Dear President Madame Clinton (from Saddam Hussein):
 

As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.

In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East...

More of Saddam's letter (by Eugene Volokh) at the National Review online

What's the point of this? Is it supposed to scare those of us who have committed the heinous treason of questioning the POTUS into toeing the line? Nobody likes Saddam. Nobody thinks we can come to a reasonable understanding with him and his government. Nobody thinks he'd hesitate to do bad stuff to America. But some people think we ought to at least look like we care what anybody else thinks about us. And some people wonder why we should stop with Iraq if we're going to go around getting rid of governments that potentially threaten us. And some people are not convinced we have half a clue what we're going to do once we kick Saddam's butt.

Oh, and the bit about President Hilary is just an attempt to fan the flames of those wing-nuts who think Bill and Hilary are both the spawn of Satan. I'm getting really tired of people needing to go on personal vendettas against people they disagree with politically.

Three lines of thought:

1) Hussein is an asset to nobody's neighborhood, and the world (and Iraq) would be improved if Hussein stepped down or was otherwise replaced by a more democratic form of government.

2) The United States has neither the right nor the mandate to engage in military activities in other sovereign nations at will, to dictate who may lead or govern other nations, or to declare itself justified in attacking any nation that opposes us or seeks to build up its military to a level approaching our own.

3) "I thought he might want to hit me someday, so I hit him back first" is a system of conflict resolution that gets five-year-olds into trouble, much less adults who should know better.

Many people are shocked that these three concepts are NOT contradictory, and that both can exist nicely within a very rational worldview.

And if you want to post fairytales, so can I
 

NEW YORK--Making the case for United Nations intervention against the United States, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami told the organization yesterday that military action will be "unavoidable" unless the U.S. agrees to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

In a much-anticipated speech to a special session of the U.N. General Assembly held in Brussels, Khatami launched a blistering attack against American leader George W. Bush, accusing him of defying U.N. resolutions and using his country's wealth to line the pockets of wealthy cronies at a time when the people of his country make do without such basic social programs as national health insurance.

"Nearly two years ago, the civilized world watched as this evil and corrupt dictator subverted the world's oldest representative democracy in an illegal coup d'état," said Khatami. "Since then the Bush regime has continued America's systematic repression of ethnic and religious minorities and threatened international peace and security throughout the world. Thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. Basic civil rights have been violated. This rogue state has flouted the international community on legal, economic and environmental issues. It has even ignored the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by denying that its illegal invasion of Afghanistan--which has had a destabilizing influence throughout Central Asia--was a war at all."

Khatami said the U.S. possesses the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, weapons "that, when first developed, were used immediately to kill half a million innocent civilians just months after acquiring them. No nation that has committed nuclear genocide can be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction."

"Bush has invaded Afghanistan and is now threatening Iraq. We cannot stand by and do nothing while danger gathers. We can't for this tyrant to strike first. We have an obligation to act pre-emptively to protect the world from this evildoer," Khatami said.

As delegates punctuated his words with bursts of applause, Khatami noted that U.S. intelligence agencies had helped establish and fund the world's most virulent terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and the Taliban regime that harbored them. "The U.S. created the Islamist extremists who attacked its people on September 11, 2001," he stated, "and Bush's illegitimate junta cynically exploited those attacks to repress political dissidents, make sweetheart deals with politically-connected corporations and revive 19th century-style colonial imperialism."

Khatami asked the U.N. to set a deadline for Bush to step down in favor of president-in-exile Al Gore, the legitimate winner of the 2000 election, the results of which were subverted through widespread voting irregularities and intimidation. "We favor not regime change, but rather restoration and liberation," he said. In addition, Khatami said, the U.S. must dismantle its weapons of mass destruction, guarantee basic human rights to all citizens and agree to abide by international law or "face the consequences."

Most observers agree that those "consequences" would likely include a prolonged bombing campaign targeting major U.S. cities and military installations, followed by a ground invasion led by European forces. "Civilian casualties would likely be substantial," said a French military analyst. "But the American people must be liberated from tyranny."

