It's hard to humiliate any country that's doing the right thing. If we are doing wrong at home or across the globe we should be frustrated by others and ashamed to boot. You cannot conceive it b/c your purview is too limited. We've funded organizations intended to overthrow popular governments on every continent except Antarctica. Overt, covert, and down right nasty. Japan needed natural resouces so it invaded its neighbors. Clearly, the Japanese were acting in their national interests so what's the problem? Germany had some grotesque ideas about what was good for Germany and Europe but that didn't make anything they did right. You people need to go back to your mother and learn some basic rules:
1) Play fair.
2) Share.
3) The rules NEVER change in the middle of the game.
4) Treat others like you deserve to be treated.
5) Cheaters never prosper they think they are ahead but they are really behind.
6) "Sweetie, your underwear go on before your pants" . . . OK, maybe that was just my Mom.
Yes, truth does appear at birth as the beginnings of a human being. Along with that comes all the foibles of humanity, an integral part of that truth. Human nature doesn't change, it only becomes more technically sophisticated. The same power struggles continue as they have since the dawn of man.
There are many brands of truth; every person has their own truth and the only relevant truth is that which is enforced by might. Whether it is the might of a great intellectual, the might of nations, the might of political or religious will, the will of the people, or the power of the press, the only relevant truth is that which is made right by might. The truth of the individual is empowered by their own beliefs and made right by the strength of their will. All else is eventually discarded as irrelevant.
So you can disagree with the current political will of the administration but that does not make their truth any less valid or less relevant than yours and we will have to see whose truth is made right by might.
The UN has strayed. The Bush people went to the UN to force it to endorse military conquest of Iraq, thus aiding the credibility of that action. In that move the UN was treated as a tool of a specific agenda of one member country out of 180.
The UN, like any other large bureacratic entity, seeks to grow in scope and power. I don't think it has much significance anymore.
BaliBabyDoc makes a great point about how historically countries with the ability to "press rights" on their neighbors in all probability will do so. The US is the sole superpower today, sporting incredible power. What does this tell you?
UN is irrelevant either way. If they go along with every US whim, they are irrelevant. If they don't go along, the US will ignore them and they are still irellevant. All this international law mumbo jumbo is just an excuse to interfere in other countries internal affairs.
BTW, if UN is irrelevant, UNSC resolutions are also irrelevant, so I don't see what the big hoopla is all about.
BTW, if UN is irrelevant, UNSC resolutions are also irrelevant, so I don't see what the big hoopla is all about.
Saddam had his letter read a while ago at the UN..........reaction to it should be interesting. I haven't found the text as of now, but, did listen to it and basicly says his country is completely free of all WMD and that the US, Bittain and Israel fabricated all of this. BUT, at the same time he did verify that the inspectors MUST obide by Iraq's Sovreignty and inspections at palaces, hospitals, and other installations will not be permitted! Seems status quoe from his last offer some years ago..........................
It's called regime change. Saddam was no longer our boy so we need intel' on how to get the job done if we have to take him out. The Inspectors should have been doing their job and if Iraqi activity was prohibiting it then they should have sought UN assistance. The extracurricular activities provided ample evidence to Iraq and its friends (France/Russia) to question the inspections. That's why Ritter's rebuke is so pertinent. Keep the inspections free from ancillary issues and they will carry the moral authority necessary to help keep wayward states (France, Russia, China) in line or at least out of the way.
Since everyone is always asking for it...............where is the proof of this?????? Because Saddam told Russia it was happening it was????? Or because Scott Ritter says it was happening and he wasn't there when they accused them of it in '98.......it was???????
So you leave that you the weapons-inspectors! I mean, finding WMD is their job! Instead, USA turned the weapons-inspector in to a tool of US intelligence. Then Iraq finds that there are several foreign spies operating within their borders, what were they supposed to do? Carry on like nothing had happened?
And here's how Saddam has trapped himself. If the inspectors find any WMD Saddam's a liar . . . granted that's a given. Of course the inspectors will respect Iraqi sovereignty but the resolution Iraq signed 1284(?) grants full access to all facilities deemed necessary by the inspection team. It doesn't matter what he will permit we are going to do it and he signed off on it. That's why the UN inspections should be free from US, British, or Israeli participation but the UN should send in appropriate security 1K or so. Furthermore, Bush should park a carrier or two in the region and step up air patrols . . . followed by a statement in his typical manner . . .
