No problem there... Validate the test results... Its like a second opinion...

Posted by: Original Mark at April 8, 2003 09:02 PM

"'Any test results would have to be verified by the United Nations weapons inspectors to generate the required credibility,' Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters through a spokesman."

Or...?

I mean, what is this guy jabbering about?

Posted by: ScottM at April 8, 2003 09:02 PM

As if a stamp of approval from the UN will change the actual facts of the situation.

Posted by: Steve in BDA at April 8, 2003 09:04 PM

I have to agree with this. I trust our own people. But given the worldwide record of lies told to start wars, including our own, this strikes me as very important.

Posted by: Kyle at April 8, 2003 09:04 PM

Why would you trust the UN, though?

Posted by: PoliticaObscura at April 8, 2003 09:05 PM

Hey, MEB! Take a hike! Your credibility went out the window years ago. The big boys are in charge now, and we'll define "required credibility."

Posted by: Patrick at April 8, 2003 09:06 PM

Verify to whom? To the segment of the world who disbelieved the truth -- that Saddam's regime was a brutal bloodthirsty dictatorship -- when it was before their eyes.

Verify for what? The UN is going to turn around and legitimize the war now that the coalition has won?

A very interestng exercise in trying to make something out of nothing. I suppose the UN has nothing to lose by trying.

Posted by: Lou at April 8, 2003 09:06 PM

"United Nations" and "credibility" in the same sentence?

Posted by: Ed Clark at April 8, 2003 09:07 PM

The UN should be careful of how it behaves, though. It's very close to joining the League of Nations in influence....

Posted by: Knitting a Conundrum at April 8, 2003 09:08 PM

This is kind of insane...

But I'll deal with it. Bring them on.

I don't like this idiot indicating that only the UN can provide credibility, however. I don't trust these clowns.

Posted by: phred at April 8, 2003 09:08 PM

"I trust our own people. But given the worldwide record of lies told to start wars, including our own, this strikes me as very important."

Kyle, I trust our own people. I also have not the slightest doubt that the UN would fake negative results to try to cover up its own disgrace. Kofi and his merry men are utterly corrupt.

I have no problem with independent verification (though that won't stop the Left from claiming we planted the stuff). But it should have nothing to do with the UN.

Posted by: ScottM at April 8, 2003 09:09 PM

Actually, I don't trust the UN.

A more independent 3rd party would be a non-UN collective of scientist, since the UN has proven inneffectual at disarming Iraq and keeping NK in check (specially in the Nuclear weapons program).

Posted by: ElCapitanAmerica at April 8, 2003 09:09 PM

By temperament, I am not given to profanity. But this time, ElBaradei requires it. So, here it goes: "What an asshole!"

Posted by: KIM at April 8, 2003 09:10 PM

And remember, we are at war because Saddam refused to comply with 1441 which required cooperation. Whether he has WMD is immaterial. He was simply required to cooperate fully, he did not, was in breach, and now will die. I doesn't matter at all if they find WMD or not.

Posted by: PoliticaObscura at April 8, 2003 09:11 PM

Screw the U.N.

Their time is past.

Ignore them.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at April 8, 2003 09:12 PM

Someone flash these nitwits an important SOS:

Americans don't give a flying fsck about what the world thinks. We didn't elect you nor do our taxes go to you, so butt out, allright? We are not doing this to prove a point to the world. We are doing this because Saddam is a threat to the US and to the Iraqi people. If the Coalition forces (Americans, Brits, Aussie, Polish, Danish whatever) agrees that something is WMD, I believe it.

Unbelievable. There are frogs croakin and it ain't even raining yet.

Posted by: UncleDuke at April 8, 2003 09:13 PM

You know the UN weapons inspectors findings have been used quite often by the Bush administration to bolster their cassus belli. It would seem rather duplicitous to me for them to now call their expertise or veracity into doubt. Furthermore, it has been reported on a number of occassions that the US/UK are going to bring in said inspectors to Iraq. All this retreaded animus on the part of you folks is funny though.