Khatami's charges, which were detailed in a dossier prepared by French President Jacques Chirac, were dismissed by a representative of the American strongman as "lies, half-truths and misguided beliefs, motivated by the desire to control a country with oil, natural gas and other natural resources." National Security Minister Condoleezza Rice denied that the U.S. maintains weapons of mass destruction and invited U.N. inspectors to visit Washington to "see for themselves that our weapons are designed only to keep the peace, subject of course to full respect for American sovereignty."

The U.N. is expected to reject any conditions for or restrictions on arms inspections.

Experts believe that the liberation of the United States will require a large ground force of European and other international troops, followed by a massive rebuilding program costing billions of euros. "Even before Bush, the American political system was a shambles," said Prof. Salvatore Deluna of the University of Madrid. "Their single-party plutocracy will have to be reshaped into true parliamentary-style democracy. Moreover, the economy will have to be retooled from its current military dictatorship model--in which a third of the federal budget goes to arms, and taxes are paid almost exclusively by the working class--to one in which basic human needs such as education and poverty are addressed. Their infrastructure is a mess; they don't even have a national passenger train system. Fixing a failed state of this size will require many years."

-- Ted Rall

<i>Ted Rall's latest book, a graphic travelogue about his recent coverage of the Afghan war titled "To Afghanistan and Back," is now in its second edition. Ordering and review-copy information are available at nbmpub.com.</i>

Especially when other countries engage in military activities in other sovereign nations by blatantly invading them, then make peace by agreeing to disarm, and then blatantly fail to disarm, the United States has the right to use force to protect itself, its citizens, and its allies. This doesn't change - in fact it becomes more crucial - when the world's body for semi-legitimate international activity repeatedly fails to manage or even to take an interest in the disarmnament process.

Nice fairytale, I’d love some of what the author has been smoking.

UT for a start, this isn't the first time the US has 'blatantly invaded' somewhere else. So as a justification for waging war, its pretty damn weak. Secondly, that was 10 years ago. Thirdly if you want to get into obeying UN resolutions I’m waiting for the bombing is Israel to start, which arguably is a far greater threat to world and regional security than Iraq could ever be.

If the US cannot justify its actions to the international community and openly defies international law it creates a precedent for other countries to do so and really, undermines all diplomatic forward movement in recent time, if the US ignores international law, why should anyone else obey it? I’m sure you can see the obvious consequences for that. Secondly if the US sets out to render the UN powerless by ignoring them they will for all intents and purposes kill the UN, the result of that would be equally messy, if not more so. It leaves us in a situation with no safely checks, pressure valves, methods of enacting diplomacy, channels for avoiding conflict or opening discussion, setting us back to pre league of nations times.

Even if it can find some evidence to justify an invasion (lets cut the 'regime change' shit and call a war a war) the short and long term effect will be to destabilizes the region and create more hatred for the US. As has been demonstrated many times recently, the people of Iraq might not like Saddam but they sure as hell don't like the US either. Of course links to Al Queda have been found - in the Us's allies, the Kurds.

<i>If the US cannot justify its actions to the international community and openly defies international law it creates a precedent for other countries to do so and really, undermines all diplomatic forward movement in recent time, if the US ignores international law, why should anyone else obey it?</i>

You mean somebody out there actually obeys it??

No, really, which one is the country that currently gives a flying leaping flying shit about the UN and international law.

Maybe one o' them scandinavian ones?? OOoohh, yeah,.... it's Norway, isn't it?

<i>Secondly if the US sets out to render the UN powerless by ignoring them they will for all intents and purposes kill the UN, the result of that would be equally messy, if not more so. It leaves us in a situation with no safely checks, pressure valves, methods of enacting diplomacy, channels for avoiding conflict or opening discussion, setting us back to pre league of nations times. </i>

Nations could engage in diplomacy. Hey, we don't need to get together in a big room any longer, we have the net now.

They just wouldn't have a "Human Rights Coalition" where the US would be voted OUT and a bunch of nations that engage in slavery, torture, etc. would be voted IN.

Or a security council based on a bizarro world where France is 100% relevant and Japan, Canada, and India are 100% irrelevant.

Damn, where DID I put that worm-can opener.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way!

