Iraq and weapons inspectors

[Josh_B]

... I believe we have no choice if you rationally think about it. We (usa) were the ones who received the threats and the attacks....Europe and asia did not...What's more is that out side of England. most of Europe is a bunch of spineless cowards who have no moral fiber to speak of...France lost it's country in about 8 days in WWII and handed their Jews over to Hitler..Another key point is the so called Super8 of the UN...There is no more super 8...there is basically China, US and Britain...Russia is still considered a super power but realistically if a full scale war broke out, they would have to fight abroad and at home amongst their provinces...

Good post
This will be very interesting!

We spearheaded the formation of the UN, years back, partly to promote what we preach domestically, freedom and democracy and that votes count. What will happen if/when we attack without the consent of UN? if 7 vote against and we are the only 1 for war, do you still think we should attack? Wouldn't we be the ones to violate one of out highest principles?

...However, Russia's deputy foreign minister said Friday that any use of force against Iraq without U.N. approval would violate international law. Yuri Fedotov told the ITAR-Tass news agency that the weapons inspectors would have to report to the Security Council "and only (the council's) members should make decisions." ...

the above was from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20021115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq Friday Nov 15th.


also on your previous post:
...As far as the Pakistan situation, I don't think we have a problem with the Taliban or their religion...All the taliban had to do last year was turn over al quda and they could have been sparred. I think the same would hold true if Pakistan went the same route, where by they promote and protect terrorists cells...On the other hand, Al queda released a statement over the weekend in which they threatened more attacks of the US does not convert to Islam....hardly sounds like a Democratic theme to me...

I'm with you and hope you are right about them not being a threat. But not sure if this is over yet. According to latest news, osama seems to be alive and kicking, but it's what we don't know that can be a real threat.

Pakistan, they are a nuclear power and the taliban got 59 out of 342 seats there this time. And the process must have been democratic, to some extend, they still haven't been bombed by us. I wonder what would happen if the taliban would get the majority there. Would we declare the election automatically non democratic, third world dictatorship or whatever, and then rally the troops to attack them ?


I guess for now Pakistan is safe. As far as the UN and Iraq attacks, we should know soon enough. I think, They have till Dec 8th to declare all their weapons of mass destruction.

I hope cool heads prevail and we focus our efforts on the proper areas.


Josh

 

[TM_Direct]

I 'd like to point out though that I really don't consider Pakistan a true democracy...Musarraf has been "rough around the edges" for some time but has fallen in line with the US...I kid of view him the same way as Gorbacev of Russia in the 80's....He was a dictator who sought to slowly bring change to his country...As far as us doing something with or without the UN, i think if Bush did one good thing it was the fact that he put the UN on notice...this vote on Iraq should have happened 4 years ago...Bush called on the UN to enforce its own resolution or "become obsolete"...they stepped up to the challenge so now i do believe the US should act in concert with the UN.

 

[Josh_B]

US must disarm: Carter
Date: November 18 2002

..."One of the things that the United States Government has not done is to try to comply with and enforce international efforts targeted to prohibit the arsenals of biological weapons that we ourselves have," Mr Carter told CNN.

"The major powers need to set an example," Mr Carter said, as the US confronts Iraq over its possession of such banned weapons.

"Quite often the big countries that are responsible for the peace of the world set a very poor example for those who might hunger for the esteem or the power or the threats that they can develop from nuclear weapons themselves....

..."For every time an American gives a dollar, a citizen of Norway gives 17 dollars," he said.

"Foreign aid in this country has a bad name, but in other countries, it's a right thing for the government to do."

The US had given many countries cause for resentment and scorn, he said.

"There is a sense that the United States has become too arrogant, too dominant, too self-centred, proud of our wealth, believing that we deserve to be the richest and most powerful and influential nation in the world.

"I think they feel that we don't really care about them, which is quite often true." ...


http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2002/11/17/1037490051556.htm


He forgot to add that when they have resources that we want, and they don't offer them with our terms, we will take it by force, and excuse is not a problem.
Hey we got the biggest guns who will oppose us?


I just hope cool heads prevail.


Josh

 

[vvv]

Quote from Josh_B:

US must disarm: Carter

happily, an ever increasing number of americans are starting to realize that bush has totally failed in the effort against terrorism and it's causes, as well as on the home front, and that the imbecilic war mongering against saddam, based on nothing but lies and fabrications, is just a detraction from his failures.

The voice of America

Only his people can stop Bush now - and many are speaking out against war in Iraq.

...Americans can stop America's next war as they have stopped similar planned or actual idiocies in the past.

But domestic public opinion is a different story - and that story is changing. Slowly, inconsistently but palpably, ordinary Americans are making their voices heard.

Each time Bush ups the ante, makes another, ever more far-fetched, fearsome claim about the Baghdad bogeyman, domestic support wavers or slips. It certainly does not rise, as this week's Pew Center survey confirms. Far from uniting his nation, as he claims, Bush's demagoguery is discernibly exposing and deepening its divisions.

