0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2003 09:11 pm
The place is such a paradox. 115 billion barrel oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia ..... the people are realitive paupers. The oil is a curse that invites death and destruction.
Since the Gulf war 1,000,000 Iraqi civillians have been killed by invaders in the quest for oil ...... the atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed 140,000

Wouldn't you think that 200 billion put into an alternative energy program would be better spent?Death and destruction ...... it appears there is no way to turn around, or at least stop.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 06:28 am
Shortly before the two car bombs exploded in front of the CIA-HQs in Bagdad, the Turkish press published this online:
Quote:

General Staff to Give Briefing on Iraq Issue
TURKEY, October 12, 2003 - Turkey's General Staff is planning a press conference for tomorrow to inform the public about the deployment of Turkish soldiers to Iraq.

It is expected that the press conference will outline the latest development in talks with the US, details on where Turkish soldiers will serve, how they will get there, and a preliminary schedule of operations.

There are significant disagreements between the US and Turkish side on these issues. The Americans oppose the presence of Turkish forces Northern Iraq, fearing conflict with the Kurdish population.

Thus, general public opinion reflects a certain amount of confusion as to what Turkish soldiers are supposed to do.

Meanwhile, the 28th Mechanized Infantry Brigade, already engaged in many other international missions, has been called up for service in Iraq.

Based in Ankara-Mamak and also known as the 'Peacekeeping Brigade', the 28th Mechanized Infantry Brigade has hastened their preparations after parliament's approval of the troop deployment motion.

aa / / TURKEY
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 05:06 pm
Again, I have to wonder if they are trying to make more enemies.collective punishment
Quote:
US soldiers bulldoze farmers' crops
Americans accused of brutal 'punishment' tactics against villagers, while British are condemned as too soft
By Patrick Cockburn in Dhuluaya
12 October 2003

US soldiers driving bulldozers, with jazz blaring from loudspeakers, have uprooted ancient groves of date palms as well as orange and lemon trees in central Iraq as part of a new policy of collective punishment of farmers who do not give information about guerrillas attacking US troops.

The stumps of palm trees, some 70 years old, protrude from the brown earth scoured by the bulldozers beside the road at Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad. Local women were yesterday busily bundling together the branches of the uprooted orange and lemon trees and carrying then back to their homes for firewood.

Nusayef Jassim, one of 32 farmers who saw their fruit trees destroyed, said: "They told us that the resistance fighters hide in our farms, but this is not true. They didn't capture anything. They didn't find any weapons."

Other farmers said that US troops had told them, over a loudspeaker in Arabic, that the fruit groves were being bulldozed to punish the farmers for not informing on the resistance which is very active in this Sunni Muslim district.

"They made a sort of joke against us by playing jazz music while they were cutting down the trees," said one man. Ambushes of US troops have taken place around Dhuluaya. But Sheikh Hussein Ali Saleh al-Jabouri, a member of a delegation that went to the nearby US base to ask for compensation for the loss of the fruit trees, said American officers described what had happened as "a punishment of local people because 'you know who is in the resistance and do not tell us'." What the Israelis had done by way of collective punishment of Palestinians was now happening in Iraq, Sheikh Hussein added.

The destruction of the fruit trees took place in the second half of last month but, like much which happens in rural Iraq, word of what occurred has only slowly filtered out. The destruction of crops took place along a kilometre-long stretch of road just after it passes over a bridge.

Farmers say that 50 families lost their livelihoods, but a petition addressed to the coalition forces in Dhuluaya pleading in erratic English for compensation, lists only 32 people. The petition says: "Tens of poor families depend completely on earning their life on these orchards and now they became very poor and have nothing and waiting for hunger and death."

The children of one woman who owned some fruit trees lay down in front of a bulldozer but were dragged away, according to eyewitnesses who did not want to give their names. They said that one American soldier broke down and cried during the operation. When a reporter from the newspaper Iraq Today attempted to take a photograph of the bulldozers at work a soldier grabbed his camera and tried to smash it. The same paper quotes Lt Col Springman, a US commander in the region, as saying: "We asked the farmers several times to stop the attacks, or to tell us who was responsible, but the farmers didn't tell us."

