Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Why war with Iraq is necessary...


Recommended Posts

  United Nations   S/2002/1198     Security Council   Provisional   7 November 2002   Original: English                 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution   [Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]           The Security Council,           Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,           Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,           Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,           Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,           Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,           Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,           Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,           Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,           Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,           Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,           Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,           Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,           Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,           Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,           Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,           Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,           Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,           Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,           1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);           2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;           3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;           4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;           5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;           6.       Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;           7.       Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;       – All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;       – Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and       – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;           8.       Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;           9.       Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;           10.     Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;           11.     Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;           12.     Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;           13.     Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;           14.     Decides to remain seized of the matter.   :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote]Originally posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger: [b]Foah all uff you who ssink ve shutn't kick zayah ahssess, I say: [img]http://flack.datajunkie.net/misc/stfu.gif[/img][/b][/quote]So AAANOLD.... Presented with the facts, this is your rebuttal????? You're from Europe, aren't you...... ;)

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your avatar, too, Carmen. [img]http://chalkhills.org/images/cover/thumb/DrumsWires.jpg[/img] XTC is one of my favorite bands. I do find it quite ironic that you have chosen to use an XTC image while simultaneously posting a pro-war thread. XTC is one of the most notorious anti-war bands in the history of rock'n'roll. [b]From the album "English Settlement" [/b] (Andy Partridge) [i]Programmes of violence, As entertainment, Brings the disease into your room. We know the germ, Which is man-made in metal, Is really a key to your own tomb. Prevention is better than cure, Bad apples affecting the pure, You'll gather your senses I'm sure Then agree to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them. Children will want them, Mothers supply them, As long as your killers are heroes. And all the media Will fiddle while Rome burns, Acting like modern-time Neros. Prevention is better than cure, Bad apples affecting the pure, You'll gather your senses I'm sure Then agree to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them. I'm speaking to the Justice League of America. The U S of A, Hey you, Yes you in particular! When it comes to the judgement day and you're standing at the gates with your weaponry, You dead go down on one knee, Clasp your hands in prayer and start quoting me, 'Cos we say... Our father we've managed to contain the epidemic in one place, now, Let's hope they shoot themselves instead of others, Help to civilize the race now. We've trapped the cause of the plague, In the land of the free and the home of the brave. If we listen quietly we can hear them shooting from grave to grave. You ought to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them.[/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason (from the viewpoint of the Book of Revelations: It is necessary to completely level Bhagdad so there is a place to build Babylon again. So just who do you think it refers to when it mentions the 'whore of Babylon'? Could it be... George Bush? Something to consider...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]  Original: English                 [/b][/quote]My English tells me that we should take care of the "present" danger first,Alkaida(bad spelling,but I don't give a fuck)and Bin Laden and his accociates(remember him?).I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into George JR.s buiness schedule,but there's a thing called facing up to reality and ones responsibilities.Fist things first.2 years later and were still waiting.
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Pollack's article, the link to which was posted by BlueSky, concludes by saying that the real choice with Iraq is "a war now or a war later... one without nuclear weapons or one with them." If this is a rationale for attacking now, then North Korea should certainly be added to Alndln's list of clear and present threats. They already have nukes, or are at least much closer than Iraq. I long for the good old days of an ideologically opposed superpower, just as big and bad as we are, and Mutually Assured Destruction. It kept the world a lot more orderly.

Stephen Fortner

Principal, Fortner Media

Former Editor in Chief, Keyboard Magazine

Digital Piano Consultant, Piano Buyer Magazine

 

Industry affiliations: Antares, Arturia, Giles Communications, MS Media, Polyverse