Here, perhaps, the authentic voice of America may be heard.

"I have never seen so much bullshit thrown at the American public in my lifetime, with too many people thinking it may be true if the president says it," emails a 77-year-old from Manchester, New Hampshire.

"We are being rail roaded into war over here. I am astounded by our president and his tactics utilising fear," says one writer.

"When I voted for Bush I had no idea what he would unleash," says another.

An Arizonan believes that Bush is "a complete and pathetic idiot ... I think enough Americans are beginning to see that the real regime change needs to take place at the White House".

"The Bush presidency should have been nipped in the bud by the supreme court," writes an Illinois resident.

"We've been bamboozled and Congress doesn't seem to know what to do."

From Maryland comes the cry: "As an American I am totally speechless at whatever emanates from Bush's mouth - I mean, my 12-year-old son would make a better president."

In New York, some feel the same way. "To attack with so little proof is ghastly ... As someone who smelled the World Trade Center and its human occupants burn every day for three months, I do not wish that fate on the long-suffering Iraqi people."

An emailer from Bush's Texas believes "all he is trying to do is divert attention from his failure as a leader ... under Bush we are giving up all our civil rights in the name of fighting the war on terror.

If we do not agree with him, we are anti-American."

A Californian agrees: "The American media shows complete indifference to ... the opinions of many if not most Americans (of whom) a majority are against this stupid adventure."

"As an older American who loves her country, I am terrified," writes Katie Redd. "Younger Americans just do not seem to realise the dangers of this arrogant, stupid little man. I pray God will help us - because our main press glorifies him and few congressmen oppose him."

A resident of lower Manhattan says Bush is beginning to sound like a "movie trailer for Creatures with an Atom Brain".

Indeed, Americans are far more scathing about Bush than supposedly anti-American Europeans. "Redneck pea-brain" is one epithet; "King George", "Lord High Executioner" and "imperialist" are others. "Insane" and "madman" crop up a lot. "Loony" says a psychiatrist from Ohio. "Corporate terrorist" says a vexed lady from Florida. There are voices from the other side, of course, enraged by foreign criticism. "Stupid, ignorant asshole ... Pathetic limey twit ... Islamofascist apologist ... Snotty eurotrash ... Parasitic appeasers ... When we want your opinion, we'll come over there and beat it out of you!" But the balance is 9-1 against.

Yet crucially, amid all this angst and ire, Iraq is not the big issue on American minds. All polls agree that the economy and jobs are the main concern. Up to 60% do not approve of Bush's economic stewardship; that figure is rising. Feeding in are worries about Enron-type corruption, the stock market plunge and dwindling personal saving accounts. Despite Bush's politics of fear, what Americans are really frightened of is deepening recession. And they rightly suspect that a costly Middle East war, oil shocks and spreading financial instability could make matters much, much worse. As Bill Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid". In America, it always is. Here is the mortal gap in Bush's war armour. Here, in the prospect of following his father into one-term obloquy, is what could yet stop Bush on Iraq.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,810488,00.html

=======================

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...,807286,00.html

========================


For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A61903-2002Oct21&notFound=true

========================

C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html

=========================

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133

 

[candletrader]

Nice posts, Josh_B and vvv... President Carter is highly respectable and is a man of decent morality... I just hope he has some influence on the murderous US policymakers...

 

[TM_Direct]

Ok Im goignt o ask again....How come when Clinton was bombing iraq throught the 1990's it was ok, but now Bush leads a coalition and it's not? I truly beleive if it wasn't for 9-11, Iraq wouldn't be on the radar screen at all....I also beleive (mark it down) that there WILL NOT BE WAR....the peopel of iraq went through a lot last time around and i don't think there soldiers are going to want to go sit in a trench a 1000 miles from home and starve to death like last time....I think Sadams own people will take him out before it got to that point...but I also beleive Saddam knows this as well and he will play his games but ultimately comply.....As for Jimmy Carter...Didn't the whole Iran hostage sitution happen becase of the Shah not being exiled back to Iran?

 

[vvv]

Quote from TM_Direct:

Ok Im goignt o ask again....How come when Clinton was bombing iraq throught the 1990's it was ok, but now Bush leads a coalition and it's not? I truly beleive if it wasn't for 9-11, Iraq wouldn't be on the radar screen at all....

it wasn't ok....

it's a question of scale...

and it's not about party...

it's about our terrorist in chief, dubya, trying to con the american people, who increasingly aren't buying anymore, into a war for which there is no purpose, a war built on dubyas lies and fabrications.

again, there is absolutely no reason for starting a war against saddam that makes any sense at all unless you're a war monger desperate to divert attention away from your failures at home, want to earn some money for the armaments and oil industry, and are after some personal revenge for your family .

all this while the economy is in very bad shape, and while he has totally failed in the effort against terrorism and it's causes.

what's so hard to grasp about that?

