The US, The UN and Iraq

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt

Kara wrote

perception, did we really think Iraq had no weapons to defend their country? I wonder how many of those drones the US has..

We have many but ours are not fitted to dispense chemicals.

You're equating the assertion that the overseas press is less 'U.S.-centric', and hence probably more objective and reliable on some matters, to making wild accusations of conspiracy. Sort of a disingenuous and imho, juvenile ploy.

Percy

You missed the point I was making, which was entirely frivolous but I thought quite funny. (Probably due to you guys speaking a most peculiar version of english)

You said these drones dispense chemicals. I think you meant disperse chemicals. In the UK a dispensing chemist is a pharmacy or drug store. Hence my remark about flying pharmacies.

I've no doubt Iraq possesses UAVs and probably weaponised VX. If Saddam manages to slaughter thousands of our young servicemen and women, how are you going to face their loved ones and say "Sorry, we couldn't wait for Blix and the UN, we had to go when we did, otherwise the President's re-election timetable would have been compromised".

Hiama

Do you think GW Bush has heard of Franklin D Roosevelt?

Steve

You disperse a crowd---but you dispense chemicals----perhaps a better choice of words would be "to spray" chemicals as in "crop sprayer". The snobish tendency of the British to get "hung up" on semantics is not surprising. I'm a great admirer of you British, especially your Prime Minister but your persistent faulty reasoning is a mystery to me.

As in your reference to Saddams using Chemicals to "slaughter" our service people. Should we wait until he has manufactured several thousand of these drones and shipped them all over the world with the chemicals. You admit he has the chemicals but yet waiting will somehow accomplish something worth waiting for.

You "miss the POINT" and that is this----the inspectors are not there to "find" anything. They are there to verify that Saddam is not in compliance with UN 1441. They have already proven he is not. BTW we are not making a pre-emptive strike---we are finishing a war that Saddam started in 1990.

Not the most reliable news source (!) but do you doubt a word of it??...
GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation.Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.
A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address.
"His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.
"I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen."
Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.
It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.
The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12713155&method=full&siteid=50143


...The Dutch ambassador to the United States was recently quoted in the Washington Post as saying he is concerned about a "monopoly of power without checks and balances. Self-assertiveness and an arrogance of power, that is a troubling thing."
In fact, the Dutch ambassador is wrong: there are checks and balances, and we are now seeing them start to work. The failure of American strategy, and America's growing self-isolation, are guaranteed so long as Washington aspires to world hegemony. The very nature of the international state system assures our quest for universal monarchy will fail, the same way all have failed. And our "unbeatable" military will find itself beaten, just as the Spanish army was beaten at Rocroi, by someone it thought would be a pushover.
The real question is not whether the American drive for world hegemony will succeed; it will not. The question is why we are attempting it in the first place. http://www.counterpunch.org/lind03082003.html

Who's got WMD's?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/wmdmap4.jpeg

Blair sets out final terms to avoid war
·Saddam ordered to destroy hundreds of Scud and chemicals missiles ·PM 'will get backing' for Iraq ultimatum ·Ministers threaten to quit http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,910684,00.html

UN launches inquiry into American spying
Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 9, 2003
The Observer

The United Nations has begun a top-level investigation into the bugging of its delegations by the United States, first revealed in The Observer last week.
Sources in the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan confirmed last night that the spying operation had already been discussed at the UN's counter-terrorism committee and will be further investigated.
The news comes as British police confirmed the arrest of a 28-year-old woman working at the top secret Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act.
Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq....
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,910567,00.html

US lets N. Korea get nuclear data
Transfer pact stays in effect
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 3/7/2003 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has not suspended or revoked the authority of Westinghouse Co. to transfer documents related to nuclear technology to North Korea, despite the fact that the Asian nation has admitted that it violated terms of a nonproliferation agreement it signed with Washington in 1994, US Department of Energy documents show.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/066/nation/US_lets_N_Korea_get_nuclear_data+.shtml

.

Labour MP to quit Government post over Iraq
Mar 9 2003


Prime Minister Tony Blair has received the first Government resignation over the Iraqi crisis.

Andrew Reed, the Labour MP for Loughborough, has confirmed he is quitting as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett.

He is one of several PPSs identified as objecting to British troops taking part in military action against Iraq in the absence of a second UN resolution.

However, Mr Reed stresses he does not want to undermine Mr Blair's efforts to resolve the Iraqi crisis through the UN.

In a statement on his website, the MP says he will step down from his post formally tomorrow and will post a statement explaining why.

Mr Reed said: "I will set out my full reasons for resigning, but I fully support the Prime Minister in his efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis through the UN route and I do not want to do anything that undermines that effort at this stage."

"I am not a pacifist with woolly thinking about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but I have not been convinced that the 'doing something' is going to war.

"The threat of military action has got us this far, and needs to remain in place, but more time needs to be given to moving to a peaceful settlement, even with limited military action if needed."

He added: "But not war in my name at this time."