"Umm, well you know the inspectors are trying to do their job. But I have a job as the President to protect our interests and make sure Saddam understands we mean business. So as long as the inspectors aren't impeded Saddam has a chance to avoid our wrath. But even the hint of physical obstruction or lack of cooperation and I'm going to bomb something. It's his choice . . . cooperate no bombs (this week) don't cooperate and we're taking him out. He won't get to fall back to a palace b/c we're bombing those, too. I ain't Clinton. There won't be any cruise missiles in the night. When I come, I come with the thunder!"
If it didn't happen, why doesn't USA deny it? To my knowledge, they have neither denied or confirmed those claims.
Reuters 1999
He said he himself had met officials of the French secret services to propose such a deal with Paris. But France turned down the offer, according to Ritter, concluding that ``by helping us, they would only help UNSCOM discover that Iraq was cheating, and that, according to them, would not takethings any further forward.''
Asked whether the same deal had been offered to Moscow, Ritter responded: ``Russia is a hopeless case. The Russians are working for the Iraqis.''
Ritter said the deals were necessary to help UNSCOM, which had few resources, overcome Iraqi efforts to hide information. In making UNSCOM's offer to the French secret services, he said, ``We explained that as a UN agency, we could not provide information relating to Iraqi national security.''
UNSCOM was created by the UN Security Council after the Gulf War in 1991. The commission withdrew all its personnel from Iraq before the December 16-19 US and British air strikes. Ritter quit UNSCOM last August in protest at what he saw a UN laxness in conducting the weapons inspections.
Reuters via ABC 1999
But now, the Post reported, sources were acknowledging that Washington rigged UNSCOM equipment and office space without permission to intercept a high volume of ordinary Iraqi military communications.
Those communications, carried on microwave channels, were of considerable value to U.S. military planners but generally unrelated to UNSCOM?s special weapons mandate, the Post quoted the sources as saying.
The new system gave UNSCOM?s inspectors a view of distant facilities in ?near real time,? but unknown to UNSCOM, the U.S. signals and sensor technicians who installed and maintained the system were intelligence operatives, and the repeater stations they built had a covert capability, the paper said.
The Post said it was withholding the names of the three agents at the government?s request.
U.S. intelligence agencies decided to use the microwave transmissions to spy on Iraq because ?we were very concerned about protecting our independence of access? to Iraqi military communications, one knowledgeable U.S. official told the Post.
?We did not want to rely on a multinational body that might or might not continue to operate as it was operating.?
Kofi says
''The United Nations is not Scotland Yard,'' U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard told reporters Thursday. ''We have no professional investigators on our staff. We don't have that capability.''
Eckhard said Secretary-General Kofi Annan had to accept at face value assertions by chief arms inspector Richard Butler that no member of his team spied for the United States. ''We sit and wait for corroboration,'' Eckhard added.
Butler was telling the truth. Neither he nor his predecessor knew but the US envoy working under them was well aware.
The Wall Street Journal also reported Thursday that the UNSCOM team used sophisticated eavesdropping equipment, provided to it by the United States, that automatically transmitted signals from Saddam Hussein's presidential communications network to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), which specialises in tapping and decoding communications.
The NSA, which is in charge of U.S. spy satellites, then relayed information relevant to the inspection team while presumably keeping all the other material collected in this way.
Now come on, EVERYBODY believes this one.
While Foley (state dept spokesman) denied that Washington had planted ''undercover'' spies in UNSCOM and stressed that everything it had done was at the request of the inspections body, he skirted the question of whether Washington may have used intelligence obtained through UNSCOM for military purposes.
Well obfuscation is marginally better than a straight out lie.
Well, america thinks its right, so we might as well all go along with it.. I mean whats the point of trying to negotiate.. Who cares about millions of Iraq's.. Americas the big boy, and we all have to listen to them. I think if any country disagrees, America should just nuke them too.. Because America is never wrong, correct?
And dont forget what a waste World War II was.. Everyone should have just let Germany + Hitler kill all the Jews, the world would be a much better place without them.. I mean there wouldnt be any crime.. world hunger..
Germany thought it was the right thing to kill all the Jews, so shouldnt the rest of the world agree with that? Back then Germany was big and tough, so they should have been able to say what was right and wrong for the rest of the world, because America gets to do that now...
And dont forget what a waste World War II was.. Everyone should have just let Germany + Hitler kill all the Jews, the world would be a much better place without them.. I mean there wouldnt be any crime.. world hunger..
