Killing the messenger - the death of UNMOVIC

[KafirChobee]

"The US invasion of Iraq proved that the UN's intel - overruled by the Bush administration - had indeed been correct: Saddam no longer had WMDs." [Newsweek, July 16 - edition] Neither the Bushys or the Blairys were thrilled - especially since their conspiriatorial compliance with proving that Saddam had WMDs and ergo we had to invade Iraq to save the free world from his insanity (not theirs - which is what we ought to have been concerned about) failed. And, now we have Mothers without their sons, sons without their fathers ... etc.

Well, we certainly can't allow a professional group of inspectors running around willing to disprove "the" Superpower" and his lap dog wrong ... can we? So, they killed the only organization with the professionals and ability to actually prove or disprove whether or nor a nation is abiding by the rules of the UN ... sorta forgot about "the greatleader" over there in N.Korea - whom is suppose to assure they will stay within the guidelines established by the UN (the superpower).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-29-UN-Iraq-weapons_N.htm

Now, Yahoo has a pretty decent story there - but it's a bugaboo to link it - for me, so try the Google (everything you type HomeLandSecurity knows) and type UNMOVIC ... you'll get it.

The vindictiveness of this is not what bothers me. What does is the arrogance and ignorance of it - how does this improve our ability to combat rouge nations or terrorism? Not that I have any doubt about destroying the only organization that knew how to inspect or find WMDs in rogue nations is a bad thing - I mean when it allows the Superpower and its lapdog to say anything, what could possilbly be wrong with that?

God bless America (and Britain) - screw the truth.
:inquisitive:

[Xiahou]

Wasn't the only point of UNMOVIC and it's predecessor UNSCOM to search for WMDs in Iraq? It seems kind of wasteful to keep forcing the current Iraqi government to be forced to give up what little oil revenue it currently has to fund a group that was supposed to be monitoring the Hussein regime.

Disbanding it seems like a reasonable idea.

[PanzerJaeger]

So you feel we should still be looking for WMDs in Iraq, Kaf? :beam:

[Husar]

Yeah, makes no sense, after all Bush already admitted that he lied about the WMDs in Iraq.

[Gregoshi]

Maybe OJ Simpson can get on the trail of the missing WMD after he finds his wife's killer...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wasn't the only point of UNMOVIC and it's predecessor UNSCOM to search for WMDs in Iraq? It seems kind of wasteful to keep forcing the current Iraqi government to be forced to give up what little oil revenue it currently has to fund a group that was supposed to be monitoring the Hussein regime.

Disbanding it seems like a reasonable idea.


Kaf is a political leftie, X-man.

From that perspective, disbanding any organ of government is incorrect, since the political left views this as a loss of capability -- remember, from that perspective, no private organ can provide an equivalent service.

From that perspective, disbanding UNMOVIC is incorrect since the correct response would be to expand it and change its mission to a more ongoing and more globally involved role.


Oh, and Bush and Blair had to have out-and-out lied about WMDs to foment a war of agression. Administrations never make poor decisions or allow themselves to become subject to groupthink or any of the other perils of decision-making in complex and imperfectly informed environments. Only actively evil intent is a permissable explanation.


Really, X-man, you need to get up to speed here.....


:cheesy:

[Papewaio]

Aside:

I think there has to be a correlation between the size of an entity, how long it has lasted and bloat.

As a rule of thumb it readily applies to companies, government (local, state and federal) and software.

I have to work with a large multinational corporate apparatus lets just call it MCA. It has so many middle level managers that require approval and sign off to get changes done it reminds me of working with the local council for job permits.

So for me it isn't if it is private or public. It is if the people I deal with are accountable and capable and the larger the organisation the easier it is to hide those who are neither.

[KafirChobee]

First, I am liberal when it concerns individual rights and the right for all to have an equal opportunity to succeed; conservative when it come to limited Federal government and a ballanced budget. I'm extremely liberal when it comes to controlling business practices (I'm for a maximun wage for CEOs, say 100times the wage of their minimum wage employee) - and encouraging minority involvement in government.
______________________________

That said, I brought this up more because there remains a need for such an organization - though no longer in Iraq where it was created for (after that other one - UNSCOM, guess they weren't playing by US rules either. i.e. rubber stamping) - its trained investigators are an asset that needs to be maintained (400 people - hardly a swelling bureaucracy). Firing them makes no sense - unless it is in retaliation for being right about Saddam not having WMDs.

Change the name, put them on retainer - but, dismissing this asset is absurd. Sooner, than later the UN will need such an investigative body. So, why give 'em up?

I realize how much we (Americans) like to reinvent the wheel - it's time to get over it and live with the results.


BTW, Bush and Blair did out and out lie - y'all know? It's common knowledge - there was no threat of WMDs in Iraq - and they knew it. We went to war because Chen-Rum wanted Bushy too, they had a score to settle. It was BS. This UN organization is not.