Lou,

Ahh, to verify the existance of said WMD. The weapons inspectors weren't there to discover if Saddam is a tyrant. Quit mixing the two. BTW, I think your confusion nicely illustrates how muddled the message is about this war - the Operation Shifting Justifications.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:15 PM

Heh. We "must" Mohamed? Why? Because you said so? Only The UN Can Perceive The Truth?

Get over yourself, really.

These guys get more pathetic every time they open their mouth.

Posted by: DSmith at April 8, 2003 09:17 PM

wow. Everyone who is bashing the UN left and right; how incredibly selfish you all are to not care what the rest of the world thinks.

Posted by: x at April 8, 2003 09:21 PM

"duplicitous to me for them to now call their expertise or veracity into doubt"

Wrong again...the UN is calling into question the veracity of the US. NOBODY in the Bush administration has said anything about the UN on this issue. So get your facts straight before posting your nonsense.

Posted by: PoliticaObscura at April 8, 2003 09:24 PM

Gary,

My bad -- a little sloppy. But it's not major muddleheadedness. Perhaps I should have explained that my support for this war is not based on the WMD thing. In fact, I tend to agree that the WMD has been used as a causus belli of convenience -- one that I accept, because no-one seems to want to knock down the Hussein regime for its inherent lack of redeeming features. Maybe the UN statement seems ridiculous because I don't much care if there are or are not WMDs.

Posted by: Lou at April 8, 2003 09:24 PM

Any test results would have to be verified by the United Nations weapons inspectors to generate the required credibility," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters through a spokesman.

Hey, so this is the Minister of Silly's new job!

Posted by: Jonathan at April 8, 2003 09:25 PM

"Hey we have to get back in this game."

Posted by: Patrick Grote at April 8, 2003 09:27 PM

x, you assume that (a) their is a single "world opinion" and (b) that it is somehow represented by the U.N.

Neither of those premises is true. I think we should make the materials and data available to anybody that asks, including the U.N.

But as for any claim that the U.N. confers credibility or legitimacy and that the U.S. is somehow acting wrongly or without credibility, I think there is a very valid point to be made in saying "FUCK 'EM". They are essentially telling us that they have some claim on or right to judge our actions. What would you tell somebody who made such an assertion about you? Unless that's somebody you've agreed to let do that, you'd say "fuck 'em" too.

Posted by: beachbum at April 8, 2003 09:30 PM

Lou, I'm with you. Evil leaders should die and it is the strong who have the moral responsibility to kill them.
Unfortunately, we have to "make up" other reasons so the weak of heart will have a reason to fight.

Posted by: PoliticaObscura at April 8, 2003 09:30 PM

Gary:
> I think your confusion nicely
> illustrates how muddled the message is
> about this war -Operation Shifting
> Justifications

Allah save us from people without an education in history. Nations do not go to war for only one reason. There may be (gasp) multiple reasons. I am so tired of people pointing out that the US has a list of reasons for going to war, and therefore cannot possibly be correct.

To hit just a few:

• Saddam is a threat to regional stability, and the US is interested in stability.
  
• Saddam's weapons programs coupled with his hatred of the US and ties to non-governmental organizations represents a clear and present danger to the US
  
• Saddam represents a threat to his own people, the sheer brutality of his regime beggars the imagination.
  
• Democracy in Iraq serves multiple purposes - stabilizes Iraq and its population (people become terrorists because they feel that there's no other way to address their concerns). It encourages more democracy in the Middle East. It gives the US a strong and one might assume steadfast ally in the middle of the M.E.
  

-EO

Posted by: Eschew Obfuscation at April 8, 2003 09:31 PM

It's not what the UN is saying, it's how they are saying it. They keep implying, over and over, that what the US is doing is illegitimate, and will remain so until we beg the UN to "legitimize" it.

We got WW1 done without the UN, we got WW2 done without the UN, we even got Bosnia done without the UN. For the UN to now claim that only they can "legitimize" the actions of the US and its allies is both hypocritical and ridiculous.

