Weapons of Mass Destruction... |
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | | I was watching the CNN coverage of the bombardment of baghdad and a couple of smoke plumes reminded me of september 11. And I couldn't help wondering if the war could be a crude way of getting even...and since there was never anyone to get even with, I guess anyone BAD would do...
A couple of glimpses at the carnage in Baghdad is enough to make you think about the nature of weapons of mass destruction. What are they? Does a weapon of mass destruction flatten a whole city? Does it kill thousands? If I don't use an atomic bomb but instead use three thousand cluster bombs and MOABS, am I not causing mass destruction? I think that the vote counting mistake in Florida created the biggest weapon of mass destruction the world has ever seen.
I am from Pakistan...I have never liked saddam...and I have always liked americans...I consider myself an educated, civilized, liberal person...but today when I got to work and saw the images of war in Iraq, it almost made me lose my faith in democracy and what it can produce...the speed at which Americans are losing friends is something you should think about...Bush is spending the American public's goodwill...it's almost like you elect an apartment administrator who slaps your friends and visitors around and then leaves at the end of his term...while you lose friends forever...it's a shame...
Consider this scenario...I am the President of Pakistan or Russia or any of the other Nuclear capable nations...and I look at the US of A and I think they are hostile...capable of using weapons of mass destruction and I happen to have acquired "conclusive proof" that they do in fact have weapons of mass destruction. Incidentally, the US doesn't have adequate defense at the moment. As citizens of the US, what do you think I should do? Should I ask the US to destroy their weapons of mass destruction or face bombardment?
I think you have to be way worse than Saddam to bomb a city that you know is defenceless...and when you know there are children and women and old men in the city...people who have nothing to do with the war...I think it's an act of shameless cowardice. It's like someone strong and healthy pushing a guy on a wheelchair under a bus...and it does not fit in with my ideas of American heroism...
Viqar Qadir | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: AmericanLady | | Your Post was very interesting, it made me think, and I do see your point, but you have to go back quite a few years to see the whole picture. This is a result of years of politices, and UN resoultions that did nothing. I beleive we are losing more soliders because we are trying to save the innocents. The Irac people that feel free of Saddam are welcoming those who fight for there freedom. And to be honest more Innocent people would die in 1 year under the rule of Saddam, than will in the whole war. Do you think we should have waited and let them become a Nuke threat?
We all know Saddam shoulden't be in power, but no one wanted to do anything, and meanwhile he is just getting stronger. Irac can be a free country run by the people, and they shall be. No sane person wants war....but sometimes you do what you have to do. After all is said and done the Us will be the hero again. Thats what makes us the way we are, we fight for what we beleive in, no matter what the world thinks. And beleive it or not the price of freedom is never Free..... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | Wake up people! ISRAEL...NEOCONS...ZIONISTS !!! The word must get out! 9/11 was a GODSEND for Wolfowitz and Pearle! It gave them the excuse they'd been PRAYING FOR at the Synogogue every Saturday! The excuse to drive the Moron-in-Chief to war, to reshape the middle east in Israel's favor! The same plan they pitched to Clinton in '98, who unlike Bush, wasn't STUPID enough to bite!
It's NOT at all about WMDs, or liberating the Iraqi people...never has been, this plan was drawn up in 1996! Clinton had made progress toward a Palestinian state, and these people would prefer to keep Palestine and push it's people COMPLETELY OUT of it...in effect ETHNICALLY CLEANSING IT!
We could probably solve terrorism just by simply not interfering in Muslim culture and dealing EQUALLY with the Palestinians and the Israelis...but the Neocons believ that the USA's and Israel's futures are linked, thereby they are willing to to unecessarilly lose thousands of American lives, rather than seek solutions that may not be MOST FAVORABLE to Isreal... Read some Pat Buchanan..."Buchanan accuses Zionists of Warmongering"...learn the TRUTH. Find out what our soldiers are REALLY dying for. Then tell me if you agree! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
Your Post was very interesting, it made me think, and I do see your point, but you have to go back quite a few years to see the whole picture. This is a result of years of politices, and UN resoultions that did nothing. I beleive we are losing more soliders because we are trying to save the innocents. The Irac people that feel free of Saddam are welcoming those who fight for there freedom. And to be honest more Innocent people would die in 1 year under the rule of Saddam, than will in the whole war. Do you think we should have waited and let them become a Nuke threat?
We all know Saddam shoulden't be in power, but no one wanted to do anything, and meanwhile he is just getting stronger. Irac can be a free country run by the people, and they shall be. No sane person wants war....but sometimes you do what you have to do. After all is said and done the Us will be the hero again. Thats what makes us the way we are, we fight for what we beleive in, no matter what the world thinks. And beleive it or not the price of freedom is never Free..... |
Let me try to be polite and ask you a few quetions...
UN resolution 142: Says that the use of force requires security councils approval. That conclusive evidence is required to use force. My question is...where is the proof? Okay...so people say the mighty Mr. President has the proof...and it's not open for public. My response to this would be to please change your Constitution from democracy to something else...because as far as I know, a democracy is "government of the people, for the people and by the people" Any nation where a crucial decision is made to spend lives of soldiers and civilians without taking the public into confidence does not deserve the title of democracy.
If the UN resolutions were so pertinent, why did the US and UK backout of their latest draft? Because France threateneted to Veto...so did Russia...so did Germany. This brings to question the whole philosophy of the Veto convention. why is it in place? To ensure that the "responsible nations" of the world stand together in these decisions...to ensure that nothing like World War 2 can happen again. so eventually what did America achieve on the political horizon? A division of the political solidarity of the nations that count.
Your prophetic claim about saddam killing more people than the war...I have answered this in another post...I will only add here that if the US is responsible for inciting Saddam to kill people...it's US and not Saddam who is responsible...it's like you apply a pinchful of chilly powder to your dog's a$$ and refuse to take responsibility if it bites other people.
About the US being the hero again...I do not believe that is an easy proposition...heroes do not kill innocent civillians and defenseless people...even when they are trying to save innocent people...how many cops have you seen shooting at criminals in crowded public places?...and more importantly...wiping out a city with b52 bombers dropping satellite guided munitions while the city under attack has run out of even antiaircraft rounds does not make you a hero...it makes you an efficient obliterator but I would reserve the title of hero for the hardy farmers who will have to rebuild their city.
I agree that you fight for what you believe in...and what you believe in is a very carefully designed menu of beliefs...the average american has no idea about what's going on out there...let me give you an example...this is an article from BBC...it's a reporter reporting from basra...read it...look carefully at the picture of the girl in the bloody dress...she appears to be injured...bleeding but otherwise okay...what the picture doesn't show is that her foot is blown off...this is how the truth is changed for american public's consumption...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm
Can you look at that picture and not think of your own neice or daughter or a friend's child? I can't...