The wind in a man's face makes him wise - hoping that this will happen to Blair,
since:

Didn't see your previous post, ul. :wink:

Another link from good old BBC:

'Bag carriers' threat to Blair

Slinking back into the room, with stealth, and slithering of some body parts{/size]

So, where is the bloody radar?

I know, I know, just testing that waters here to see if I am still welcome.

QUESTION: If Bush is as incompetent and foolish as many of you insist----why is it that we have not witnessed mass defections of his cabinet with Powell being the first to go?????

This is in reference to the resignation of one of Mr Blairs "bag carriers.

BTW---over here we call them "horse holders".

Instead of defections----Colin Powell has "hardened" his position on the UN and Iraq.

Sumac
You are welcome--friend or foe---but as I remember you came down off the fence on the "right" side.

There are some very good posts and links on the last few pages. Particular thanks to tartarin and ul.

perception...caught your little 'drones over Canada' rib, and it got a good laugh. But you ought to take somewhat to heart what some of us are trying to explain regarding differences between US media and 'outside' or international media.

Another interesting article from the NYT. c.i.
**************************************

The Xanax Cowboy
March 9, 2003
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON - You might sum up the president's call to war
Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion,
bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound
rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he
seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to
pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not
involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type
organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda
types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of
us. (It's really scary to think we are even scaring Russia
and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of
us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So
they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to
make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing
us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North
Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to
cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of
vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't
attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our
planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing Al Qaeda
(like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his
lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for
terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting
Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the
chances of Islamic terrorists' snatching catastrophic
weapons. That is why no cost - shattering the U.N., NATO,
the European alliance, Tony Blair's career and the U.S.
budget - is too high.

Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at
moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly
what I'm going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend
the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand
on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I
am going to do."

But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was
exploitative, given that the administration concedes there
is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing
that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at
Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying
cry, `Remember 9/11' ranks with `Remember the Maine' of
1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of
1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality"
TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed
out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe
Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll,
55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping
reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his
base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian
Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the
post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and
limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America's
primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to
liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After
Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a
relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear
threats.

And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox
News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of
principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials -
Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and
Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41's realpolitik and shaping what
would become 43's pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a
"Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,"
with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes
hostile to our interests and values."

Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America
could impose its will on the world.

With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan.
With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into
their old dreams.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09DOWD.html?ex=1048216792&ei=1&en=007b87e04d3e323b

ketchup is a vegetable.

Turkish Leader Sweeps By - Elections

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Turkey-Elections.html

..."Erdogan has advocated basing the U.S. troops in Turkey and analysts say one of his first moves as premier may be to purge ministers opposed to a U.S. deployment...."

Perception wrote

"Steve

You disperse a crowd---but you dispense chemicals----perhaps a better choice of words would be "to spray" chemicals as in "crop sprayer". The snobish tendency of the British to get "hung up" on semantics is not surprising. I'm a great admirer of you British, especially your Prime Minister but your persistent faulty reasoning is a mystery to me".

I was making a joke, you know, employing a little wit. I wasn't hung up over semantics. I've said many times that there is logic to war, and I am not against war per se. But I am against war if alternatives have not been exhausted - these are not my words - but of the Germans French Russians Chinese and of Dr Blix himself.

"As in your reference to Saddams using Chemicals to "slaughter" our service people. Should we wait until he has manufactured several thousand of these drones and shipped them all over the world with the chemicals. You admit he has the chemicals but yet waiting will somehow accomplish something worth waiting for".

I don't believe Iraq's illegal weapons programmes are anything other than contained with UN inspectors in the country. If Saddam was to ship drones and chemical agents to other countries with a view to a pre emptive strike, I think we could intercept them before they were used against us. Further that would be a clear hostile act by Iraq and would justify war whether the UAVs were used or not.

"You "miss the POINT" and that is this----the inspectors are not there to "find" anything. They are there to verify that Saddam is not in compliance with UN 1441. They have already proven he is not. BTW we are not making a pre-emptive strike---we are finishing a war that Saddam started in 1990".

I accept the inspectors job is not to find weapons, but to verify the disarmament process. Dr Blix has said that even with Iraq's full willing and unqualified compliance, the process will take several months. I'll grant that deploying 200000 troops around Iraq has produced a change in attitude in Saddam. But whilst Blix reports Iraqi co operation, let that process continue. I really don't understand why the rush to war now...that is illogical to me. (The only reason I can think of is that it conforms with Bush's re election time table).

Very interesting story about Erdogan becoming the new Prime Minister however I personally hope any last ditch effort to persuade Turkey to allow use of their base for a northern front, fails.

We do not want Turkish troops entering northern Iraq. It would be seen by the Kurds as a compromise to gain Turkish support and could cause a nasty ethnic confrontation between Turkey and the Kurds of Iraq.

I hope Plan B is far enough along that Turkish bases are not needed and therefore the Turks would have absolutely no right to enter norther Iraq. This is where diplomatic relations between former allies becomes very very complicated. I say leave the Turks out in the cold but of course you will all agree I am not much of a diplomat.

As far back as October, there were 20,000 + Turkish troops already in N Iraq

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg01869.html