|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2003 : 14:07:49
|
...Other Musings on the Iraq Situation
Just to make my own position clear, though I hate the thought of going to war with Iraq, I think there is sufficient justification, despite the potential ulterior motives of our government and the other governments who support it, to go forward.
I don't understand the theme that is prevalent in the media that the U.S. would be acting "unilaterally" by attacking. At the very least, the U.K. and Spain are providing full support, regardless of the U.N.
But the main issue is the fact that the U.S., U.K., and Spain are basing their reasons for going to war on the past 12 years of Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions, and most recently and definitively on Resolution 1441. The language was clear, and 1441 was passed unanimously by the U.N.!
quote:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security
quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
(emphasis mine)
quote:
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
quote:
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
quote:
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
quote:
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
(emphasis mine)
quote:
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
quote:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
quote:
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;
(emphasis obviously mine  )
quote:
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
Unmanned aerial vehicles. Like a 7.3 meter wingspan drone designed to deliver biological weapons of mass destruction?
quote:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
The U.N. unanimously gave Iraq 30 days to comply fully, or face "severe consequences". That was over 4 months ago! Yet we hear talk of how the U.S. is acting "unilaterally", and that the U.S. is "rushing quickly towards war".
What a joke.
[spelling]
|
Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 03/15/2003 16:20:26
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2003 : 14:28:07 [Permalink]
|
| Seems to me that some members of the U.N. actually expected Iraq to fully comply, and the implied threats in 1441 would never be carried out. Now that things are so obviously different, they're saying, "well, we didn't mean that, you know..." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 16:22:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Seems to me that some members of the U.N. actually expected Iraq to fully comply, and the implied threats in 1441 would never be carried out. Now that things are so obviously different, they're saying, "well, we didn't mean that, you know..."
Yes, and the U.N. has pretty much been saying that for 12 years now.
"This time we mean it!"
More time, no compliance.
"No really, this time is your last chance!"
More time, no compliance.
"Ok, well, we really really mean it this time!"
The U.N. is spiralling into irrelevancy. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 22:32:04 [Permalink]
|
Bullshit. If Resolutions meant anything, the US would be at war with Israel and everyone would be at war with the US - if it weren't for the fact that the US can veto resolutions against itself.
There has never been any real "defiance." Sure there is some small amount, but it's mostly bullshit. Iraq had been disarmed and the sanctions remained. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 23:18:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Iraq had been disarmed and the sanctions remained.
How can you say that?!
They are currently in the process of disarming missiles that violate the 150km limit, and they just found drones capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons that also violate the 150km limit.
It is pure fantasy to say that they "have been disarmed". |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 23:20:25 [Permalink]
|
| Does anyone else really not worry about Iraq giving nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to terrorist groups? |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 07:24:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Does anyone else really not worry about Iraq giving nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to terrorist groups?
Of course there is a possibility of that. There is also a possibility of WMD coming out of a plethora of other countries and going to terrorists groups, why not bomb the fuck out of them as well? The whole thing has got out of hand with the people getting all down and nasty on the French for daring to use their power of veto on the issue. For god's sake, how many times has the U.S. used its power of veto on the issue of Israel? As with all things said by this administration on the subject, there seems to be more lies spoken then truths. It all looks to me that it is easy to kick a man whilst he is down, and in the case of Iraq, they have not shown any grave danger to anyone since the '91 gulf war. How about the minor (not) issues of North Korea and more recently Iran. If we want peace in the Middle East, the terror between Israel and Palestine has to be sorted out, and bombing Iraq does very little to solve that.
If this is supposed to be a war on terror, can you please explain how killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq is not in fact terrorism itself. What did Washington say about the campaign? Something about bombing the hell out of Baghdad wasn't it, the exact words were “shock and awe” and “there will not be a safe place in Baghdad". You can bet Saddam won't be anywhere near there, just the innocent Iraqi civilians we are trying to liberate (yeah right, liberate). Any more shit like that and you might as well include the infamous word “blitzkrieg”, anyone remember that one? Every one keeps comparing Saddam to Hitler's Germany of the late 1930's. The comparison lies more with America with this one, what with the lies and propaganda coming out of the Bush administration, the willingness of the media to report it and the massive build up of force against a nation that obviously has fuck all chance of defending itself. Can you imagine the repercussions from the Muslim extremists if the U.S. goes in and bombs the hell out of Iraq? All the while through this Osama is seeing his infidels fighting each other and creating more subjects to flock to Al-Quieda. Woo fucking hoo for him.
