THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Those in power constantly distort history to justify action they took that backfired, or as a pretext for action which otherwise would be hard to justify. What they have not yet succeeded in doing is changing people's memories.

Occom repeats the lie that

Quote:

"When he (Saddam) kicked out the UN inspectors; he eliminated our opportunity to know he was in compliance."

This is the exact opposite of the truth. The UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq by Saddam and remained there until the last moment. They were withdrawn by the UN for their own safety immediately prior to the start of the US bombing campaign. Their pleas (and the protestations of France Germany Russia China) that UN inspectors be allowed to continue their work were ignored.

It was America and Britain who denied the opportunity for the UN (on our behalf) to validate Iraqi compliance.

With hindsight it is of course easy to see why they did this. There were no significant illegal weapons in Iraq. That would have been the conclusion of the inspectors had they been allowed to continue. However as Iraqi WMD were used as one of the major justifications for war, its not surprising that the warmongers did not want any doubt or question cast on their reality.

Unlike in the US, in Britain, the issue of Iraqi wmd actually forms the basis of the legal justification for the presence of British troops. They only remain in Iraq legally whilst they continue in their work of finding isolating and containing illegal Iraqi weapons. Whilst they have found none, this doesn't matter. They can legally remain there for ever so long as they maintain the wmd farce. However what you will NEVER hear Tony Blair admit, is that wmd do not exist. If he did, the legal basis for the continued presence of British troops would collapse instantly, and they would have to be withdrawn.

Shiite cleric warns of civil war if elections delayed

Monday, February 23, 2004 Posted: 1340 GMT ( 9:40 PM HKT)

U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer has said that it could take up to 15 months to hold an election in Iraq.

KARBALA, Iraq (AP) -- One of Iraq's four Shiite grand ayatollahs warned Monday that delaying national elections for a sovereign Iraqi government could lead to civil war among the country's rival ethnic and religious groups.

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi predicted that the Iraqi insurgency would decrease and "maybe disappear" after Iraqis regain control of their own country when the U.S.-run coalition transfers sovereignty June 30.

However, the risk of civil conflict will increase if elections continue to delayed, he told reporters at a press conference in this Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.

"Without elections, our national institutions will remain shaken, unrecognized and distrusted by the people," al-Modaresi said. "We fear that putting off or delaying the elections would be a timebomb that might explode at any minute ... which makes us fear for the future of Iraq, internal struggles or civil war."

Al-Modaresi's demand for elections echoes that of another grand ayatollah, Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, whose opposition to the U.S. blueprint for transferring power has thrown the political timetable in doubt.

The United States planned to choose a transitional legislature through a series of regional caucuses. The legislature would then select a government to take power June 30. However, al-Sistani insisted that the new legislators be elected by the voters.

Washington and the United Nations say elections by the end of June are impossible and are now deliberating options for establishing a provisional government to take power. The Americans favor expanding the 25-member Governing Council to run the country until elections can be held.

U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer told Al-Arabiya television last week that some U.N. estimates indicated it could take up to 15 months to hold an election in Iraq.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said a report on the recent U.N. mission to Iraq would be released Monday in New York with the group's findings on ways to establish an Iraqi government.

In a statement published Monday by the Al-Sabah newspaper, Ayatollah al-Sistani called on the United Nations to play a major role in the transfer of power. Al-Sistani said the world body "approved the occupation and gave it an international cover" and therefore bears a "major responsibility to the Iraqi people" to ensure that a representative government is formed.

Al-Modaresi did not insist on a specific date for the elections.

"We accept any early date for an election, but delaying the election indefinitely without clarifying the practical steps leading to the election is considered stalling without reason," al-Modaresi said.

Several leading Shiite Muslims have complained that the Americans should have begun preparing for elections months ago and have accused them of stalling.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Please make the distinction that one doesn't have to agree with our leaders questionable ethics or his rhetoric to believe that taking out Saddam was a worthy cause.

That is the most morally twisted sentence I have ever read. Even though they are lying to me about just about everything it's okay because maybe one of their lies about Saddam might be true???

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nor did I jump on that bandwagon when Bush started using it for a backup excuse. I have felt for a very long time that the enormous resources of the US should be used to help free the citizens of the world of the worst oppressors.

A position exactly opposed to the one taken by candidate Bush only five years ago, so I take it you are in favor of nation building and would have pursued efforts in Chad, Rwanda and elsewhere where conditions to this day are far worse than they ever were under Saddam in Iraq. And no, they don't have WMDs but neither did Saddam.

And by the way, how did you come to the idea that Saddam was one of the worst oppressors and a worthy cause? It wasn't one of those leaders, with the questionable ethics and rhetoric, who told you? Was it?

Which brings us to Pakistan, seller of nuclear secrets to rogue states around the world. Pakistan next or North Korea?

Now, explain to me how you come to the conclusion "This is the exact opposite of the truth. The UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq by Saddam and remained there until the last moment. " and "Those in power constantly distort history..."

McG, you ask

Quote:

Now, explain to me how you come to the conclusion "This is the exact opposite of the truth. The UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq by Saddam and remained there until the last moment. " and "Those in power constantly distort history..."

Well you say yourself that they were allowed back into Iraq, (presumably with Saddam's blessing) on 18th November 2002. And they remained until they were in mortal danger from American and British airstrikes. They were not expelled in 2003 by the Iraqis, however much Bush and Blair would like that impression to stand. Hence my point about distorting history.

The fact that UNMOVIC inspectors were allowed back only in November 2002 was in fact an argument by March 2003 for granting them further time to inspect further and report.

When he kicked out the UN inspectors; he eliminated our opportunity to know he was in compliance.

OK I accept you meant in 1998, although it would have helped if you had specified a date. But if so, this only negates the second half of your sentence because Saddam clearly had not "eliminated our opportunity to know he was in compliance". He gave them another opportunity starting in November 2002. You should have added the word "temporarily".

Now you suggest using US military force to build a better N Korea. But DPRK has nuclear weapons, and long range rockets to deliver them. Is that really such a good idea? How do you avoid a full scale nuclear exchange with China, or is regime change there part of the overall nation building plan as well?

You seem to have conveniently forgoten that the inspectors were allowed in. they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain.

conveniently

Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?

BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy? Your hypocrisy is showing.

hobitbob wrote:

You seem to have conveniently forgoten that the inspectors were allowed in. they were finding that he had fulfilled his side of the bargain.

The inspectors were not finding any such thing. You have

Quote:

conveniently

forgotten that the inspectors were continually denied access to that which they wished to inspect and as a result the UN continued to pass resolutions demanding Saddam allow inspections to continue.

hobitbob wrote:

Maybe this would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?

Our troops captured video tape of his gang pushing people off of bridges to their deaths. What might that mean? Did that help us know a little something?

hobitbob wrote:

BTW, what about the victims of dictatorial regimes we support, like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, etc... Do they not matter, since their leaders support US policy? Your hypocrisy is showing.

I didn't, don't, and won't support any of that. That whole scheme of things was born shortly after the end of WWII (and not after Bush 43 was elected): The policy of containment has born much easily recognizeable evil fruit.

What bias of yours led you to believe I did support that?

You refuse to accept the possibility that those who differ with you may know more than you, think more deeply than you, and correctly infer more logically than you.

But, of course, unless you grant that a significant probability and investigate it with a modicum of objectivity, then you "will never know, will" you?

More Attacks on the U.S.
By Andrew Hammond

DUBAI (Reuters) - A top al Qaeda leader warned President Bush in an audiotape broadcast Tuesday to prepare for more attacks on the United States.

In the tape aired by Al Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri said: "Bush, strengthen your defenses and your security measures for the Muslim nation which sent you the legion of New York and Washington has determined to send you legion after legion seeking death and paradise."

Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, also appeared on Tuesday to single out France in its league of enemies, accusing Paris of displaying "Crusader hatred" toward Islam by banning Muslim headscarves from state classrooms.

By turning on France in an audiotape broadcast on Dubai-based Al Arabiya television, Zawahri -- identifiable by his voice and rhetorical style -- went beyond now familiar tirades against the United States, Britain, Gulf Arab states and other supporters of last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"France is the country of freedom which defends freedom to show the body and to be immoral and depraved. In France you're free to show yourself but not to dress modestly," he said in reference to the headscarf ban newly approved by parliament.

"This is a new sign of the Crusader hatred which Westerners harbor against Muslims while they boast of freedom, democracy and human rights," said the voice on the tape.

The authenticity of both recordings aired on the two Arab televisions could not immediately be verified, but they sounded like previous messages attributed to the Egyptian Zawahri, who is regarded as Osama bin Laden's deputy and thought to be hiding with him somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

In the Al Jazeera tape, Zawahri said Bush had lied in last month's State of the Union address when he asserted that most of al Qaeda had been crushed and that U.S. troops were spreading freedom and democracy.

"Bush alleged that his troops have spread freedom in the world, that Iraq had achieved democracy thanks to his coalition forces, that his government has crushed more than two-thirds of al Qaeda and that...Afghanistan is secure," he said.

"The leader of the most powerful country on earth is not embarrassed to say these deceptions and lies. It's gotten to the stage that he can ridicule his listeners to this degree," he said.

Bush defended his war on terrorism and policy in Iraq in his State of the Union address that set the tone for his re-election campaign later this year.

DRIVING A WEDGE

Al Qaeda is widely seen as bent on radicalizing Muslims worldwide and encouraging them to rise up against the West in what some analysts have termed a "clash of civilizations."

The network, held responsible for the September 2001 attacks on the U.S. cities and a string of others, has portrayed Bush's "war on terror" as a modern-day crusade against Islam.

By focusing on the French headscarf ban, it appeared to be seizing on a fresh opportunity to promote that agenda and drive a wedge between Islam and the West.

Previous statements attributed to al Qaeda have usually focused on the United States and countries which backed the invasion of Iraq last year. French President Jacques Chirac was one of the war's most vocal opponents.

Along with France, the tape attacked Muslim countries which have made moves to secularize their societies along Western lines. "This is a campaign planned by the Crusader Zionists with their agents in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia and other Islamic countries," Zawahri said.

His use of "Zionists" referred to supporters of Israel.

He said the French veil ban, which was also accompanied by bans on shows of Christian and Jewish faith in state schools, was part of a series of attacks on Muslims.

He also cited Israel's treatment of Palestinians, the U.S. occupation of Iraq and detention of Muslims in Guantanamo Bay, where foreign terrorism suspects are held by Washington:

"America has given itself the right to kill or detain anyone anywhere and to deport anyone to anywhere for any period, without anyone daring to ask why, who, where or until when."

"Atomic weapons are banned for everyone except Israel," he added, referring to U.S. ally Israel's presumed weapons arsenal.

"Banning the veil conforms with all these crimes and the moral and ideological hypocrisy of the Zio-Crusaders."


02/24/04 07:39

On the other hand we should make it clear that any nuclear strike on a western city done in the name of Islam will result in the complete destruction of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

Ms Gun has recently attracted the support of Hollywood actors including Sean Penn. He told the Observer at the Bafta awards: "It was a decision of conscience in a world where nobody celebrates that. She will go down in history as a hero of the human spirit. I urge the whole world to angle their eyes in the direction of that courtroom."