To war, or not to war......that is the question

[Michael Tee]

<<How would you change the charter of the UN to make it more effective? >>

In all humility, I'd have to back off on that one.  The greatest minds in international law worked on that Charter and made it. 

There is, however, one glaringly obvious problem.  The Security Council veto.  It was originally put in on the insistence of the U.S.S.R. but in more recent years was used more by the U.S.A. (after years of denouncing it.)  I think in the long run the veto has to go, but the so-called Great Powers will have to trust the institution a lot more than they do now, and of course that trust has to be earned.  Also, the composition of the Security Council - - it has to have some flexibility as to status and veto.  Some recognition that the Great Powers of 1944 may not always be in the same position of dominance as they once were.

I think the U.N. has to build from small success to small success, learning by doing, self-correcting through analysis of past actions.  A culture of unregulated international violence that built up since prehistoric times isn't going to be cured by something that started in 1944.  It's a long slow haul.  I object to those who tear down the institution for partisan reasons and I think the worst of the bunch are the State of Israel and the fascists and militarists who currently control the U.S. government.  The U.N. now is the world's best hope for a better tomorrow.   The better kind of Americans know that and take pride in the fact that the U.S.A. was the prime mover in its foundation.

I also think too much is made of the "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Americanism" of the UN, and specifically the General Assembly.  First of all, it's exaggerated, and secondly, this is a debating forum.  Members ought to be encouraged to blow off steam.  The object is to avoid war, so a certain amount of yelling, screaming and name-calling (even shoe-pounding) ought to be kept in perspective.

[sirs]

That wasn't the question.  In the scnerio given you, there is no war, justified or not.  There's 911, and there's the intel on your desk.  So, what you're saying is you sit, pray, and hope to God those AlQeada folks aren't able to drum up a deal to get their hands on a few hundreds poids of Sarin, right?

I don't recall saying that.  There are justifiable reasons to retaliate against al Qaeda.

But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks.  An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president

So, you're just debating military tactics in general?  ok, fair enough

More the ramifications of making military decisions without foresight into the political realities of the region, but yeah, we weren't discussing any eminent war to my knowledge.

Gotcha

[_JS]

But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks.  An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president

I never saw much intel linking the two, to be honest. Transporting Sarin isn't easy and furthermore Sarin has a very short shelf-life (it generally only lasts for a week or slightly longer before degredation). By the way, Sarin is not all that difficult to make and is relatively similar to many current insecticides.

I'm certainly not worried about mustard gas. Delivery of mustard gas is rather difficult and its use as a weapon of terror is rather pointless. Although it is associated with chemical warfare, it is rarely lethal (1% - nicotine is far more toxic) and its difficulty in delivery is just as likely to harm the terrorist as the intended victims. Interesting fact, mustard gas helped lead to chemotherapy treatment for cancer patients.

[Jwmcc]

Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?
Jw

[sirs]

But apparently, given the intel, you still hope to God, Saddam doesn't sell off some of his Sarin & mustard gas to some AlQeada folks.  An interesting gamble of American lives, but hey, that's why your president

I never saw much intel linking the two, to be honest.

That's strange, Bush did.  From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well.  Interesting.  Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO 

[Amianthus]

Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?

According to Wikipedia:

• United Kingdom against Bolsheviks in 1919;[2]
• United Kingdom against rebels in Iraq in 1920;[3]
• United Kingdom against rebels in Afghanistan in the 1920s;[citation needed]
• Spain against Rif insurgents in Morocco in 1921-1927;[1][4]
• Italy in Libya in 1930;[1]
• Soviet Union in Xinjiang, China in 1934 and 1936-1937;[2][4]
• Italy in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1935-1940;[1]
• Poland against Germany in 1939 during an isolated incident, British product;[1]
• Germany against Poland and the Soviet Union in a few erroneous uses during the Second World War;[1]
• Japan against China in 1937-1945;[2]
• Egypt against North Yemen in 1963-1967;[1]
• Iraq against Iran in 1981 and 1983-1988;[1]
• Iran against Iraq in 1987-1988, possibly using captured Iraqi munitions;[1]
• Iraq against Kurds in 1988;[1]
• Possibly Sudan against insurgents in the civil war, in 1995 and 1997[1]

Sulfur mustard

See article for the sources.

[_JS]

That's strange, Bush did.  From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well.  Interesting.  Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO

Care to supply said evidence, Sirs? Let's see it directly linking Hussein and al-Qaeda and throw in some armament transfers as well.

I noticed you made no comments on the rest of my post. 

[_JS]

Has mustard gas really even been used as a weapon since the War to end all Wars?

Yes, as Ami pointed out.

It is, unlike Sarin, much simpler to transport as it remains a liquid at room temperatures (as I recall).

It is still, rather useless. I couldn't honestly see why a terrorist would want it other than to cause some hysteria perhaps. But a bomb threat would likely do just as well and be far less likely to get one arrested.

[Amianthus]

It is still, rather useless. I couldn't honestly see why a terrorist would want it other than to cause some hysteria perhaps. But a bomb threat would likely do just as well and be far less likely to get one arrested.

Mustard gas causes a suppression of your immune system. Used in conjunction with bio weapons, it can increase the severity of the bio weapon attack.

[sirs]

That's strange, Bush did.  From what I've read and released for public consumption, I've seen it as well.  Interesting.  Even more a gamble by President Js, for missing it the 1st go round, IMHO

Care to supply said evidence, Sirs? Let's see it directly linking Hussein and al-Qaeda and throw in some armament transfers as well.

I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer.  I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD.  You do the math.  Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent

I noticed you made no comments on the rest of my post. 

Limited time. 

[_JS]

I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer.  I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD.  You do the math.  Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent

Lots of countries have WMD and terrorist groups that pass through. Where's that evidence?

I'm not betraying my principles Sirs, no matter what hypothetical situation you place me in. A "preventive war" based on suppositions and debatable scenarios is not a just war.

[sirs]

I didn't make that claim of direct armament transfer.  I said the intel tells you there are both direct & indirect connections between Iraq & AlQeada, and the intel tells you Saddam still has his stockpiles of WMD.  You do the math.  Or you do the gambling, whichever you believe more prudent

Lots of countries have WMD and terrorist groups that pass through.

Connections with AlQeada, and in violation of UN mandate(s), specifically something along the lines of 1441?  That last part wasn't intel, that was fact.  Show me those countries that include those parameters above, then we can addess your concern of inconsistent application of intel & suppositions

I'm not betraying my principles Sirs, no matter what hypothetical situation you place me in. A "preventive war" based on suppositions and debatable scenarios is not a just war.

Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one

[domer]

The terrorist-connections and the Iraqi possession of more than token chemical/biological weapons have not been substantiated. But I will add, as if they had, another few elements to this discussion: scope of attack, likelihood of attack, casualties of attack, casualties of a war to prevent an attack, reliability of border-security, et al.

[_JS]

Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.

Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one

You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.

[sirs]

Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.

I'm not at home at the moment.  When I do get home, and have the time to provide some souces that outine those connections that iraq has with terrorists, including those of AlQeada, what will your response be then, I wonder?  And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption

Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one

You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.

Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did.  And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making