Posted by: DSmith at April 8, 2003 09:32 PM

PoliticaObscura,

The WH has been contacting these inspectors repeatedly since the war began. How do I know this? Because they've said in interviews that they've been contacted and asked to join in the effort, and the US government has not denied such. And the UN is not calling into question anything. Quite frankly independent verification works in the favor of the US/UK, not the reverse. BTW, El Baradei doesn't speak for the UN, he speaks for the International Atomic Energy Agency, so this is not really about the UN to start with.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:33 PM

I don't see why we can't use their verification. If they survive it wasn't WMDs, if they don't survive, it was. UN beurocrats are a lot cheaper than lab animals, and PETA will complain less.

Posted by: anon at April 8, 2003 09:33 PM

I'm with Beachbum. Seems like El Bar is doing what the blogosphere calls trolling.

Don't feed the troll. Just ignore him.

Posted by: The Other John Hawkins at April 8, 2003 09:33 PM

The real question comes down to concepts of sovereignity...and the US and some other countries don't really believe the UN has sovereignity...rather, it should function as a negotiation vehicle. Others, though, see the international organization as sovereign. Thus the implication of our desire to work without fresh UN blessing is somehow illegitimate.

Posted by: Knitting a Conundrum at April 8, 2003 09:39 PM

Eschew Obfuscation,

I have no problem with multiple justications. In fact, had you read closely, you would see that was the case. In fact, the specific criticism of my post was the "muddled message," not the fact that there may be numerous justifications for such. So please, read carefully in the future. :)

DSmith,

I hate to break it to you, but the UN did not come into existance until 1945, and it was created by the US and the UK. And from what I've seen of the article, the UN is not claiming that only it can legitimize the actions of the US, though the International Atomic Energy Agency's head is claiming that the UN inspectors must be granted access to verify violations. Quite frankly you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:41 PM

I agree that the UN is a joke and by and large untrustworthy, but imagine the PR victory if the goofs that ran around without finding anything came out and verified that Iraq was in possession of WMD. Of course, knowing these people, they would likely use that discovery to say, "See, if we only had like, 1 or 5 more years we might have found that and averted this human catastrophe, and kept Saddam in power (consequently keeping Chirac happy)" Most of the people that are opposing the Coalition will find a reason no matter what happens, but UN "approval" just might win over enough to tip the scales of world opinion.

Posted by: C. A. Morgan at April 8, 2003 09:42 PM

Spin it some more, Gary, but please spare me the condescension.

" hate to break it to you, but the UN did not come into existance until 1945..."

Weh, duh. Exactly. There is nothing about the UN that makes them the keepers of Holy Writ. They are not inevitable, or a force of nature. There were morals and ethics before the UN, and I dare say they'll be a darn sight more morals and ethics once the UN is gone, which is getting closer each day.

Posted by: DSmith at April 8, 2003 09:45 PM

DSmith,

Hmm, as both the US and Iraq are signatories of the treaty that created the IAEA, the US must honor at least inspections of suspect nuclear facilities. Furthermore, as the US used 1441 as one of its pretexts for war, it would seem rather strange that they would now turn UN inspectors back, since those inspectors are supposed to be there under 1441's writ. BTW, if you don't like the way I see things, that's fine. But don't make out like I am lieing about something. In other words, have the honesty and decency to accept that someone may have a principled disagreement with you, without accusing them of "spinning."

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:49 PM

And what is to stop the U.N. from playing games with the results in an attempt to embarass the U.S. ?

Not like there isn't a motive for such an act.

Posted by: Mean Dean at April 8, 2003 09:50 PM

Mean Dean,

Embarressment? The inspectors themselves, many of whom are American or British I might add?

You know its not like that the samples will be flown to Kofi Anan's office, and they'll do the work there. The UN inspectors would meet with their US/UK counterparts (military and non-military), and they would verify these sites together. In fact, they would likely be using the half-dozen mobile labs that the US has sent there to do this very work.

I think it is uproarious that people are commenting on this issue without having any understanding of how the process would actually work.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 09:57 PM

This seems like a reasonable request for me--not for the sake of international law, in which I personally don't believe, but for the sake of proving we have nothing to hide.

Other, independent observers would be a good idea, though. I'm not really paranoid enough to think that the U.N. would lie, but it'd be nice to have someone else checking the facts.

Posted by: me at April 8, 2003 10:16 PM

In fact, why don't we start with the unresolved issues that the inspectors had? Without Saddam's men breathing down everyone's back, I think we'd get some real answers from the scientists & so on.