Viqar
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: AmericanLady | | Proof.........The resoultion, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection for Irac's disarment. ALL 15 council members voted for the resoulation. Permement members, China, Russia, the UK, and the US. And non perm members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Gunea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria. The resoulations states that Irac Remains in material breach of council resolutions. It requires that Bagdad give a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, bio, and nuclar wepons programs, and ballistic missiles systems, as well as inform on other chem, bio, nuclear programs that are supposed to be for cival purpous. It gives unristricted rights of entry and travel throughout Irac for inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricetd access to all sights, including so called presidential sights. Finally it warns Irac " it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate. This resoultion was passed along with many others against Irac
http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.htm
Why Did we not force the last UN vote...
We had Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Britan and Bulgaria, but France would have vetoed... why didnt they keep the veto quiet? Because they knew we would attack, and this way they could have no part of it.....thats why. Why should they stick there neck out they have alot of money invested in Irac (oil) and who knows what else. The UN killed itself, you dont make resoulations and not back them. What good are they then...Irac saw that clearly.
I refuse to take the blame for a man who used Chem on his own people, no matter where he got them from, we did not do that.
Do you honer any war vets? Are they heros? And if you dont beleive America will be there helping to rebuild, your wrong we will. Saddam puts his own people in danger. Saddam made his own choices, why is America to blame, caue we called his bluff?
| quote: |
Originally posted by GuyFromPakistan
Let me try to be polite and ask you a few quetions...
UN resolution 142: Says that the use of force requires security councils approval. That conclusive evidence is required to use force. My question is...where is the proof? Okay...so people say the mighty Mr. President has the proof...and it's not open for public. My response to this would be to please change your Constitution from democracy to something else...because as far as I know, a democracy is "government of the people, for the people and by the people" Any nation where a crucial decision is made to spend lives of soldiers and civilians without taking the public into confidence does not deserve the title of democracy.
If the UN resolutions were so pertinent, why did the US and UK backout of their latest draft? Because France threateneted to Veto...so did Russia...so did Germany. This brings to question the whole philosophy of the Veto convention. why is it in place? To ensure that the "responsible nations" of the world stand together in these decisions...to ensure that nothing like World War 2 can happen again. so eventually what did America achieve on the political horizon? A division of the political solidarity of the nations that count.
Your prophetic claim about saddam killing more people than the war...I have answered this in another post...I will only add here that if the US is responsible for inciting Saddam to kill people...it's US and not Saddam who is responsible...it's like you apply a pinchful of chilly powder to your dog's a$$ and refuse to take responsibility if it bites other people.
About the US being the hero again...I do not believe that is an easy proposition...heroes do not kill innocent civillians and defenseless people...even when they are trying to save innocent people...how many cops have you seen shooting at criminals in crowded public places?...and more importantly...wiping out a city with b52 bombers dropping satellite guided munitions while the city under attack has run out of even antiaircraft rounds does not make you a hero...it makes you an efficient obliterator but I would reserve the title of hero for the hardy farmers who will have to rebuild their city.
I agree that you fight for what you believe in...and what you believe in is a very carefully designed menu of beliefs...the average american has no idea about what's going on out there...let me give you an example...this is an article from BBC...it's a reporter reporting from basra...read it...look carefully at the picture of the girl in the bloody dress...she appears to be injured...bleeding but otherwise okay...what the picture doesn't show is that her foot is blown off...this is how the truth is changed for american public's consumption...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm
Can you look at that picture and not think of your own neice or daughter or a friend's child? I can't...
Viqar |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Vikar,
We in the U.S. look at 9/11 the same way. The killing of innocent civilians is deplorable. However, we were not at War as far as we were concerned on 9/11. It was a terrorist attack against mostly civilians and 2 government facilities that have enraged our country. Now, we ARE at War against terrorism and ANYONE who supports it.
There is a difference between the right to defending your country and attacking a country because you don’t like their politics or religion. We are doing neither in Iraq. This is not about religion and it is not about politics. It is about a man who will commit atrocities against anyone who stands between him and his money and who will kill anyone who does not have a picture of him in their home. He will and may have already sold his sole and weapons to terrorists His weapons are weapons of aggression not defense. This should not be tolerated.
I am not that familiar with Pakistan but I doubt and hope that you are not held to that kind of extreme control by your government or religious leaders.
Should there be tolerance and understanding for terrorists? Who and why would anyone support it? Should we or could we sit around a table and discuss a solution by peaceful means? If it were possible, I'm sure it would happen.
It has become clear that many countries, including Pakistan, do not want Saddam in power and consider him a direct threat to their way of life. This has been going on for 20 years and talking about it secretly did not solve the problem. Saddam is the only one who can stop this and he is the only one who can communicate with the Arab world about how to solve the issue in a peaceful fashion. Why hasn’t this happened? Why does the Arab world complain about issues like this and cannot do anything to solve it? There are two reasons. 1. You cannot reason with a madman. The only thing he understands is rule by intimidation. 2. You do not have the military might to confront him. And because of religious reasons, it is not proper to attack another Muslim. Iraq is not all Muslim and I am not sure which religion Saddam is but, if he is not Muslim, then he would be considered an enemy anyway so, why would military action not be a solution for the Arab world? The answer is number 2. Enter the U.S./UK Coalition.
This solves two problems for the Arab nations. They don’t look bad to the rest of the region by attacking fellow Muslims and can remain relatively neutral in that respect. This also allows them to retain a relationship with the region and the West for future oil sales when this is over. This is a Win-Win for the region and they can blame everything on the coalition partners. All 57 countries.
In the end there will be peace and a better life for Iraq and the people of Iraq know this. They are tired of being suppressed.
I hope Pakistan and Egypt come to a peaceful solution before your bombs start falling on each other too. To me this problem looks much like Palestine and Israel fighting over a piece of land for their independence and religious beliefs. The leaders of Pakistan and Egypt are intelligent enough to realize that war is not the answer. Right?
This is my observation only.
Peace! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
Proof.........The resoultion, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection for Irac's disarment. ALL 15 council members voted for the resoulation. Permement members, China, Russia, the UK, and the US. And non perm members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Gunea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria. The resoulations states that Irac Remains in material breach of council resolutions. It requires that Bagdad give a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, bio, and nuclar wepons programs, and ballistic missiles systems, as well as inform on other chem, bio, nuclear programs that are supposed to be for cival purpous. It gives unristricted rights of entry and travel throughout Irac for inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricetd access to all sights, including so called presidential sights. Finally it warns Irac " it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate. This resoultion was passed along with many others against Irac
http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.htm
Why Did we not force the last UN vote...
We had Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Britan and Bulgaria, but France would have vetoed... why didnt they keep the veto quiet? Because they knew we would attack, and this way they could have no part of it.....thats why. Why should they stick there neck out they have alot of money invested in Irac (oil) and who knows what else. The UN killed itself, you dont make resoulations and not back them. What good are they then...Irac saw that clearly.
I refuse to take the blame for a man who used Chem on his own people, no matter where he got them from, we did not do that.
Do you honer any war vets? Are they heros? And if you dont beleive America will be there helping to rebuild, your wrong we will. Saddam puts his own people in danger. Saddam made his own choices, why is America to blame, caue we called his bluff?
|
A couple of quick corrections:
We are talking about Iraq...not Irac
The resolution 1441 said "serious consequences". Serious consequences include killing civilians? It's a vague term...you can define it to mean obliteration on a whole scale level. Like for example wiping out every single human being in iraq or who is believed to have originated in iraq...why not go for the whole shebang?
