Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The point is that they want the UN to matter. Currently it does not. It should. Maybe someone who thinks that the UN could be more than it currently is being there might help in some way.

Or yeah, we could have people like Madeleine Albright there and things could just be like they have been there for 20 years, meaningless and ignored. Appeasement over substance and standing for what is right.

I do agree about Negroponte. Another waste of time.

The UN is as relevent as the US makes it. That’s where I agree with Bolton. Traditionally, Democrats have better understood the UN and have been better at wielding it effectively as a tool of US foreign policy. Bolton seems to understand how it works, perhaps he can give Bush and Cheney a lesson.

But right now, the Bush administration is intent on marginalizing the UN. So be it. We’ll muddle through, and the next administration will know how effective it is to have the UN legitimize our foreign policy. The Iraq fiasco underscored that perfectly.

AP, one could go further and blame past administrations from Reagan forward for allowing the UN to become run by a bunch of rogue states. It was the absence of assertive leadership in the UN by the US for about two decades that led to the UN that exists today.

I don’t know if Bolton will be able to reinstate US leadership in the UN or not, but, I say it is definitely worth a try, provided our attempts don’t result in the rest of the world coming to view the US as the rogue state which they concertedly isolate in their international efforts.

What you have to ask yourself is how relevant can an ambassador to a corrupt and suspect organization like the UN be. At this point anyone put in the post might as well be ambassador to the Corleone family. Changing the UN and turning it into a semi relevant entity must start from the top down and that means Kofi A Annan.

David

The UN has been the forum for the world’s rogue states since the 1960s. Remember when Daniel Patrick Moynihan had to put them right. That was (what) 1975. It didn’t take. The General Assembly just doesn’t work at all. The Security Council works sometimes. What is good about the UN is the specialty agencies (mostly the one in Geneva)

AP

Clinton I like. He would be a good ambassador, but I doubt he would take the job even if offered. Holbrook is frightening. Albright is dull witted.

how dare you stray from the party line?!!

seriously, his moustache is reason enough to reject the nomination.

“…they want the UN to matter….”
“The UN is as relevent as the US makes it….”
“…the absence of assertive leadership in the UN…”
“Changing the UN and turning it into a semi relevant entity…”
“The General Assembly just doesn�t work at all….”

Everyone here is talking about whether or not the UN is effective, or how to make it more effective. The unasked question is: EFFECTIVE AT DOING WHAT? Before you can measure the success or failure of the organization, you have to know what you’re measuring.

Contrary to popular belief in this country, the UN does not exist to promote world-wide democracy. Not even all five permanent members of the Security Council are democracies! So expecting this organization to topple dictators, open borders, and ensure free elections is a little out of scope. That’s not what it was designed for.

This is what the UN was designed for (at least, according to the UN charter):

1) To promote peace. Specifically, to ensure that World War III never happens.

2) To promote “fundamental human rights”. Specifically, equality of race, gender, language, and religion.

3) To promote and maintain international treaties.

4) To promote social and economic progress and cooperation.

You’ll note that letting everyone elect their rulers, spreading free-market capitalism, crushing fundamentalists, and single-mindedly protecting US interests are all absent from this list.

But as far as prevention of World War III goes… so far, so good! ;-)

Not that I’m saying that the UN doesn’t need reform, or hasn’t proven ineffective many times. Its continuing failure to condemn Israeli human rights abuses because of the objection of ONE nation is, in my opinion, the largest example. It also recently failed to prevent a permanent SC member from leading an unprovoked invasion of another UN nation. But in its largest goal — preventing the world from becoming nuclear slag — it has done quite well.

Just so we’re clear, UN stands for united noodles right?

AP,
Maybe you’d revise your opinion on this if you read this article.

BTW, did you know that a group of 59 former U.S. diplomats have signed a letter to Lugar, calling for the Senate to reject Bolton’s nomination?

Zeek,

In common terms, most consider the “UN” to stand for “Useless Nations”.

Here is David Corn’s take on Negroponte. Sounds like he may have done more than just turn a blind eye. Also seems like the Dems are going to let him slide anyway.