Informing US troops about the identity of their attackers would be extremely dangerous in Iraqi villages, where most people are related and everyone knows each other. The farmers who lost their fruit trees all belong to the Khazraji tribe and are unlikely to give information about fellow tribesmen if they are, in fact, attacking US troops.

Asked how much his lost orchard was worth, Nusayef Jassim said in a distraught voice: "It is as if someone cut off my hands and you asked me how much my hands were worth."
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 05:34 pm
Whether or not the story is all there, Patrick Cockburn is not exactly what most folks would consider an objective, unbiased observer. His Anti-US, Anti-War, Anti-Chalabi, Anti-Israel sentiment is not hidden. Cockburn is very much for the immediate departure of Coalition Forces, the handing of all power to some undefined "legitimate" Iraqi Government, and the full oversight of reconstruction to be immediately assumed by the UN. Again, I'm not dismissing the story, or condoning actions such as portrayed therein. I just note that that is definitely a story in fitting with Cockburn's established style, and further that no other service seems to have picked up on the story, nor have corroborative details emerged under any other byline. Given its embarrassment value, I find that in itself informational. I'm familiar with Cockburn, and I see him more as a commentator, an editorialist, than as a journalist. He does not report the news, he presses an agenda. Of course, he's not alone in that, nor is the practice confined to those critical of The US or the current Iraq dispute. He's from that school, however, and sports his colors proudly.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 05:57 pm
Interesting comment about agendas, Timber......
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 06:02 pm
Never said I didn't have one ... we all do, really. I just don't share Cockburn's agenda ... and, again, I don't see him as a reporter. I don't claim to be a reporter ... If anyone can't figure out I mostly editorialize, they're not payin' much attention Laughing
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 07:03 pm
Hmmm...should I mention I saw the article on Commondreams first, then went to the "real" article just to make sure it said the same thing?Wink
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 07:38 pm
OK....if the presentation is flawed ... the way the content is presented, that would make the content invalid?

It was Schneider's birthday, and that morning there was a knock on the door. "Telegram!" He opened the door excitedly, "Is it a singing telegram?" Schneider asked the messenger boy. "No Sir. We don't do singing telegrams anymore." "I've always wanted a singing telegram. Can't you bend the rules and make an old man happy?" "Sorry." "Please," begged Schneider. "Today's my birthday." "Oh, all right," said the boy, "Dah-dah dah... dah-dah-dah, your sister Rose is dead!"

-----------------------------
George the blogger??????


Home > News > Latest News > Article

8 October 2003
George W Bush weblog launches

The Bush-Cheney 2004 Presidential campaign now has its own official weblog - and guess what? The regularly-updated diary seems to run on the open source weblogging software, Movable Type.

Although weblogs are often used as an opportunity for writers to post interesting links and opinions, many regard the Bush-Cheney weblog as a series of tacked-together press releases made to look like a weblog.

There's also no opportunity to comment under each post - usually part of what weaves weblogs together.

Whatever your opinion, there's no doubt that once the President himself has a blog, weblogging has gone mainstream.

In the months after September 11, a rash of Conservative weblogs - known as 'warblogs' - appeared. But it's taken this long for Dubya's PR people to give him one he can call his own.

We wonder when Arnold Schwarzenegger will start one?
www.georgewbush.com/blog

MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2003 07:56 pm
Quote:
Although weblogs are often used as an opportunity for writers to post interesting links and opinions, many regard the Bush-Cheney weblog as a series of tacked-together press releases made to look like a weblog.

