Annanition

Evidence, in case you needed any, that the Kofi-must-go campaign is not all about the odious Oil-for-food scandal:

"It's payback time for the U.N.," said a Bush administration official who did not want his name used because he was not authorized to speak on the record. "The bills are coming due for the U.N.'s noncooperation on Iraq."

Comments

[Warren]

noncooperation? Surely he meant non-subordination, or non-capitulation, or non-rolling-over-and-jumping-at-the-command-of-US-president-Bush.

After all, isn't noncompliance with UN resolutions the only pretext for waging war still standing?

[joe]

Conservative Republicans wouldn't make up a pretext in order to carry out a radical policy of settling old scores. At least, not when it comes to geo-political affairs.

You want me to believe that significant numbers of Washington Republicans are willing to take at face value information of questionable merit, much of it provided by Ahmed Chalabi's people, and publicize it to the American people, in order to provide a public justification for the removal of a foreign leader who has a history of being a thorn in their side?

I mean, really now!

[Steve]

I was with you, joe, until you got to "remove a political leader who has been a thorn in their side."

Yeah, that Saddam Hussein, such a nuisance to Republicans. No wonder nobody liked him!

[Ruthless]

joe's right, as usual.
Dubya has bigger fish to fry than Kofi.
The UN is much like the Dept. of Homeland Security: useless except as a photo op backdrop.

[Call me snake]

In light of the developing scandal, the UN/Annan appears to have been bribed by Hussein into opposing military intervention to force compliance with the UN's own sanctions!!

Joe, how is the info of questionable merit given:

1) UNSCOM's consistent, multiple findings of unaccounted WMD.
2) The acceptance of the UNSCOM conclusions by several of countries on both sides of the Atlantic.

Oh, and there's that little "dissident" (according to Reuters) faction running around looking for ways to kill on U.S. soil...do you think perhaps that makes the situation a bit more immediate after 3,000 people have been incinerated?

[jerrycho]

Unamed sources? LATimes? Hell yeah, this is going on my blog as soon as I start one. The war-ld must know!

[Adam]

Happy U.N. International Anti-Corruption Day, everybody!

[andy]

My browser won't go to the LA Times site cited by Mr. Welsh, but I'm always skeptical of claims by "anonymous officials".

What's stopping the random reporter from making this up? Is there any way to really fact check this?

[Adam]

Should the Bush administration "get even" for Annan calling the war in Iraq "illegal", lending credence to the Islamofascists trying to kill our soldiers, on the eve of the battle for Fallujah? Should he "get even" with Annan for announcing to the world that it would be WRONG for Bush to go into Fallujah and telling Bush (not behind closed doors, but in front of the cameras) to NEGOTIATE with the jihadist fucks that were hanging out in that beehive?

Take oil-for-food out of the equation, and there's still damn good reasons to take umbrage with Annan. Now add it back into the equation, and start counting the days til he's out on his ass, or the U.N. is heavily defunded.

[Gary Gunnels]

You know Annan's term is up in two years (December 31, 2007) no matter what, so I don't see why there is some big hurry to replace him.

Adam,

The U.S. doesn't give the UN much money (since they we never meet our formal contribution requirements); now countries like Japan do (some indeed argue that Japan is trying to bribe its way into a UNSC position).

[andy]

Gary, that's THREE years.

Work on your arithmetic, or a least get a calculat

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

The UNSC need not follow "its own resolutions" (if you can point out something in the UN's Charter where such a requirement exists, do tell). Indeed, like any organization it can respond flexibly to the world around it.

[andy]

*calculator

[Gary Gunnels]

andy,

Even at three years his term will not last that much longer.

Work on your arithmetic, or a least get a calculat

As long as work on your writing skills. 🙂

[joe]

"Joe, how is the info of questionable merit given"

Well, there's the fact that is was FALSE, that there was evidence that is was FALSE, and that the inspection teams were in the process of demonstrating that it was FALSE when they pulled from the country.

"Take oil-for-food out of the equation, and there's still damn good reasons to take umbrage with Annan." So this outrage isn't about settling old scores or doing away with a political opponent. It's about corruption, and it's slanderous to say outherwise. Oh, and by the way, here the the old scores we have to settle, and the reasons why Annan was a political opponent.

"You know Annan's term is up in two years (December 31, 2007) no matter what, so I don't see why there is some big hurry to replace him." For the same reason that people were dragged through the streets and hung by trees by mobs, even when law enforcement was ready willing and able to dispose of them via due process. To wit, there are advantages that accrue to the leader of a lynch mob, and educational benefits created by the spectacle.

[Dan]

The UNSC need not follow "its own resolutions"

Of course it doesn't need to. What's that got to do with anything? It is still fair to fault people who won't back up their words with deeds.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

That of course erroneously and stupidly presumes that a past resolution is something that should always be enforced in the present, no matter how the situation has changed.

[Adam]

The U.S. doesn't give the UN much money (since they we never meet our formal contribution requirements)

Gary - That's great; I guess they won't miss it much when it's gone.