On top of it, then we have the U.S. proudly showing the world its new bomb, the “Massive Air Ordinance Blast”. Well just super, one man's weapon of mass destruction is another man's vehicle of “freedom”. Pure bullshit…..hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy is all of what the U.S foreign policy is all about. How much of the war propaganda has been proven to be made up, outdated or simply not true, just go here and here for starters.
The issue is not whether Saddam has complied with resolution 1441, of course he hasn't. However there have been lots of other countries that have not complied with resolutions made by the UN. Not many of them have been surrounded by 250,000 troops waiting from orders from a man who has used this war on terror to get unprecedented power over his and other people and in my humble opinion is a fucking nutcase.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 09:04:32 [Permalink]
|
They are currently disarming missiles that Iraq told them about that technically violate the limit when they do not have guidance systems and payloads.
It is not pure fantasy. They have been "qualitatively disarmed" according to Scott Ritter, and others. The genocidal sanctions remain.
How can you say that?!
They are currently in the process of disarming missiles that violate the 150km limit, and they just found drones capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons that also violate the 150km limit.
It is pure fantasy to say that they "have been disarmed".
[/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 13:02:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
There is also a possibility of WMD coming out of a plethora of other countries and going to terrorists groups, why not bomb the fuck out of them as well?
I'm so sick of this irrelevant red herring. The U.N. gave Iraq 30 days to disarm, or face "serious consequences". What do you think they should do?
quote:
in the case of Iraq, they have not shown any grave danger to anyone since the '91 gulf war.
You'd better let the U.N. know that, as they unaimously disagree:
quote:
Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 18:35:32 [Permalink]
|
When I was following the news about resolution 1441 I distinctly remember several countries holding out on the language so that 1441 did not imply failure to comply would automatically result in military action. For people to complain now that it does probably don't understand the legalese involved in the resolution. So if France, China and Russia held out for language that did not mandate a military action to disarm Iraq I guess they had better fire their lawyers and hire all these armchair legal experts the USA seems to be so full of.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 19:56:07 [Permalink]
|
| So what do you think "serious consequences" means with regards to a country that is already under intense economic sanctions? |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 03/16/2003 19:56:36 |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 05:48:49 [Permalink]
|
| "Serious consequences" - a fudge clearly used so as to be all things to all men. Those opposed to war hoped they wouldn't be called on it, those in favour now hope that their interpretation of it allowing an invasion can be made to stick. One lesson for the UN might be that using ambivalent language like that necessarily results in confusion and division. |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 06:50:38 [Permalink]
|
Okay, maybe it would help if we reviewed the steps that got us here.
First, 9/11. Out of the blue. We were surprised we had enemies?!?
Then, ID Osama and go after him as Enemy #1.
Some progress but get bogged down in a laborious needle in haystack search.
Start soft peddling the Osama Enemy #1 cause you may never find him in time.
Must change focus to keep momentum so look for a more available and open target. Also great opportunity to switch foreign policy from defensive to preemptive strikes. Been wanting to do that since beginning of term. The people will never notice.
Wa La, Saddam! He's someone everyone hates. Even though he has been destroyed and is a fraction of the power he was, let's kick him again, it will make us feel good.
Pull out old tired issue of disarmament, claim Saddam is not contained and roll out any excuse to connect Saddam had connection to 9/11. (You know, 40% of the US population erroneously believes Saddam did 9/11).
Now, go to the UN and tighten the screws. Lay down impossible conditions. (Remember how long it took South Africa to disarm under UN observation, 4+ years, and they were willing partners)
Now you have the war you wanted to test out all those super weapons you built and you have changed US foreign policy from a stable peace enforcing policy into an unstable preemptive strike aggressive policy.
Now we are setting the example for a Wild West "He who shoots first wins" strategy. Do you think North Korea is ready to shoot first now? Wouldn't they be better off shooting first rather than wait to be shot themselves first?
BTW, how many UN resolutions is Israel in violation of and why are we not bombing them?
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 07:07:33 [Permalink]
|
| How many times has the US ignored international law? In fact, the US vetoed a UN resolution stating that all members should adhere to international law. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 07:39:43 [Permalink]
|
I'm continually amazed at the conscious and unconscious spin people put on this issue in order to fit it into their preconceptions and ideologies.
 |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 03/17/2003 07:40:33 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 07:44:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chainsaw
Okay, maybe it would help if we reviewed the steps that got us here.
We shouldn't need any "help". I believe I laid out the facts quite clearly in the opening post.
Anyone want to actually address the issue at hand instead of continuously beating the irrelevant "hyposcrisy" drum? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