Let's ignore the fact that an 'irrelevant nation' called Germany will chair the Security Council in a bizarro world that was peaceful because of that institution. A world that settled conflict when enemies of the world unilaterally attack. IOW the bizarro world worked. Let's forget that other irrelevant nations such as Japan, Canada, and India also have been represented on the security council - or do we continue to call the world bizarro. Advocated is that the US should unlaterally attack any nation in the world because 'rule of law' is irrelevant and because the US should feel free to violate those principles. Bizarro is the opinon of our mental midget president and his right wing extremist advisors who even advocated and almost got us in a shooting war with China.

Therein lies a real danger to the world and to the US. But then unilateral attacks on another sovereign nation by America only makes the world more dangerous and more expensive to be an American. Funny how lesssons of VietNam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, 1948 Germany, and Kuwait are irrelevant because an extremist and naive president and his adminstration emotionally hate Saddam Hussein - logic be damned.

This naive adminstration cannot even prove that Saddam is a threat to the US. They have no proof - as demonstrated by nations who are the source of that mythical proof. A shortage of facts is challenged by virtually the entire world, including Canada, France, India, and so many other irrelevant nations.

Yet some would prefer to make Americans the #1 target of Saddam. Some rationalize the man is a maniac - to justify the emotional opinions of George Jr and company. Bull. Saddam has a clear and specific agenda. He has ruthlessly and meticulously working towards that objective. That agenda makes him an immediate threat to the region - and not to the US. Instead George Jr must declare Saddam a maniac so that George Jr can justify his emotionally based and anti-American actions - a unilateral and unlawful attack on another sovereign nation.

Of course those who forget lessons in VietNam and Somolia will advocate that we must protect those regional nations that will not worry for their own safety. Wrong again. If the local nations are not worried, then the worst thing the US can do is defend those nations that don't want to be defended. Stick our nose in something where not enough people have died, then the US becomes - the big bully - a threat to independence of regional nations - the #1 target of every radical faction in the region. Did we forget the lessons of Lebanon? Did we forget how we turned a potential friend and ally in southeast Asia into an enemy - a decade long wasted war?

Simple lessons from Kuwait and Bosnia - first enough locals must die before our efforts will ever be appreciated. If we attack Iraq now, then we make the US a number one target of every Arab and Central Asian terrorist group. A unilateral attack on Saddam will have decades of negative consequences in that entire region. Already the common man in the region fears Pax America just from the massive American military base construction from Bulgaria to the China border. Let Saddam first attack one of his neighbors and the US becomes a most cherished nation on earth. Exactly the lesson from Kuwait and Bosnia.

The naive would have us spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attack a conniving, power hungry, and silly despot. Are we that stupid, like in VietNam, to think Americans have unlimited pockets? Are we so emotionally fearful that we see boggy men in every closet? Do you forget how difficult making a living was in the 1970s because we thought it necessary to attack in direct contradiction to facts? In the Gulf War, we spent almost nothing on a war because the entire rest of the world - the entire UN - agreed with American use of force - and paid America to fight that war. The entire world even provided logical support and information above and beyond what they were paid - including intelligence information that we otherwise would have never had. They also - even in France - gave Americans a whole hardy welcome not seen since the attack on Libya.

The reason why the Gulf War was so successful was because we waited until the entire world saw the threat to world stability. As a result, we received support that few will provide if we follow George Jr's Pax America policy.

If and when to attack makes all the difference. Who is being attacked must first prove to the world that he deserves same. Saddam has demonstrated no threat to anyone in the world except his neighbors - that from all current intelligence.

Attack now and WE become the nation led by a despot. Attack now and we understand why George Jr is so naive as to outrightly attack Democratic Senators as unpatriotic. This is not an intelligent man this president.

Of course world nations understand that. Hang on for a few more years during the tough times and George Jr will eventually be gone. The world really does not have a gripe (yet) with Americans. They are appauled at one of the worst American presidents since WWII. How naive is this president? Germany ranks right up there with Australia, Britian, Saudia Arabia, Turkey, and Canada as American's closest friends. Only this president has been able to destroy that relationship. After 10 presidents, only the eleventh has so harmed relations with Germany. When the 12th arrives, Germany will get back to being a close US friend - assuming the next president is educated and does not use only right wing extremist advisors.

