the UN being much more than a debating society as far as world peace is concerned. The value of the UN, in that it has any value at all, is in its humanitarian activities, and even there it is hindered by national policies and massive bureaucracy.

So, what I would like to see is probably an unrealizable dream, but it definitely isn't the UN of today or any probably development of that UN.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In light of current events, I have had some time to reflect on some thoughts related to yours.

1) Who has more to fear? Would it be the US, from infiltration of radical hate filled terrorists, or the rest of the world from the only remaining super power with the demonstrated force of 10's to 1000's of times larger than any other army on the planet. We like to think of ourselves as the good guys, but is that how the rest of the world views us? By acting and unleashing our dogs of war, will we reinforce folks fear of us? Fear, anger, hatred, somehow I feel they are connected.

2) The objectives of regime change by the Bush administration were always at odds with most of the rest of the world. Last summer it was clear that the only acceptable solution in Iraq for the Bush administration was one without the current regime in power. The last six months UN side show only delayed the innevitable ground war to depose Saddam. Anyone who is familiar with him or his regime would know that the Ba'aths would not walk away from power. In light of point #1 above, when the worlds only super power says your are done, period, I think it acted as a wake up call to most smaller nations (including France, Russia, et. al.). Generally, through this action, we are demonstrating to the world that we are calling the shots, and willing to back it up with force. The whole topic of WMD proliferation is a smoke screen, and I don't think we should not have played that card. Should we address the WMD capabilities of Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, or Israel? And, then why not the Russia, China, Britain, France, or ourselves?

3) The Bush administration's National Security Policy of pre-emptive action further sows fear, in light of #1 and #2. Again, we are viewing ourselves as the good guys, and after 9/11 we feel justified in going after the SOB's that did it to us. Why should we wait for an "event" which could take out hundreds of thousands of American lives. Afghanistan, yeah ok, the Taliban and the remnants of a war torn bombed out culture, sure. So, then are we justified in deposing Saddam, and eliminating the threat of this known enemy pre-emptively? Now who's next? What are the limits of assymetric warfare?

4) I think we were at the UN for the wrong reasons. Putting the shoe on the other foot, could it not be argued that it is the US that is failing the UN by trying to subvert the process, and cajole the international community into supporting a war that was ultimately unjustified (at least in what has been argued before the Security Council) . I agree with Pete's assessment that the only justification that was needed was to prove that Iraq has violated the 1991 armistice agreement. The reality, IMHO, is that the Bush administration did not feel the need to get the UN blessing, but it was done to make it easier for Blair, and other allies, and other Arab states to side with us. Now, without it, our allies in this conflict have been hung out to dry politically.

5) Lastly, the demonstrations we are seeing around the globe against the war are not in support of the Iraqi regime, or Saddam Hussein. I think they are a statement against an arrogant US administration, and unchecked US power.

So while the precedent of regime change to depose an evil despot in the Balkans exists, I think it is unique to the Balkans situation. Acting under NATO, I think it was done more (on our part) to help stabilize Europe. I don't think we really were looking to do anything in the Balkans, and Milosevic could hardly be viewed as a threat to the US. I believe we did it because our NATO allies asked us, and more likely cajoled, and shamed us into doing it.

[Occhidiangela]

The folks who got into the nuclear club first woke up one day and realized that this is one nasty genie who came out of the bottle.

Nuclear non proliferation efforts go back to the 60's, and various treaties have been signed and agreed, including the test ban treaty that France was the last to stop violating of the last nuclear powers insofar as above ground tests a few years back in the Pacific.

Strategic weapons reductions have been an ongoing process for US and USSR, the old bipolar players, since about 1972 SALT talks. It continues, with last month's agreement between US and Russia to reduce by two thirds the arsenals of nuclear weapons over the next ten years. We have them, but the fact is that we are as wary of them as anyone else and only keep them as a deterrent: there is not enough trust in the world to just dump them all in the ocean and hope no one will use nuclear blackmail as a bargaining tool.

That is the state of play. All of the non proliferation efforts of the past 25 years have had mixed success, because little nations want to feel big and join the club. These fools have not yet learned the lessons that we and the Russians learned to our everlasting chagrin.

India and Pakistan are milking their own egos, and have decided that the Russians and the US have nothing to teach them. What a shame.

France and UK have been in the club for a long time, as has China. I am unaware through my own ignorance of any nuclear arms protocols between US and China, or US and Russia, thought that is the next fertile ground for tilling in Strategic Arms Limitations.

The none first use of gas goes back to FDR, and the prohibition against chem goes back to Nixon, as the Prohibition against tactical nukes, (such as artillery shells and short range surface to surface missiles) goes back to G Bush, the elder.

The rest of the world has had a transparent look at our efforts to back away from the precipice if they would only bother to read the effing newspaper, but some idiots refuse to learn from us.

The Israeli's are a bizarre case, due to their own extremely precarious Strategic Position and not being under the NATO nuclear umbrella or lacking Article 5 sorts of protections. They do not trust UN protection, as the UN did nothing to stop aggression against them in 1948, 1973, 1967, and 1956.

Their posture can be validly held as deterrent: they wont use it unless they suffer an attack, and their behaviour since 1973 in that regard has been consistent. I wish they would give them up anyway, as a trust building measure. I may as well wish for flying bricks.

Gas and biological material for these rising nations is sold from SOMEWHERE! The Iranians are getting close, due to their own scientists and natural resources, to autonomous nuclear capability. What I have to ask is: why won't they learn from us?

So if you want to ask the nuclear question, look at the leading nations, US, USSR, UK, Fance, China, Japan, and see who has been able to handle nuclear power responsibly. All of them. After they had been used in war by US in 1945, certain smart countries were able to slowly craft intelligent paths over the course of the next two generations.

What amazes me is how stupid everyone else is who thinks that they know better: North Korea, Iraq, et al.

At least the Kiwis are smart enough to know that they don't want to join the nuclear club, the price of admission is not worth the benefits.

The US aint ever gonna use bio or chem, and I can tell you that the US wants to find a way of getting rid of nukes without being blackmailable by someone else. THAT is what SDI and Star Wars is all about: no nukes. But most fools don't see through that. (Now, whether or not SDI will ever work . . . looks like that is a work in progress.)