HM Re: [extropy-chat] The NeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth)

[Herb Martin]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Brett Paatsch
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:32 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: HM Re: [extropy-chat] The 
> NeoConMind-Trick(wasletterconcerningpresidential growth)
> 
> Herb Martin wrote:
> > The UN Security Council voted UNANIMOUSLY in binding
> > resolution 1441 that Iraq was in breach AND to require
> > Saddam to comply.
> >
> > No subsequent resolution was every voted and so it
> > remained the controlling resolution -- understood by
> > all who voted as authorizing force.
> 
> How much would you like to bet with me that the above
> statement is true?  I say it is false and I stand ready to
> accept your money if you chose to put it where your
> mouth is. 
> 
> Or to accept your apology and deem you a man of honour
> if you wish to retract the statement on this list upon educating
> yourself. 
> 
> Or to hold you in the appropriate amount of small regard 
> should you do neither. 

1441 was unamimous (indisputable)

No subsequent resolution was ever voted prior to the war
	that affected this issue (indisputable)

1441 found Saddam in breach (clearly worded in 1441
	and thus indisputable)
"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in
particular
through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the
IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution
687
(1991);"

Saddam was already required to comply (detailed in 1441
	and indisputable both there and previous resolutions)

1441 was binding (detailed in 1441 and indisputable)

The next (subsequent) binding resolution to take up the
situation in Iraq is 1443 25Nov2002 which doesn't material
affect the prior resolutions but rather extends some 
provisions and is of course subsequent to the overthrow
of Saddam:
<http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/711/07/PDF/N0271107.pdf?OpenElem
ent>
(FYI:  1442 concernds Cyprus)

That it authorized war is open to discussion due to the
fact that the language was purposely chosen to be ambiguous
and to conform to the diplomatic niceties the UN feigns,
but consider:

1) A state of war already existed.  Gulf War 1 was never
	closed by a peace treaty only cease fire.

2) A blockade was in effect, such blockades have long 
	been considered "acts of war".

Thus both a defacto and a technical state of war existed.

1441 clearly states that serious consequences will result --
other than a state of war serious consequences was chosen
to indicate that force would be use (force was already being
used):
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq
that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of
its
obligations;
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenEleme
nt

Colin Powell has clearly indicated that such was made
explicit in direct conversations with other permanent
members of the council and that this would indeed mean
war if Saddam did not fully comply.

So with which of the above elements do you disagree?
(or something that I didn't mention perhaps...)

One can have a (semi) legitimate disagreement about the
"serious consequences" since the wording was veiled
in somewhat ambiguous diplomatic terms so there is no
way I can claim that is entirely unambiguous with the
surrounding context which is in fact clear.

Gee, facts are fun:  Enjoy.

Oh, and just in case you think Saddam didn't have
WMD or that he EVER COMPLIED by accounting for them
below is a (partial) list of the WMD elements he
ADMITTED to possessing and for which he did not 
(in general) provide an accounting.

--
Herb Martin


* Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas

* Iraq acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more
VX. 

* Iraq produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other
types of poison gas. 

* Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax. 

* Iraq produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of
delivering poison gas or germ payloads. 

* Iraq produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. 

* Iraq produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons. 

* Iraq produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. 

* Iraq produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax,
aflatoxin, and botulinum). 

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi
government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list,
including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had
concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the
Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA
analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at
the heart of the Iraq crisis.