It doesn't matter why France did what it did, the fact remains that the political affinity of the two nations is nolonger there...thanks to bush...you need to remember that it was the French who came to your aid when you needed it in your own war of independence...it's they french who gave you your statue of liberty...before the Bush regime, they seemed to share your values? what is different this time around?
Did you stop to wonder why the same security Council members who voted unanimously to pass 1441 were so devided on the proposed new resolution?
Why do you think the US tried to move for the new resolution? was it needed at all? if yes...why?
Because the resolution 1441 DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A WAR.
And frankly speaking if US abides by UN resolutions and if we do agree...for argument's sake...that because Iraq is in breach of the resolution and needs chastising...it is not the role of the US of A to go to war...it's the role of the UN forces...
think about it
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Bebert | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
Why Did we not force the last UN vote...
We had Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Britan and Bulgaria,
|
You dont seem to be informed that the US didnt have Chile's support. It was a US administration allegation. Chile protested against that.
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
but France would have vetoed... why didnt they keep the veto quiet? Because they knew we would attack, and this way they could have no part of it.....thats why.
|
So you recognize that US administration went to the UN only to have a validation for their long time prepared war against Irak ? Thats why I think it is an aggression war.
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
Why should they stick there neck out they have alot of money invested in Irac (oil) and who knows what else.
|
Wow, the same big reason : ElfTotalFina is earning big $$$ from an embargoed country, within "oil for food" contracts !!!
Dont you see that it would have been much easier to send a bunch of French Legionnaries (as we did in 1991) and then share the piece of cake ?
Anyway, through your sentence I notice that this war is a matter of oil : Italy, Spain, Russia, France, China, India, Turkey, and others EXCEPT THE US have currently oil contracts with Irak. Do I need to explain more ?
| quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanLady
The UN killed itself, you dont make resolutions and not back them. What good are they then...Irac saw that clearly.
|
The US killed the UN : you dont submit resolutions while everybody knows you would attack anyway, no matter the result of the vote is.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: cliffy | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by GuyFromPakistan
I agree that you fight for what you believe in...and what you believe in is a very carefully designed menu of beliefs...the average american has no idea about what's going on out there...let me give you an example...this is an article from BBC...it's a reporter reporting from basra...read it...look carefully at the picture of the girl in the bloody dress...she appears to be injured...bleeding but otherwise okay...what the picture doesn't show is that her foot is blown off...this is how the truth is changed for american public's consumption...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2884769.stm
Can you look at that picture and not think of your own neice or daughter or a friend's child? I can't...
Viqar |
This often gets forgotten, we love to have a go at other countries propoganda and ridicule the citizens for falling for it, but propoganda is a two way war. We ourselves fall victim to it more often than not. Who thinks this war is on humanitarian grounds??
Or its just maybe, Regime change to stabilise the middle east. Or it could be a pathway to carving out a new bright future for the palestinians. Oh, it could be something to do with weapons of mass distruction, haven't heard about those for a while!
It's worth remembering why our leaders said they had to go to war and what they are saying now we are at war. Then, maybe I am just a cynic!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | So, it sounds like you are disputing our right to independence by denouncing war of any kind?
The French actually fought? Oh my, what were their leaders thinking then? What was the point to get involved with another country’s war?
We fought the British to gain independence. We also fought within our own country to abolish slavery. There are good reasons to go to war when talk dissolves.
Our view on Iraq is not to concur their country and set up another 51st state. It is not about making another America in the middle of the Middle East. it is not about changing their religion.
They want to be independent and free to practice their religion and work to feed their children too and maybe even get them out of poverty. Once this is over they will have the opportunity to get those freedoms. If they don't want them, it will be their choice and not forced upon them by Saddam.
I understand that nobody wants war. I feel the same way.
I am sure that you stand behind your government (where ever you are from) and that they are doing everything to allow you to have the freedom and rights you deserve as a human being. The freedom to the Internet and what ever your religious views are and that you have a right to complain about your government if you so wish with persecution.
Frankly, I’m still proud to be an American and wouldn’t live anywhere else.
Although everyone seems to blame Bush, the outcome would be exactly the same had Gore been elected. It’s not any one person. It’s about a country’s right to defend and support its beliefs. I can’t believe that the entire Iraqi people feel that Saddam is doing the right thing for Iraqi people and that they share his beliefs.
“Of the people, by the people and for the people”. That is our constitution | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by USA1
Vikar,
We in the U.S. look at 9/11 the same way. The killing of innocent civilians is deplorable. However, we were not at War as far as we were concerned on 9/11. It was a terrorist attack against mostly civilians and 2 government facilities that have enraged our country. Now, we ARE at War against terrorism and ANYONE who supports it.
There is a difference between the right to defending your country and attacking a country because you don’t like their politics or religion. We are doing neither in Iraq. This is not about religion and it is not about politics. It is about a man who will commit atrocities against anyone who stands between him and his money and who will kill anyone who does not have a picture of him in their home. He will and may have already sold his sole and weapons to terrorists His weapons are weapons of aggression not defense. This should not be tolerated.
I am not that familiar with Pakistan but I doubt and hope that you are not held to that kind of extreme control by your government or religious leaders.
Should there be tolerance and understanding for terrorists? Who and why would anyone support it? Should we or could we sit around a table and discuss a solution by peaceful means? If it were possible, I'm sure it would happen.
It has become clear that many countries, including Pakistan, do not want Saddam in power and consider him a direct threat to their way of life. This has been going on for 20 years and talking about it secretly did not solve the problem. Saddam is the only one who can stop this and he is the only one who can communicate with the Arab world about how to solve the issue in a peaceful fashion. Why hasn’t this happened? Why does the Arab world complain about issues like this and cannot do anything to solve it? There are two reasons. 1. You cannot reason with a madman. The only thing he understands is rule by intimidation. 2. You do not have the military might to confront him. And because of religious reasons, it is not proper to attack another Muslim. Iraq is not all Muslim and I am not sure which religion Saddam is but, if he is not Muslim, then he would be considered an enemy anyway so, why would military action not be a solution for the Arab world? The answer is number 2. Enter the U.S./UK Coalition.
This solves two problems for the Arab nations. They don’t look bad to the rest of the region by attacking fellow Muslims and can remain relatively neutral in that respect. This also allows them to retain a relationship with the region and the West for future oil sales when this is over. This is a Win-Win for the region and they can blame everything on the coalition partners. All 57 countries.
In the end there will be peace and a better life for Iraq and the people of Iraq know this. They are tired of being suppressed.
I hope Pakistan and Egypt come to a peaceful solution before your bombs start falling on each other too. To me this problem looks much like Palestine and Israel fighting over a piece of land for their independence and religious beliefs. The leaders of Pakistan and Egypt are intelligent enough to realize that war is not the answer. Right?
This is my observation only.
Peace! |
Let me first ask you about Terrorism...it's been used very frequently recently and I might sound naive saying this but I have no idea what it means...literally, it should mean something like a tendency to terrorize...which would bring to question the whole US operation in Iraq...I strongly believe that the civilians in Baghdad are terrified by the US bombing.
