Poor thinking by Bush and the conservatives

[Fencer128]

Off Topic - For anyone who reads the resolution(s)...What do the first words of the paragraphs mean? ie...Noting, Mindful, etc

I think they draw attention to what has been passed previously.

Andy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Gaard
I think I heard something about the fact that there's a deadline in this new draft is the cause of at least a little apprehension. Anybody else hear this?

Not sure if this link will work, it's a pdf file. resolution

Off Topic - For anyone who reads the resolution(s)...What do the first words of the paragraphs mean? ie...Noting, Mindful, etc

The UK is supporting an ammendment such that Saddam must show full complience by March 17 (read this as "the last deadline to avert a war" - we either don't care what the UN thinks on this or assume complience). This is why people are objecting.

Ok. We will let the UN foot the bill for putting our troops into a holding pattern until:
A. We have proof without doubt that Saddam has disarmed or
B. The UN concedes inspections are not working and force will be required.

If we move troops out the area, inspections will stop

 

[Fencer128]

Ok. We will let the UN foot the bill for putting our troops into a holding pattern until:
A. We have proof without doubt that Saddam has disarmed or
B. The UN concedes inspections are not working and force will be required.

If we move troops out the area, inspections will stop

If this had been discussed before all the troops started arriving (rather than concurrently) - then I may have had sympathy with that arguement. If IMHO this had been handled properly - then only now - with the US/UK facing a UN veto would they be justified in starting to build up for a war the UN doesn't want.

Andy

 

[thomsbrain]

i gotta laugh at the people who say war is just enforcing what the UN wants. i guess america knows what the UN wants better than they do, since they've made it clear they don't want this yet.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Ok. We will let the UN foot the bill for putting our troops into a holding pattern until:
A. We have proof without doubt that Saddam has disarmed or
B. The UN concedes inspections are not working and force will be required.

If we move troops out the area, inspections will stop

If this had been discussed before all the troops started arriving (rather than concurrently) - then I may have had sympathy with that arguement. If IMHO this had been handled properly - then only now - with the US/UK facing a UN veto would they be justified in starting to build up for a war the UN doesn't want.

Andy

So what kind of cooperation would UN inspectors be getting without 200K troops outside of Iraq?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
i gotta laugh at the people who say war is just enforcing what the UN wants. i guess america knows what the UN wants better than they do, since they've made it clear they don't want this yet.

After 17 resolutions it seems clear that the UN wants Iraq to disarm.

 

[CaptnKirk]

A little history of Iraq & Iran from 1980 until 1988

Interesting to see how much / little things have changes in 23 years.

What we can image from space
None of these are classified, and we can get much more detailed,

 

[Fencer128]

So what kind of cooperation would UN inspectors be getting without 200K troops outside of Iraq?

I guess we'll never know. Probably none. But the thing is the US pre-empted all of this by starting preparations for a war - one which most believed was going to happen either way - before they even found out whether the UN could tackle it this time. The US wouldn't have had half the trouble it is having now if it had sat at the UNSC and watched a failed disarmament process (presuming it was). Then it could have started preparations for a war that would have had more support in spite of the UN position.

This is what is at the heart of my arguement. IMHO It probably would have come to military action - but it would have been better (since all of a sudden Iraq was a real issue again) if the pure UN route had been tried again first. That's what (if my memory serves correctly) what happened in Kosovo. The UN debated the issue - agreement for military action wasn't reached that time (and disagreement is acceptable in this way - they don't agree all the time, nothing wrong with that) and so a NATO operation was staged instead - and guess what the UNSC is still here and people are still talking.

This might not be the case 2 weeks from now.

Andy

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
i gotta laugh at the people who say war is just enforcing what the UN wants. i guess america knows what the UN wants better than they do, since they've made it clear they don't want this yet.

After 17 resolutions it seems clear that the UN wants Iraq to disarm.

then let's leave it up to them to decide how that is best accomplished. they know our opinion, now let them take that into account and act the way they best see fit.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

So what kind of cooperation would UN inspectors be getting without 200K troops outside of Iraq?

I guess we'll never know. Probably none. But the thing is the US pre-empted all of this by starting preparations for a war - one which most believed was going to happen either way - before they even found out whether the UN could tackle it this time. The US wouldn't have had half the trouble it is having now if it had sat at the UNSC and watched a failed disarmament process (presuming it was). Then it could have started preparations for a war that would have had more support in spite of the UN position.

This is what is at the heart of my arguement. IMHO It probably would have come to military action - but it would have been better (since all of a sudden Iraq was a real issue again) if the pure UN route had been tried again first. That's what (if my memory serves correctly) what happened in Kosovo. The UN debated the issue - agreement for military action wasn't reached that time (and disagreement is acceptable in this way - they don't agree all the time, nothing wrong with that) and so a NATO operation was staged instead - and guess what the UNSC is still here and people are still talking.

This might not be the case 2 weeks from now.

Andy

Just look back over the past 12 years, the more military pressure you put on Saddam, the more "cooperation" you get. It has become a tired game of cat and mouse.

