Boberts Quiz:
First lets examine these "inconsistences"
1. Ari Fliesher today says that Iraq lost the War during the Persian Gulf and then 15 minutes later Donald Rumsfield says the war5 never ended? As per usual with these guys, one is rather misinformed. But, hey they are both be paid with our hard earned tax dollars to give us two different stories.
Explanation:
The war referred to is the Gulf War. Hostilities were ended once the UN mandate to liberate Kuwait had been achieved.Iraq agreed to a number of conditions defined by UN resolutions (outlined in GWB's speach to the United Nations on 12th September this year). Iraq did lose the war so that statement by Ari Fliesher was correct, otherwise they would not have come to the negotiating table.
On cessation of hostilities, Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein failed to follow through any of the undertakings agreed to. Now had the same been true of Nazi Germany in May 1945 - had they gone to Luneberg Heath and agreed to cessation of hostilities, withdrawal from occupied land and total disarmament, then failed to follow through with those undertakings - would a state of war still exist? On those grounds, Donald Rumsfields contention is valid. The UN, as the worlds international forum, are responsible ensuring that its resolutions are fulfilled. In doing that they have proved fairly ineffectual.
2. One day Junior is a unilaterialist and the next a mutinationalist and then back unilateralism and then... and then... What, does he flip a coin every morning? Guess it seems on whether he gets the right responses from the other folks in the world.
Explanation: Subsequent to 11th September, 2001, after a period of ineffectual action on the part of the United Nations. The President of America, and his administration, were forced to take stock. Iraq, or more correctly Saddam Hussein, was unique in announcing to the world his admiration of the terrorists who carried out the attack on the WTC. The US highlights future potential threats from terrorist organisations and identifies regimes that might sponsor their activities. Patriotic speeches and rhetoric aside the current American administration has conducted itself within protocols laid down by the UN.
Information regarding Iraqi interest in a programme to replenish/expand their weapons of mass destruction has been available from defectors. With a fair amount of justification the American government makes the assessment that the situation with regard to Iraq and undertakings regarding weapons of mass destruction must be resolved in line with UN dictate.
How this was to be done was to build a case and threaten action (first phase unilateralism). This case and the need for action is then taken to the United Nations and the security council (phase two multinationalism). As a result of clearly outlining the status quo, the UN are seen to be moving towards the American point of view - result Iraq invites the weapons inspectors to return unconditionally - Now if anybody thinks that they were going to do that, after thumbing their nose at the world for years, without the blatant threat of an American attack, I would suggest that they are deluding themselves.
Iraq has agreed to the return of the weapons inspectors without mentioning movement, or intention to move, on the other resolutions resulting from the Gulf War. Iraq's track record on delay and prevarication is well known, with regard to the nuclear element of their WMD programme they MAY BE MONTHS away from acquiring such a weapon. The UN options are do we sit back and wait for the weapons inspection reports (remember that the inspectors are not yet in place) or for the first delaying tactics from Iraq, or do we keep the pressure on. American government opinion is for the implimentation of a new resolution that ties Iraq to a firm timetable to comply with all previous UN resolutions or face attack (third phase unilateralism). That draft resolution goes before Congress today - it will then be put to the UN security council (Predicted fourth stage multinationalism)
3. Okay, the administration has said repeatedly that an attack on Iraq is based on Iraq's WMD program and has said acknowledged that Iraq played no part in the 9-11 attacks then Rumsfield goes agin and shoots off his big mouth today about how the two are pretty much the same thing. Hmmmmmmm?
Explanation: The first part, regarding Iraq's WMD programme, I think is pretty well covered in points 1 and 2 above. It has been fairly conclusively proved that Iraq had no part in the WTC attack.
How the two become pretty much the same thing is if nothing is done regarding Iraq's WMD programme. Al-Queda has lost what it thought was a secure base with the removal of the Taliban regime from power in Afghanistan - where are they likely to move to? Saddam Hussein was the the only national leader who applauded their attack, so it is not unreasonable for the American government to suspect that Al-Queda could get support from Iraq, and that if nothing is done with regard to the WMD programme, then the assistance that could be given by Iraq could have major consequences regarding any future attack on America.
Now the Quiz:
1. What are my motives?
Answer: I believe that my country, and others, may be under threat. That threat eminates from a strategically vital part of the world, that is unstable due to two long running and unresolved flash-points - The Israeli/Palestinian/Arab situation and the situation regarding Iraqi failure to impliment UN resolutions and their continued interest in weapons of mass destruction.
I wish to assist in bringing about a peaceful solution to the former and I wish to satisfy myself through international action that the latter is proved to pose no threat to my own country, it's immediate neighbours and the world in general. The best chance of both coming to fruition is by a change in perspective that can be brought about by a change in leadership, that must be initiated from within the two regimes where their present leaders have failed the people they are supposed to represent.
I know that if I adopt a totally passive stance and allow things to continue as they have been for the last ten years the consequences may be extremely grave not only for my own country but for the region and world as a whole.
2. Has the US done absolutely everything it can to prevent this upcoming war?
Answer: The question asked assumes that war is inevitable, which I believe is not the case.
In the past I have been involved in supporting an internationally backed military campaign to eject Iraq from one of its neighbouring states and thwart Iraq's expansionist aspirations. At the time I believed that this was successfully accomplished.
In the ensuing ten years I have noted Iraqs refusal to impliment undertakings forced on it by the international community. Subsequent to suffering a major terrorist attack on my country I have been forced to adopt measures to fulfil the obligation of my office to protect my people.
To achieve this I have called the attention of the international community to what I perceive to be a continued threat. I have done this by declaring my intention to act independently if need be, and by clearly outlining my reasons for doing so to the United Nations General Assembly.
The United Nations General Assembly has put the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations and they have supported my case that action must be taken.
Iraq's response to this chain of events has been to invite the United nations weapons inspectors to return unconditionally - I fervently believe that they would not have taken this step had I not threatened action.
Past history has led me to believe that what Iraq says it is going to do, compared to what it actually does, are two completely different things. In the light of that I have asked the United Nations to draft an additional resolution, based on the current situation, that will ensure Iraqi compliance on all existing resolution requirements within a set time-frame or face direct military action by the international community. I believe that to be essential knowing the current leadership of Iraq.
The international community has accepted the Iraqi invitation to the UN weapons inspectors and awaits their arrival in Iraq and their report. In the meantime I will maintain credible pressure on the regime in power in Iraq by continuing with my preparations for action should the international community call for it. Should the UN weapons inspectors report back stating that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction, that they have no intention, or capability, of developing those weapons in the future, I can recall forces currently deployed.
How long did it take you to answer these two imporatnt questions? About two hours.
No to War. - Quite agree Bobert, but then I don't think there is going to be one.