The un has made itself irelevant by being on the take with oil for food. Then you have totalitarian dictators who shoot people for fun as leaders of the human rights commission,now we can add that un piece keepers in the congo using local village girls 13,14 years old as sex slaves and selling them into pornography.Should be renamed as the fraternal order of killers thieves and thugs. This is just scratching the surface tho these things are all happening NOW,It’s nothing you claim it to be. Blind fools never learn. PEACE MY ASS,HUMAN RIGHTS WHAT A JOKE! Advancing US Policy through aN ORGANIZATION AS CORRUPT AS THE UNITED NINGCOMPOOPS. That is a laughable statement you act as if they even care. Thieves thugs and killers laugh at us and do as they wish. Peace keepers are asked to defend innocent people but when they come under fire from warlords they pack and run, this has happened more than once or twice. I some of you need to look a little closer and educate yourself on the corruption and utter lawlessness of the UN. THESE THINGS CANNOT BE IGNORED EVEN IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN STATED THEY ARE TRUE FACTS DEAL WITH IT.

Chris:

You do know that Oil for Food is only $1.5 Billion out of the $6 Billion that was stolen by Saddam Hussien, right? The remaining $4.5 Billion came from Oil smuggled through the US Blockade and through US Corporations. The US is far more responsible for arming Saddam than the UN will ever be.

I suggest you research your facts first before you spout propaganda. It will save you the embarassment later on.

Chris:

By the way, how does using sex-slaves by UN Troops compare with stacking naked Iraqis into a pyramid?

Interesting article, Adrienne. But I’m saying it doesn’t matter because the Bush administration isn’t interested in going through the UN for anything. Bolton was nominated to a post that the administration has made irrelevent. The guy could be the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and it wouldn’t matter - except to cheese off the rest of the world even more - because he’ll be twiddling his thumbs for the next four years.

Rob, you’re exactly right. Except that the Bush administration’s marginalizing of the UN is forcing it to become more like the world government it should never be. Look at the reforms proposed in the wake of US criticism. They’re geared toward giving the UN more freedom of action, independent of its member states. They even call for creation of a rapid deployment military force.

I’m sure Bush will block any real effort to strengthen the UN as an independent organization, so I’m not too worried. I think its better to spend Democrat’s outrage “capital” on things that are going to make an immediate, significant impact on the country. As I said,

The Democrat’s focus should be on countering the more extreme Republican outrages, like underfunding and neglecting homeland security, defense, and the war on terror, nominating ultra-right wing activist judges, dismantling Social Security, and testing insecticides on infants.

“the UN doesn’t accomplish much when it’s not led by the United States…”

One reason for this is that while one goal of the UN was to prevent WWIII, another objective of the US was for it to be able to wield its powers behind the facade of multilateralism. At the end of WWII, the US was the basically the last man standing, with most of Europe either broken or severely crippled. As a result, the U.S. was able to call the shots and inserted itself as an integral and powerful member of the organization.

Also, an inherent problem with any international organization of sovereign governments is there is no mechanism for enforcement because there is no ultimate authority. Countries can bail out at any time with no fear of retribution (other than shame and most politicians have no problem with that).

If the UN is going to be effective, it needs to have a highly regarded, trustworthy,persuasive US ambassador. It doesn’t look like Bolton is our man, but he is the President’s. I would be surprised if the Senate rejects him. Oh well.

Claiming the UN is irrelevant is a very strange statement. What should be expected that the UN is not doing? By design, the UN’s political power is very limited, and considering the very restrictive charter it has to work under, I admire the work of the UN.
Let’s see what the UN is doing:
The World Health Organization has been at the forefront of the fight against the spread of world-wide epidemics like SARS and the newly detected avian influenza.
What about the education programs UNESCO sponsors in 191 countries? All of these programs work on the on the premise of equal access to education even on areas where that is not a popular idea. What about UNISEF effort of rescuing child soldiers and 11-year old prostitutes from Africa’s many civil wars?
The biggest and most pervasive problem that hinders the UN is that the general assembly is run by a bunch of politicians that see the UN as a way of extending their nations individual interests. But, unlike many industrialized nations, the UN, through its many agencies and NGO affiliates, is directelly distributing food, medicines and basic supplies to people worldwide. UN actively vaccinates thousands of children per year and provides AIDS education/prevention programs in the most remote and dangerous places.
It would be difficult to quantify how many people through out the world are alive now thanks to the UN.
For what it’s worth, and with all it limitations, the UN has made this world a little better for a whole lot of people, thanks to the efforts of thousands of very dedicated individuals.
I will ask you to think about that before qualifying the ONLY humanitarian world organization as “useless”.