 

[3L33T32003]

We are actually enforcing these resolutions, while the UN sits around saying that they will not attack no matter what.

Enforcing what???

Nowhere in 1441 does it say we or anyone else can use force! In fact, I do not think any of the resolutions after Gulf War 1 said we could use force if
Saddam ignored the decrees.

Oh and for those of you who would rather spew venom and call names instead of refute arguments with logic...thanks for showing us your intelligence.

 

[3L33T32003]

Ummm No I do not think so. Have you seen the Footage of the Kurds that were gassed? Watch the Savidge Report on MSNBC.

Yah they were killed by gas sold to Saddam by the US. And after that, Rumsfeld told Bush 1 that we should give Saddam 1 billion in aid. Kinda makes you wonder if Bush 2 learned anything from his dad.

 

[EXman]

what you didn't like my opinion?

so what 😛

Think this war won't happen soon think again.

I noticed you didn't say much in your short retort 😀

 

[3L33T32003]

Bush I and Clinton did almost nothing. But here is a chuckle - if you feel in the mood for ugly humor. It was written into those scraps of paper that Saddam threw away that after 15 days, if he did not turn over a detailed list of the whereabouts of hidden chemical, bacteriological and nuclear materials, he would be considered to be in violation of UN rules.

If every nation that was in violation would be attacked by the US there would be firefights going on all over the world, most notably in Israel...provided you think that "violation of rules"==going to war.

If the UN does not specifically state that a use of force is approved, then we should not use force. Or we should never have gone to them to ask permission.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Ummm No I do not think so. Have you seen the Footage of the Kurds that were gassed? Watch the Savidge Report on MSNBC.

Yah they were killed by gas sold to Saddam by the US. And after that, Rumsfeld told Bush 1 that we should give Saddam 1 billion in aid. Kinda makes you wonder if Bush 2 learned anything from his dad.

3L33T32003

Do you have a link to a credible document detailing exactly what the US, France and Germany sold Iraq in the way of weapons and when they were sold?

Thank you.

 

[3L33T32003]

A vote of 15 countries is not going to make a war right or wrong, so please quit acting as if the UNSC has a holy mandate.

Again, this follows my logic. If we do not need approval of the UN, we should just go in and get it done. But we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say "let's pass a resolution against Iraq" and then go after Iraq when it does not pass.

I would have been far happier if Bush had just said from the beginning that we are going after him and damn the UN. Instead, the administration seems to need "justification" and they are not getting it...

 

[3L33T32003]

3L33T32003

Do you have a link to a credible document detailing exactly what the US, France and Germany sold Iraq in the way of weapons and when they were sold?

Thank you.

Is "60 Minutes" good enuf for ya?

Of course, the NYT is also a good source.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

3L33T32003

Do you have a link to a credible document detailing exactly what the US, France and Germany sold Iraq in the way of weapons and when they were sold?

Thank you.

Is "60 Minutes" good enuf for ya?

uh no, that's not good enough


Your statement was

Yah they were killed by gas sold to Saddam by the US.

That link did not specify any quantities or whether or not the US sold any type of nerve gas to Iraq.

Can you find something that backs up your statement?

 

[3L33T32003]

I cannot help you if you can't believe 60 minutes. Guess if it is not in newsmaxx it is not good enuf for ya?

Another source about gas sales to Iraq. You DID hear about Iraq-gate, right????

Still more proof. You have to go outside of US conservative media to find this stuff but it is there.

 

[etech]

yes, it looks as if the US sold Iraq some rather nasty weapons.

It's time we took care of the situation, rectified past mistakes and take them away from him.


It's too bad that Germany and France did not care about their past mistakes also.

What's your little quip about newsmaxx supposed to mean?

 

[heartsurgeon]

ah...the simplicity and innocence of youth..

you apparently have very little in the way of understanding human nature.

Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator - to morally equate anything the U.S. does to saddam's rule is laughable. his actions have clearly demonstrated his desire to
overthrow kuwait and saudi arabia and iran and gain control of middleast oil/money/politics. He launched missles against saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, and iran. the world will be a better place without him.

The individual members of the U.N. vote in accordance with their own best interests..
the french are currently waging war in the Ivory Coast, never "sanctioned" by the U.N. (i thought their minister to the U.N stated "war is failure")
the french have tens of billions of oil contracts with saddam which will be void if he is toppled.
the germans and the russians have contracts to develop oil resources in iraq in the future (void if saddam is out)
the french have the largest moslem population in europe you don't suppose this effects their politics.
the french and the germans are involved in a political effort to control the european union. they wish to control the british. they will never allow turkey into the e.u. because turkey would end up with more votes in the e.u. due to their larger population - the frenchies will never allow this.
the germans and the frenchies didn't do crap in the UN to bring about a resolution to the sirtuation in Kosvo (in their own backyard for heaven sake) the U.S. moved without U.N. approval to stop that genocide (under clinton)..where the heck was the U.N then?
the russians pounded the crap out of the chechan's....no U.N. approval sought there...

their is an old saying..all politics are local, everyone votes for their own self interests...and guess what..that's democracy in action! why should'nt the U.S. do what is in it's own best interest..that's what the entire world does. for the president to do anything but what is the best for the u.s. violates the oath he was required to take when he became president.

the U.N really is a joke...

