WMD in iraq. - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
March 25th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB

The UN is not a governing body and it doesnt have a military mandate, the role of the UN is to rationally solve problems as they arise, your argument seems very reliant on a notion that if the US/UK roll up and say someone is in breach of a resolution the UN will whip out an invasion permit and say "here ya go, try not to blow up too many buildings on the way".
Well believe it or not if you are going to use the UN as weapon of war then you need to prove to them (Them=rest of world) that you are right.

Now to use the "Cop" analogy everyone seems to love, think of it as a cop seeing a guy crawling through a house window, rather than pulling a gun and shooting the guy most police will investigate to find out if the is robbing the house or just a guy thats locked out of his house.

In this case you have the investigation team (Hans Blix and co) saying we he says he is locked out and we cant find any keys, the cop then shooting him anyway and then the crime scene investigators saying well thats his name on the letterbox so we think he probably lived here as well at which point the cop suddenly decides well he was a bad man and I was freeing his family.
OK I shouldn't have called it a governing body. But that's just a minor detail in this issue.
But if any party of any sort releases a contract, a legally binding document like a UN resolution. Let's drop the cop analogy for now.
The point that I'm making is, if an organization makes its own words mean nothing by laughing off something it decided on, then why does anyone need to hear "yes" or "no" from them to do anything if it obviously means nothing?
I don't think you answered my question at all.

Let me spell out my point:
- The UN Laughed off its own resolution. It was a legal agreement pact by the members who signed it.
- When you laugh off your own signed document, not a promise by word, but a promise by letter, you have relegated your writings to the level of toilet paper (with lousy texture).
-Contracts are terminated on a regular basis, but this requires all parties who signed to agree to terminate the contract and this clearly isn't the case here.
- When you've made it clear that your words or promises don't really mean a whole lot, then why does anyone have to get your written permission to do anything?
- Many countries signed 1441, but the US and the UK were the only ones who went ahead with it. Meaning those two are the only ones who actually ended up honoring it.


On that note, the UN should be given another chance in future as all organizations do have issues with keeping their promises from time to time but you cannot take them seriously on the very matter that they broke their promise for.
March 25th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
OK I shouldn't have called it a governing body. But that's just a minor detail in this issue.
No its not, you are acusing them of not following up on their word when the only power they have is to give a mandate to its member countries to carry out its resolutions and in order to give that mandate it requires a majority support from the security council.

Quote:
- The UN Laughed off its own resolution. It was a legal agreement pact by the members who signed it.
I think you are trivialising things a bit here:
- It (It=the member states not the single entity as you have relegated the UN to) didnt laugh anything off it just didnt believe US claims that the situation was as bad it said it was and lets be perfectly honest the US wasnt an impartial bystander.


Quote:
- When you laugh off your own signed document, not a promise by word, but a promise by letter, you have relegated your writings to the level of toilet paper (with lousy texture).
- Again you overlook the fact that the UN requires concensus and if the majority isnt backing an action it doesnt progress, if you like think of it as a government had GWB taken his proposal to congress/senate and they voted no would it have progressed further?.

Quote:
-Contracts are terminated on a regular basis, but this requires all parties who signed to agree to terminate the contract and this clearly isn't the case here.
Yes but as you so rightly point out it requires ALL parties to agree not just one, and in this case the contract wasnt terminated as they were still looking to ensure the job was completed.

Quote:
- Many countries signed 1441, but the US and the UK were the only ones who went ahead with it. Meaning those two are the only ones who actually ended up honoring it.
Bollocks.
The US and UK have done little more than weaken world security by showing you can ignore the UN and go off half cocked killing thousands in the process.

When it comes down to it my argument remains the same, it is the UN's responbility to determine whether a country is in breech of its resolutions and it is the UN's responsibility to approve any action from those resolutions it is not the responsibility of any single member country to make those decisions on behalf of the UN.

So far all your argument has shown is either a lack of understanding of the UN's purpose or a desire to alternate the role of the UN to suit yout argument.
Please remember:
1) The UN is not a government it is a collection of individual member states.
2) The UN requires majority concenus to progress any resolution.
3) The purpose of the UN was as a place for nations to meet and sort out their differences using other nations to inject impartiality.

Quote:
On that note, the UN should be given another chance in future as all organizations do have issues with keeping their promises from time to time but you cannot take them seriously on the very matter that they broke their promise for.
You mean they need to be given another chance to agree with which ever state is the most powerful.
Once again the "promise" the UN made was that serious consequences would befall Iraq if they didnt comply with resolution 1441 but those consequences would only be acted on IF the case was proven that they were in breach of resolution 1441.
The US/UK decided they were in breach and took the case to the UN who began investigating the claims however before the investigation was complete the US/UK invaded and have since been proven wrong.

