Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Dragonlich · 05-01-2003, 04:18 AM

Look Smooth... you can throw around logical rules all day long, and I still wouldn't agree with you.

1) Saddam loses the gulf war, and must disarm.
2) Saddam drags out that process, and does in fact *not* disarm.
3) Time and time again, inspectors find evidence of non-compliance.
4) 12 years later, Saddam again refuses to cooperate fully, for unknown reasons.
5) The US decides that enough is enough, and steps in.
5) Saddam loses the second war, and is gone.

Now, you are correct in stating that there are numerous possible reasons for non-compliance, but you then make a logical error by assuming all possibilities are equally likely, which is simply not the case.

In theory, your logical games might work; in practice, one has to look at the whole picture, and at Saddam's pattern of behavior. He has hidden his weapons in the past, and he refuses to provide any firm evidence that he is not doing so now. With such a track record, one cannot expect the UN (or US) to believe his claims, and Saddam should have known that.

Again: he had to prove he didn't have WMDs, and he failed to prove it. Hans Blix himself stated that there were many questions remaining about certain stockpiles of WMDs. The Iraqis claimed to have destroyed them, but couldn't/wouldn't provide any evidence.

Your principle of a sovereign nation not subjecting itself to a foreign entity is, again, nice in theory, but irrelevant in practice. Iraq is a member of the UN, and has signed on to its principles. In normal situations, the UN can therefore demand certain things from them. If Iraq doesn't agree with that, they should tear up the UN declaration they signed, and leave. They did not, and by that inaction, they acknowledge that they are obliged to comply with UN demands. In fact, that is the whole argument of anti-war people against the US in this case: they are part of the UN, and as such, have to follow the rules; they then claim the US didn't follow those rules (which is certainly open to debate, of course).

Furthermore, in this particular case, Iraq would have broken a ceasefire agreement with the US if they refused to subject themselves to the UN rules. If they then (as a matter of principle) do not fulfill the terms of that agreement, they are at war with the US, which makes this whole "second" war in fact a continuation of the first gulf war. Thus, the war would have been legal, and this whole thread about the road to war could be closed.

I propose the following:

Saddam knows that if he fails to comply with the UN rules, he will be attacked. If he is attacked, he knows he will be defeated. Therefore, there must be some reason for not complying with those UN rules and that reason must be pretty important to Saddam, for he is risking his very life for it. What reason could possibly be important enough to risk it all? I can only think of one: he was in fact hiding WMDs when he had always maintained he was not. To me, that is the most reasonable and likely explanation.

05-01-2003, 04:18 AM	#46 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Look Smooth... you can throw around logical rules all day long, and I still wouldn't agree with you. 1) Saddam loses the gulf war, and must disarm. 2) Saddam drags out that process, and does in fact not disarm. 3) Time and time again, inspectors find evidence of non-compliance. 4) 12 years later, Saddam again refuses to cooperate fully, for unknown reasons. 5) The US decides that enough is enough, and steps in. 5) Saddam loses the second war, and is gone. Now, you are correct in stating that there are numerous possible reasons for non-compliance, but you then make a logical error by assuming all possibilities are equally likely, which is simply not the case. In theory, your logical games might work; in practice, one has to look at the whole picture, and at Saddam's pattern of behavior. He has hidden his weapons in the past, and he refuses to provide any firm evidence that he is not doing so now. With such a track record, one cannot expect the UN (or US) to believe his claims, and Saddam should have known that. Again: he had to prove he didn't have WMDs, and he failed to prove it. Hans Blix himself stated that there were many questions remaining about certain stockpiles of WMDs. The Iraqis claimed to have destroyed them, but couldn't/wouldn't provide any evidence. Your principle of a sovereign nation not subjecting itself to a foreign entity is, again, nice in theory, but irrelevant in practice. Iraq is a member of the UN, and has signed on to its principles. In normal situations, the UN can therefore demand certain things from them. If Iraq doesn't agree with that, they should tear up the UN declaration they signed, and leave. They did not, and by that inaction, they acknowledge that they are obliged to comply with UN demands. In fact, that is the whole argument of anti-war people against the US in this case: they are part of the UN, and as such, have to follow the rules; they then claim the US didn't follow those rules (which is certainly open to debate, of course). Furthermore, in this particular case, Iraq would have broken a ceasefire agreement with the US if they refused to subject themselves to the UN rules. If they then (as a matter of principle) do not fulfill the terms of that agreement, they are at war with the US, which makes this whole "second" war in fact a continuation of the first gulf war. Thus, the war would have been legal, and this whole thread about the road to war could be closed. I propose the following: Saddam knows that if he fails to comply with the UN rules, he will be attacked. If he is attacked, he knows he will be defeated. Therefore, there must be some reason for not complying with those UN rules and that reason must be pretty important to Saddam, for he is risking his very life for it. What reason could possibly be important enough to risk it all? I can only think of one: he was in fact hiding WMDs when he had always maintained he was not. To me, that is the most reasonable and likely explanation.