0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2004 02:38 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Well, you would be right about the pre 2002 inspections. As far as the 2002 inspections, you are wrong.


This is a falseood Exclamation

I am right about the 2002 inspections as well. These alleged inspections did not comply with UN resolutions. It was that well known failure of Saddam to permit full compliance again, as well as all his other such failures, that led to our military intervention in Iraq.

hobitbob wrote:
And you didn't know this was happeneing before? I did, and so did most of the rest of the world. We also knew about punitive rape and mutilations.


This is a falsehood Exclamation

Yes, of course I knew about it! It was you writing like you did not to know about it, that led me to bring it up.
Quote:
Maybe [Saddam continuing to rule] would have led to increased aid, and to closer scruitiny on his practices by the world. We will never know, will we?

This statement of yours implies that you think "closer scrutiny on his practices" (continuing murder) was a necessary condition for deciding to stop Saddam and his gang from more mass murder than that.

hobitbob wrote:
The US and the far right just didn't seem to care until the WMD excuse fizzled.


This is a falsehood Exclamation

The right, both far medium and near, is determined to spread and conserve liberty for every innocent person on this earth. The real difference between far and near rightists is the energy they are willing to expend to right wrongs. The right is committed to the conservation of the rule of law as a necessary means to the conservation of liberty. The right has recognized and continues to recognize that tyranny of any is a threat to the liberty of all. It is the right that recognizes that conserving everyone's liberty is in everyone's own enlightened self-interest

The left on the other hand reveals itself to not care about others being tyrannized. It is they who are satisfied to scrutinize but not prevent mass murder. It is the left that acts like the only reason that would justify Iragi regime change is the discovery of WMD. It is the left that thinks that way, because they don't give a damn about the mass murder of others, but only threats to the mass murder of themselves.

Furthermore, it is the left that is continually advocating that which is unlawful. It is the left that continually advocates violating our Constitution. It is the left that continually advocates judicial activism. It is the left that continually advocates judges making the law whatever the left thinks it ought to be.

hobitbob wrote:
Nope, support for Pakistan, and many of the totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Union are purely products of post cold war politics. Nice try at misdirection, though. In fact, support of Azerbaijan, Uzbekhistan,and Pakistan are Bush innovations.


This is a falsehood Exclamation

Bush was inaugurated in January, 2001. These countries and their tyrants existed before, during and after Clinton's two term administration. Bush, due to Clinton reductions in our military capability and the consequent limitations they caused, has focused on rectification of Afghanistan and Iraq leadership. Our best hope at the moment is that successes in these two countries will intimidate tyrants elsewhere into moderating or even ending their tyrannies.

hobitbob wrote:
See above.


Yes, by all means, you should see above.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2004 05:56 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

We should find out what it is [Muslim fanatics] want us to do or stop doing that would make them relent.


Steve we already know "what it is [Muslim fanatics] want us to do or stop doing" because they have been telling us what they want us to do for a long time.

They say they want us to abandon our culture for their culture or die. So which would you have us do?

I agree that our federal government has made a great many serious mistakes since the end of WWII. It has negotiated and contained, overthrown and abandoned, bribed and intimidated, coddled and dictated. Oh yes, it has helped Japan, Germany and Italy become democratic republics, and influenced the decline and fall of Soviet Communism. But that doesn't count for much with the left does it?

Can we negotiate with Muslim fanatics] to get them to stop doing what they are doing without killing them? If so how?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2004 08:44 pm
Bizarre

Joe
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2004 08:51 pm
I am still waiting for the first christian fundamentalist to blow themselves up in a suicide bombing... It's odd you never hear about them. Only Islamic fundamentalists seem to make the news...
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 01:11 am
Why should a Christian fundamentalist blow himself up in a suicide bombing, he's got satellite controlled bombs that he can unleash from miles and miles away with a click of a button from his climate controlled cockpit.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:30 am
InfraBlue wrote:
Why should a Christian fundamentalist blow himself up in a suicide bombing, he's got satellite controlled bombs that he can unleash from miles and miles away with a click of a button from his climate controlled cockpit.


For the rush? Smile
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:59 am
ican you ask

Quote:
They say they want us to abandon our culture for their culture or die. So which would you have us do?


Do they? If you actually look at bin Ladens demands, point 1 is that we, or rather the US abandons its military presence in Saudi Arabia. They want a fundamentalist wahhabist Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia, before they want one in the USA or Britain.

You say that they say that they want....still with this? us to abandon our culture. But that pre supposes they think that we have a culture. They dont. They want to give us philistines (apologies to any Philistinians) the benefit of their sublime Islamic culture over the state of moral decay and filth in which we live. Its all crap I agree, but that's the way they think.

If as you say their only objective is to kill or subdue us, then there is no dialogue possible. We have to identify islolate contain and if necessary kill them before they kill us.

But what if, and I agree this is a big what if, bin Laden would call off the jihad if the "zionist crusaders" withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian people were allowed their own state? (This latter point is of course the stated objective of the current American administration so we can't be that far apart). It would be a shame if we were to endure for decades an escalating cycle of violence just because we never realised the other side would stop if only we made relatively easy concessions.

Regarding Christian suicide bombers, thats an interesting one. Christianity has often been associated with the military. We have the Salvation Army. The Jesus Army. Soldiers for Christ. Onward Christian Soldiers, fighting unto war etc....all very tuneful and nostalgic stuff. The trouble is the Church today is too busy contemplating its own navel (sorry knavel) and worrying about inclusivity to consider Sunday morning suicide bomb making classes for kids. Anyway didn't Christ sacrifice Himself that others might live? I wonder what Mel Gibson would think of it all.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:59 am
US 'may hold cleared detainees'

Quote:
Pentagon officials have confirmed that Guantanamo detainees may still be kept in detention, even if they are found not guilty by a military tribunal.
They say detainees could be kept prisoner if they are considered a security risk.

If found guilty, they could also be held beyond any sentence laid down by the tribunal.

The Pentagon this week laid the first charges against two foreign detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

'Not common sense'

The US military officials argue that there are two processes underway.

Detainees are being held because they are suspected of being enemy combatants in an ongoing war.

Separately, some may be put before tribunals accused of specific war crimes or other offences.

But the officials say it would not be common sense to release detainees after the tribunals if the so-called war on terrorism were still under way and it was thought they might launch new attacks on US interests.

The officials add that anyone convicted of war crimes would have to serve out their sentences, even if the other detainees were released because the war was deemed to be over.

All of this looks like further evidence of how difficult the issue of detainees is.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:20 am
So to sum up this American version of justice

The detainees are denied access to lawyers or due process in the civil courts.
They go before a military tribunal in secret that can impose the death penalty.
Both the prosecuting counsel and the defence counsel are military appointees.
There is no right of appeal.
If they are found not guilty they may be detained indefinitely.

I am not American, but I seem to remember something

Quote:
The Ninth International Conference of American States

AGREES:

To adopt the following

AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN

Preamble

All men are born free and equal, in dignity and in rights, and, being endowed by nature with reason and conscience, they should conduct themselves as brothers one to another.


Fine words. Shame about the deeds.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:31 am
Steve, Let's say we give in to Osama's demands and leave Saudi Arabia to become a wahhabi playground. Let's say we cave in to every reasonable demand he makes and he then end his jihad. What's to stop the next Osama? Are we to start giving in to every little piisant that has a bomb? Where is the line drawn? When they blow up American buildings and kill American citizens?

I think the better answer is to hunt down each and every one of those terrorists and stop them BEFORE they do such things. Maybe that will also help deter any future Osama's...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:01 am
No I dont think we should give in to every little piisant (new word to me, but I think I get the gist) who has a bomb.

But if we understood why he has that bomb, it might be possible to prevent others doing the same. And as we cant ask him after he's detonated it, or when we've killed him, it might be a good idea to find out beforehand.

I'm not against going after these people and killing them if necessary. But we have to understand what we are getting into if we go down that route. Firstly there are more of them than there are of us. Its only a tiny fraction of militant Islamists who are prepared to undertake a suicide mission. How much? 0.01% of all Muslims? Thats a suicide army of 130,000 by my calculation. And 10 times (easily) that number are added to the world wide Muslim population every year. As you? said how many Christian martyrs can we put up?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:03 am
Now OBL is sending threatening letters to France, let him keep going, pretty soon there will be a volunteer coalition to find his ass like he's never seen.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:46 am
Hope he's paying the proper postage. Inspector Clouseau might yet do us a favour if he spots the sender address.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:46 am
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:47 am
LOL!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2004 02:38 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
ican you ask
Quote:
They say they want us to abandon our culture for their culture or die. So which would you have us do?


Do they? If you actually look at bin Ladens demands, point 1 is that we, or rather the US abandons its military presence in Saudi Arabia. They want a fundamentalist wahhabist Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia, before they want one in the USA or Britain.

You say that they say that they want....still with this? us to abandon our culture. But that pre supposes they think that we have a culture. They dont. They want to give us philistines (apologies to any Philistinians) the benefit of their sublime Islamic culture over the state of moral decay and filth in which we live. Its all crap I agree, but that's the way they think.

If as you say their only objective is to kill or subdue us, then there is no dialogue possible. We have to identify islolate contain and if necessary kill them before they kill us.

But what if, and I agree this is a big what if, bin Laden would call off the jihad if the "zionist crusaders" withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian people were allowed their own state? (This latter point is of course the stated objective of the current American administration so we can't be that far apart). It would be a shame if we were to endure for decades an escalating cycle of violence just because we never realised the other side would stop if only we made relatively easy concessions.


The following English version of bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa follows (It's first paragraph seems to imply unconditional murder of all "pagans", while the rest seems to imply that murder of Americans is justified by our presence in arab/Muslim countries):
Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS Note: The following statement from Usama bin Laden and his associates purports to be a religious ruling (fatwa) requiring the killing of Americans, both civilian and military. This document is part of the evidence that links the bin Laden network to the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The original Arabic text of this statement may be found here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh

[emphasis in bold has been added by me]

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 09:16 am
UN Bugging Scandal Widens

Quote:
The former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Richard Butler, says his phone calls at the United Nations were bugged during his tenure from 1997 to 1999.

He told Australian radio at least four UN Security Council members monitored his calls, and he would leave the UN building if taking a confidential call.

ABC Radio cited Australian intelligence sources as saying Hans Blix, the last weapons inspector, was also bugged.

Ex-UK minister Clare Short says the UK bugged UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"Of course I was (bugged)," Richard Butler told ABC radio.

"I was well aware of it. How did I know? Because those who did it would come to me and show me the recordings that they had made on others to help me do my job disarming Iraq."

Mr Butler said he was bugged by the Americans, British, French and Russians.

"I knew it from other sources," he said. "I was utterly confident that I was bugged by at least four permanent members of the Security Council."

Hit back

He said that if he needed to make a private call to his contacts, he would leave the UN building in New York and either go to a busy cafe or walk in Central Park.

Meanwhile ABC reporter Andrew Fowler said he had been told by Australian intelligence contacts that Hans Blix - the UN's most recent weapons inspector in Iraq - was also tapped.

"That's what I'm told, specifically each time he entered Iraq, his phone was targeted and recorded and the transcripts were then made available to the United States, Australia, Canada, the UK and also New Zealand," he said.

The United Nations has already said that any bugging of UN offices would be illegal and should end immediately.

The organisation was responding to claims on Thursday by the former UK cabinet minister Clare Short that British intelligence monitored calls by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

On Friday, Ms Short hit back after UK Prime Minister Tony Blair branded the claims "deeply irresponsible".

She denied putting the UK or its security services at risk by her revelations, and accused the prime minister of using "pompous" distraction tactics.

At his monthly news conference, Mr Blair insisted the UK security services acted in accordance with domestic and international law and in their country's best interests.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 09:33 am
Sistani repeats his position about the UN guaranteeing elections by the end of the year

Quote:


And he obviously does not want the present Iraqi governing council to do anything of substance in the meantime. He is obviously believing that he is in the seat of the catbird and can control things now, as well as after the elections.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 10:05 am
REALLY GOOD analysis of what happened when, and why, from The Atlantic Monthly, but it is too long to quote here. Below is just the first couple of paragraphs:

Quote:


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm
Spies, Lies, and Weapons:
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2004 03:40 pm
War Against Terrorism
Is terrorism a tactic? Isn't it more correct that the USA should be fighting Al Q. and trying to figure out how to defend against them or even negotiate? The goal of Al Q. is not to destroy America. If one reads their goals it becomes plain what they want. There is no way the USA can ever eradicate terrorism but there might be a way for the USA to minimize attacks on America rom Al Q. and it's allies. Of course, that would require thinking and hard work.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 10:35:02