When America honored rule of law, honest world nations lined up to support and befriend the US. Even the CIA had an easy time recruiting spies because of principles so advocated from the common man right up to top goverment leaders. Do right wing metalities forget why Americans can walk the globe with admiration and why American were threatened in certain locations and time? Do Americans forget the devestation to American safety and prestige because some silly president decided to unilaterally attack Lebanon with aircraft and the USS New Jersey? Do Americans want to be targets of international terrorism or be regarded as the nation the world most respects for its principle and respect of international laws?

Notice how one president has so soured US relations with virutally every nation in the world - so that America was even kicked off the UN Commission of Human Rights. Its not the world that is irrelevant. It is this current US president and his open denial of reality that is the problem.

Lets get something straight. The US is poorly regarded in the world only because of and since this current president. Read the international press. Most Americans don't understand how badly this president is regarded throughout the world. The difference between Clinton and George Jr is night and day. The previous president was given an unpresidented 5 minute standing ovation in the UN because of his respect for human rights, rule of law, the international community, and an American respect for opinions throughtout the world. Back then we were the 800 pound gorilla that respect the world - that did not force our opinions down everyone's throat as this current administration is doing.

A unilateral attack on Iraq without Security Council approval and without regional nations stating a need is destructive to American reputation, American international business, the stock market, world oil prices, the necessary respect for international law, and even a worldwide view of American intelligence and principles. That is not even disputable. An attack on Iraq would have negative consequences far beyond the loss of two buildings in NYC.

But then we have a silly president who is even trying desperately to connect Saddam with the destruction of those two buildings. He actually thinks Americans are that stupid.

But then I too once agreed with a few presidents that advocated unilateral attacks against multiple nations because they advocated decisions in direct contradictions to the facts and to world opinion. Back then I had little appreciation for the lessons of history. Apparrently I am now but the few who remember wars fought only because of presidental personal biases - facts be damned - Johnson and the most despictable Nixon. They too acted and advocated and unilaterally attacked other nations in direct contradiction to facts. It took the Pentagon Papers and a resulting fear of a potential 'gestapo government' to let Americans understand why we unilaterally attacked nations. Ahh... but it has been over 30 years. How quickly the young must relive history to finally learn its lessons.

From the Economist of 21 Sept 2002
That's right. George Jr seems to want to make enemies of everyone which is the point made in that news report.

Saddam will go when he finally convinces his neighbors of his real intentions. Intentions not to attack the US - which would be contrary to his specific and ruthless goals. His intentions are a clear threat to his neighbors - to the region. Until the regional powers and citizens realize that threat, Saddam's neighbors should be left at risk so that they all will again welcome another American rescue - paid for by the rest of the world. The most expensive method - the most destructive to American reputation - is to have the US launch unilateral or surprise attacks on Saddam. That made so obvious in history. There were three presidents more interested in personal gratification and exercise of power than in the long term interests of America - Johnson, Nixon, and George Jr. They all advocated unilateral attacks on sovereign nations because they 'feared' facts not in evidence. A unilateral and unprovoked attack on Iraq would only result in widespread damage to American business, principles, world influence, credibily, diplomatic integrity, and finances. Did we not learn the downsides from VietNam and Somolia. Did we not learn how much smarter it is to wait, as demonstrated by Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Haiti, Panama, and Afghanistan? Principles such as rule of law and respect for international law are why the US has such great influence and respect. Our undereducated and naive president with his right wing extremist advisors (who almost got us into a shooting war with China) don't seem to understand anything about history.

As Robert Kennedy once said when another administration considered unilateral actions based on real evidence (whereas George Jr claims evidence based only upon conjecture):
Just how is an attack on Saddam any different or any more justifiable? Stop letting a mental midget president manipulate your opinions. First present facts. Where is Saddam a current threat to the US? No one has yet defined that threat - except by stating personal fears. Those who are the source of George Jr's evidence say the evidence does not exist. Sounds just like VietNam all over again.

What the fuck?
Seriously. What. The fuck.
International law and international bodies are what settle disputer, and set rules for things like EEZs, shipping rights, treaty bounds etc. They can carry weight in many ways in different circumstances. Your myopic view i doubt actually covers anything outside the big issue of the day and thus this might all just slip under the CNN radar.