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by patrick_dont_fret: [b]And the real reason we're going to war: OIL. No two ways about it, I'm afraid. I really don't see the point in doing this, anyway. And Dubya is just a plain ole whore, not necessarily one of Babylon, but one in general.[/b][/quote]How come we didn't take the oil from Kuwait and Iraq the last time we were there? The oil argument is dumb. :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by dBunny: [b]I like your avatar, too, Carmen. [img]http://chalkhills.org/images/cover/thumb/DrumsWires.jpg[/img] XTC is one of my favorite bands. I do find it quite ironic that you have chosen to use an XTC image while simultaneously posting a pro-war thread. XTC is one of the most notorious anti-war bands in the history of rock'n'roll. [b]From the album "English Settlement" [/b] (Andy Partridge) [i]Programmes of violence, As entertainment, Brings the disease into your room. We know the germ, Which is man-made in metal, Is really a key to your own tomb. Prevention is better than cure, Bad apples affecting the pure, You'll gather your senses I'm sure Then agree to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them. Children will want them, Mothers supply them, As long as your killers are heroes. And all the media Will fiddle while Rome burns, Acting like modern-time Neros. Prevention is better than cure, Bad apples affecting the pure, You'll gather your senses I'm sure Then agree to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them. I'm speaking to the Justice League of America. The U S of A, Hey you, Yes you in particular! When it comes to the judgement day and you're standing at the gates with your weaponry, You dead go down on one knee, Clasp your hands in prayer and start quoting me, 'Cos we say... Our father we've managed to contain the epidemic in one place, now, Let's hope they shoot themselves instead of others, Help to civilize the race now. We've trapped the cause of the plague, In the land of the free and the home of the brave. If we listen quietly we can hear them shooting from grave to grave. You ought to, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more to fire them. Melt the guns, Melt the guns, Melt the guns, And never more desire them.[/i][/b][/quote]Some of my favorite guitar work of all time is "Melt the Guns". IMHO, the lyrics are 20 yrs. old, and don't hold up in a post 9/11 world. C :wave: PS : XTC is my all time favorite band. My framed autographed LP cover of Skylarking is one of my prize posessions.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]CarmenC, I dig your avatar. Does that draft resolution come in a 'Reader's Digest' version? I'm sure it's very interesting and well written, but can't it be condensed down to a paragraph or two?[/b][/quote]Please. You're very smart. Take the five min. to read what Iraq has done for the last 12 yrs. This does not take into account the financing of suicide bombers in Israel ($20,000 to every family who sacrifices a son or daughter to kill Jews), or any of the weapons he has hidden. If Saddam could sell Usama a nuclear device to explode in New York, do you think he would? I have no doubt... There will be no warning of imminent attack from Al-Queda or Iraq or any other terrorists. No smoking gun, but a smoking city. Just a blinding flash, a million dead, and a bewildered public asking their government, "Why didn't you do anything when you had the chance?" This is what America wants to avoid. There is only peace after victory. Carmen :)

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by BlueSky: [b] http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/02101611.htm This is very informative... We don't have to agree, but it is always a good idea to read both sides of an argument.[/b][/quote]Pascal, I completely agree with the article you linked to. I also hear that your speakers are wonderful. Congratulations. Good luck to you and yours. Peace. Carmen

