1441 was a UN resolution, not a US resolution. It was not within the legimate domain of the US to define the consequences of non-compliance.
Quite right dys. Moreover 1441 was hailed as a triumph passed 15:0 with even Syria on board. How did they win the Syrian vote? By refering only to "serious consequences", not war, and by making it abundantly clear that military action would only be legitimised by the UN if the Security Coucil passed another resolution specifically authorising force.
[Actually this is ancient history and well documented, there can't be anyone around who takes an interest in these things who doesn't know this]
But on the historical thread:
It is exactly a year ago since the British Government published its now notorious document "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction".
This fraudulent attempt to scare enough people into voting for a war which had already been decided upon will forever shame those responsible.
Among its several preposterous claims was that Saddam could launch an attack using WMD within 45 minutes, with intermediate range missiles capable of striking British bases in Cyprus.
The headline in the London evening standard that day was '45 MINUTES FROM ATTACK'. People got scared - I remember. They bought bottled water. Tanks were deployed around Heathrow. RAF Tornado aircraft patrolled the skies. People saw this and wondered and worried and didn't use the tube.
AND IT WORKED! Who was going to say "I don’t believe you Mr Blair, you are either mistaken or you are lying " - well of course some did - and got the reply "you may believe or not believe but it's me that has to make the hard decisions and I'm not going to take that risk".
So the Attorney General pronounced it legal to launch an attack on Iraq (provided it was strictly within the bounds of disarming that country and removing the threat).
And MPs were impressed or frightened or intimidated and duly voted for war.
Thus did Tony Blair make it possible to deliver on his earlier promise to Bush to commit British forces alongside the Americans
Inspectors were stopped at the gates of facilities they were trying to evaluate; Saddam threatened his scientists against speaking to UNMOVIC representatives, and then said they had to do so with Iraqi 'proctors' standing by (see: death threat); inspectors were spied on and had their rooms bugged... Saddam only allowed what he did, because of Bush's military presence in the Gulf--and he was actively working to thwart open inspections.
I won't forget the Iraqi scientist, who was dragged screaming from an inspectors vehicle, and never seen again.
That is not compliance.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Quite right dys. Moreover 1441 was hailed as a triumph passed 15:0 with even Syria on board. How did they win the Syrian vote? By refering only to "serious consequences", not war, and by making it abundantly clear that military action would only be legitimised by the UN if the Security Coucil passed another resolution specifically authorising force.
[Actually this is ancient history and well documented, there can't be anyone around who takes an interest in these things who doesn't know this]
Ooooooooooooh yes there can....
Steveoo, what is the reaction to the Pilger documentary on the British street?
PDiddie wrote:Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Quite right dys. Moreover 1441 was hailed as a triumph passed 15:0 with even Syria on board. How did they win the Syrian vote? By refering only to "serious consequences", not war, and by making it abundantly clear that military action would only be legitimised by the UN if the Security Coucil passed another resolution specifically authorising force.
[Actually this is ancient history and well documented, there can't be anyone around who takes an interest in these things who doesn't know this]
Ooooooooooooh yes there can....
Steveoo, what is the reaction to the Pilger documentary on the British street?
That's a good question, moreover, what is the reaction from other media, does it have any credence or not?
Sopia, the way I remember it the only obstacle to resuming inspections was dubya. Who knows, had he let the inspections go on, what he might have found ......
hoisted on his own petard? Sounds like it....
Thundering silence in the US media (and on this board, too, I might add).
Here's what the
Guardian said, yesterday:
Quote:There were two excellent programmes on last night revealing truths about the war in Iraq - and, in a scheduling disaster that's the TV equivalent of friendly fire, they were on at the same time. It was a bit like all those times that a coalition bomb hits a civilian target; everyone says it's an accident, but you just never believe them. Obviously both the BBC and ITV thought that their truth was better than the opposition's, and didn't want anyone to watch both.
ITV1's Breaking the Silence: A Special Report by John Pilger was an astonishing piece of television that should be required viewing in every home, school and office. With facts bristling from his fingertips, Pilger revised the Bush/Blair version of events leading up to the conquest of Iraq to reveal an agenda of unprovoked aggression, excused and obscured by ruthless manipulation of September 11. Mr Blair's cod-Churchillian rhetoric about "freedom and justice" sounded more hollow than ever against images of devastated civilian lives in Kabul and Baghdad. Mr Bush's wild claim that "the United States of America is a friend to the Iraqi people" lacked that ring of truth when we'd seen screaming infants with limbs blown off.