Posted by: me at April 8, 2003 10:17 PM

Uproarious?

Did you just buy a thesaurus, Gary?

:-)

My feeling on this topic is that although the UN is a flawed institution, its confirmation of WMD would confer legitimacy that the coalition seeks and so of course we will provide access to UN inspectors. Our like or dislike of ElBaradei, and whatever he says, is beside the point. As Bill S. said, discretion is the better part of valor.

We flamed a lot of nations by going to war but there is no need to burn bridges.

Posted by: Big Rooster at April 8, 2003 10:18 PM

I think it's about time for Bush, Powell, AND Cheney to administer a collective bitch-slap to the U.N., and tell them to speak when they're spoken to...

Posted by: Reed at April 8, 2003 10:29 PM

My first reaction, admittedly, is a defiantly profane phrase. Upon further reflection, though, a question comes to mind.

Does anyone really think that those who think this war illegitimate to begin with will just change their minds with a couple of UN tests? I have my doubts, given the rather sharp language used to describe the military campaign by those in the UN thus far.

Plus, how will US and British "legitimacy" be enhanced by the approval of an organization made up of despots, dictators and few democracies?

Posted by: Slubgob at April 8, 2003 10:31 PM

Gary;

Feel free to sound as condecending as you want, but no matter what you say, I don't agree with this statement;

"Any test results would have to be verified by the United Nations weapons inspectors to generate the required credibility," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters through a spokesman.

As inneficient as the IAEA has proven to be, they should just be considered a 3rd party when it comes to verifying found materials. I don't mind them sending it to them, but I do mind ElBaradie's attitude that he and his group can "bless results" or that they are impremateur in these matters.

As a scientist myself, I don't grant credibility to studies by name alone. That is unless the scientific method has been changed. Send it to more scientists and organizations, but don't make the IAEA and the UN more special than they want to be.

If that's uniformed and ignorant, please don't bother replying to dribble by the peons like me. Thanks.

Posted by: ElCapitanAmerica at April 8, 2003 10:39 PM

El Capitan America,

Argument from expertise is hardly a argument at all.

I think since 1441 is a pretext for this war, and the administration has said as much, claiming it gives them all the international authority they need, and as part of 1441's writ UN inspectors are required to verify disarmament, it would be rather duplicitous to now claim 1441 is no longer relevant. And apparently the US administration is not doing that. They are inviting these inspectors in to do the work that 1441 requires. It is 1441, which the US voted for I might, that gives these inspectors their mandate. The only people that appear to be arguing against this of course are the chorus of people here who happen to use this issue as a stalking horse for their animus toward the UN. The Bush administration appears to have no issue with the inspectors doing the work they need to do in Iraq.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 11:35 PM

Slubgob,

Most of the members of the UN are democracies of one variety or another. You know, if you actually listended to Bush's speeches, you'd know this. He's often commented on the spread of democracy in Eastern Europe, Latin America, East Asia, etc.

Posted by: Gary Gunnels at April 8, 2003 11:38 PM

Hmm, as both the US and Iraq are signatories of the treaty that created the IAEA, the US must honor at least inspections of suspect nuclear facilities.

Any why must that necessarily be? I'm aware of no treaty granting the IAEA sole authority over international nuclear matters -- that notion is silly, in fact... how do you justify the US negotiating nuclear-control treaties with other contries?

Furthermore, as the US used 1441 as one of its pretexts for war, it would seem rather strange that they would now turn UN inspectors back, since those inspectors are supposed to be there under 1441's writ.

The confusion is solely yours, and concerns the role of the inspectors. You pretend the IAEA was there to discover a nuclear program, whereas they were there -- by SCR 1441's requirements -- to verify Iraq's statements regarding their disarmament and nothing more. They have no role in Iraq at the moment -- Iraq violated the terms of SCR 1441, it was proven in many ways, and the Coalition is applying the promised "serious consequences" under SCR 1441... and so the IAEA has no further responsibilities under SCR 1441.

Are we all clear now?

Posted by: Troy at April 9, 2003 04:40 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: