The US, UN & Iraq II

ci and sumac

They will likely be so for some unknown percentage of the Iraqui population. But it is actually quite irrelevant, as Iraqui citizen hopes have next to nothing to do with why the US is about to begin this war. Note from the US State Department document written of above... Like, for example, the US support of Sadaam.

Blatham,
No, not suggesting that the views of some Iraqi citizens is reason for proposed US action. Just mentioned it because the only place where I had heard that assertion before was from US governmental officials - clearly could be seen as self-serving and suspect. As I said, this was an independent confirmation.

sumac, Did you see the town hall meeting with college students from Iraq and the US? The students in Iraq said they don't want war, and that Saddam was 'THEIR' problem. c.i.

Doubts grow over legality of war

Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger in Washington, Nicholas Watt and Michael White
Saturday March 15, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair will fly to the Portuguese islands of the Azores tomorrow for a meeting with George Bush to discuss plans for war as the British diplomatic push continues to flounder at the United Nations.
Among myriad proposals at the UN yesterday was one from Chile, one of the six undecided security council countries, that involves a three-week delay. It was dismissed out of hand by the White House.

It emerged too that the British government's legal position may not be watertight. Ministers say that if a second resolution is tabled and lost, the legal position is that they can go to war under the earlier UN resolution 1441, which demanded that Saddam Hussein give up his weapons or face serious consequences.

But there was a suggestion last night that the government has been told it is not as simple as that. Any second resolution that fell would mean that Britain would have to go to war in breach of international law. This could have serious consequences for the government and the armed forces...

I've just walked away from the TV after watching NOW with Bill Moyers on PBS. I am, I must confess, deeply depressed after listening to two extraordinarily eloquent and thoughtful people discussing this administrations' unprecedented policies and their likely consequences. The two guests were Jessica Tuchman Mathews, who supervised global affairs at the State Department during the Clinton administration, now president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, and John Brady Kiesling, the twenty year career diplomat who just publically resigned his his most recent posting in Greece with the State Department.

Both, I regret to say, concur with those of us who conceive that the US is presently engaged in policies which will likely prove deeply disastrous to the US and to the world. Neither are pacifists, Kiesling having received an award from his peers for having argued for intervention in Kosovo. Both are not merely very intelligent, but also with deep experience in foreign affairs.

So, Tres, Max, Asherman and the few others who continue the apologia for this President and this administration and this war... pardon me if I think you are blind fools.

sumac, in regards to your statement that Iraq doesn't have scud missiles - yes, he can and does have scud missiles (for defensive purposes). He can't have Samoud II missiles or any other missiles that can go over 90 miles.

Has any one of you EVER been asked what your
opinion IS in one of these so called "polls" of the
"typical American's feelings" about Bush, himself,
as a leader - about the war - about anything?

No

I've been "polled" a few times, on a variety of matters, including but by no means limited to political issues.




timber

Tartarin
Tartarin, I like your avatar AND I like your quote
(or your byline) very much too. I see what's happening
as a fundamental, total lack of ability to form any kind,
shape or size of a partnership with any other human
beings. It is also an issue of simply "growing up". These
so called adults, are certainly behaving in a very juvenile
manner. What happened to the term negotiation? Why
should WE be able to force every other country to disarm,
while WE do not? Do we REALLY want to be hated all over
the globe, and rightfully so, by countries who see us as
we really are, while Bush, Inc. sees us as he wishes to see
us. Or, more simply put - we judge ourselves by our
intentions, while the rest of the world judges us by our
actions!! Based upon our actions - how do you think we
look to the rest of the civilized world? Greedy? Bullies?
How can other civilized countries look at us and see
anything but disgusting lack of civility, courtesy and
statesmanship. Look at Switzerland, for example - they
have never gotten involved in anyone else's business
but their own. Why is Bush, Inc. NOT SEEKING PEACE?
He talks as if his actions are in an attempt to ensure peace,
but he lies constantly. How can a citizen have a leader
who can't even be trusted to see himself in the mirror
correctly for what he truly is?? If WE, represented by
Bush Inc, want war, then we are deliberately choosing
violence over world peace. I believe Gandhi ; You must
BE the change you wish to SEE in the world!
Lastly, think of the Germans under Hitler's Nazi movement.
This movement that took over the entire country and then
expanded was a country full of people, just like WE ARE.
They chose never to question their leader AND look what
DID happen with this lunatic as their leader??? That could
be us one day soon.

ps, i have never been polled either.

I did not know that, BillW. I have a distinct recollection of scuds hitting cities in Israel, so if your knowledge of the range and defensive nature of them is accurate, my knowledge of geography is way off.

Well, Iraq is allowed NOW to have missiles up to 150 km. Looking at a map Middle East (Special Reference Graphic), your knowledge of geography is uptodate, roger :wink: .

Hi, all. Have been away from this forum and just read the following post by Timber:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
perception wrote:
Hoft
There seems to be no end of your
expertise in everything from crop dusting to the use of Depleted Uranium----to bad it all seems to be suspect.

BTW--I'm still waiting for evidence of your flight experience as a crop duster pilot during a "summer job". Somehow I can't quite imagine the owner of a $200,000 aircraft turning it over to a kid out of school looking for a "summer job". I'm sure you can provide evidence for your claim. It would certainly do wonders for your credibility.


HofT is a pilot, and is employed as one, which calls for her to flit about the planet, frequently disrupting her access to The Internet for reasons connected both with remoteness and security. The nature of her employment is established to my satisfaction. As to her "Credibility", well, that's pretty well established as far as I am concerned as well. She and I sometimes disagree, but she does know her tech stuff, particularly the military stuff. Her references always check out, and she "Talks the Talk". I've known her for a long, long time, and have been involved on many discussions with her on a couple of forums. She and I also correspond regularly via e-mail, and frequently have discussed things of interest only to active pilots. BTW, I'm a licensed pilot, too. Oh, and the 22 Year-Old daughter of the local cropduster is one of his better, and more requested, pilots. She really lays it right to the fenceline. She's a vicious poker player, too, damnit.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Thanks, Timber! Subsequently I see the other person posted an apology, so there's no more to be said on that subject <G>

P.S. Perception - went carefully through my previous posts on this thread and found none in which anyone was being called "a liar". Possibly someone else called you that. Your apology was appreciated *by me* in any event <G>

HofT

I've known Perc for quite a while here. He has strong opinions with which I often disagree, but he also has the strength of character to acknowledge when he's spoken incorrectly.

Whew, Babsatamelia, an ally! Thanks! I've just put down the latest (for me, at the end of the postal system) New Yorker and Simon Schama's wonderful piece on anti-Americanism. I go back to education. In history, in school (and college), we read virtually all the sources for Schama's article. Judging from the jingo-history I see quoted so often in the press and in these pages, I betcha not many Americans have, but hope someone leaps in here and rebuts. I'm going to change my "signature" again when I get a moment, Babs, and hope you enjoy it.

As for you Blatham, I have a bone to pick with you, but not this one: "pardon me if I think you are blind fools"!

It is not clear whether the Bush administration regards preventive war as a prerogative of the United States alone, or as a newly recognized right of all countries. If the former is the case, then the U.S. is claiming that it is exempt from the rules that govern other nations. If the latter is the case, then Pakistan could wage a preventive war against India today, on the grounds that India might be a greater threat in a decade or two. The distinction between wars of defense and aggression would collapse entirely, if the United States, alone or along with all other nations, had the right to wage war on the basis of speculative future threats. And it is deeply troubling that the Bush administration has now adopted, as its own strategy, a "Pearl Harbor" strategy for which Japanese war criminals were hanged by the U.S. after World War II.

I seem to recall a story that the Germans infiltrated the Polish border just prior to the invasion of Poland and staged a fake attack on Germany by German soldiers dressed up in Polish uniforms. I don't know whether this is true, but it wouldn't be the first time an aggressor has used the excuse that the other side was about to attack them so they had to defend themselves. The Bush policy is different only in that he is extending the concept of how far in advance you can start worrying about the potential aggression of another nation.

Also, remeber that Iraq's excuse for invading Kuwait in 1991 was that Kuwait was attacking Iraq's economic infrastructure by tapping into oil fields under Iraqi soil. By that logic, the invasion of Kuwait was a preventive war.

It's another sign of the arrogance of this administration that they don't factor in the consequences of other nations adopting the same policy. I guess this is to be expected considering that they came to power because of a non-precedent-setting Supreme Court decision.

The Germans stage-managed a couple of "border violation", some with German soldiers in Polish uniforms, some in Germany itself, others close to the border.

If one goes back through American history, the manipulation of events by the administration to bring about war has been a regular feature. Remember the Maine!