AP:
“I’m saying it doesn’t matter because the Bush administration isn’t interested in going through the UN for anything. Bolton was nominated to a post that the administration has made irrelevent. The guy could be the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and it wouldn’t matter - except to cheese off the rest of the world even more - because he’ll be twiddling his thumbs for the next four years.”

Yeah, I know you’re right. I’m just highly irritated about it. It’s yet another case where the smirking chimp couldn’t have chosen a worse or more insulting choice. Gonzales, Chertoff, Bolton, Negroponte. Damn Neocons.

Aldous

” suggest you research your facts first before you spout propaganda. It will save you the embarrassment later on”

Yes.

Why do you persist in the error that the U.S. was a big part of arming Saddam? Figures show that most of his stuff came from the Soviets and French and that even smaller players like Brazil or Czechoslovakia sold more. But put that aside. You can keep your conspiracy theories if you like. You can even keep on hating the U.S. but just look at the facts on the ground. How much of Saddam’s very large arsenal consisted of U.S. weapons? Almost none. If we sold so much to him, don’t you think there would be some concrete evidence of that?

Pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld are interesting to the conspiracy buffs, but mean very little in the face of real things that real people have done.

You complain that Saddam got oil past the U.S. blockade. I suppose you were a big supporter of that blockade at the time and advocated a tightening. Just like all the other people in the region and the world.

Jack,
I think the argument about our role in the oil smuggling is that illegal oil sales that were allowed by the US made up a much larger proportion of the total illegal oil sales than those that were allowed by the UN. We had our political reasons for allowing the illegal sales, some of the countries involved in the scandal had their monetary reasons. The point is not whether the blockade was or was not a good idea, the point is that blaming the UN for the whole debacle is factually wrong, and insisting that because of it they are irreparably corrupt is hypocritical.

Jack:
“Why do you persist in the error that the U.S. was a big part of arming Saddam? Figures show that most of his stuff came from the Soviets and French and that even smaller players like Brazil or Czechoslovakia sold more. But put that aside. You can keep your conspiracy theories if you like. You can even keep on hating the U.S. but just look at the facts on the ground. How much of Saddam’s very large arsenal consisted of U.S. weapons? Almost none. If we sold so much to him, don’t you think there would be some concrete evidence of that?”

It’s funny how the conservatives only want to talk about the weapons when they talk about our aiding and abetting Saddam. We did in fact supply them with weapons — but we gave them much, much more than that, as well.

Because Jack must have missed it, I’m just going to cut and paste a reply I gave to another poster on WB not that long ago when this subject came up.

Here it is:

There is no IF about the fact that we heavily supplied Saddam both with weapons and funding. In 1982 Reagan began selling helicopters to Iraq, and in that very year US helicopters were the ones Saddam used to spray both the Iranians and the Kurds with mustard gas and chemical weapons.
And even after we knew they’d done this monstrous thing, Reagan still sold them more weapons and allowed him to use our advanced technologies. Bush Sr. also aided and abetted Iraq right up to the very last moment before the invasion of Kuwait.

While you’re busy tying your yellow ribbons around everything to honor our soldiers who are fighting there right now, you might want to wrap your mind around this link

A few choice bits by year:

1982
“Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD’s terrorist list, and “apparently without consulting Congress”, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.”

1983
“Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.”

1984
“In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with “data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography…to assist Iraqi bombing raids.”“

1985
“Iraq’s Saad 16 General Establishment’s director wrote a letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad’s 70 laboratories. These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]”

1986
The Defense Department’s (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile development.[23] Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.[25]”

1988
“Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the “Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988” the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill “premature”.[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died “on the last day of the legislative session”.[35]”

1989
“James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to “express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties” to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.[53]”

“Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) “controlled entities were involved in Iraq’s clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs … the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories”.[54]”
“By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait.”

1990
From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]

The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58]”

Overview:
“Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:
Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]”

Hope that answers your question, Jack — or am I also just another conspiracy buff?

Adriene

Yes. It is only a conspiracy theory. We just are not guilty of that.

In the course of more than a decade, we shipped 56 computers, some machine tools. The CDC sent some virus for medical purposes. None of those things is particularly suspicious or in large quantities. Ordinary trade between nations will produce such things. The same goes for chemicals. But only conspiracy theorist care. Each day trucks carry more to farms in Iowa than we shipped to Iraq in ten years.