The film's high points came when Pilger confronted the beady-eyed apologists of the Washington regime. One Douglas Feith, an undersecretary of defence, denied Pilger's evidence of civilian casualties, denied the fact that the US and the UK had supplied arms to Iraq, and seemed ready to deny that fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly until he was stopped by a sinister, unseen military minder. Others squirmed under the lash of Pilger's research, but were unshakeable in their faith in America's divine right to be right.
Pilger is good at confrontation; he doesn't lose his cool, and he has the gimlet glare of a man who knows he's right. His arsenal of facts was awesome. We saw footage of Colin Powell in February 2001 saying that Saddam Hussein had not developed weapons of mass destruction, nor had he rebuilt his military power. The US had originally funded and supported the Taliban. There were no links between Iraq and al-Qaida. There was no 45-minute capability. Even a former CIA man admitted the pretext for war was "a charade".
Breaking the Silence ended with a rallying cry. There are only two superpowers left, said Pilger: the USA, and worldwide public opinion. "If we remain silent, victory over us is assured." Perhaps ITV1 would now like to repeat this programme at prime time, and start sharing the burden of the government's hatred with the BBC.
What annoys me about the war is that having been conned into it, we are kidding ourselves that the objectives have been achieved.
We have failed to disarm Iraq.
We have failed to kill or capture Saddam.
We have failed to establish a free and democratic Iraq.
We have failed to improve the lot of the ordinary Iraqi.
We have failed to repair the infrastructure
We have failed to pump the oil.
We have failed to legitimise the war
We have failed to get significant international support
We have failed to follow through on a middle east peace settlement
We have failed to decrease the threat from international terrorism
We have failed to get capital flowing into Iraq
This unnecessary, illegal, immoral, expensive and fraudulent adventure which was founded on a lie, is descending into chaos and ignominy. [Just as the French predicted]
Sofia
I stand by the points I made. And I have every right to be impatient.
Rumsfeld actually wanted to use less troops, believing all we had to do was knock on the door and a grateful Iraqi populace would let us in.
We were told Iraq had WMD. No ifs or buts. No talk of potential programmes. They had them, they were aiming them at us, and they could fire them in 45 minutes. Now if they definitely positively existed, but we have failed to find them or destroy them, how do you support your idea that we have disarmed Iraq? Moreover, with Saddam and his henchmen still around somewhere the situation is potentially just as dangerous as it was pre-war. Unless you concede that there never were any WMD in the first place in which case the war was launched under a fraudulent pretext.
Steve
The state of Iraq no longer has the means to launch conventional or non-conventional attacks on...anyone. In effect, disarmed.
Sofia wrote:Steve
The state of Iraq no longer has the means to launch conventional or non-conventional attacks on...anyone. In effect, disarmed.
that's true. It is also dis-utilitied, dis-freedomed, dis-opportunity to not get shot by random American soldiered, dis-women can walk down the streets by themselved, dis-employmented, and dis-tigers in the zoo don't have to worry about penetrating lead poisoninged. What progress! woo-hooo. Go USA!
Very recent poll reveals 62% of Iraqis say the risks and problems resulting from the removal of Saddam are worth the benefits.
A forty-something minority say thay are better off now than during Saddam, but the number jumps to the 60's, when the question is "Do you think your life will be better than during Saddam in five years?"
They are smart enough to know stablizing a country takes a little time.
Sofia wrote:Steve
The state of Iraq no longer has the means to launch conventional or non-conventional attacks on...anyone. In effect, disarmed.
um, tell that to the families of the dead US soldiers.
Shroeder just finished glorifying Bush. They met in the WH, Shroeder gave a glowing "Thank you" to Bush for his progress in Iraq, and Bush said the problems between Germany and the US are over.
Guess he's in line with the Resolution....
littlek wrote:Sofia wrote:Steve
The state of Iraq no longer has the means to launch conventional or non-conventional attacks on...anyone. In effect, disarmed.
um, tell that to the families of the dead US soldiers.
I'm sure the families of our service personnel, who have been killed are very aware that their loved one gave their life in the disarmament of Iraq. Its the bands of terrorists, now, who still have small arms. The state of Iraq, however, has been disarmed. That was Steve's statement, and what my remark responds to.
Sofia wrote:Steve
The state of Iraq no longer has the means to launch conventional or non-conventional attacks on...anyone. In effect, disarmed.
Has anyone stopped to think that they were disarmed even before the war ????
Sofia wrote:Shroeder just finished glorifying Bush. They met in the WH, Shroeder gave a glowing "Thank you" to Bush for his progress in Iraq, and Bush said the problems between Germany and the US are over.
Guess he's in line with the Resolution....
Now Chirac is isolated, probably the plan.
