--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >But there is a subset of the "war" option:
> essentially
> >unilateral US war, or UN-sanctioned military
> >action/war
> >(with the US of course being the major player)...
<I snipped a teeny bit here> Reasons include physical
> >support by other nations for rebuilding Iraq, and
> the appearance of a 'world decision' rather than 'US
> >bullying.'
<sniplet>
> The United Nations Security Council
> UNANIMOUSLYpassed resolution 1441 back
> in November (I think, +/- one month anyways), which
> stated that Iraq must
> FULLY disclose all of its weapons of mass
> destructions programs or else
> face serious consequences.
Thank you for clarifying Res 1441 (in a later post you
further answer my questions about it - I'm trying to
combine a few posts. :) ).
>
> In keeping with the spirit of this resolution, the
> United States began
> formal preparations to carry out the "serious
> consequences" stated in
> resolution 1441 if Iraq failed to fully disclose its
> weapons programs...<sniplet> [troop strength is]
> soon to be 300,000.
> Iraq has UNDENIABLY failed to fully disclose its
> weapons of mass
> destruction programs as stated under resolution
> 1441. Moreover, it is
> clear that Iraq has adopted a policy of hiding
> everything it can, and
> hoping to only disclose those things it is caught
> having. Thus, it is
> UNDENIABLE that in a conutry the size of California,
> no amount of
> inspections can even HOPE to uncover all of Iraq's
> weapons of mass destruction... <sniplet>
> Again, it has undeniably failed to do so.
And what it has disclosed recently, as well as
beginning destruction of the 'al-Samoud' (sp?)
missiles, is certainly because of the presence of
those troops. So it is more 'disclosure under
coercion' than real cooperation; but destruction of
at least some proscribed munitions is occuring, and if
further disclosures/weapon-wrecking happens because of
those troops - without shots yet fired - that is a
good thing.
> Finally, the window of opportunity to launch serious
> consequences is
> closing. It is virtually impossible for the US to
> protect our troops from
> the use of chemical weapons in the middle of the
> Iraqi summer, while
> fighting a war. Since we need to leave ourselves
> a time window of a
> couple months to complete the war (God willing, it
> will never come to that
> - but prudence is required in this matter), the last
> window of opportunity
> is essentially now. The US simply cannot afford
> to keep 300,000 soldiers
> away from their families and thousands of miles
> overseas in a somewhat
> hostile region over the summer, nor can it afford
> the substantial monetary cost of doing so.
> Moreover, we cannot afford to bring our troops home
> for a few months and send them back in the Fall.
No, they certainly can't stay there 'indefinitely.'
> Thus, the window of opprotunity is now. If this
> coalition that you prefer
> fails to materialize next week, as seems likely,
> then as Gautam stated, you are reduced to two
>options:
>
> 1) Go it alone.
>
> 2) Don't go in - or as we have noted, doing exactly
> what Saddam wants us to do.
What do you think of the Brits'
deadline-beyond-which-military-action-will-occur if
full disclosure and cooperation hasn't happened? {This
is slightly unfair b/c when you wrote this post, the
March 17 idea/amendendment hadn't been proposed.) It
seems more fair - ah! but the library is about to
close and I have to send! Will write more Monday!
Debbi
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