As I have written before, we shared intelligence to allow the Iraq NOT to lose the war with Iran. Not a bad thing, by the way.

I looked at the document and checked the author. He is an anti war activist and self proclaimed expert. If you look at what he wrote and the sources, it is mostly innuendo and single sourced at that.

Let’s look at the facts on the ground in 1990. Not what people say could have been. If I sell you something, presumably you have it later. The U.S. contribution to Saddam’s arsenal is inconsequential.

The Stockholm Institute of Peace Studies (SIPRI) Yearbook, 1991 says that
Iraq bought over $31 billion worth of arms between 1970-1989. These were supplied by several countries including all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — USSR, US, UK, France and China. The top suppliers were: USSR 19.2 bn (61% of total), France 5.5 bn (18% of total), China 1.6 bn (5%), Brazil 1.1 bn (4%), Egypt 1.1 bn (4%), Others 2.8 bn (8%). The U.S. comes under “others”. Below the 4% from Brazil and well below the others on the list.
This is a listing of the arms SADDAM ACTUALY HAD in 1990

Aircraft
MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet)
Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet)
MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet)
MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet)
F-7s - 20 (Red China)
MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-25s - 20 (Soviet)
Su-20s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-7s - 50 (Soviet)
F-6s - 20 (Red China)
Su-24s - 10 (Soviet)
Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE)
MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet)
Il-20s - 10 (Soviet)
Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet)
Tu-16s -12 (Soviet)

Armored Vehicles
T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet)
Type 59 - 500 (Red China)
Type 69 - 1000 (Red China)
T-62 - 1600 (Soviet)
T-72 - 1000 (Soviet)

IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of:

EE-3 (Brazil)
EE-9 (Brazil)
EE-11 (Brazil)
ERC-90 (FRANCE)
AML-60 (FRANCE)
AML-90 (FRANCE)
Panhard M-3 (FRANCE)
FUG-70 (Hungary)
BRDM-2 (Soviet)
BTR-40 (Soviet)
BTR-50 (Soviet)
BTR-60 (Soviet)
BMP-1 (Soviet)
Type 63 (China)
OT-62 (Czechoslovakia)
OT-63 (Czechoslovakia)
BVP-1 (Czechoslovakia)
Walid (Egypt)

Navy
Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY

Artillery
G-5 155mm (South Africa)
GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA)
Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil)
Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil)
M56 105mm (BRITAIN)
D-74 122mm (Soviet)
D-30 122mm (Soviet)
2S1 122mm (Soviet)
2S3 152mm (Soviet)
M1937 152mm (Soviet)
M1938 122mm (Soviet)
M1939 37mm (Soviet)
M1943 152mm (Soviet)
M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet)
S-23 180mm (Soviet)
ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet)
ZSU-57-2 (Soviet)
ZU-23 23mm (Soviet)
“Majnoon” 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
“Al Fao” 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
82 mm Mortar (Soviet)
SA-2 SAM (Soviet)
SA-3 SAM (Soviet)
SA-6 SAM (Soviet)
SA-7 SAM (Soviet)
SA-13 SAM (Soviet)

Small Arms
AK-47 (Soviet)
RPK (Soviet)
RPG-7 (Soviet)

So if the U.S. had been the major supplier to Iraq, Iraq would have been disarmed.

No matter what people want to say happened, or what secret agreements are alleged, THE FACT IS, THEY NEVER GOT THERE.

“If you look at what he wrote and the sources, it is mostly innuendo and single sourced at that.”

I did look at the sources — very carefully. I suggest everyone do so as well. Then decide for yourselves if its all nothing but bullshit.

Jack, nothing I ever say to you and nothing I ever provide a link for (by the way, you didn’t supply a link to me for your info) has ever been taken seriously by you. Ever.
Maybe from now on I shouldn’t bother since you’re always so very certain you cannot be convinced by the likes of me.

Well, Adrienne, he’s provided information, that I can google and find quite easily with what the information he’s posted, that gives quite specific information. What are you prepared to provide that contradicts any of it? Unless you do, I am going to have to side with Jack on this one, it does indeed look like the US was a very minor player in the ‘arming Iraq’ game, especially since it matches with other things I know to be true, like that most of the illegal oil sales was done with France, Germany an Russia, not the US (we got most of ours from Saudia Arabia - other causes for concern - and Venezuela).