Germany thought it was the right thing to kill all the Jews, so shouldnt the rest of the world agree with that? Back then Germany was big and tough, so they should have been able to say what was right and wrong for the rest of the world, because America gets to do that now...
Ooops, so it seems. I just found few articles where they didn't want to comment on it, but now I also found articles where they deny it. My mistake. But then again, how do you know that they did not spy Iraq? You think it's impossible for US government to alter the truth? Why would Ritter lie about it?
OK, so Clinton is believable?! I take that back. Clinton IS believable. That's the problem he lies to your face . . . you know it's probably a lie . . . but you just can't help yourself.
Truth and US foreign policy often fail to coincide. Sad but true.
It was a tactic of Saddam but unfortunately the lying bastard was actually telling the truth for a change. We had a legitimate role to play . . . provide intelligence assistance to UNSCOM. We messed it up by playing a little backdoor game of our own and then lying when we got caught. Will people ever learn?! When you get caught you say "you got me" . . . "but that was a good one" . . . "you guys are kind of slow, we've been doing this gig for years". Instead we deny what is clearly true which makes the US the focus of attention instead of the "bad people". Meanwhile, France and Russia are LAO even though they are just as shady.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is *inconceivable* to me that the U.S. continues to fund an organization that actively seeks to humiliate America and frustrate efforts to safeguard its national interests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're conceptions are right: if i recall correctly, our country has NOT paid its financial dues to the U.N. and regularly defaults on such payments as the congress refuses to pass such spending.
We use U.N. like it's our b*tch every now and then to justify some foreign policy that the we would otherwise take unilaterally. Iraq is certainly case and point. Bush visits the U.N. gives a speech there saying, we must take action against Iraq immediately and if the U.N. doesn't America will be "forced" to. He proceeds home where he announces that action is imminent and the question is whether or not U.N wants to make itself irrelevant. Thats basically saying to the U.N. "it doesnt matter what you, a group of hundreds of countries decide together, we're doing whatever we want." Sounds quite familiar eh? Iraq is not the only country that disregards what the U.N. decides. The United States, with its attitude of "we're always right," just does it with clean shaven suits instead of bearded head-rags.
and the knee-jerk response to the paragraph above is "but we Americans - we're right! they're wrong"
well then, if that is your logic then you need to re-evaluate the purpose of international cooperation and the purpose of organizations such as U.N. - they are to resolve situations, particularly where "what is right" is disagreed upon and where national interests appear to conflict. and that is the opposite of what America regularly does.
"but, we're right! right?"
wrong.
our "closest" ally, Israel, has violated and been the subject of more U.N. resolutions than any other country in the WORLD - YES more than Iraq. Does the U.S. bomb the sh*t out of them and demand regime change. thats a nay. No -
instead we give them billions of dollars and loan them billions of more - on top of giving them advanced military equipment, training their guys how to use it not putting up a stink that with our help they got nukes.
"but we do that cause we're right! and the U.N. is wrong; we know what we're doing!"
and this is how people across the world see America
-->
"we're right; you're wrong. eat a bullet!"
"stfu i dont give a sh*t what you people say! eat a bullet"
"we're right! eat a patriot missle. you f*ckin animal afghans"
"here's a missle to you're biological weapons factory!" 3 months later "we still have found no evidence that it was a weapons factory; but it was. really it was. it wasnt a pharmecutical plant. evidence? proof? we dont have any but we just know."
"proof? we dont need proof? what do you think this is - innocent before proven guilty? we got a missle, and here it is up your butt!"
"we're judge, jury, and executioneer and on top of that there aint no court that can control us in foreign policy"
"we're right! here's a missle up you're butt to prove it!"
"no! we're right"
"we're never wrong"
"we're never wrong"
"we're right!"
thats the message that our foreign policy is giving to countries around the world and that is also why hatred for America is as widespread as love for McDonald's quarter pounder.
our foreign policy is making people that i dont know hate me.
true, our ruthless selfish foreign policy, has made us affluent and secure for so long, and if it were not for such exploitation i probably wouldnt have a computer to type this on, but it still sucks and is wrong that such injustice occurs right in front of our face in the name of our security.
our government's unilateral nationalistic approach to security is done in a zero-sum fashion - so here we our basking in the sun, living in the most affluent society that ever existed: i have more luxuries than anyone can imagine_____ all the while poor suckers outside our country are paying for it.
the ideals that are country were founded upon have been trashed by the selfish. if we dont change it and its attitude we our setting up our own downfall.
my two cents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is *inconceivable* to me that the U.S. continues to fund an organization that actively seeks to humiliate America and frustrate efforts to safeguard its national interests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're conceptions are right: if i recall correctly, our country has NOT paid its financial dues to the U.N. and regularly defaults on such payments as the congress refuses to pass such spending.
