← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 3283 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2002-10-29
2002-10-29 13:51 | User Profile
'In Material Breach'
By WILLIAM SAFIRE ASHINGTON -- If the U.N. Security Council fails to adopt a resolution holding Iraq "in material breach" of its many disarmament agreements, that refusal will have consequences for the U.N. and several of its member nations.
The State Department cannot say that, of course, because our diplomacy with Council members rests on persuasion, not threats. But should the U.N. deny the fact of Saddam's repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions, the world body will henceforth play only in a little league of nations.
Every diplomat knows what "in material breach" means: as called for in the resolution put forward by the U.S. and Britain, that phrase clears the way for the liberation of Iraq. If Saddam does not promptly come into total compliance with no-nonsense inspections, we would have the useful, though not necessary, U.N. coloration for our overthrow of the outlaw regime.
Russia, France, China and Mexico lead the pack wanting to strip that triggering phrase from the declared U.S. position. If they succeed, their "no" votes would assert that Saddam is not in material breach of a dozen previous Security Council orders, which Baghdad would interpret as a legal triumph. It would also show that Colin Powell's faith in the U.N. system and his own persuasive powers has been grievously misplaced.
What would be the consequences of a victory by Saddam over the U.S. in the Security Council? If President Bush were to meekly accept the rebuff of a further watering-down of the U.S.-British resolution, his administration would become a laughingstock. Worse, the world would have no way to restrain nuclear blackmail.
That won't happen. Should Vladimir Putin and Jacques Chirac lead the Council down the path of appeasement, Bush will undertake the liberation of the Iraqi people with an ad hoc coalition of genuine allies. And here is one pundit's assessment of the likely consequences:
After our victory in the second gulf war, Britain would replace France as the chief European dealer in Iraqi oil and equipment. Syria, the Security Council member that has been the black-market conduit for Saddam's black gold, would be frozen out. The government of New Iraq, under the tutelage and initial control of the victorious coalition, and prosperous after shedding the burden of a huge army and corrupt Baath Party, would reimburse the U.S. and Britain for much of their costs in the war and transitional government out of future oil revenues and contracts.
If Turkey's powerful army on Iraq's border significantly shortens the war, its longtime claim to royalties from the Kirkuk oil fields would at last be honored. This would recompense the Turks for the decade of economic distress caused by the gulf wars, and be an incentive for them to patch up relations with pro-democracy Iraqi Kurds fighting Saddam at their side.
The evolving democratic government of New Iraq would repudiate the corrupt $8 billion "debt" that Russia claims was run up by Saddam. Even more troubling to Putin will be the heavy investment to be made by the U.S. and British companies that will sharply increase the drilling and refining capacity of the only nation whose oil reserves rival those of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
Rising production from a non-OPEC Iraq, matched by Saudi price cuts from princes desperate to hold market share, could well reduce world oil prices by a third.
This would be a great boon to the poor in many developing nations, rejuvenate Japan and encourage prosperity worldwide, though it would temporarily impoverish Putin's Russia, now wholly dependent on oil revenues.
Such economic consequences to nations that help or hinder us in the U.N. this week do not compare to the human-rights benefits to millions of Iraqis liberated from oppression and to Arabs from Cairo to Gaza in dire need of an example of freedom.
That moral dimension of the need to overthrow Saddam is of no interest to ultrapragmatists in the Security Council. That is why our resolution holding him "in material breach" of U.N orders to stop building mass-murder weapons and encouraging world terror is bottomed on self-defense against a serial aggressor.
But the Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis of greed ââ¬â whose commerce-driven politicians seek to prop up the doomed Saddam in the U.N. ââ¬â will find its policy highly unprofitable.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/28SAFI.html]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/28SAFI.html[/url]
2002-11-02 13:14 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
I had the same reaction as you to this piece. It has been quite a hit on Neo-con talk radio.
**But should the U.N. deny the fact of Saddam's repeated and sustained defiance of its irresolute resolutions, the world body will henceforth play only in a little league of nations. **
As if we should care what happens to the U.N. It would be wonderful if this usless organization would fall into the trash dump. So much for Safire being a "conservative." Safire sure is concerned about these U.N. dozen resolutions that Hussein is/might be violating. I suppose that is why he doesnt bring up Israel at all in this piece. Someone might remember that Israel is in violation of 69. Wouldnt want folks to know that, but if it became an issue the Neo-cons would just fallback and say they don`t count because the U.N. is antisemitic.
**What would be the consequences of a victory by Saddam over the U.S. in the Security Council? If President Bush were to meekly accept the rebuff of a further watering-down of the U.S.-British resolution, [u]his administration would become a laughingstock.[/u] Worse, the world would have no way to restrain nuclear blackmail. **
For some of us it already is.
Speaking of nuclear blackmail, I want to know if the Bush Doctrine is going to be applied against the N. Korea? I bet they regret David Frum including them in the "Axis of Evil."
**After our victory in the second gulf war, Britain would replace France as the chief European dealer in Iraqi oil and equipment. Syria, the Security Council member that has been the black-market conduit for Saddam's black gold, would be frozen out. The government of New Iraq, under the tutelage and initial control of the victorious coalition, and prosperous after shedding the burden of a huge army and corrupt Baath Party, would reimburse the U.S. and Britain for much of their costs in the war and transitional government out of future oil revenues and contracts. **
Im laughing as I type this. See how noble we are? We only desire what is best for the Iraqi people because we are sooo good! Well free them of the burden of having a big army by replacing it with our army. Someone has to guard the loot- er, I mean the fruits of freedom and democracy!
As for the British running of those nasty French and Russians, well, Blair is only doing this for the most altruistic reasons, certainly not for personal gain. How noble! What a great humanitarian!
Debts to Russia? They can cancel that. Were not worried about them. Afterall, we are the "worlds only superpower." The U.S. will either pay them themselves or risk pushing Russia in the arms of Red China. Typical C.F.R. and Zionist shortsightedness of which the 20th Century was renowned for.
The hypocrisy of this column by Safire`s is breathtaking.
I`ve noticed the Neo-con attacks on the French as well. Right now it is hard to say who they hate the most, the Germans or the French. I believe they would love to poison our relations with continental Europe as much as possible to further our embrace of Israel.
Here`s more related material.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=3932]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=4&t=3932[/url]
2002-11-02 13:30 | User Profile
Let's see now, we're supposed to believe that while opponents of a war on Iraq are motivated solely by "greed," no such motives drive the supporters of an invasion.
No no no and NO, AY! Didn't you read Dollar Bill's clearly enunciated reasons for our invasion?
Rising production from a non-OPEC Iraq, matched by Saudi price cuts from princes desperate to hold market share....would be a great boon to the poor in many developing nations, rejuvenate Japan and encourage prosperity worldwide....
Honestly, boys, you must not've been paying attention! Don't you know they hate us for our Goodness?
2002-11-06 09:33 | User Profile
** don't you know they hate us for our goodness? **
perfect (if I may say so)
2002-11-07 12:38 | User Profile
TOPIC: NEOCONS = VIETNAM CARPETBAGGERS
I confess to experiencing a peculiar kind of hate for the manifestations of this verbal entity -- "neocons" -- which this forum tagged. Entirely personal; no discussion group input, except negative, in trying to get across what was happening before the term was available and the critique supplied by the pinned articles.
It hit me immediately after 9/11 that this was a Catholic war. Protestants (don't say "Evangelicals": -that's old-world European talk) are not typically anti-Arab any more or less than anti-Jew. Enmity was sown by the Crusades, with the Pope rallying the then-Christian world to free Jerrusalem. Before our time; not right to be identified with it, as Bush was manipulated into being. Theirs isn't what the signers of the U.S. constitution called "God", and the intellectual absurdity of "ONE GOD UEBER ALLES" (is Gott God? says so in German) was used to:
A. co-opt the advanced religious understanding America was founded on, importing their old-world, old-war disputes to our shores;
B. split the native American heritage and spirituality into Protestant vs. Palestinian camps, over Israel -- collaterally splitting us against each other, in order to perpetuate these little historical music-box political-religious entities. Neither the Vatican nor Tel Aviv (the Jews will never get Jerusalem -- God took it away because of their apostasy) should be treated as a "state". Both should be placed under international protection umbrella. Let anybody who wants to go there pay the UN. Good use for it. Everything except a token swatch gets taken away from the Jews, including keys to their nukes, and the land is turned back over to the people it was seized from.
The Original Dissent Forum is the only place I found where this could even be discussed.
This analysis has been repeatedly confirmed. "Christian" has been equated with what America stands for, in the Middle East, co-opted to "Catholic". This is a very serious provocation. Similarly, "Judeo" has been attached to something called our "morality", givin the result "America is fighting Arabs to protect the Judeo Christian morality". After the super-grade, aerosoled anthrax got passed out to two U.S. Senators who just happened to be the ones standing in the way Defenders Of Judeo-Christian Morality starting up a pipe line out the U.S. Treasury marked 'GOD'S TROUGH' - the opening of which would send a sluice of taxpayers money into Jewish and Catholic skulls, and those left in the country's heartland get the cross-bones. Protestants take the fall, Catholics get the call. I had not previously entertained any anti-Catholic sentiment, at all (maybe a hint from So. Baptist heritage, but not really; was always fascinating, to me. If you gew up in Gods country, which is what we called The Golden Spread, you didn't have to hate anything). Now I think they are behind every war we fought, including a civil war. The next two generations lost the spirit, and were manipulated into senseless slaughter of each other by moralizers of the slavery issue, which would have taken care of itself. To protect tghe "Union". "One nation under God." Bullshit.
(OK of course if its mine; but, then, Der Buddha would say it next, and start firing away. Is there anybody's mind so fcked up they can't see that?)
The along came Lieberman. I know this is sounding long-winded, but there is, in fact, the winds of a perfect storm in these sails. It will be blowing long after I'm gone.
To clarify the above point about the peculiarity of my particular hate. Can't speak for anyone else, wouldn't if I could. There is such a thing in the human experience as "revulsion of being". Its a gut thing. Entirely involuntary. Any episodic emotion like anger, rage, hate don't really express it. Its chronic, and not necessarily second nature.
I'll explain that in terms of what I call "Sister Glose's sickness". Sister Gloce is a nun in a Brooklyn diocese who had taken care of a sexually abused 12 year old boy. Picture in the NYPost inside, which I saved and mounted to remember forever. She was beautiful. Standing up, Attending Massmakes her physically ill. "It eats at your soul", she said. They probably prayed for the perpetrators, but there would be that knot. Its not how prayer is supposed to make you feel. and how could they continue?
Now, I protested the Vietnam war. Really. A lot. From the day Lyndon Johnson got red-faced and swore "BY GOD! (I took exception to his use of the term) WE'RE KICKING HO CHI MINHS BUTT, BOYS" because I knew he was nothing but a West Texas glad-hand didn't know communism from fascism from shinola. I respected those who fought -- some anyway; some were just latent pathological liars and psychotic killers needing work. Seeds of neocon necromancy right there. I never respected anybody here, though, who fell for the pack of lies used to commit the slaughter for. I viewed them as wanting to see kids killed per se, just like I view neocons now as just wanting to see blood for uits own sake. Blood Jesus salvation. Proves they're up to Daddy's JudeoXChristian morality, and they get save the Jewish State of Israel, just like it prophesied in the Bible. Sharon's The Man!
Believe in Daniel Pearl! -- he got his throat slit bringing you The Word (if you read the Wall Street Journal). That would be what Arabs think Christians worship -- nice Jewish boys perishing in the line of duty, bringing us The Word.
I don't think so. They are nothing but Vietnam war carpetbaggers, taking unearned credit for what we did in standing up, turning around and moralizing against those who fought. I never moralized. I just cursed the ones manipulating it. Now, I just like to feel that knot, and if Sister Gloce got over the prayer thing, I would make out with her.
2002-11-07 22:21 | User Profile
wombatnine
You wrote:> Now, I protested the Vietnam war. Really. A lot. From the day Lyndon Johnson got red-faced and swore "BY GOD! (I took exception to his use of the term) WE'RE KICKING HO CHI MINHS BUTT, BOYS" because I knew he was nothing but a West Texas glad-hand didn't know communism from fascism from shinola.I respected those who fought -- some anyway; some were just latent pathological liars and psychotic killers needing work.** Seeds of neocon necromancy right there. I never respected anybody here, though, who fell for the pack of lies used to commit the slaughter for. I viewed them as wanting to see kids killed per se, just like I view neocons now as just wanting to see blood for uits own sake. **
Ordinarily I let some things go as if I do not need to get upset, but not in your case. You and others have a need to feel moral supremacy for not behaving with grace and courage as expected of a young man. You still do not have the balls to admit the truth that the reason you stayed out of the Vietnam War was to spare yourself of any feeling of danger. You are a contemptible creature.
By the way as for Jewish neocons to a man they lied and averted military service.
2002-11-07 23:19 | User Profile
Edward Gibbon - what a wonderful handle. To me, Edward Gibbon is God, or just about. My entire character was formed by reading his great book. If that isn't the single greatest history book since classical antiquity...what is?
Man, did we loose out by not being born to positions of duty in the Roman Empire, or what?
The only book that has had an equally powerful effect on me is Irving's on Dresden which marks the point where I began seriously questioning the Jew agenda.
2002-11-08 02:21 | User Profile
To the Gibbon apes.
No, I wasn't a kid. I was a professor at a liberal arts college. We stopped mlitary recruitment on campus one day. I felt like it took some balls to protest, but since we were right, it wasn't really a matter of genitals at all. It was a matter of your not fighting for anything except lies.
No, the neocons are Vietnam war carpetbaggers. I've figured it out. I've heard some who supported that war claim they were the ones who changed things for the better in the 60's. They seem to be either permanently cowed, or permanently stuck on proving they can kill, too. Of course everybody complicit in the killing wants to implicate everybody else in their guilt, but I'm not, never was, never will be.
Jews fighting for Israel are better than you. At least they are fighting for something. Its when they joined the right-wing Republican pathological liars and psychotic killers left over from Vietnam that they went down.
2002-11-09 18:53 | User Profile
Wombatnine
Many seek comfort in their anonymity. I believe you are one such. I am little younger than you. If we are to meet, I am sure we would have much to talk about. I am sure you are fondly remembered by your students at Tamikaââ¬â¢s Academy of Beauty and Culture as the goofiest White man they ever met. Judging by your incoherent posts, I doubt if you have ever been intellectually challenged for honesty and clarity.
If Americans remember any atrocity from World War II, it is the slaughter of more than 80 Americans during the battle of the Bulge. Forgotten was the one sentence dismissal by George Patton in War as I Knew It (page 217) of the killing of 500 German prisoners of war. He excused it because of the ineptitude of "dusky" troops and it happened at night when communication was difficult. Since Americans had virtue on its side in that war, we must have won as our cause was just. Those being killed were white and German. Hence they were unworthy of being remembered.
The great butchery of the Vietnam War occurred in Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive when the NVA and Viet Cong violated the truce. Walter Cronkite, then the most trusted man in America, was taken to the city of Hue where he saw the mass opened graves of the South Vietnamese civilians murdered by North Vietnamese troops. Cronkite informed an American general he would use none of this information in his broadcast as he was determined to bring the war to an end. This struck Phillip Davidson, Lt. General USA (Ret), as a most peculiar reaction to an enemy atrocity. Cronkite's broadcast brought praise from the New York Times which lauded his assessment that ultimate resolution at best could be a stalemate; the United States could not hope for ultimate victory, but must settle for honoring a commitment and doing the best it could.
Almost 20 years later the New York Times reported that hundreds, possibly thousands, were reported killed by communist forces during the siege of Hue. Even this account must be balanced by the version written by Morley Safer, one time CBS newsman and now an entertainer on 60 Minutes, where he has long enjoyed national prominence. Early in the war Mr. Safer staged the burning of huts in Vietnam by giving a marine a Zippo lighter to torch a grass hut. Safer in his memoir reported the opening of the graves in Hue and observed the victims, "hundreds" of them, whom he described as having been "carefully selected". Why did Safer casually lie about the number of victims by undercounting by about 3000, if not thousands more, and what impressed him as their being carefully selected? Safer, professionally pious and morally correct in his media presence, should reveal what it was about the atrocity that appealed to him so much he could not bring himself to criticize the carnage.
The answer must be that there were no enemies on the left. Lying and apologizing for slaughters by the left has long been considered acceptable in New York City and by scurrilous fools such as yourself.