If terrorism means to target civilians for political, ethnic or some other assorted reasons, I would again think about the civilians being "freed" from the oppression of a Regime that was crual but at least gave them food to eat. This kind of jingoism calls to mind the slogan carried by the early British colonist in America...the ruse used to wipe out the native american population. They were supposedly bringing the light of civilization to these poor people in America and you guys are bringing democracy to Iraq.
Another question...who decides who is a terrorist and who is supporting a terrorist? USA decides? Isn't it great to be able to decide everything for everyone?
You said ANYONE who supports a terrorist will be attacked? I just recently read USA warning Russia to stop providing Anti SGM Jammers to Iraq...so this means they were supporting these terrorists? How about attacking Russia next? And then Iran...and then North Korea? And then Pakistan? France also sold equipment to Iraq...how about bombing them?
If saddam's weapons are weapons of agression, the bombs falling on Baghdad right now are not? You speak fondly of his weapons of mass destruction...I would like to see proof before I agree to get people killed over them...and speaking of weapons of mass destruction...what's happening in Iraq is mass destruction too...you can use a nuclear weapon to flatten a city and you can use conventional weapons to flatten the city...to me it's the same...only with a nuclear weapon you return to normal life after half a century...the cluster bombs dropped in wars stay there for as long as it takes for someone to get close enough to be blown up...I've seen this happen in Afghanistan...
About the solution you proposed for the Arab world to get rid of the tyrant...you have it all planned...everyone lives happily ever after...
Does it occur to you that maybe the arab world doesn't really consider Iraq a danger? What do they have to fight with? You talk about military might...these guys don't have the antiaircraft rounds to shoot at your bomber and choppers. Look at the footage of the sky over baghdad...how much anti aircraft fire do you see? Don't you think if they had munition they'd want to use it before they are bombed into the ground?
It is not like the Arab world is so terrified of Iraq that they can't attack it...you need to remember that Iraq and Iran were in an eleven year war just before the gulf war started. Iran has a huge military machine that is much bigger than Iraq...Iran's military budget equals the rest of the Arab countries...they are Iran's arch enemies...and yet they are against this war...why? Because they are afraid of Iraq? or because they don't like America bombing these people who already are half dead from lack of resources?
Pakistan supports the Us in only as far as it does not want Saddam to be in power...where this war is concerned, it's illegal and Pakistan does not support it...frankly speaking if I were in Iraq at the moment I would defend the civilians against US forces myself...nobody likes to stand and watch a bully pummel somebody weaker...that's the whole point of civilization.
and by the way...my name is Viqar...with a Q...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: cliffy | | In reply to USA1.
In our country we have a man in charge, we didn't elect. We have a head of state we don't want, who is head of the church we don't attend, in fact things are so bad we can't even change the colour of our national flag - we have to seek approval from another countries parliment.
Do you think you americans can save us from this headcase in charge? He has recently waged war on a country on its Knees because him and his pals wont allow it to trade. can you help??
My country - Scotland
The Headcase - Englands leader - Tony Blair. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
The resolution 1441 said "serious consequences"QUOTE]
It would serve you well to read 1441, 678, and 687. Its hard to discuss the issue without having the background. Understand that 1441 was a very strong and clear ultimatum. It was a final opportunity to comply. If Saddam didn't comply, then the "algorithm" clearly means that he no longer has the right to voluntarily influence the process of his disarmament. If Saddam retained the right to participate in the process after failure to comply with the ultimatum, then it would not in fact be "final", would it?
[QUOTE]Why do you think the US tried to move for the new resolution? was it needed at all? if yes...why?
Because the resolution 1441 DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A WAR. |
Personally I don't see why the US/UK even considered making the good faith effort of continued diplomacy other than the fact that the case seemed obvious and we WANTED the participation of other member states. It was a political good faith gesture. It would have been easier to present a list of UN requirements from the resolutions and simply ask each UNSC member to give "yes" or "no" to whether they believe that Saddam had complied fully, immediately, and completely. The UNSC had already agreed by unanimous vote that Saddam was in violation of 687, the cease fire clause. No compliance - no cease fire.
Resolution 678, that authorized member states to use any means necessary to enforce UN resolutions also made no mention of war. Do you know what resolution that was? It was invoked in 1441 not just by number, but by the actual executive quote that was relied upon to begin the first gulf war. It also used the word "final" as per 1441.
From another angle, do you recall that the French and Germans supported the use of force in the Balkans without any kind of UN resolution? What's it gonna be folks?
| quote: |
| It doesn't matter why France did what it did, the fact remains that the political affinity of the two nations is nolonger there...thanks to bush...you need to remember that it was the French who came to your aid when you needed it in your own war of independence... |
Just as in this case, it was hard cold geopolitical reasoning that made the French act to not support their own UN position. The French didn't support our revolution out of a love of liberty, they did it to bloody the nose of the English and weaken their position.
| quote: |
| it's they french who gave you your statue of liberty... |
That was a nice gesture. Vive le France!
| quote: |
| Did you stop to wonder why the same security Council members who voted unanimously to pass 1441 were so devided on the proposed new resolution? |
Obviously the UNSC doesn't take itself or its resolutions seriously.
| quote: |
| And frankly speaking if US abides by UN resolutions and if we do agree...for argument's sake...that because Iraq is in breach of the resolution and needs chastising...it is not the role of the US of A to go to war...it's the role of the UN forces... |
"...all member states..." is the operative thread here. It doesn't mention the UN as an entity. The US/UK, etc., would have greatly appreciate some help on this. No one wanted to help - even though everyone seems to agree on the premise of the case.
Please read all the resolutions. This was a monumental and patient diplomatic effort over twelve years. Many UN member states would not act to enforce their own resolutions. It is unfortunate that the US and her allies must act to support the UN and bear the burdons without the help of more countries.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MikeXXL
GuyFromPakistan,
go to this website and see the crimes that Iraq has committed against its own people and its neighbours. This is what the US/UK are fighting to prevent in the future.
http://www.indict.org.uk/index.php |
Mike,
Thanks for taking on the onerous burden of purging the world of all these awful monsters who kill (dear god!) their own people. I found it funny that the site you recommended is actually not a UK site as it purports to be...it's a sub mask of an Australian site and it's held privately...in fact so privately that the person who reserved the domain didn't even give his/her name. The site is funded by the government of US.
You can check the details if you go to www.whois.net and search for this site.
For your interest I am giving below a list of the US interventions throughout the world since 1918. If you go further backwards, you have to include the atrocities perpetrated on the native Indians...but hey...we all want to forget about that don't we?
Oh and take a look at the 60s...the list doesn't mention the number of US students killed in protests...the Black Panthers...the Weathermen...
surely you wouldn't want other countries coming in to topple the government...divide the states to make them more manageable and then returning the rule to the people in these instances?
A century of Interventions
PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.
TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA
1925
Troops
Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA
1927-34
Troops
Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval
Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops
Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval
Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil
war.
CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.&
South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against
siege.
GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval
Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA
1958
Troops
Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat
Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA
1964
Troops
Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT
1967
Troops
Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES
1968
Troops
After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops
Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN
1984
Jets
Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets
Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval
Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
Personally I don't see why the US/UK even considered making the good faith effort of continued diplomacy other than the fact that the case seemed obvious and we WANTED the participation of other member states. It was a political good faith gesture. It would have been easier to present a list of UN requirements from the resolutions and simply ask each UNSC member to give "yes" or "no" to whether they believe that Saddam had complied fully, immediately, and completely. The UNSC had already agreed by unanimous vote that Saddam was in violation of 687, the cease fire clause. No compliance - no cease fire.
Resolution 678, that authorized member states to use any means necessary to enforce UN resolutions also made no mention of war. Do you know what resolution that was? It was invoked in 1441 not just by number, but by the actual executive quote that was relied upon to begin the first gulf war. It also used the word "final" as per 1441.
From another angle, do you recall that the French and Germans supported the use of force in the Balkans without any kind of UN resolution? What's it gonna be folks?
Just as in this case, it was hard cold geopolitical reasoning that made the French act to not support their own UN position. The French didn't support our revolution out of a love of liberty, they did it to bloody the nose of the English and weaken their position.
That was a nice gesture. Vive le France!
Obviously the UNSC doesn't take itself or its resolutions seriously.
"...all member states..." is the operative thread here. It doesn't mention the UN as an entity. The US/UK, etc., would have greatly appreciate some help on this. No one wanted to help - even though everyone seems to agree on the premise of the case.
Please read all the resolutions. This was a monumental and patient diplomatic effort over twelve years. Many UN member states would not act to enforce their own resolutions. It is unfortunate that the US and her allies must act to support the UN and bear the burdons without the help of more countries. |
Thanks for the instructive post. I have not had a chance to look at the resolutions you mentioned first hand...I have so far, only read commentary on some...please post a link if you want to educate.
Let's talk about law...according to practised international law...the burden of proof lies with the accuser right? I will repeat my question. Where is the proof that Iraq has not disarmed? I am not concerned with what devious schemes Saddam employed to hide his weapons and how desperately the UN inspectors tried and tried to look at everything and weren't able to...I am concerned with evidence...to enforce ANY of the resolutions you mention, you need proof...if Bush was kind enough to take you into confidence, please let us in on the secret...otherwise, I'm afraid I'll think it's illegal to bomb them. If we were to go by this doctrine of point a finger and then bomb, who needs the UN anyways?
As for the argument that it was the duty of all nations under the UN flag to disarm Iraq...it doesn't take a genius to figure out that by all nations it means all nations UNDER UN...
Consider this scenario...Iraq has disarmed. the USA, Britian, Russia and France agree that it is so. Heck, Iraq is even supplying free oil to US as a gift for ridding the nation from those dangerous weapons. And China thinks it still has the weapons...China asks the UN to support it's claim....without a proof...the UN says no. Then China asks other nations...all but one major nations say no. Then China says okay fine...I'll go ahead and blow up the heathens...bring love and peace to their remains...how would you feel? Let me tell you how I would feel...I'd feel disgusted...and I'll ask China to go bring some proof first.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: mtliveingtree | | you have done very good usa1 and i agree with all of what you have said and your respnses , wish the others could come up with the same info than maybe they would get a grip and grab there ears and pull so they can open there eyes and hearts | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | | I wish I didn't have a job right now - its really suffering!
| quote: |
| ...please post a link if you want to educate. |
Here is some info to put the issue in context:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/
UN Resolutions:
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
Pay specific attention to resolutions 678 , 686, 687 , 688, 689, 692, 699, 700, 705, 706, 707, 712, 715, 773, 778, 806, 883, 899, 949, 1060, 1111, 1115, 1129, 1134, 1137, 1143, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1194, 1205, 1210, 1242, 1266, 1275, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1293, 1302, 1330, 1352, 1360, 1382, 1409, and 1441 , among others. They either continue to demand Iraq's compliance, or confirm Iraq's non-compliance.
| quote: |
| Let's talk about law...according to practised international law...the burden of proof lies with the accuser right? I will repeat my question. Where is the proof that Iraq has not disarmed? |
The UN resolutions required more than just disarmament. Regarding disarmament, the UN created specific response criteria for Iraq that outlined their final chance to comply. The report they submitted in December was required to be complete. Even ommissions would be considered a breach because in Saddam's Iraq, it was clear that an ommission must necessarily be deliberate. That is why the ommissions clause was included. This is based on the fact of his dictatorship, and his resume of deceipt and defiance. The report had to be immediate, complete, and unconditional. Saddam's compliance with inspectors had to be immediate, complete, and unconditional. The goal of the inspectors was to review the report, and verify compliance. The inspectors reported to the UNSC, as required by 1441. None of their reports confirmed compliance. Many of their reports, and you may also recall statements, charged that restrictions were being placed upon the questioning of scientists within Iraq and abroad. After some haggling (haggling not allowed) some scientists were interviewed. None were allowed to be taken abroad. At best, Blix thought that some areas of "process" cooperation were being improved, but he underscored process as opposed to substance.
The Iraqi rockets, while at first seemingly silly technical glitch, may infact be more. Independent engineers thought the design was strikingly similar to a 760mm rocket developed on the subcontinent. Same engineering specifications. Only difference is that long range capability would require two of the same prohibited engines to be used side by side. UN warned Iraq not to build these rockets. Iraq knew they couldn't. They did. A short range rocket doesn't need to be 760mm. Please note the current rocket attacks Saddam is making - even his 400mm rockets are exceding the 93 mile limit.
There is a long list of issues layed out in the resolutions - from terrorism (he still pays cash for palestinians that blow themselves and isreali kids to pieces), the return of missing Kuwaitis, etc.
The guy is an aggressive thug. The fact that he broke the UN ceasefire, that the UN confirms, is enough right off the bat. This whole operation is just a continuation of the first gulf war.
| quote: |
| If we were to go by this doctrine of point a finger and then bomb, who needs the UN anyways? |
That isn't a serious objection. Invading his neighbors, gassing his people, DEFINITELY pursuing WMD, etc. He is not just anyone. The UN has continually and formally maintained that he is in breach. This didn't arise out of the blue.
| quote: |
| As for the argument that it was the duty of all nations under the UN flag to disarm Iraq...it doesn't take a genius to figure out that by all nations it means all nations UNDER UN... |
Please just read the resolutions.
| quote: |
| Then China says okay fine...I'll go ahead and blow up the heathens...bring love and peace to their remains...how would you feel? Let me tell you how I would feel...I'd feel disgusted...and I'll ask China to go bring some proof first. [/B] |
Don't stretch the context too far. If a new Iraqi regime with no aggressive history, etc., etc., etc., and China bombed, I do not think that would be right.
Sorry my response is so blotchy. At one time I was far more eloquent. Just remember the French FM stated publicly that Saddam could never be trusted.
I will respond to nowar as time permits... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | | Sorry. I edited this post because it was a repeat message sent by mistke. Read my post bellow. Thanks | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
I wish I didn't have a job right now - its really suffering!