 

[slider64]

I am so tired of this argument, why not just realize that they obviously know more than we do.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
ah...the simplicity and innocence of youth..

you apparently have very little in the way of understanding human nature.

Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator - to morally equate anything the U.S. does to saddam's rule is laughable. his actions have clearly demonstrated his desire to
overthrow kuwait and saudi arabia and iran and gain control of middleast oil/money/politics. He launched missles against saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, and iran. the world will be a better place without him.

The individual members of the U.N. vote in accordance with their own best interests..
the french are currently waging war in the Ivory Coast, never "sanctioned" by the U.N. (i thought their minister to the U.N stated "war is failure")
the french have tens of billions of oil contracts with saddam which will be void if he is toppled.
the germans and the russians have contracts to develop oil resources in iraq in the future (void if saddam is out)
the french have the largest moslem population in europe you don't suppose this effects their politics.
the french and the germans are involved in a political effort to control the european union. they wish to control the british. they will never allow turkey into the e.u. because turkey would end up with more votes in the e.u. due to their larger population - the frenchies will never allow this.
the germans and the frenchies didn't do crap in the UN to bring about a resolution to the sirtuation in Kosvo (in their own backyard for heaven sake) the U.S. moved without U.N. approval to stop that genocide (under clinton)..where the heck was the U.N then?
the russians pounded the crap out of the chechan's....no U.N. approval sought there...

their is an old saying..all politics are local, everyone votes for their own self interests...and guess what..that's democracy in action! why should'nt the U.S. do what is in it's own best interest..that's what the entire world does. for the president to do anything but what is the best for the u.s. violates the oath he was required to take when he became president.

the U.N really is a joke...

The only three times the UN has ever sanctioned a war were Korea, Iraq Gulf War, and Afghanistan. All were brought up to the UN by the US. France and Russia have went outside the UN to use military action on other countries. Why the hell can't we. I say screw them all, we do not need France. They export 28 billion to the US and we export 19 billion back to them. We won't lose anything.

KK

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
ah...the simplicity and innocence of youth..

you apparently have very little in the way of understanding human nature.

Iraq is ruled by a brutal dictator - to morally equate anything the U.S. does to saddam's rule is laughable. his actions have clearly demonstrated his desire to
overthrow kuwait and saudi arabia and iran and gain control of middleast oil/money/politics. He launched missles against saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, and iran. the world will be a better place without him.

The individual members of the U.N. vote in accordance with their own best interests..
the french are currently waging war in the Ivory Coast, never "sanctioned" by the U.N. (i thought their minister to the U.N stated "war is failure")
the french have tens of billions of oil contracts with saddam which will be void if he is toppled.
the germans and the russians have contracts to develop oil resources in iraq in the future (void if saddam is out)
the french have the largest moslem population in europe you don't suppose this effects their politics.
the french and the germans are involved in a political effort to control the european union. they wish to control the british. they will never allow turkey into the e.u. because turkey would end up with more votes in the e.u. due to their larger population - the frenchies will never allow this.
the germans and the frenchies didn't do crap in the UN to bring about a resolution to the sirtuation in Kosvo (in their own backyard for heaven sake) the U.S. moved without U.N. approval to stop that genocide (under clinton)..where the heck was the U.N then?
the russians pounded the crap out of the chechan's....no U.N. approval sought there...

their is an old saying..all politics are local, everyone votes for their own self interests...and guess what..that's democracy in action! why should'nt the U.S. do what is in it's own best interest..that's what the entire world does. for the president to do anything but what is the best for the u.s. violates the oath he was required to take when he became president.

the U.N really is a joke...

The only three times the UN has ever sanctioned a war were Korea, Iraq Gulf War, and Afghanistan. All were brought up to the UN by the US. France and Russia have went outside the UN to use military action on other countries. Why the hell can't we. I say screw them all, we do not need France. They export 28 billion to the US and we export 19 billion back to them. We won't lose anything.

KK

ANd if it was not for Texas, France would not have wine to export 🙂

 

[Ly2n]

The title to this thread is totally incorrect. Bush and his people are doing exactly what they planned. Those of you that have short memories have no doubt forgotten that the right wing have hated the UN for decades. The John Burch Society's slogan "get America out of the UN and the UN out of America" was around in the '50s. The conservatives in Congress have held up paying the UN dues many times. It has been a constant drumbeat against the UN and its agencies.
So Bush tries to make the UN look silly with this stupid little war. He tries to take some credibilty away from the UN and gets his way and has a war. Of course, if the war goes badly, it all may backfire on him. The UN would come out better and Bush would look stupid. For all of our sakes let's hope that Bush is right and the rest of the world is wrong. The alternative isn't very promising.