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story...,807286,00.html

========================


For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A61903-2002Oct21&notFound=true

========================

C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?U...02/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html

=========================

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

 

[TM_Direct]

What war has been started? Most of your postings are based on specualtion...all bush did was outline the fact that Iraq has ignored or broken every single un resolution and that there will be zero tolerence from here on...as far as failing in the war on terrorism....how did he fail? Osama might be alive? there have been numerous arrests and camps were broken up...if you are this concerend about a complete victory in war on terrorism then you should probably get on the Iraq bandwagon becuase he is part of the problem over there.

 

[vvv]

Quote from TM_Direct:

What war has been started?

..as far as failing in the war on terrorism....how did he fail? Osama might be alive?

Iraq: In all but name, the war's on
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak03.html

starting a preemptive war is exactly what dubya wanted, start a war to get a regime change in baghdad, an act of aggression fully unwarranted by any facts but still the favored m.o of dubya...

state terrorism, in other words...

hopefully, no war will be started because dubya did not get his way with the international community....

but there is still the threat that he will come up with even more lies to somehow get his way...

the war against terrorism?

a failure, bin laden is alive and well, as is international terrorism.

but that was never what bush was fighting. bush is not about fighting terrorism and it's causes, he is just about starting proxy wars, or at least trying his best.

Has bin Laden bin forgotten?

America's ever-shifting attitude towards bin Laden tells us far more about the confused war on terror than about bin Laden himself.

by Brendan O’Neill

POSTED APRIL 25, 2002 --

‘
What’s going on? Is bin Laden still the big bad threat to world peace that President Bush once wanted ‘dead or alive’ – or has he been ‘marginalized’ out of the picture? Has al-Qaeda’s threat been ‘neutralized’ – or are they plotting further terrorist attacks and ‘secret guerrilla warfare’? Is getting bin Laden one of America’s ‘strategic objectives’ – or was it never a priority in the first place?

Since the start of 2002, America’s hunt for bin Laden has verged on the farcical. On 7 January 2002, an exasperated military spokesman said the USA would stop ‘chasing shadows’, after yet another round of ‘where’s bin Laden?’ questions from assembled journalists 12.


The US authorities’ lack of intelligence on bin Laden, Muhammad Omar (remember him?) and the rest of the al-Qaeda and Taliban rumps revealed much about the uncertain nature of their war against terror – a war with ever-shifting aims and uncertain goals. So how did the Bush administration respond to the New Year revelations that their intelligence agencies didn’t have a clue where bin Laden is? They changed their war aims. Again.

So America’s war aim went from getting bin Laden ‘dead or alive’ to bringing him to justice to dismantling his organization to giving him the runaround as a means of foiling his dastardly plan. Never have so many war aims been targeted at so few people in so little time.

The confusion over bin Laden’s whereabouts is a reflection of America’s confused war – not an indication that the wily bin Laden is outwitting US intelligence by secretly jetting from one part of the globe to another, as some would have us believe.


Nothing better illustrates the failure of the war on terror than the fact we know less about bin Laden now than we did on 12 September 2001.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/binladenforgotten.htm


and, not to forget, while dubya likes telling blatant lies about that, saddam, while an evil dictator he may be, has zilch to with international terrorism, and even less with 9/11.

nope. he just is, or rather was, one of our allies, a friendly dictator:


Friendly Dictators

Many of the world's most repressive dictators have been friends of America. Tyrants, torturers, killers, and sundry dictators and corrupt puppet-presidents have been aided, supported, and rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to US interests. Traditional dictators seize control through force, while constitutional dictators hold office through voting fraud or severely restricted elections, and are frequently puppets and apologists for the military juntas which control the ballot boxes. In any case, none have been democratically elected by the majority of their people in fair and open elections.

They are democratic America's undemocratic allies. They may rise to power through bloody ClA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other US agencies. US military aid and weapons sales often strengthen their armies and guarantee their hold on power. Unwavering "anti-communism" and a willingness to provide unhampered access for American business interests to exploit their countries' natural resources and cheap labor are the excuses for their repression, and the primary reason the US government supports them. They may be linked internationalIy to extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League, and some have had strong Nazi affiliations and have offered sanctuary to WWll Nazi war criminals.

They usually grow rich, while their countries' economies deteriorate and the majority of their people live in poverty. US tax dollars and US-backed loans have made billionaires of some, while others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes. And rarely still, is the US government held responsible for supporting and protecting some of the worst human rights violators in the world.

check out the list here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

 

[TM_Direct]

So you answered my question...there is no war as of now....and can you stop quoting others? I can find dozens of articals pro and con...I think you have a deep rooted hatred of Bush, so I don't think its posible to have an open discussion...As i said in an earlier post, Bush was vationing in camp david every other week prior to sept. 11th....I never heard irq mentioned once in his campaign or once he took office.