Here is some info to put the issue in context:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/
UN Resolutions:
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
Pay specific attention to resolutions 678 , 686, 687 , 688, 689, 692, 699, 700, 705, 706, 707, 712, 715, 773, 778, 806, 883, 899, 949, 1060, 1111, 1115, 1129, 1134, 1137, 1143, 1153, 1154, 1158, 1175, 1194, 1205, 1210, 1242, 1266, 1275, 1280, 1281, 1284, 1293, 1302, 1330, 1352, 1360, 1382, 1409, and 1441 , among others. They either continue to demand Iraq's compliance, or confirm Iraq's non-compliance.
The UN resolutions required more than just disarmament. Regarding disarmament, the UN created specific response criteria for Iraq that outlined their final chance to comply. The report they submitted in December was required to be complete. Even ommissions would be considered a breach because in Saddam's Iraq, it was clear that an ommission must necessarily be deliberate. That is why the ommissions clause was included. This is based on the fact of his dictatorship, and his resume of deceipt and defiance. The report had to be immediate, complete, and unconditional. Saddam's compliance with inspectors had to be immediate, complete, and unconditional. The goal of the inspectors was to review the report, and verify compliance. The inspectors reported to the UNSC, as required by 1441. None of their reports confirmed compliance. Many of their reports, and you may also recall statements, charged that restrictions were being placed upon the questioning of scientists within Iraq and abroad. After some haggling (haggling not allowed) some scientists were interviewed. None were allowed to be taken abroad. At best, Blix thought that some areas of "process" cooperation were being improved, but he underscored process as opposed to substance.
The Iraqi rockets, while at first seemingly silly technical glitch, may infact be more. Independent engineers thought the design was strikingly similar to a 760mm rocket developed on the subcontinent. Same engineering specifications. Only difference is that long range capability would require two of the same prohibited engines to be used side by side. UN warned Iraq not to build these rockets. Iraq knew they couldn't. They did. A short range rocket doesn't need to be 760mm. Please note the current rocket attacks Saddam is making - even his 400mm rockets are exceding the 93 mile limit.
There is a long list of issues layed out in the resolutions - from terrorism (he still pays cash for palestinians that blow themselves and isreali kids to pieces), the return of missing Kuwaitis, etc.
The guy is an aggressive thug. The fact that he broke the UN ceasefire, that the UN confirms, is enough right off the bat. This whole operation is just a continuation of the first gulf war.
That isn't a serious objection. Invading his neighbors, gassing his people, DEFINITELY pursuing WMD, etc. He is not just anyone. The UN has continually and formally maintained that he is in breach. This didn't arise out of the blue.
Please just read the resolutions.
Don't stretch the context too far. If a new Iraqi regime with no aggressive history, etc., etc., etc., and China bombed, I do not think that would be right.
Sorry my response is so blotchy. At one time I was far more eloquent. Just remember the French FM stated publicly that Saddam could never be trusted.
I will respond to nowar as time permits... |
Charles,
thanks for taking the time to respond...however hurried. I spent the last day reading up on the Resolutions you mentioned...and other related material including letters to the secretary of the UNSC and etc...
I have to confess that the UN did not do a good job in laying out it's demands in the first place...there seems to be a plethora of terms that are ambiguous to the point of cruelty. For example banning the posession of everything that can be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Some of the banned substances and items are also required for humanitarian needs. I was surprised to find this kind of criminal oversight in UN resolutions. But we know it's on US payroll so I guess it was doing what it was told to do.
I read the Resolutions because I thought you knew something that I didn't know...something that was causing my judgment to take an unfair slant towards Iraqis (please note the difference between Iraq and Iraqis...it seems the UN resolutions 1141, 686, 687 etc didn't)
I was disappointed to find that my study of the Resolutions produced neither a point of comfort nor justification as concerns the war and the US role in this issue. Contrarily, my doubts about the sheer stupidity of the Bush administration were further confirmed.
I will refer to the points youhighlighted in the resolution:
With regard to US taking on the role of making sure that Iraq complies...the relevant clause in 687 is:
27. Calls upon All States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Council under the paragraph 26, as maybe necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24...
(Paragraph 24 refers to the destruction of restricted items and sale of restricted items, etc to Iraq. Paragraph 27 refers to the formation of control bodies to ensure compliance with 24, 26 and 27)
I do not see anything relating to the use of force by member States by themselves. In fact the UN Charter, there are very strict conditions to undertake pre-emptive war.
Let me call your attention to the UN Charter.
Chapter VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
"Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. "
It is very clearly laid down here that no member State can take action on it's own...without UN pproval. The initiative is a UN prerogative.
Here's another excrept from UN Charter, Chapter one:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
Please note clause 4 of Article two, it says all members will settle their international disputes in a peaceful manner. Notice the word peace. It is spelled P E A C E. Peace. It means not WAR.
Now take a look at UN resolution 1441.
The Article you reffered to is outlined here:
13. ...that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of it's continueed violations of it's obligations;
14. (the Council) decides to remain SIEZED of the matter.
Clause 14, in plain English means that the Council is the decision making authority on the matter...that it has not relinquished control to Mr. Push of the US of A.
I remember in an earlier Post Nowar said that you are an idiot. I will assume that you are not. I will instead, expect you to read the resolutions and the UN charter again and try to understand what it says.
Does it say that it's a US prerrogative to decide that Iraq is a threat and then attack? Or does it say that the UN will decide? Where does it sanction war against Iraq? Who decides what Serious Consequences means? The gun slinging, trigger happy Uncle SAM?
As for the question of Saddam being a thug and gassing his own people...let his own people decide...it's none of your goddamned business. Be democratic.
On the basis of the previous history of US lies and Saddam lies, if Saddam says he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction and your Bush says he has weapons of mass destruction, trust me...it's a much better option to believe Saddam. It doesn't involve tearing the world asunder and it doesn't involve innocent blood.
Speaking of innocent blood, you'd do well to also note that it is you, the people who are behind this president and this war, who are responsible for this massacre...and everytime you see the image of someone burnt alive or blown apart, take a look at yourself in the mirror...convince yourself that it is you who ordered this execution...more than half of the world is convinced that it is you who is responsible. Now live with it.
Viqar Qadir
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
| But we know it's on US payroll so I guess it was doing what it was told to do. |
apparently not - lol.
| quote: |
| (please note the difference between Iraq and Iraqis... |
I agree there are a number of semantic issues. The "regime" should have been the focus.
| quote: |
I will refer to the points youhighlighted in the resolution:
With regard to US taking on the role of making sure that Iraq complies...the relevant clause in 687 is: |
I would refer you to 678:
"allow[s] Iraq one final opportunity..."
"...Authorizes member states ... to use all necessary means to implement 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions..."
This was the language used to legitimate the use of force by UN member states against Iraq in 1991. There was no other "special" resolution.
1441 uses the same language. It doesn't just reference 678 by number - it actually uses the "authorization" quote from 678 directly invoking the authorization.
| quote: |
27. Calls upon All States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Council under the paragraph 26, as maybe necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24...
