Poll: Is Iraq in Material Breach of 1441?

I don't know of anyone who believes Iraq is NOT in breach of 1441.

This is not what the debate is about.

 

I think 1441 has become completely irrelevant. Even Bush wants another resolution.

 

The correct question is "How do we best handle the breach of 1441?"

The Bushies want us to believe that a full scale invasion is the first and only option.

The majority of the anti-war faction wants to let increased inspections force Saddam into compliance and invade only if he attacks anyone or is found to possess the much-bally-hooed ready-to-use WMDs.

 

Logic? 1441 is a crockpot of ambiguous language ("material breach," "serious consequences") that allows all nations on the Security National to continue to hold just about any opinion they want about what to do against Iraq. It was a weak-ass political resolution concocted by not-very-talented statesmen that has no bearing on the realpolitik at hand.

This is why Bush WANTS another resolution. If 1441 weren't irrelevant, he would not need one.

 

But that's not what the debate is about. Maybe that's what it would have been about if the Bushies were asking if we should go to war at all, but they have pushed for war regardless of what Saddam does and, of course, Bush made attacking Saddam part of his campaign platform "cuz he tried to kill my pappy". So 1441 is not their reason for wanting war. In a way, GT is right that it's irrelevant as it had no impact on the Bushies' decisions for war other than to provide a figleaf for a pre-concluded course of action. It's only relevance is "Will anyone outside Bushieville buy it as a reason why we have to invade and occupy now?". Which brings us back to the real debate.

 

Actually, the debate should be about whether not Saddam and Iraq are in violation of the terms of the cease fire that ended hostilities in the gulf war, and if so, what can be done to ensure compliance...

Well, the UN has stated repeatedly that Iraq is in violation. It has imposed sanctions and passed I can't remember how many resolutions in attempts over the last 10 years to try to get Iraq to comply w/ the terms of that cease fire. Have they been effective?

 

Saddam hasn't invaded anyone or used WMD. So you tell me.

 

If Iraq were truly a serious threat, we'd be in already, and inviting the UN to try to pass a resolution condemning it, over our veto. Resolution 1441 is simply one of many examples of the Bush administration trying the diplomatic equivalent of bluffing a slot machine.

EDIT - well, let me explain why we're dicking around with the UN. If we go in without UN approval, we also go in without Great Britain, because Blair will have been no confidenced out of a job faster than you can say "Oops, wrong regime change."

No UK, no invasion. Therefore, no UN, no invasion. Therefore, sending Colin Powell to bring a checker set to a chess tournament the past couple of weeks has put Operation Inigo Montoya on far thinner ice than is generally supposed.

 

You obviously don't know any lawyers.

GT is right, the phrasing is horribly (and, it must be admitted, deliberately) vague. "Serious consequences" could mean anything from "a stout talking-to" to nuclear (nuke-YEW-lur, if you're Bush) annihilation.

 

France, Russia, and China don't know what it means either. You're not alone -- Bush appears as confused about the "nuances" of this resolution as you do.

 

Bush WANTS another resolution to get everyone on record, up or down. Deep down, I bet, he kind of hopes it will be voted down. Then, it will be the French and the other naysayers carrying placards who will be looking like the jackasses that they are. Hell, I wish we had a national referendum in this country...a public up or down vote where you get issued a national id card (to appease Hillary) that will be color-coded. Blue for those who voted yes on the referendum for war, and yellow for those who voted no. Then, after the oil spigots are flowing freely from Iraq, those of us with blue cards get cheap fuel prices for our SUVs and those pukes with yellow cards get to ride their bicycles to work...errr, school.

 

Fixed your post.

Or should I say, Blixed.

 

Going for a second resolution is largely about giving cover for our allies, especially Blair.

And, for the love of god, the "no blood for oil" ************ is just tired.

Oil was not a substantial factor in US military actions in Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Bosnia, or Haiti.

If we wanted Iraqi oil, two ideas come to mind. First, why didn't we take it ten years ago? Don't try and tell me we couldn't then but can now. Second, the easiest way to get oil is to advocate the lifting of the economic sanctions against Iraq and cut a deal with Saddam. He has indicated his willingness in the past, and undoubtedly would do so again.

Furthemore, look at the paucity of oil contracts US companies have received in Kuwait over the past decade. Also, bear in mind that those most concerned about oil, France and Russia with their vested interests, are against the war.

Finally, military action will undoubtedly spike the global price of oil in the short-run, probably to around $2.00/gallon domestically. This will hurt an already weak economy and could possible trigger a "double-dip" recession.

The fact that Bush is willing to risk that speaks volumes about the real reasons that he wants Saddam gone.

If anything lust for oil is a powerful argument to NOT go to war.

 

Dan,

If this war (reminder: there is no war at the present) is about Oil, then how many SUV owners are against?

Now, I have a Honda Accord but still take the train (30 mins to work/back by car, hour by train) to work and use public transportation as much as possible. However, I'm still for the war. I don't believe that it is all about Oil. Albeit, it would be partially for the Oil.

Edit: Yes, Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Part of 1441 was for Iraq to fully cooperate, which they have not 'fully cooperated. Only partially and that was only after 100,000 troops showed up on his doorstep. There is also the missiles that can go 20 miles farther than Iraq is allowed. There is also the incomplete weapons declaration.

 

I don't remember reading that the terms of the cease fire were "We'll stop shooting at you if you promise not to invade anyone or use weapons of mass destruction," so I'm not sure why you point this out in response to my question.

 

Angus - SUV drivers are the Vichy collaborators in the War against Terror.

And high prices mean lower profits for the oil companies...wait, you lost me.

The easiest way to get oil may be to pay Saddam for it, but the easiest way to make profits on that oil is to control the oil fields. And if Saddam torches them - well, that would certainly be horrible for our friends in Texas and Saudi Arabia, losing a potential competitor like that.

 

So then, why don't we invade Venezuela instead. I'd have to believe that they would be an easier target with less chances of having a retaliation from terrorists. I think it was the Monroe Doctrine that would allow the US to do so in some legal manner (albeit a sketchy matter). Now this is going back to grade school but didn't the Monroe Doctrine state that the US would protect the America's? If this is what it said and I'm sure it can be interpreted in that way. Then the US could go into Venezuela at the current moment to protect it from itself and in doing so get the Oil we so search for.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

 

The U.S. tried to engineer a coup and it blew up in our faces.

 

I feel like Greg Vanney after Luis Hernandez brushed him aside to take a penalty kick.