It’s very interesting to see those from the Right mainly, indict the UN for it’s corruption and supposed ineffectiveness, when they will readily excuse it from pivotal allies (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and would probably embrace such a coalition Iraqi government right now, no questions asked. Making Colin Powell UN Ambassador would not make a bit of difference with the rest of the world, and neither giving Richard Perle the gig would stop it from being a convenient whipping boy for Conservatives.

Knowing Bush apologists would disagree, but there should be an UN led group of arbiters in Iraq right now, brokering a coalition government. There should be Security Council pressures on France and Germany to increase their number of Iraqi troops training commitments. Or, someone who could use the leverage of our generosity to Arab Tsunami victims, to commit money and troops to Iraq’s reconstruction.

Bert,

That would be great, but from what I’ve seen from the very VERY hard line that France and Germany have taken on Iraq since day one I don’t think that Ghandi himself could have moved them to do any more in Iraq than they are already doing. The US has attempted to have the UN and the other Security Council members help out more in Iraq but it is met as a no-starter.

Btw, I’m far from an apologist, as you well know, but my problem with the UN being ineffective and holding them to a higher standard than other countries as you list is that the UN SHOULD be the leading and driving force in matters such as this. But time and time again the institution, mainly because of the member nations but also because of an outdated unchanging structure, is unable to do what needs to be done. I could list the myriad of failures and inactions by the institution in the last 20 years, but I think we all know what they are already.

I *want* the UN to be what it should and can be, i want someone there trying to get the organization moving in the right direction and not just let it continue as an appeasement organization for breeding hatred and intolerance. I want it to stand for something better than it is today.

That’s not going to happen unless someing is willing to drive the effort. And John Bolton has repeatedly stated the same sentiment. I’m hoping that he has the ability to follow through and succeed, but time will be the judge.

Adrienne, Jack, those are interesting lists. Adrienne’s mostly focuses on WMD, missiles, and technology, while Jack’s focuses on conventional weapons. The lists compliment each other.

It’s not surprising that Iraq had a preponderance of Soviet weapons, being a Soviet client at the time. It is interesting that Jack’s list doesn’t include land mines, which, IIRC, we sent Saddam by the butt load. It also doesn’t list the helicopters Adrienne’s source says were used to attack civilians.

Bert, damned straight about enlisting UN help. After the fall of Baghdad, Bush turned down offers of peacekeeping troops, police, and other aid and capacity building resources from France, Germany, India and others around the world… it was at that point I knew the Iraq adventure would fail. By not turning Iraq over to a UN/NATO administration like he wisely did in Afghanistan, Bush blew it big time.

“The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, ‘We really need to make Iraq an international operation,’ ” said an administration official. “You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but right now the situation in Iraq is not that dire.”

Also, as a direct result of Bush keeping Iraq a US operation, he lost the legitimacy that would have helped Iraqis create a more moderate, diverse, and robust government.

Bush and Bremer initially favored a gradual slide into democracy, but were trumped by Sistani’s ability to put protesters into the streets. Bush couldn’t counter, because without the UN, the US occupation didn’t have the legitimacy to tell the natives to sit down, shut up, and do it the right way.

The Bush administration wanted an orderly process it could control, including a constitution that would be a model for its efforts to democratize the Arab world, enshrine individual rights, and establish a secular government, religious freedom and equality of the sexes. Bremer believed that holding a vote before political parties had time to establish themselves would result in Baathists and Islamic extremists, the two best-organized forces in the country, dominating the outcome.

Gee, what do you know. Bremmer was right. Sistani got his candidates from Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq elected because, unlike Afghanistan, Bush refused to let the UN take over. Was it plain old idiotic hubris, or do we buy into the ‘control all the oil’ conspiracies?

The US has attempted to have the UN and the other Security Council members help out more in Iraq but it is met as a no-starter.

Again, that’s just not true. They offered to take over, but were rebuffed by Bush.

the UN SHOULD be the leading and driving force in matters such as this.

I totally disagree. The last thing we need is a UN that acts on it’s own against the interests of its member states. And right or wrong, Bush believed giving the UN a larger role in Iraq was against the interests of the US.

I *want* the UN to be what it should and can be

That has only ever happened when the US led the UN (except for East Timor, maybe, when the Australians led the way). The problem with pegging your hopes on Bolton is that he answers to Bush. Bush & Cheney will have Bolton twiddling his thumbs for the next four years. The UN only works when the US is leading.

Rhinehold:
“Well, Adrienne, he’s provided information, that I can google and find quite easily with what the information he’s posted, that gives quite specific information.”

Is this what you call specific information?
Jack:
“In the course of more than a decade, we shipped 56 computers, some machine tools. The CDC sent some virus for medical purposes. None of those things is particularly suspicious or in large quantities.”

To me that seems like Jacks opinion — otherwise you’d think he’d have quoted a source or given a link. Although now when I come to think about it, Jack rarely, if ever gives links.

“What are you prepared to provide that contradicts any of it?”

I won’t contradict the info on the weapons — because that wasn’t even my point. The point of my post was to show that in this day and age there is much more to weapons than guns, artillery, tanks etc., and that supplying them with advanced technology makes us almost as guilty as that long list of other countries.
Jack avoided addressing that point with:
“we shared intelligence to allow the Iraq NOT to lose the war with Iran. Not a bad thing, by the way.”

He considers that not a bad thing even though we continued to do so long AFTER they had used chemical weapons and mustard gas on the Iranians and Kurds.
And I consider that complete bullshit.

Aldous

I think it is a bit disingenious to compare children being torured and held against there will and used as sex slaves and sold into pornography. Children by definition can’t stand up to adults there is no comparison they are help less and defenseless and being used by PEACEKEEPERS OF THE UN to prisoners of war who where and are continuing to blow up Iraq civilians as well as American Soldiers. Why don’t you at least use something like the fact that the terrorists don’t have any prisoners because they behead them and throw the heads in the streets. We might humiliate them but we certainly haven’t beheaded them all. I think the evidence of all the tunnels lately says there are some pretty high level alquaeda operative in there and I hope we find out who they are.

Oil for food is the us problem.Hate America hate America is that all you know. everything that has or is going to happen is the USA problem I think not.

Adrienne

I mean no offense to you. I don’t believe much of what people tell me and I don’t set much store by links. Anyone can post anything on the Internet. A link is only a first step and maybe a dead in. I did site my sources, which are available.

And I did read your link. I also dug down into the sources and the author. What I found was not convincing.

It reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where some guy claims that a witch turned him into a newt. When everyone looks at him, he sheeplish says, “I got better.”

We all should judge information by what it does. I mean, does it reasonably predict outcomes and/or does it make sense in the light of subsequent events. People say a lot of things, but most people don’t make good on either their threats or promises. When it is all said and done, much more is said than done. If we find evidence of their statements and intentions, it doesn’t tell us much, even if they are telling the truth.

When someone makes a statement like “The U.S. Armed Saddam” the logical question is how? After that, you look for concrete evidence. In this case, if someone says Saddam bought something from the U.S., you look to see if there is anything around to show for it. If someone tells me that Coca Cola sold 1000 cans of Coke at a particular place, I would expect to find at least some cans. And if someone told me that most of the soda sold was coke, I would not expect to find only Pepsi, Dr Pepper and Mountain Dew.

But that is the evidence we have in Iraq – none. We find a lot of equipment and machines, but none of them are American. If we sold so much to Iraq, where did it go? How is it that we find massive stores of Soviet, French and even Brazilian weapons, but not American? Does that make sense to you?

People have asked the same question of George Bush and WMD and it is a good question. I have concluded, as you must have, that Saddam did not possess large quantities of WMD in 2003. The evidence that he had WMD was the same kind that you present. But since we could find no sign of it, we have to assume we were wrong.

If you consistently can’t find any concrete evidence that the U.S. armed Saddam, while you can find plenty of evidence that others did, you have to conclude that the U.S. did not, no matter how attractive the hypothesis or what people say about it.

So the U.S. was not a significant supplier of arms or much of anything else to Saddam Hussein. The accusation is a myth or maybe even disinformation. Or to put it more charitably, if a long line formed of countries that did supply him, the U.S. would be near the end.

If we sold so much to Iraq, where did it go? How is it that we find massive stores of Soviet, French and even Brazilian weapons, but not American?

Because the Iraqis didn’t have the logistics and training to accept US weapons? They were a Soviet client state. If we provided military aid, it would have been through a supplier of Soviet arms.

I don’t know either way, but whether we did or didn’t, you shouldn’t read too much into the lack of US manufactured weapons.