Screw the UN

[dexvx]

From the Ars:

"Whoever controls the media, controls the peoples' minds."
author unknown

" The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
Former CIA Director William Colby

"[Genocide] certainly is a valid word in my view, when you have a situation where we see thousands of deaths per month, a possible total of I million to 1.5 million over the last nine years. If that is not genocide, then I don't know quite what is."
Denis Halliday, former UN humanitarian coordinator - on effect of US sanctions on Iraqi people

"It's a hard decision, but we think the price ... is worth it."
Secretary of State Madelaine Albright talking about Iraqi children starving and dying as a result of the US embargo of food and medicine

" Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the U.S. military machine to turn. "
John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it ..."
US General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

" If an American is concerned only about his nation, he will not be concerned about the peoples of Asia, Africa, or South America. Is this not why nations engage in the madness of war without the slightest sense of penitence? Is this not why the murder of a citizen of your own nation is a crime, but the murder of citizens of another nation in war is an act of heroic virtue? "
Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first.... The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: "It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war."
Then the few will shout even louder.... Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it...
Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies...and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience; and thus he will bye and bye convince himself that the war is just and he will thank God for a better sleep he enjoys by his self-deception."
Mark Twain -- observing how wars that are at first seen as unnecessary by the mass of the people become converted into "just" wars

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: BigJelly
What do you mean the UN is making steps to be irrelevent...
they already are!!!

This isn't a joke, it's actually quite sad.

The US is the only thing that has any moral and justice in the world, the UN is just become to Anti-American and useless. I almost wish England, Germany, Canada, Italy, Russia,... would get attacked. Maybe that way the greedy self centered nations actually do something.

The way i figure it the US should drop out of the UN (realize the UN stopped us from getting rid of sadam the first time), all we do is give and all the UN does is take. Moreover, next time there is a natural disaster in the world, I say the US shouldn't help them, I say F-them because the rest of the world says F-us.

You phucking ignorant fool. I have lived with terrorism in the UK nearly all my life. And now you walk a mile in our shoes and you want to see all other nations taste it again? Phucking ignorant bigot. I've been closer than you could ever imagine to terrorism you couch surfing big mouth nothing-man.

Plus, I don't remember the last time the US was 'attacked' by Iraq.

 

[CPA]

Such a disavowal of the United Nations by the United States would spell both war and diplomatic disaster for the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who helped to persuade Washington to bring the crisis back under the UN's umbrella. Britain's global influence depends largely on its permanent seat at an effective and respected UN Security Council. The organisation will be shunted into irrelevance, diplomats fear, if President Bush unilaterally goes to war.

I like the last line the best.


And BTW, why does everyone keep calling this a unilateral attack? Last time I checked the UK was right with us (which means Canada is not too far behind), Kuwait is letting us use their bases, Qatar just sold us some land for a huge base in which to launch attacks, Turkey will let us use their airspace and currently allows us to use bases for the no-fly patrols, Germany (though they say they are against any attack) is in Kuwait right now, as well as the Czechs helping us train in biochemical warfare of all things, and Isreal wants us to attack now. Yes, we are making the decision to formally attack, but many countries are already lending support and will continue to lend support once this thing starts. I guess it's just not the usual suspects involved, and that has everyone worried.

 

[Moonbeam]

dexvx, nice post. We have quite a loud little handful right here.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
dexvx, nice post. We have quite a loud little handful right here.

Nice post? What post? A collection of sound bites does not a foreign policy make.

 

[Ap0phis]

Germany has the "no attack, no way" thing going right now, which seem to be popular with the voters. UK, if it wants to be a democracy go with the population, will not help the US. But we all know that our Mr Blair is a voted in dictator who's pledged his allegiance to the US President. I think Qatar got $2bn...?

Nice war this is. I mean is it really ANYTHING to do with Al Qaeeda? If they were so serious about that why don't they start with Saudi Arabia? Afterall all but a couple of the hijackers last sept wer Saudis. The blood thirst has died a little and there is no financial gain to be made by catching Mr Bin Laden or Mullah Omar, so thats going a little slow right now.