We use U.N. like it's our b*tch every now and then to justify some foreign policy that the we would otherwise take unilaterally. Iraq is certainly case and point. Bush visits the U.N. gives a speech there saying, we must take action against Iraq immediately and if the U.N. doesn't America will be "forced" to. He proceeds home where he announces that action is imminent and the question is whether or not U.N wants to make itself irrelevant. Thats basically saying to the U.N. "it doesnt matter what you, a group of hundreds of countries decide together, we're doing whatever we want." Sounds quite familiar eh? Iraq is not the only country that disregards what the U.N. decides. The United States, with its attitude of "we're always right," just does it with clean shaven suits instead of bearded head-rags.
and the knee-jerk response to the paragraph above is "but we Americans - we're right! they're wrong"
well then, if that is your logic then you need to re-evaluate the purpose of international cooperation and the purpose of organizations such as U.N. - they are to resolve situations, particularly where "what is right" is disagreed upon and where national interests appear to conflict. and that is the opposite of what America regularly does.
"but, we're right! right?"
wrong.
our "closest" ally, Israel, has violated and been the subject of more U.N. resolutions than any other country in the WORLD - YES more than Iraq. Does the U.S. bomb the sh*t out of them and demand regime change. thats a nay. No -
instead we give them billions of dollars and loan them billions of more - on top of giving them advanced military equipment, training their guys how to use it not putting up a stink that with our help they got nukes.
"but we do that cause we're right! and the U.N. is wrong; we know what we're doing!"
and this is how people across the world see America
-->
"we're right; you're wrong. eat a bullet!"
"stfu i dont give a sh*t what you people say! eat a bullet"
"we're right! eat a patriot missle. you f*ckin animal afghans"
"here's a missle to you're biological weapons factory!" 3 months later "we still have found no evidence that it was a weapons factory; but it was. really it was. it wasnt a pharmecutical plant. evidence? proof? we dont have any but we just know."
"proof? we dont need proof? what do you think this is - innocent before proven guilty? we got a missle, and here it is up your butt!"
"we're judge, jury, and executioneer and on top of that there aint no court that can control us in foreign policy"
"we're right! here's a missle up you're butt to prove it!"
"no! we're right"
"we're never wrong"
"we're never wrong"
"we're right!"
thats the message that our foreign policy is giving to countries around the world and that is also why hatred for America is as widespread as love for McDonald's quarter pounder.
our foreign policy is making people that i dont know hate me.
true, our ruthless selfish foreign policy, has made us affluent and secure for so long, and if it were not for such exploitation i probably wouldnt have a computer to type this on, but it still sucks and is wrong that such injustice occurs right in front of our face in the name of our security.
our government's unilateral nationalistic approach to security is done in a zero-sum fashion - so here we our basking in the sun, living in the most affluent society that ever existed: i have more luxuries than anyone can imagine_____ all the while poor suckers outside our country are paying for it.
the ideals that are country were founded upon have been trashed by the selfish. if we dont change it and its attitude we our setting up our own downfall.
my two cents.
No I don't think it's immpossible for them to, but, I don't really believe they had much to gain by it except perhaps to prove Saddam WAS hiding something. Why would Ritter lie???? I don't know??? Why is he a guest speaker in Iraq??? Why did he refuse a polygraph when asled by the media???? Why has he flip flopped twice since this began????? Ritter is a virtual bag a unanswered questions and also why he is ridiculed. If he doesn't like the question........he won't answer or has made idiotic threats when confronted........................
So where is the PROOF????? You sitting there and saying it did happen is no different than anyone sitting there and saying it didn't unless you have actual proof that it did!
"I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Clinton denied it . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . . I'm sorry I missed the sarcasm in your post.
Clinton denied it . . . HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . . I'm sorry I missed the sarcasm in your post.
And I in yours..............
You have no proof except that???? LOL! You have nothing then!
How about Gore and Albright then????? They all lied about everything for 8 years too then?????:Q Watch where you're going here........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter