Serious Consequences?

[Reginald]

Ok they all signed up to Resolution 1441 Pertaining to the disarmament of Iraq.

Whatever side of the pro-war/anti-war arguement you are on, what do fellow posters understand as the definition of "Serious consequences"?

[Skeptical Greg]

1 Week with no video games & no TV.

( It looks like it's going to be a slow night..)

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Reginald
Ok they all signed up to Resolution 1441 Pertaining to the disarmament of Iraq.

Whatever side of the pro-war/anti-war arguement you are on, what do fellow posters understand as the definition of "Serious consequences"?
They should get the same sort of swift, effective justice Microsoft got when it was convicted of using its OS monopoly to do all kinds of damage in the computing markets.

[Reginald]

Maybe I worded that badly or maybe its just a crap post.

I was simply wondering how all these countries can sign up to a resolution and yet all seem to have separate ideas of the "incentive" is for compliance.

If you take both extremes, you have "use of force" at one end and "Do nothing at all" at the other.

My own view is force with full UN backing, where that lies in the spectrum of interpretation, I would imagine, is just a bit less aggresive than the UK gov.

So where in this spectrum, do consequences cease to be serious?

Extended inspections? still serious in my view if it hampers Iraqs future ability.

As we are at this moment? Could affect Iraq given sufficient time although the limited number of inspectors would find it hard to stay that essential "one step ahead" of the Iraqis.

As we were 6 months ago? Sanctions very serious to the general populace, not so bothersome to the regime.

Oh well just curious of other peoples views on why all the countries that signed seem to have a differing interpretation now, or even at the time signing, but withheld comment. (kind of "Cross that bridge when we come to it")

Was it a badly drafted resolution?

Should the UK/US have specifically stated that they would use force?

Would we be where we are now, in that 1441 may not have been passed in the first place given the more specific statement of consequence?

Still I hope you get your Games sorted Diogenes. (bummer on a long winter evening)

:)

[Advocate]

It seems to me that passing a resolution with no teeth is foolish. I am beginning to think that this whole business of the UN is a waste of time. We are at a point now where it no longer matters what Iraq does or what it is shown to have already done, the two sides will remain the same.

[Richard G]

Serious consequences
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1a1-tank.jpg

[The Don]

Originally posted by Reginald
Maybe I worded that badly or maybe its just a crap post.

**
**Nooooo shurely not
**

I was simply wondering how ........ng, but withheld comment. (kind of "Cross that bridge when we come to it")

Was it a badly drafted resolution?

**
** No, it was beautifully drafted to enable Fance, China, Russia and Syria to sign up to it
**

Should the UK/US have specifically stated that they would use force?

**
** No, because the wording allowed plausable deniability
**

Would we be where we are now, in that 1441 may not have been passed in the first place given the more specific statement of consequence?

**
** 1441 may have passed but not unanimously
**
:)

[ZeeGerman]

Finally someone asked...

In MY opinion:

Extend inspections with backup of armed forces (troops under UN mandate, backed by a UN resolution)
Use as many inspectors as it takes get a coherent picture, i.e. control all factories and transport routes.

This basically means that Saddam has to agree to a certain loss of souvereignty. Any violent obstruction of these inspections will be considered as an attack against the UN -> then the hammer falls.

This way, it would be Saddam to start armed aggression and I think the support for an invasion will be much broader.

Just my five pence

Zee

[Jon_in_london]

Finally someone brought this up!

I dont think that anyone can reasonably deny that Iraq has really been 100% complying with UNMOVIC- accodring to Blix in fact!

So we are in the situation where Iraq must 'face serious consequences'.

I would agree to ZeeGermans idea. This meme has been kicking around in my nogin for a while now. Its not a full-on war so would generally not upset peoples so much but it does make it clear that if Saddam doesnt want to give 'em up- they will be taken and by force if neccesary.

If Iraq where to refuse this, it would be very hard to argue against a full-on shooting war.

[iain]

ZeeGerman's suggestion is the sort of idea I would agree with. If the West can send thousands of troops to wage war, those troops could also be used to enforce serious weapons inspections.

Having the troops on the ground would make it far more difficult to smuggle weapons out of Iraq and disarming, rather than attacking, Iraq is far less likely to inflame anti-US sentiment in the Arab world.

War is then retained as an option if Saddam does not cooperate.

[The Don]

I worry that in practice Saddam would be most unhappy to have a large force of U.S. troops rummaging round his country. He has brought up a number of times his assertion that the U.S. is engaged in espionage using the weapons inspectors.

Clearly the man is a paranoid delusionist, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get you. To have credibility the inspection force should have a greater non-U.S./U.K. component.

So by all means use the forces available, just a limited proportion of the U.S./U.K. contingent

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by The Don

Clearly the man is a paranoid delusionist, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get you. To have credibility the inspection force should have a greater non-U.S./U.K. component.

So by all means use the forces available, just a limited proportion of the U.S./U.K. contingent

Hes not paranoid!! they ARE out to get him!!!!!!!!!! :p

Agreed about the nationality of the contingents. I would like to see some more non-NATOids doing some work too.

[Alaric]

Didnt the US admit to using some of the weapons inspectors as recon the first time around?