Iraq however is interesting. Saudi Arabia isn't willing to be the US puppydog as much any more. The people there are getting more of a voice. Isn't it ironic that the US want to push for democracies, but they'll not do that to the saudis at any cost. Thats because the Royal family and a minute minority of the richest are the sole US supporters. The people will have none of it.

Iraq, on the other hand, has a dictator that is seen as bad by prettymuch any one that matters in the eyes of america. They were kinda hoping the those countries wouldn't mind if they attack Iraq. Well, they were wrong. See, the US have a number of so called Iraqis in training that are supposed to be potential leaders. In truth those guys wouldn't know the difference if they were stuck in a californian desert and were told thats iraq. They're just some rich sons of b!tches that have never been to their country. If you ask some american politicians, even they will tell you those guys are as corrupt as hell and that before they've been in power. But the thing is they'll support America no matter what. The Iraqi people don't like the US that much either but they'll prolly calm down a little when the sanctions are lifted and they get to eat again.

In other words, America is looking for a new b!tch in the region with a virgin A$$. The Saudi Royals don't like a sore A$$ anymore. Of course the incredible OIL capacity in Iraq is a massive bonus. It will give the US economy a hugely needed boost, though it isn't the primary concern.

And that is why the US of A is so eager to get into iraq.

 

[JellyBaby]

And BTW, why does everyone keep calling this a unilateral attack? Last time I checked the UK was right with us (which means Canada is not too far behind), Kuwait is letting us use their bases, Qatar just sold us some land for a huge base in which to launch attacks, Turkey will let us use their airspace and currently allows us to use bases for the no-fly patrols, Germany (though they say they are against any attack) is in Kuwait right now, as well as the Czechs helping us train in biochemical warfare of all things, and Isreal wants us to attack now. Yes, we are making the decision to formally attack, but many countries are already lending support and will continue to lend support once this thing starts. I guess it's just not the usual suspects involved, and that has everyone worried.

Sadly, when you dig a bit into this, you find most of these nations do not give support on principle. Their support is purchased. By us and at a great cost.

For instance, to get Turkey onboard Bush promised to forgive $5 billion in debt. To get the Russians to back us will probably require full payment of Saddum's debt to them and a piece of the oil action in a post-Iraq world and possibly an agreement to turn our heads when they go back into Chechnia.

 

[ToBeMe]

I love the fascination with polygraph machines. OJ passed "a" polygraph test. He must be innocent. FoxNews polygraph test is useful for . . . exactly nothing but to say they did it.

Moron.......where did I say I had any faith or brlief in a polygraph??? I simply stated the truth. When he was asked to submit to one, he denied the request, saying he didn't care if anyone believed him or not................not exactly a credible reply in most peoples opinion at the time.

If you want PROOF then I guess we would have to track down the agents noted (but identities not released) by the Washington Post and have them testify under oath. Not going to happen. You deny Ritter b/c you don't like what he says even though the French concur with his account. I'm sure the NSA will let us know what they collected prior from 1996-1998. Oh I wonder why our intelligence is so poor from Iraq now . . . lemme guess . . . we can't spy on them as easily?! Denials of some and no comments on others from the State Dept is all the proof you need that it definitely did NOT happen. And the piece de resistance is a Clinton denial

Right, it won't/can't happen! No, I do not trust anyone whom changes his story several times and fits it to suite his needs. Show me reports which state the French concur! In fact, the inspectors which were with him, and those whom were in Iraq after him disagree with his statements! As far as our intel. on Iraq right now...........you can kid yourself as much as you want but I've been there and been involved.............we know more than you apparently wish to give credit for and we don't need to spy on them through inspectors to get it! LOL!

So evidence for illegal covert activity by US intelligence in a sovereign nation is hard to come by except for the person who says it happened (Ritter) versus the variable denials to nondenials by US officials responsible for such activity. I guess I have to throw in the towel. Ritter is credible, US officials are not.

Now you fool LISTEN!!! He is trying to give evidence of some things which took place when he was not even in Iraq!! Ritter is credible to you and a handfull of other, but no, he is not credible throughout the world! Live in your fantasy if you like and since everyone in our governemnt is a liar and cheat...why not leave???? It's a free country and since you don't like what's going on, take off for somewhere else because believe it or not, the are many more people who side with them than will side with the likes of Ritter!:Q

I guess I'm through then. You clearly don't know our history (ignorant) or you're a moron. Of course Gore and Albright are just as culpable as the people who came before or afterwards. Unlike most of the blather here, I am not a politic hack. Your party affiliation has nothing to do with the quality or veracity of your comments.