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]Imagine, Carmen, that the country mentioned in your original post was Russia, France, or even Canada instead of Iraq. Would your post carry the same title? Whitefang[/b][/quote]YES!!!!!! My original post was UN Resolution 1441, unanimously approved by the UN Security Counsel. Evil is evil, no matter the name. Peace will only come with victory. Here's how we got here...from a Pulitzer Prize winner. Holiday From History By Charles Krauthammer Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A31 The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: • Iraq: Saddam Hussein continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors. • North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement -- surprise! -- was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. • Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI -- and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification. That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell "teacup wars" in places such as Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with "states of concern." Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars. Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction. True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized. There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes. We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939. Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction? This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can -- and will -- the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no. :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One would wonder how any nation smart enough to produce such devastating weaponry could still lack the intelligence to realize the destruction of the United States would only be the beginning of their demise. Outside of the fact that militarily, it may be near impossible, the economics of such an undertaking would render any enemy impotent. Just how, do you imagine, Osama would fare if his dream came true? How would he manage to feed and clothe the people he feels destined to rule with absolutely no economic foundation. For, if you'd been paying attention, as scrambled and befuddled the U.S. economy seems now, it is STILL light-years ahead of any other major power. And Osama is NOT in charge of ANY major power. All other economies are one way or another supported by U.S. consumer dollars. Even Red China saw the need for expediency in warming up trade relations with the U.S. The collapse of the Soviet Empire was due to a too heavy strain on the coffers, and the Russian economy in the post Soviet era is not doing too much better. If nukes are used to vanquish the U.S. and it's allies, the soil for farming food supplies would be contaminated. Any remaining nations would be unable to support any need for starving third world nations. And besides, any fallout from even the shortest sustained nuclear combat would eventually rain certain death down on any survivors. I find it hard to believe that Saddam Hussien, who lusts for the power he has maintained, would intentionally risk losing that power in an attack that even he, as evil as he may be, knows is an excersize in futility. The best reason to go in and try to remove him would be that Saddam has made damn sure the Iraqi people are powerless to do so themselves. As far as Osama? Well, even the German people grew weary of Hitler long before the war was over. Do not think, as tragic as the loss of 5,000 lives is, that in a country of nearly 300 million this loss really puts that big of a dent in our position. To Al Qaida, however, this figure would be astronamical. And, once that number has been met and exceeded, his loyal followers would find that loyalty waning. But it must be met with resolve. Not the pussy-footing that was done in the "not a real war" Viet-Nam. I have the feeling that Osama, as Saddam, has never been witness to what this nation is capable of militarily. Not fully. Saddam only witnessed the terciary response given "Desert Storm", and has no doubt underestimated our true capabilities. Whitefang
I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]How come we didn't take the oil from Kuwait and Iraq the last time we were there? The oil argument is dumb. [/b][/quote]Secured is the word.The real question is,how come we didn't take Saddam the last time we were there.George SR. stated that that was the sole purpouse for being there in the first place.I guess we got side tracked and split after the oil was secured. :rolleyes:
"A Robot Playing Trumpet Blows"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]One would wonder how any nation smart enough to produce such devastating weaponry could still lack the intelligence to realize the destruction of the United States would only be the beginning of their demise. Outside of the fact that militarily, it may be near impossible, the economics of such an undertaking would render any enemy impotent. Just how, do you imagine, Osama would fare if his dream came true? How would he manage to feed and clothe the people he feels destined to rule with absolutely no economic foundation. For, if you'd been paying attention, as scrambled and befuddled the U.S. economy seems now, it is STILL light-years ahead of any other major power. And Osama is NOT in charge of ANY major power. All other economies are one way or another supported by U.S. consumer dollars. Even Red China saw the need for expediency in warming up trade relations with the U.S. The collapse of the Soviet Empire was due to a too heavy strain on the coffers, and the Russian economy in the post Soviet era is not doing too much better. If nukes are used to vanquish the U.S. and it's allies, the soil for farming food supplies would be contaminated. Any remaining nations would be unable to support any need for starving third world nations. And besides, any fallout from even the shortest sustained nuclear combat would eventually rain certain death down on any survivors. I find it hard to believe that Saddam Hussien, who lusts for the power he has maintained, would intentionally risk losing that power in an attack that even he, as evil as he may be, knows is an excersize in futility. The best reason to go in and try to remove him would be that Saddam has made damn sure the Iraqi people are powerless to do so themselves. As far as Osama? Well, even the German people grew weary of Hitler long before the war was over. Do not think, as tragic as the loss of 5,000 lives is, that in a country of nearly 300 million this loss really puts that big of a dent in our position. To Al Qaida, however, this figure would be astronamical. And, once that number has been met and exceeded, his loyal followers would find that loyalty waning. But it must be met with resolve. Not the pussy-footing that was done in the "not a real war" Viet-Nam. I have the feeling that Osama, as Saddam, has never been witness to what this nation is capable of militarily. Not fully. Saddam only witnessed the terciary response given "Desert Storm", and has no doubt underestimated our true capabilities. Whitefang[/b][/quote]These people are not interested in the land or resources of the USA. They want to KILL YOU and your way of life. They want to send women's rights back to the 7th century. Osama is wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. He will fare very well. He will be supported by all fundamentalist Islam. He does not care about his people or their welfare. Only the destruction of the PEOPLE OF THE USA!!! It is not impossible. Look what he did with 19 guys and 3 planes. Saddam will never attack us. He will sell weapons to the people that will. And he will deny that he did anything. When New York is gone, the war protesters will say to Bush, "Why didn't you do something when you had the chance?" and I will say, " You wouldn't let him...". C :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Alndln Hammer: [b] [quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]How come we didn't take the oil from Kuwait and Iraq the last time we were there? The oil argument is dumb. [/b][/quote]Secured is the word.The real question is,how come we didn't take Saddam the last time we were there.George SR. stated that that was the sole purpouse for being there in the first place.I guess we got side tracked and split after the oil was secured. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Bush Sr. followed the UN resolution that allowed the liberation of Kuwait, not the assasination of Saddam. The UN wouldn't let him kill Saddam. Just like the UN is protecting Saddam now... :rolleyes: The oil was secured for Kuwait. Not us. C