You appear to be slipping steadily out of reality. This may come as a deep shock to you, but China and America aren't the only nations on earth. Japan is an (and despite its woes) still an economic powerhouse that by means of that carries a signifigant punch. France has an extensive nuclear arsenal. Canada is not a permanant member. Of course the Un is bloated, it needs to be cut down and reshaped but its basic functions is extremely important. It provides a framework which provides the means for diplomacy in a far better way in many respects. It creates a forum for smaller nations to have a voice and get access to larger nations, it provides a framework for constructing things like peacekeeping forces, coalitions, etc.

I guess the fundamental is that you see the US as the obvious and clear leader of the world, and rightly so and i see it as a slow motion train crash with every other poor bastard in the path.

I'm sure sensible people can negotiate fucking shipping rights without having a big building in NYC to do it in.

Meanwhile, in something like 45 of the last 50 uses of military force, the UN wasn't notified, consulted, asked, required, etc.

The little nations can do whatever the fuck they want, blatantly ignoring the UN, and morons you give them a free pass and hum a happy tune. See, to people like you, it's only a useless world body if the powerful countries ignore it. To people like you, it doesn't "weaken" international law when that body places conditions on the end of a war and then those conditions are violated. To people like you, it doesn't matter if the body has no interest or ability to actually verify and/or enforce its own provisions. That doesn't "weaken" international law, oh no, it's only when the shit has hit the fan and someone has to correct the entire situation that somehow law is threatened.

If the US unilaterally overthrows the world's most dangerous dictator, shipping rights for the North Sea may be in danger. What color is the sky in Alex's world?

There are several countries that have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Those are the countries who would normally initiate and pass UN resolutions authorizing military interventions to deal with those little countries doing whatever they want.

Since several of those countries are opposed to intervening in areas where they have no direct political interest, and since it could cost money and lives (and thus domestic political popularity) to do so, they usually show no interest in doing any of those things.

Or, to be blunt: What do you think all of the major US news outlets would say if US troops were being deployed as part of UN forces every time there was a minor conflict in Africa? It'd be politically untenable? Imagine the news? ("US lives at risk!", "A repeat of Somalia?", "What are we doing there?", "Dubious national interest in this small country", "Overall cost of this mission: two billion dollars. Meanwhile, this child is going without vital medication because of cuts to Medicare!")

That's the problem here: The US has no interest in using the UN unless American national interest is at stake, or unless Clinton's being blown in the oval office, or Bush is under attack for bankrupting America and blatantly walking over the constitution.

Obviously, China and the USSR act similarly, but they aren't driven by quite the same public hypocrisy regarding populism that the US is. Democracy hard at work here.

X.

It's uselessness adds up whenever states ignore it. In the case of America, well...how many treaties that we helped write have we refrained to sign/ratify? I'm talking about basic human rights here - I don't remember the exact names right now, but treaties on woman, children, prisoners, that sort of thing. I believe us and Somalia are the only countries in the world to not ratify the Treaty on the Rights of the Child. Granted, we have better human rights conditions than most of the rest of the world, but it sets a bad example. When weaker countries see the stronger ones flaunting their power, it a) makes them think they can do the same or b) makes them resent the powerful countries or c) both. That's why we were voted off the Human Rights Commission.

The UN is a framework for justice. Its meant to give countries a forum for voicing their grievances. It has come to be a framework for helping smaller countries better themselves - not at the expense of the greater ones, like oh so many unaware UN haters think. However, if we continue to ignore the UN and operate in the selfish fashion we have, it will become that.

I would also like to see what 45 uses of force you're referring to - and what the parameters you put on that are. We don't tell the UN everything we're going to do, but up until this president we were pretty good at providing our allies with our motives.

Finally, it's hypocritical to say we need to invade Iraq because they flaunt the UN (since none of the other arguments hold any water), then act without that body's authorization.

<i>Finally, it's hypocritical to say we need to invade Iraq because they flaunt the UN (since none of the other arguments hold any water), then act without that body's authorization.</i>

I'm sorry, I just need a clarification on that last point. Is it hypocritical for the US, who would reinforce the terms of the UN-negotiated peace... or for the UN, who would NOT reinforce those terms?

X: so, to sum up, the UN is ineffective because all nations selfishly want to act only in their own best interests, but this is particularly offensive in a democracy because people hate to see their own getting killed and the media will selfishly remind them of the dangers and deaths involved.