Not unlike Dean's, or Gephardt's ... apart from noticeably more decorum.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 12:43 am
What the CIA Actually Said Aboiut Iraq's Weapons Programs

Quote:
Unclassified Report to Congress
on the Acquisition of Technology
Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,

1 January Through 30 June 2002


Iraq

During the reporting period, Baghdad continued to deny UN inspectors entry into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687 and subsequent Council resolutions, and no UN inspections took place during the first half of 2002. Moreover, the automated video monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq were not operating during this period. Furthermore, Iraq has engaged in extensive concealment efforts and has used the period since it refused inspections to attempt to reconstitute prohibited programs.

Nuclear. More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs.

Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf war that focused on building an implosion-type weapon using highly enriched uranium. Baghdad was attempting a variety of uranium enrichment techniques, the most successful of which were the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) and gas centrifuge programs. After its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq initiated a crash program to divert IAEA-safeguarded, highly enriched uranium from its Soviet- and French-supplied reactors, but the onset of hostilities ended this effort. Iraqi declarations and the UNSCOM/IAEA inspection process revealed much of Iraq's nuclear weapons efforts.

Baghdad, however, still has not provided complete information on all aspects of its nuclear weapons program. Iraq has withheld significant details relevant to its nuclear program, including procurement logs, technical documents, experimental data, accounting of materials, and foreign assistanceBaghdad probably uses some of the money it gains through its illicit oil sales to support its WMD efforts.Iraq retained its cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, its program documentation, and sufficient dual-use manufacturing capabilities to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi media have reported numerous meetings between Saddam and nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling Baghdad's continuing interest in reviving a nuclear program.
Iraq's expanding international trade provided growing access to nuclear-related technology and materials and potential access to foreign nuclear expertise. An increase in dual-use procurement activity in recent years may be supporting a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. The acquisition of sufficient fissile material is Iraq's principal hurdle in developing a nuclear weapon. Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear device until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad.

Missile. Iraq has developed a ballistic missile capability that exceeds the 150 kilometer range limitation established under UNSCR 687. During the 1980s, Iraq purchased 819 Scud B missiles from the USSR. Hundreds of these 300 km range missiles were used to attack Iranian cities during the Iran-Iraq War. Beginning in 1987, Iraq converted many of these Soviet Scuds into extended-range variants, some of which were fired at Tehran; some were launched during the Gulf war, and others remained in Iraq's inventory at war's end. Iraq admitted filling at least 75 of its Scud warheads with chemical or biological agents and deployed these weapons for use against Coalition forces and regional opponents, including Israel in 1991.
Most of the approximately 90 Scud-type missiles Saddam fired at Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain during the Gulf war were al-Husayn variants that the Iraqis modified by lengthening the airframe and increasing fuel capacity, extending the range to 650 km.

Baghdad was developing other longer-range missiles based on Scud technology, including the 900km al-Abbas. Iraq was designing follow-on multi-stage and clustered medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) concepts with intended ranges up to 3,000km. Iraq also had a program to develop a two-stage missile, called the Badr-2000, using solid-propellants with an estimated range of 750 to 1,000 km. Iraq never fully accounted for its existing missile programs. Discrepancies in Baghdad's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of extended-range Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads. Iraq has managed to rebuild and expand its missile development infrastructure under sanctions. Iraqi intermediaries have sought production technology, machine tools, and raw materials in violation of the arms embargo. The Iraqis have completed a new ammonium perchlorate production plant at Al-Mamoun that supports Iraq's solid propellant missile program. Ammonium perchlorate is a common oxidizer used in solid-propellant missile motors. Baghdad would not have been able to complete this facility without help from abroad. In August 1995, Iraq was caught trying to acquire sensitive ballistic missile guidance components, including gyroscopes originally used in Russian strategic nuclear submarine-launched ballistic missiles, demonstrating that Baghdad has been pursuing proscribed, advanced, long-range missile technology for some time. Iraqi officials admitted that, despite international prohibitions, they had received a similar shipment earlier that year.

Chemical. We believe that, since December 1998, Iraq has increased its capability to pursue chemical warfare (CW) programs. After both the Gulf war and Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Iraq rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as former dual-use CW production facilities and missile production facilities. Iraq has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. Since the suspension of UN inspections in December 1998, the risk of diversion of such equipment has increased. In addition, Iraq appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at CW-related facilities. Some of these facilities could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents.

UNSCOM reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq also continued to withhold information related to its CW program. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Iraqi Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s as had been declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have hidden an additional 6,000 CW munitions.
Biological. During this reporting period, Baghdad continued to pursue a BW program. Iraq in 1995 admitted to having an offensive BW program, but UNSCOM was unable to verify the full scope and nature of Iraq's efforts. UNSCOM assessed that Iraq was maintaining a knowledge base and industrial infrastructure that could be used to produce quickly a large amount of BW agents at any time. In addition, Iraq has continued dual-use research that could improve BW agent R&D capabilities. In light of Iraq's growing industrial self-sufficiency and the availability of mobile or possible covert facilities, we are concerned that Iraq is again producing BW agents.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. Iraq continued to pursue an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program that converted L-29 jet trainer aircraft originally acquired from Eastern Europe. In the past, Iraq conducted flights of the L-29, possibly to test system improvements or to train new pilots. We suspect that these refurbished trainer aircraft have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents. Iraq is also developing and testing smaller UAVs, some of which are well suited for dispensing chemical and biological agents.Iraq aggressively continues to seek advanced conventional warfare (ACW) equipment and technology. A thriving gray arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles. Iraq also acquires some dual-use and production items that have applications in the ACW arena through the Oil For Food program.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 04:32 am
Timber, show me the bomb .....

Psilocybe mushrooms grow in cow dung ..... Psilocybe is illegal ....
By your logic a person could be arrested and put in prison for a pocket full of bull ****.
Sounds a lot like 'thought crimes' huh

Show me the bomb
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 04:57 am
Palms and Punishment...
Everyone has been wondering about the trees being cut down in Dhuluaya area. Dhuluaya is an area near Sammara, north of Baghdad. It's an area popular for its wonderful date palms, citrus trees and grape vines. The majority of the people who live in the area are simple landowners who have been making a living off of the orchards they've been cultivating for decades.

StoryStory

- posted by river @ 1:40 AM
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 06:46 am
Timber how do you feel about what the CIA actually said compared with what they actually found?

I cannot conceal my anger at people like Rumsfeld Wolfowitz and Cheney. To invade another country primarily to control its energy resources is illegal. But trying to do it on the cheap, thus ensuring it is not done properly is worse than that - its stupid and criminal.

The primary objectives of the war have not been achieved. Iraq has not been disarmed of WMD (as Geli said show us the bomb), Saddam has not been captured or killed and the security situation is getting worse. Until there is peace and security in Iraq and its borders are secure, everything else, democratic government, foreign investment, economic recovery, in fact everything that could possibly justify the invasion in the first place, WONT HAPPEN. Many many more troops are needed, existing forces are at full stretch and there are no reserves without bringing in conscription.

The only way out of this mess imo is to internationalise it, and if that means the US has to eat a large helping of humble pie before the UN then so be it.

There are many people in Britain who say we have done enough and its time to pull out. I don't think that would be a responsible thing to do. However we might be forced to withdraw if the UN don't take control pretty quickly.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 09:14 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Timber how do you feel about what the CIA actually said compared with what they actually found?


Pretty good, actually:



There's plenty more, but honestly, a prosecutor taking similarly damaging evidence to trial against an accused murderer would enjoy a justified confidence. There is no requirement one produce a body to obtain a murder conviction.

you wrote:
The primary objectives of the war have not been achieved. Iraq has not been disarmed of WMD ...

Iraq no longer has either intention or capabilty of WMD use or proliferation.
you wrote:
Saddam has not been captured or killed

Saddam's whereabouts and condition are unknown. How long did it take to find Ted Kozinski, Erich Rudolf, or The Boston Strangler? Where are Jack the Ripper, D.B. Cooper (who disappeared with millions of dollars after paraching from a hijacked airliner in the 'Seventies), or The Washington Anthrax Killer? Saddam, and his Ba'athist thugs, are no longer in power.

you wrote:
the security situation is getting worse.
While insugency activity continues, and casualties occur among both Coalition military and Iraqi civilians, indiginous Iraqy security forces have thwarted or blunted numerous attacks, most recently the dual car bombs intended to demolish the Baghdad Hotel, uncovered numerous large caches of weapons and explosives, and brought about the arrest and detention of hundreds of would-be terrorists. While active, the reistance has succeeded primarily only in running off The UN and alientaing the civilian population, while bringing upon itself more damage than it has inflicted on Coalition forces.

you wrote:
The only way out of this mess imo is to internationalise it


The futility and failure of Internationalization is precisely why the resumption of hostillities became necessary.

you wrote:
if that means the US has to eat a large helping of humble pie before the UN then so be it.

The UN has marginalized itself, and abdicated its responsibility as a champion of peace, disarmament, and human rights. The UN has accomplished far less in such regard as a body over the past half century than has The US alone in the past decade. If the UN is to regain validitity and relevance in today's world, it must come to grips with the evolved nature of stateless threat to international security, and cooperate with the nations now undertaking responsibility for addressing that evolved threat. The UN must not be allowed to dither, equivocate, condone, and appease its way into global holocaust in the 21st Century as did the League of Nations in the 20th. The best time to prevent damage from a gun is before it smokes, and to echo Dr. Rice, the smoking gun will not be a mushroom cloud.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 10:08 am
Quote:
Iraq no longer has either intention or capabilty of WMD use or proliferation.



We are going over old ground here, this was not the reason given for going to war. Bush never said we have to stop Saddam now because he is going to be a threat in the future (although I agree he would be) Bush and Blair said he IS a threat, he HAS WMD, HE'S POINTING them at us, and he CAN LAUNCH in 45 minutes. You can't have it both ways. You cant say the reason for the war was WMD, and then when no substantive WMD or WMD programmes are found, change the reason for launching the attack to Saddam's intent to acquire them. If it was the WMD Saddam might acquire that was the reason for the war, then US/UK should have said so at the outset.

Quote:
The futility and failure of Internationalization is precisely why the resumption of hostillities became necessary.


Thats a red herring. The UN effort was never allowed to run its course. Blix said he would need a few months more before he could pronounce with more certainty on Iraq's cooperation on process and substance. That extra time and hence his report was denied to the UN security council because the war time-table was running up into the hot weather. If Blix had reported (perhaps now Oct 2003) that he was still not getting 100% cooperation on substance, then who's to say the Security Council would not have passed a resolution authorising force? The French position has been completely traduced, they never said never, just not yet.

Regarding the UN I really don't understand why there is such hostility to this body, founded in San Fransisco, with the US a founding signatory, among so many Americans. Kofi Annan has said its time to re appraise the threat posed by non state terror groups, but the quid pro quo is that pre emptive self defense can only be legal if carried out under UN auspices, and not by one state alone. That seems common sense to me. Otherwise we exchange a system of international law, imperfect though it may be, for the law of the jungle.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 10:24 am
Steve, what Bush said was "We must not allow that threat to become imminent".
As to red herrings, I believe any argument for the efficacy and probity of The UN to be such. The US hostility toward The UN is occasioned wholly upon its having become an opponent of, not a partner with, The US in the prosecution of the interests of global stability, security, and prosperity. With the possible exception of the cooperation of South Africa in the matter of Non-Proliferation, the UN has not one success to point to in the matters of peace, stability, prosperity, liberty, or disarmament. As the innefectuality of "International Law" and the self-imposed impotent irrelevance of the UN have demonstrated, only the resolute actions of The US and her partners stand between the nations and peoples of the planet and "The Law of the jungle". The UN has been about words. The US has taken action.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 11:39 am
Quote:
what Bush said was "We must not allow that threat to become imminent".


Well if Bush said that fair enough. But it follows that Saddam was not, in Bush's assessment, an imminent threat in March 03, only that he might become one, which hardly squares with Blair's dire warnings about "real and present danger" and 45 minutes to doomsday headlines etc.

Quote:
The US hostility toward The UN is occasioned wholly upon its having become an opponent of, not a partner with, The US in the prosecution of the interests of global stability, security, and prosperity.


I'm fascinated how this process occurred. Did a particular event suddenly tip the balance? "Right that's it! the UN is now an opponent of the US". After all the US is a member of the UN. How can America view the UN as being in opposition to its interests when the US itself is a significant member of that body!? Its a bit like saying those pesky UN types under the leadership of the perfidious USA are acting against the best interests of America.

Getting back to Iraq, its developing into a really awful situation. We need peace and security before we can build the new Iraq that we all say we want, but that means many more troops, and they can only come from the UN, in particular from countries who warned US/UK about the dangers of embarking on this adventure without UN approval in the first place.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 12:25 pm
That indeed is what he actually said, Steve.

Excerpts from the 2003 State of The Union Address:

Quote:
We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us ...
( - Saddam's Iraq - ) will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States ...
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

you wrote:
How can America view the UN as being in opposition to its interests when the US itself is a significant member of that body!?

A body which appoints known terrorist sympathizers and seekers after WMD to the very committees charged with oversight of prevention of such activity has no crediblity in such regard. The UN has consistently failed to back its binding-upon-threat-of-force resolutions with force in the face of defiance, but has resorted time and again to more mere words atop its already ineffectual words. The US is absolutely right in its perception the UN thereby has abdicated its pertinent responsibilities and violated the Charter to which all of its members are signatory. What the UN has approved, and proved, is its own incompetence and irrelevance.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 02:13 pm
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

The problem with this statement is that it has accomplished putting fear in the people of this country and the world, but we have yet to find any WMDs. We have, instead, persecuted a preemptive strike on a country and killed over 7,000 Iarqis on questionable intelligence information. There is a moral question that needs answers. Is it okay to kill thousands of people on our trumped up fears?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Oct, 2003 05:45 pm
timberlandko wrote:
That indeed is what he actually said, Steve.


Ehm, no, that is - you're quoting selectively to obscure the point.

Steve pointed out that "Bush never said we have to stop Saddam now because he is going to be a threat in the future [..] Bush and Blair said he IS a threat, he HAS WMD, HE'S POINTING them at us, and he CAN LAUNCH in 45 minutes."

And you answered that "what Bush said was "We must not allow that threat to become imminent". (Emphasis added).

But in the same speech that you're quoting here now, Bush said it clearly enough:

President Bush wrote:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.


"Leaves no doubt", "continues to possess". Steve is right: Bush presented this war as a necessity (and an imminent necessity) on the basis of the submission that Saddam "IS a threat, he HAS WMD" - just like Steve said it.

The qualified, "imagine the dangers that might come upon us" part was about the other argument in his speech: that Saddam might pass those WMDs, that he was supposedly proven to still have, on to Al Qaeda. Not a scenario you'll find many reputed adherents of, outside the Bush government.

So - the question's back to where Steve left it. If the Americans and Brits, that Bush and Blair speeched to, would have known that there was no imminent threat, just a future one - would they have bought into the argument that it was an absolute impossibility to give in to the majority of UN SC states, and grant Blix the few months extra he was asking for? It would even have provided the US, if the threat had turned out to be real, with an argument for war that not just Tony and Aznar would have bought.

Oh, Bush also said in the same sentence: "And [the Iraq regime] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

No evidence of Saddam training al Qaeda operatives yet - the best even you have shown us is that a 'free entrepreneur in terror', who turned out to be al Qaeda at least at a later stage, once had an operation in an Iraqi hospital.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/30/2025 at 04:12:29