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq. The dossier's introduction: Iraq is a terrifying place to live. People are in constant fear of being denounced as opponents of the regime. They are encouraged to report on the activities of family and neighbours. The security services can strike at any time. Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace. Between three and four million Iraqis, about 15% of the population, have fled their homeland rather than live under Saddam Hussein's regime. These grave violations of human rights are not the work of a number of overzealous individuals but the deliberate policy of the regime. Fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power. This report, based on the testimony of Iraqi exiles, evidence gathered by UN rapporteurs and human rights organisations, and intelligence material, describes the human cost of Saddam Hussein's control of Iraq. It examines in turn Iraq's record on torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and the Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly, over many years, condemned Iraq's human rights record. But Iraq continues to flout UN resolutions and to ignore its international human rights commitments. On 19 April 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." On torture: Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime are personally involved. Saddam Hussein runs Iraq with close members of his own family and a few associates, most of whom come from his hometown of Tikrit. These are the only people he feels he can trust. He directly controls the security services and, through them and a huge party network, his influence reaches deep into Iraqi society. All real authority rests with Saddam and his immediate circle. Saddam is head of state, head of government, leader of Iraq's only political party and head of the armed forces. Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions. Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity. An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime. Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences. In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family. These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others. According to an Amnesty International report published in August 2001, "torture is used systematically against political detainees. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level." Over the years, Amnesty and other human rights organisations have received thousands of reports of torture and interviewed numerous torture victims. Although Iraqi law forbids the practice of torture, the British Government is not aware of a single case of an Iraqi official suspected of carrying out torture being brought to justice. Treatment of women and children: Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment. Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International. The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet. Prison conditions: Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and degrading. At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the women regularly raped by their guards. Arbitrary and summary killings: Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice and have even been charged for the bullets used. Persecution of the Kurds: Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering. Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards. Persecution of the Shia community: The Shia community, who make up 60% of Iraq's population is Iraq's biggest religious group. Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent. Harassment of the Opposition outside Iraq: The UN Special Rapporteur has received numerous reports of harassment, intimidation and threats against the families of opposition members living abroad. Occupation of Kuwait: Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Iraqi forces committed robbery, raped Kuwaities and expatriates and carried out summary executions. Amnesty International documented many other abuses during the occupation of Kuwait. Methods of torture: Eye gouging Piercing of hands with electric drill Suspended from ceiling by their wrists Electric shock Sexual abuse Mock executions Acid baths Conclusion: This dossier does not include every Iraqi's personal story of suffering, caused by Saddam's regime, known to the British Government. There are sadly far too many to mention them all. But the evidence in the dossier is a faithful representation of what ordinary Iraqis face in their daily lives. It is no wonder that, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2001, Iraqis have become the second largest group of refugees in the world. Iraqis also top the table of foreign nationals seeking asylum in the UK. Saddam Hussein has been ruthless in his treatment of any opposition to him since his rise to power in 1979. A cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering remains the hallmark of his regime. :wave:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Sir Winston Churchill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by CarmenC: [b]Please. You're very smart. Take the five min. to read what Iraq has done for the last 12 yrs. If Saddam could sell Usama a nuclear device to explode in New York, do you think he would? I have no doubt... There will be no warning of imminent attack from Al-Queda or Iraq or any other terrorists. No smoking gun, but a smoking city. [/b][/quote]I wish I could say it only takes 5 min. I have a reading disability. I'm very literate, but I'm also very slow... I'm big on prefaces and conclusions. Then I hit the index for the details. It's not optimal, but it works. Hell, that's how most people get their graduate degrees! You don't have to preach to me, I'm already on board. I don't think it is about oil, but honestly, I could give a fuck less if it is. Those people are completely insane with their suicide missions. Cut their financing, and hunt them down, and get rid of them.

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by philbo_Tangent: [b]gain. So just who do you think it refers to when it mentions the 'whore of Babylon'? Could it be... George Bush? [/b][/quote]There's plenty of "neutral" women of prominance and power in the middle east who could, theoretically, be appointed some sort of position of a "transitional leadership" role for an interim "building a New Democracy" period. What would seem to make sense would be for the UN to try to establish a melting-pot of sorts of a government in Iraq. A Babylon of cultures; and experiment in the first World Government Established Nation. As such, I can think of two women in the area that have a rather diverse ethnic and political background that would make perfect political sense to appoint. At which point, if the more radical aspect of their backgrounds were to emerge as dominant, there could be an interesting Biblical saga. If one believes such silliness. However, if one of these women were appointed by some quizzical long shot - that might change things.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "human rights abuses" argument does not fit into this equation at all. Its just another argument that the government/media is using to justify what it wants to do. The US has since WW II supported numerous regimes or organizations that are on the same level of crimes against humanity as Saddam. Chile and the talibans are two. Its decision to act against a country has never been for reasons of democracy or freedom, it has always been reasons of money, power and fear. A couple of years ago there was a mass slaughter, one of the worst since the days of Hitler and Stalin, in Rwanda, Africa. Was it in the interest of the US or the international community to do anything about it. No. And why? Cause Rwanda is not exporting oil or anything else of major interest to the western world. There is always a hidden agenda on behalf of the US and the oil argument is always valid. Without the oil you cannot continue your way of life that you are so proud of. The oil is the oil of your economy. Without it, you will stall and crash. Not since the days of the Roman empire has there been so much power concentrated to one nation. History has proven that sooner or later these giants will fall. OD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carmen, I've never agreed with one thing you've ever said, but thanks for posting the complete resolution because I have wanted to read it for some time now. So take a minute to read this: The resolution is a condemnation of Iraq with no teeth. So if this is the lynch pin for war, it doesn't fly. As a legal document this UN resolution is like receiving a first notice from the IRS for failing to file your tax return. All it translates to is "or else". No fines or penalties are mentioned. There is nothing in the resolution that mentions military intervention, invasion, occupation or otherwise. [b]Para 11 & 12[/b] say if Iraq's reports are not complete, the council will receive reports immediately and will reconvene to "consider the situation further". That is what they are doing now. I was hoping it would contain what specifically it allowed the UN to do in that case. The resolution doesn't go that far. [b]Para 10[/b] requests all members support the resolution "by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed," etc. [i]The U.S. is not cooperating.[/i] Time and again the UN has expressed its frustration at Washington for not sharing what is claimed to be crucial evidence to locate prohibited materials. [b]Para 8 [/b]Iraqi personnel delay or impede inspectors, but they have not taken or threatened hostile acts against UN personnel in respect to their inspection duties. The UN inspectors say this themselves. [b]Here is a crucial point:[/b] Now if the fly-overs by the U.S. are considered part of the UN process, then Iraq has taken hostile action by firing surface to air missiles because the U.S. is a member state taking action to uphold the resolution. (paragraph 8) I said this weeks ago. The best premise to invoke an invasion is for the U.S. to increase its fly-over missions and the result sooner or later is that an aircraft crew will be killed. Still the resolution does not cover military response. Maybe there is another resolution containing remedies by force, but 1441 isn't it.
It's OK to tempt fate. Just don't drop your drawers and moon her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by OD: [b]The "human rights abuses" argument does not fit into this equation at all. Its just another argument that the government/media is using to justify what it wants to do. The US has since WW II supported numerous regimes or organizations that are on the same level of crimes against humanity as Saddam. Chile and the talibans are two. Its decision to act against a country has never been for reasons of democracy or freedom, it has always been reasons of money, power and fear. A couple of years ago there was a mass slaughter, one of the worst since the days of Hitler and Stalin, in Rwanda, Africa. Was it in the interest of the US or the international community to do anything about it. No. And why? Cause Rwanda is not exporting oil or anything else of major interest to the western world. There is always a hidden agenda on behalf of the US and the oil argument is always valid. Without the oil you cannot continue your way of life that you are so proud of. The oil is the oil of your economy. Without it, you will stall and crash. Not since the days of the Roman empire has there been so much power concentrated to one nation. History has proven that sooner or later these giants will fall. OD[/b][/quote]C.M., I believe this is a good fight against what Carman has said. Human rights have no precedence in this war for oil. Bush doesn't care...he never did, he never will. It's only for his usurpation of power, as he did during elections, that he is after Iraq and all it's resources. He doesn't give a fuck for Osama or anyone else, and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. What ever happened to Osama? They're saying he's got a new video out, but I don't hear anything calling for another "war on terrorism". Ain't gonna happen, I'm afraid. Bush has got his little coke-filled beady eyes set on Iraqi oil, because we need it. Well, I say, fuck it. I'll go back to riding a bicycle all the time. This crap is pointless, really. No reason at all to be killing people on the premise of them killing people just so we can get oil...I feel that Bush and all his cohorts are going to Hell, and there's no looking back. He'll drag the whole nation down with him, if he feels like it. Satan has many forms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...