You're the freaking egotistical moronic idiot here babybocdolly.......you want to throw names??? Fine......I'll play! Talk about ignorant fools about our history......loook in the mirror mister! You know jack and when you can't come up with an answer, you fabricate one to make your point! Sorry bubba......no sale! And don't cut yourself short........your a much bigger "hack" than most here! You have no proof of anything so you simply go into defensive mode and throw crap which came out of the same orfice your head is usually stuck in..................

So yes, if they knew the truth and issued a denial (assuming we were spying not just helping UNSCOM) . . . that makes them liars. I always watch where I'm going . . . if not you tend to step in big piles of horse shyte like US foreign policy.

That's just it, there IS no proof You've just stepped in your proverbial pile and you weren't even aware of it bozo!

My impression is that you want to believe the best about our government. I do as well. But there's no such thing as a lie in our best interests. In the long term truth and fairness will serve us far better than a convenient misleading statement. Now when dealing with habitual liars like Saddam our sincerity puts us at a disadvantage. But that comes with territory of being righteous versus saying it a lot. Scott Ritter is not the ONLY honorable person in this episode but his motives seem far more transparent (and just) than any of the other parties involved.

No, they are not, and the fact that you are gullable enough to fall for his line of BS proves you to be naive. You read a bit about both and have this apparent belief that our governemnt is always wrong so you take side with anything which challenges it simply because that must be the right side to be on since it challenges our government and our president! Sorry dude....truth stings don't it!

I wasn't being sarcastic . . . I really thought you meant that as a joke. I read EVERYTHING that other people link to. If you read the excerpts or the attached links you find ample "suggestions" that something was afoot with regards to US intelligence and UNSCOM. Ritter himself talks about the necessity of US intelligence assistance but the general prohibition against probing Iraqi security concerns. At the very least it's smoke if not fire. Gellam's account of suppressing the story in order to avoid compromising US security concerns at the LEAST implies something was going on outside the purview of UNSCOM or the UN.

Hmmm let's see...........Saddam was not cooperating whatsoever............if anything was going on, could it be that there were people attempting to gain the total and unfettered access Saddam agreed to when he signed the agreements??????:Q As was stated above.........what in the world makes you think there was anything we actually needed to spy on Iraq over???? As for your answer concerning replcing Saddam, that policy was put into place by Clinton in 1998, if you would take a bit of time and study what proposals were being considered at the time of the inspectors being in Iraq, an overthrow by the Jurds was the main thrust of Clintons idea. Tell me what intel. would be needed for that???? His whereabouts??? Hardly........his schedule??? hardly.........his capabilities???? already known......... is it not within your realm of thought that maybe, just maybe anything that was taking place was within the scope of what Saddam had agreed to??????

If you can read it all and say there's no proof, you shouldn't be surprised much of the world keeps asking the Bush admin for PROOF. He would say look at Saddam's record. Which is certainly fair game. I would say look at our record.

Yes, I would agree..........look at our record............have we blatently threatened our neighbors Tell me when we have threatened to and used chemical or biological warfare on our neighbors or those whom oppose our government inside our country........tell me the last time our president had members of congress or heads of state killed because he felt could not trust them.................Tell me the last time our country invaded another country, was driven back, then agreed to resolutions but violated each and every one of them and continued manufacturing the exact things we agreed to eliminate..........tell me the last time we used citizens as sheilds for our developement of weapons and to use as targets in an attack...............

You are the exact oppisite of the majority here and abroad...........you don't think so and like to believe you are only on the side of "right".......but tell me what makes you anymore "right" than the rest????? You believe what you want.........it's you're RIGHT as a US citizen............a right that many lives were lost to make sure you have today..............again I say, if this country is just so very wrong, prove it beyond a shadow of anyones doubt and then work to change it, or, stop trying to create conspiracy where you can not prove one! You're no better in some ways than the fanatics with the web sites saying the planes were empty and the government blew up the WTC........................all radicals start somehwhere...............