I disagree entirely the UN has been proven as effective as the League of Nations was and should be disbanded, it is obvious that the "powerful" members have no intention of abiding by it and therefore it shouldnt be used as a tool to keep smaller nations in check either.
March 31st, 2005  
Xion
 
Another headline grabbing news on CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/....ap/index.html

Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined 74 recommendations and said President George W. Bush could implement most of them without action by Congress.

It urged Bush to give broader powers to John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, to deal with challenges to his authority from the CIA, Defense Department or other elements of the nation's 15 spy agencies.

It also called for sweeping changes at the FBI to combine the bureau's counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources into a new office.

The report was the latest somber assessment of intelligence shortfalls that a series of investigative panels have made since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Numerous investigations have concluded that spy agencies had serious intelligence failures before the September 11 attacks against the United States.

The report implicitly absolves the Bush administration of manipulating the intelligence used to launch the 2003 Iraq war, putting the blame for bad intelligence directly on the intelligence community.

"The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed," the report said. "Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs."

The unclassified version of the report does not go into significant detail on the intelligence community's abilities in Iran and North Korea because commissioners did not want to tip the U.S. hand to its leading adversaries. Those details are included in the classified version.

The commission was formed by Bush a year ago to look at why U.S. spy agencies mistakenly concluded that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, one of the administration's main justifications for invading in March 2003.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," the commission said in a report to the president. "This was a major intelligence failure."

The main cause, the commission said, was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence.

"On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude," the report said.

But the commission also said that it found no indication that spy agencies distorted the evidence they had concerning Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, a charge raised against the administration during last year's presidential campaign.

"This is not `politicization'," the panel said of its own report. "It is a necessary part of the intelligence process."

The commission gave Bush a specific suggestion about the daily intelligence briefings he receives -- traditionally delivered by the nation's most senior intelligence official. The panel said that Negroponte should not be the person who briefs the president, or even be in the room every day when the report is given.

"For if the DNI is consumed by current intelligence, the long-term needs of the intelligence community will suffer," the report said. Bush, however, expressly said he planned to give Negroponte responsibility for the daily briefings at the time the president introduced his choice to be the new director of national intelligence.

Overall, the report delivered a harsh verdict. "Our intelligence community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs," the commission said. It noted that other investigations have reached similar conclusions. "We should not wait for another commission or another administration to force widespread change in the intelligence community," the report said.

Looking beyond Iraq, the panel examined the ability of the intelligence community to accurately assess the risk posed by America's foes.

"The bad news is that we still know disturbingly little about the weapons programs and even less about the intentions of many of our most dangerous adversaries," its report said. The commission did not name any country, but appeared to be talking about nations such as North Korea and Iran.

"Our review has convinced us that the best hope for preventing future failures is dramatic change," the report said. "We need an intelligence community that is truly integrated, far more imaginative and willing to run risks, open to a new generation of Americans and receptive to new technologies."

The report urged Bush to give more authority to Negroponte, his new director of national intelligence, overseeing all of the nation's 15 spy agencies.

"It won't be easy to provide this leadership to the intelligence components of the Defense Department or to the CIA," the commissioners said. "They are some of the government's most headstrong agencies. Sooner or later, they will try to run around -- or over -- the DNI. Then, only your determined backing will convince them that we cannot return to the old ways," the commission told Bush.

On al-Qaida, the commission found that the intelligence community was surprised by the terrorist network's advances in biological weapons, particularly a virulent strain of a disease that the report keeps secret, identifying it only as "Agent X." The discovery of al-Qaida's work came only after the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power.

"Al-Qaida's biological program was further along, particularly with regard to Agent X, than prewar intelligence indicated," the report says.

U.S. officials have previously said they found signs of al-Qaida's work in anthrax weapons in Afghanistan, but it was not clear if "Agent X" referred to anthrax. Al-Qaida had not yet "achieved a functioning biological weapon with this substance," the report noted.

The commission was unanimous in its report and recommendations.

The panel recommended that Bush demand more of the intelligence community, which has been repeatedly criticized for failures as various investigations have looked back on the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The intelligence community needs to be pushed," the report said. "It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policy-makers -- sometimes to the point of discomfort."

It said analysts must be pushed to explain what they don't know and that agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key subjects. At the same time, the report said the administration must be more careful about accepting the judgment of intelligence agencies.

"No important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the (intelligence) community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true," the report said.
--
Boots