(Paragraph 24 refers to the destruction of restricted items and sale of restricted items, etc to Iraq. Paragraph 27 refers to the formation of control bodies to ensure compliance with 24, 26 and 27) |
687:
Section C lays out requirements and restrictions on Iraq, and other member states in their dealings with Iraq. Section I/33 states that Iraq's uncondiotional acceptance (compliance) with the requirements is THE condition upon which the cease fire depends.
| quote: |
| I do not see anything relating to the use of force by member States by themselves. In fact the UN Charter, there are very strict conditions to undertake pre-emptive war. |
The UNSC resolutions mentioned above "authorize all member states...".
UN Charter allows countries to use force under two conditions: 1. self defence; 2. UNSC authorization.
| quote: |
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force... |
The UNSC implemented numerous "measures" including brutal sanctions for 12 years, as a means to coerce Iraq into moving from an acknowledged state of non-compliance, into a state of compliance.
| quote: |
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces |
Again, they tried to negotiate Iraq out of Kuwait - it didn't work so UNSC passed 678 "authorizing all member states..."
The UN tried to negotiate Iraq into compliance with 687 (and others), and finally produced 1441 that invoked 678 authorization.
| quote: |
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, ...undertake to make available to the Security Council, ...armed forces, assistance |
It is very clearly laid down here that no member State can take action on it's own...without UN pproval. The initiative is a UN prerogative.
This is just an argument against the countries not supporting 1441. The UNSC made its ultimatum in 1441.
| quote: |
Now take a look at UN resolution 1441.
The Article you reffered to is outlined here:
13. ...that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of it's continueed violations of it's obligations;
14. (the Council) decides to remain SIEZED of the matter. |
Res 678 also ends with "remain siezed of the matter." There was no OTHER resolution that authorized war. That was it.
| quote: |
| Clause 14, in plain English means that the Council is the decision making authority on the matter...that it has not relinquished control to Mr. Push of the US of A. |
1441 was an ultimatum as was 678. "Final" opportunity means no more opportunities. Authorizes member states means authorizes member states.
| quote: |
| I remember in an earlier Post Nowar said that you are an idiot. |
Many have siad I'm an idiot! lol. Didn't you too?
| quote: |
| Does it say that it's a US prerrogative to decide that Iraq is a threat and then attack? |
The UNSC authorized "all member states..."
| quote: |
| Who decides what Serious Consequences means? |
I would love to see any explanation of what "serious consequences" to the failure of Iraq to use its "final" opportunity could mean other than the use of force (i.e. Iraq will no longer be asked to comply, it will be made to comply).
| quote: |
| The gun slinging, trigger happy Uncle SAM? |
Please provide me with an alternative scenario that would remove Saddam's discretion in the process of compliance other than force.
| quote: |
| As for the question of Saddam being a thug and gassing his own people...let his own people decide...it's none of your goddamned business. Be democratic. |
As we should have let the Bosnian muslims "decide" their own fate? Or in Kosovo?
| quote: |
| On the basis of the previous history of US lies and Saddam lies, if Saddam says he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction and your Bush says he has weapons of mass destruction, trust me...it's a much better option to believe Saddam. It doesn't involve tearing the world asunder and it doesn't involve innocent blood. |
I am still not convinced that Saddam is more honest than Bush
(understatement). Saddam had 12 years to comply and chose not to. He definitely brought this upon himself and unfortunately his own people.
| quote: |
| Speaking of innocent blood, you'd do well to also note that it is you, the people who are behind this president and this war, who are responsible for this massacre...and everytime you see the image of someone burnt alive or blown apart, take a look at yourself in the mirror...convince yourself that it is you who ordered this execution...more than half of the world is convinced that it is you who is responsible. Now live with it. |
US voters will certainly hold the administration responsible when it comes time to vote. The Iraqi's unfortunately don't have that option with Saddam. I firmly believe that because most countries are ready to admit that Saddam is a brutal dictator, and not in compliance with UNSC resolutions, it is their cynical self-interested inability to create a unified front against Saddam that led to this escalation, and is playing a major role in supporting the legitimacy of Saddam's regime, and the will of many Iraqis to resist when otherwise they would not have.
The USA/UK/Canadians killed over 14000 civilians during the opening weeks of operation "overlord" to free Europe in 1944. Sometimes there is a price to pay. Your support for Saddam is just raising the price for everyone involved.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nowar | | euh, I never said that Charles was an idiot ..... otherwise I wouldn't tried to continue to discuss with .... 
and again it's interpretation, meanings, .....
but one point: 1441 is about disarming Iraq, not overthrow Saddam gov ....... which is the current goal of the war
and again, article 51 of U.N. charter doesn't apply.
I'm not saying Saddam must stay .... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
apparently not - lol.
I agree there are a number of semantic issues. The "regime" should have been the focus.
I would refer you to 678:
"allow[s] Iraq one final opportunity..."
"...Authorizes member states ... to use all necessary means to implement 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions..."
This was the language used to legitimate the use of force by UN member states against Iraq in 1991. There was no other "special" resolution.
1441 uses the same language. It doesn't just reference 678 by number - it actually uses the "authorization" quote from 678 directly invoking the authorization.
687:
Section C lays out requirements and restrictions on Iraq, and other member states in their dealings with Iraq. Section I/33 states that Iraq's uncondiotional acceptance (compliance) with the requirements is THE condition upon which the cease fire depends.
The UNSC resolutions mentioned above "authorize all member states...".
UN Charter allows countries to use force under two conditions: 1. self defence; 2. UNSC authorization.
The UNSC implemented numerous "measures" including brutal sanctions for 12 years, as a means to coerce Iraq into moving from an acknowledged state of non-compliance, into a state of compliance.
Again, they tried to negotiate Iraq out of Kuwait - it didn't work so UNSC passed 678 "authorizing all member states..."
The UN tried to negotiate Iraq into compliance with 687 (and others), and finally produced 1441 that invoked 678 authorization.
It is very clearly laid down here that no member State can take action on it's own...without UN pproval. The initiative is a UN prerogative.
This is just an argument against the countries not supporting 1441. The UNSC made its ultimatum in 1441.
Res 678 also ends with "remain siezed of the matter." There was no OTHER resolution that authorized war. That was it.
1441 was an ultimatum as was 678. "Final" opportunity means no more opportunities. Authorizes member states means authorizes member states.
Many have siad I'm an idiot! lol. Didn't you too?
The UNSC authorized "all member states..."
I would love to see any explanation of what "serious consequences" to the failure of Iraq to use its "final" opportunity could mean other than the use of force (i.e. Iraq will no longer be asked to comply, it will be made to comply).
Please provide me with an alternative scenario that would remove Saddam's discretion in the process of compliance other than force.
As we should have let the Bosnian muslims "decide" their own fate? Or in Kosovo?
I am still not convinced that Saddam is more honest than Bush
(understatement). Saddam had 12 years to comply and chose not to. He definitely brought this upon himself and unfortunately his own people.
US voters will certainly hold the administration responsible when it comes time to vote. The Iraqi's unfortunately don't have that option with Saddam. I firmly believe that because most countries are ready to admit that Saddam is a brutal dictator, and not in compliance with UNSC resolutions, it is their cynical self-interested inability to create a unified front against Saddam that led to this escalation, and is playing a major role in supporting the legitimacy of Saddam's regime, and the will of many Iraqis to resist when otherwise they would not have.
The USA/UK/Canadians killed over 14000 civilians during the opening weeks of operation "overlord" to free Europe in 1944. Sometimes there is a price to pay. Your support for Saddam is just raising the price for everyone involved. |
You play on the word Authorize. That UN authorized it's member states to take all measures necessary to ensure compliance. I do not believe that this authorization was for war...and I certainly do not believe that these all measures necessary is a responsible term...with cowboys like Bush, you could interpret it to mean genocide if needed...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | | I do appreciate all of your opinions and I have learned a lot from this forum.
Nowar - if its about disarming Iraq, and the UNSC issued an ultimatum (no more chances), and even the French FM publicly stated that the regime cannot be trusted (to comply/disarm/etc., voluntarily), and NO ONE has implied or affirmed that Saddam complied, than what alternative is there?!? Please provide me with an alternative that removes Saddam's discretion?
Guy -
| quote: |
| You play on the word Authorize. |
Its NOT a game! The professional diplomats on the UNSC don't play with words. They are absolutely careful in their choice and reading of the words in resolutions they vote on. Maybe it was a crappy resolution. But it was approved and you can't completely disregard this. "Authorizes" all member states meant WAR in 1991, and "Authorizes" all member states could definitely be interpreted in the same context of an ultimatum to mean the same thing in 2003. No one has provided an alternative other than non-enforcement/continued diplomacy which in and of itself contradicts the ultimatum itself.
If the UNSC had NOT approved 1441, I could see a basis for the argument that the US abandoned the UN.
You must at least grant that the most direct interpretation of 1441 is closer to my interpretation. As nowar points out, people can interpret things the way they want. You can find lawyers that will intelligently argue any case. You can find lawyers to defend the most brutal murderers and rapists who will find a way to get them off the hook. Public opinion/sentiment can influence the jury (remember OJ Simpson - luckily I was out of country and missed most of it). But it doesn't change the validity of the case itself. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
Guy - Its NOT a game! The professional diplomats on the UNSC don't play with words. They are absolutely careful in their choice and reading of the words in resolutions they vote on. Maybe it was a crappy resolution. But it was approved and you can't completely disregard this. "Authorizes" all member states meant WAR in 1991, and "Authorizes" all member states could definitely be interpreted in the same context of an ultimatum to mean the same thing in 2003. No one has provided an alternative other than non-enforcement/continued diplomacy which in and of itself contradicts the ultimatum itself.
If the UNSC had NOT approved 1441, I could see a basis for the argument that the US abandoned the UN.
You must at least grant that the most direct interpretation of 1441 is closer to my interpretation. As nowar points out, people can interpret things the way they want. You can find lawyers that will intelligently argue any case. You can find lawyers to defend the most brutal murderers and rapists who will find a way to get them off the hook. Public opinion/sentiment can influence the jury (remember OJ Simpson - luckily I was out of country and missed most of it). But it doesn't change the validity of the case itself. |
so you think the US went with the UN resolutions?
I totally agree with you that it's not a game...that's why I think it's a little more important than the semantic slipups made by some goon(s) in the UN head office
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | | I DO believe that the US is currently implementing 1441. I also believe that the UNSC has not come out with any alternative resolutions that would contradict this. I will mention this again - do not confuse the opinion of world leaders, and their representatives who sit in UN chairs, with the formally approved resolutions of the UNSC.
There are other points of view as well. The French/Germans supported action in the Balkans without UN resolutions to support the actions.
Farther "out there" you could say that since the USA was attacked by terrorists, and we then declared war on terrorists and their sponsior nations, that self-defence would apply. We were attacked. The UN still officially condemns Iraq for support of terrorism. Keep in mind how American's feel after 9/11. It was a massive and cruel attack against primarily civilian targets. My friends live in NYC! They saw this. Some were right there! While the terrorists themselves already hated us before this Iraq issue - and will do what they want anyway without any regard to even the most basic rules of civilized behavior, the world should know, and the nations that support terrorism should know, that they are playing a very dangerous game and will be held accountable in the strictest sense.
I'm sure the USA would love for the UNSC to invoke its right to regulate the issue of terrorism and sponsors of terrorism. LEt's bring it to a head and let the UN make its decision. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: iudoe | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
Keep in mind how American's feel after 9/11. It was a massive and cruel attack against primarily civilian targets. My friends live in NYC! They saw this. Some were right there! While the terrorists themselves already hated us before this Iraq issue - |
a taste of your own medicine Charles -
- you are not addressing the causes - it was ok to carpet bomb a retreating army of between 30-50,000 men 12 years ago, an army already beaten and trying to make it home - wouldn't you expect that sort of thing might upset a few people. Don't you think that's the sort of thing that causes tragedies such as 9/11
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: GuyFromPakistan | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
I DO believe that the US is currently implementing 1441. I also believe that the UNSC has not come out with any alternative resolutions that would contradict this. I will mention this again - do not confuse the opinion of world leaders, and their representatives who sit in UN chairs, with the formally approved resolutions of the UNSC.
There are other points of view as well. The French/Germans supported action in the Balkans without UN resolutions to support the actions.
Farther "out there" you could say that since the USA was attacked by terrorists, and we then declared war on terrorists and their sponsior nations, that self-defence would apply. We were attacked. The UN still officially condemns Iraq for support of terrorism. Keep in mind how American's feel after 9/11. It was a massive and cruel attack against primarily civilian targets. My friends live in NYC! They saw this. Some were right there! While the terrorists themselves already hated us before this Iraq issue - and will do what they want anyway without any regard to even the most basic rules of civilized behavior, the world should know, and the nations that support terrorism should know, that they are playing a very dangerous game and will be held accountable in the strictest sense.
I'm sure the USA would love for the UNSC to invoke its right to regulate the issue of terrorism and sponsors of terrorism. LEt's bring it to a head and let the UN make its decision. |
I don't know who you are trying to kid but it's a pretty obvious fact that US stands in violation of the UN charter, which calls on all of it's member States to channel their international disputes through UN. The very fact that the US and the UK decided to do away with the required vote from the UN members of the security council makes this war illegal, puts Bush on the same category as Saddam and gives a pretty clear message to the world as to the US designs on global hegemony.
To say that the US is implementing 1441, without asking for UN permission, in violation of Articles 41, 42, 43,44, in fact, the whole UN Chater on War and Aggression, is not only naive, it also explains the ignorance of anyone who thinks is a legitimate course of action.
The US attitude of "I can and so I will" is a new precedence that is bound to catch on. With the UN authority reduced to nothing, it is very likely that other nations will use the same method of "point the finger and shoot" sooner or later. What the US has achieved by this war is a global rift in the main nations of the world...bringing the world to the same political divisions that existed before World War II and to counter which, the UN was formed.
Another "gain" of this war is a global wave of anti US sentiment...which will further threaten the lives of US citizens not only in their own country but all acro
|
|