[rvman]

What was the change in situation? Hussein hadn't gone along? To the extent that non-compliance hadn't been proven, it hadn't been proven when the first umpteen resolutions had been passed. The "change" was that someone actually wanted to carry out the threats implicit in the resolutions.

Essentially, this year's Economics nobel went to the guy who showed why you should enforce past resolutions. Commitment problems - if you don't enforce resolution 1, even if doing so is onerous, then no one will pay any attention to resolutions 2 through infinity.

[joe]

Clinton and Blair managed to enforce the resolutions, and effectively end Iraq's WMD programs, in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox.

A little pistol waiving got Saddam to agree to let inspectors in, inspectors who were in the process of confirming that, no, Iraq was not engaged in the production of WMDs.

The argument that only the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 qualifies as "enforcing UN resolutions" is completely bogus.

[me]

Iraq 91 ended in a cease fire. how many times were shots fired at our planes enforcing the no fly zone again?

[Gary Gunnels]

me,

With wholly ineffective anti-airfract missile systems.

[joe]

...each of which got its very own HARM souvenier.

The poor widdle United States military was not standing around helpless while Saddam flaunted the restrictions.

[Anvilwyrm]

"With wholly ineffective anti-airfract missile systems. "

Which can nonetheless, kill you dead.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind someone shooting at your house with a catapult? They are slow, and miss a lot.....

Besides which, it's not really a "ceasefire" if they haven't *ceased* to fire, is it?

[Gary Gunnels]

Anvilwyrm,

The question is of course who started throwing the potshots (after the ceasefire) first?

And yes, the lack of efficacy of the weapons is an important consideration, since firing off anti-aircraft missiles may have been more for home propaganda purposes than a genuine effort to attack "coalition" aircraft.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind someone shooting at your house with a catapult? They are slow, and miss a lot.....

Given the remoteness and defensive situation of my home I'm more concerned when they start launching human heads at my home via trebuchets. 🙂

[a]

"how many times were shots fired at our planes enforcing the no fly zone again?"

your planes were violating Iraq's airspace, so Iraq had every right to shoot at them.

[Isaac Bartram]

"your planes were violating Iraq's airspace, so Iraq had every right to shoot at them."

Since the legitimacy of the no fly zones was suspect you may be right.

But on second thought since that show was being run by Saints Clinton and Blair, how could it have been wrong?

"how many times were shots fired at our planes enforcing the no fly zone again?"

Probably none, since just switching on the radar got your AA battery destroyed.

[Gary Gunnels]

Isaac Bertram,

As I recall the batteries fired on craft flying outside the no-fly zone areas.

You know this is going to quickly devolve into a debate about whether the Roman notion of dualing patriotisms is correct.

[Dan]

That of course erroneously and stupidly presumes that a past resolution is something that should always be enforced in the present, no matter how the situation has changed

Certainly if the situation has changed new resolutions might be in order. But since Hussein was still in charge of Iraq, still pursuing WMDs, still sponsoring terrorists, still oppressing the Iraq people and still not complying with UN investigators, it's hard to see what significant changes you could be referring to.

The only things undergoing significant change were the bank balances of the European and UN officials taking kickbacks from Hussein. 🙂

[Dan]

your planes were violating Iraq's airspace, so Iraq had every right to shoot at them.

Iraq had no "rights" with regard to us; our nations were still at war from 1991. All we had was a cease-fire agreement.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

Sure it had "rights"; it had the rights any sovereign state has to defend itself, rights recognized since the time of Thucydides, Cicero and Tacitus (that is since the classical world of the Greeks and Romans).

...significant changes you could be referring to.

I didn't refer to any "significant changes" (that's just your attempt to create a fictional gloss - keeping you honest is difficult).

But since Hussein was still in charge of Iraq...

Nothing - to my recollection - in any UN resolution called for his removal as a precondition for the end of sanctions, etc.

...still pursuing WMDs...

His WMD programs - as has been stated time and time again - were dormant.

...still sponsoring terrorists...

Was ending the sending money to the families of suicide-bombers a condition for ending the sanctions regime, lifting the threat of war, etc.? I don't believe so.

...still oppressing the Iraq people...

Was ending this a precondition for an end to the sanctions regime, etc.? It certainly had nothing to do with the ceasefire agreement, given the coalition's complicity in the repression that followed the GWI.

...still not complying with UN investigators...

Hans Blix felt that there was enough compliance that war was not neccessary and a majority of the UNSC agreed with him (which is why the U.S. could not muster enough votes to even get to the veto stage).

The only things undergoing significant change were the bank balances of the European and UN officials taking kickbacks from Hussein.

Or such has been suggested, but never proven (of course jingoism clouds your thinking).

[joe]

"Iraq had no "rights" with regard to us; our nations were still at war from 1991. All we had was a cease-fire agreement.'

I'm actually with Dan on this one. We had the legal right to invade Iraq, based on their violation of the cease fire. This war was stupid, evil, dishonest, reckless, poorly planned, and harmful to our security interests, but it was completely legal from the perspective of international law.