|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2001 : 15:49:57
|
I prefer to do my research when I can through the actual information provided by the organization. Here are two links that require Adobe Acrobat, you can download this software for free.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2000/res1330e.pdf
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1352e.pdf
I'm still looking so patience. Saddam was in the wrong when he invaded Kuwait. He has to expect the UN to impose sanctions against his government. He has to know that inspection teams would be searching through his country for evidences of weaponry that many member nations have agreed against production and use.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 15:57:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, it is old, because it was in reference to something that happened at that time. Isn't it interesting, that for ten years we were told that we had "Smart Sanctions," but now we're being told we're really, really, really for sure this time going to impose really really "Smart Sanctions?"
Um, we weren't told we had smart sanctions. Many of the UNSC resolutions were in fact considered temporary solutions to these problems as stated in the text of the resolutions...
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1995/9510988e.htm
excerpt from UNSC 986, 1995 [added]
quote:
Concerned by the serious nutritional and health situation of the Iraqi
population, and by the risk of a further deterioration in this situation,
Convinced of the need as a temporary measure to provide for the
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people until the fulfilment by Iraq of the
relevant Security Council resolutions, including notably resolution 687 (1991)
of 3 April 1991, allows the Council to take further action with regard to the
prohibitions referred to in resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, in
accordance with the provisions of those resolutions,
Convinced also of the need for equitable distribution of humanitarian
relief to all segments of the Iraqi population throughout the country,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of Iraq,
This clearly indicates a temporary solution to the problems facing the Iraqi people.
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1992/s92r778e.pdf
Is also a consideration of Iraqs continued resistance to UNSC resolutions at the end of the gulp war.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1998/sres1194.htm
Excerpted from UNSC 1194, 1998
quote:
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, and in particular its resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 1060 (1996) of 12 June 1996, 1115 (1997) of 21 June 1997 and 1154 (1998) of 2 March 1998,
Noting the announcement by Iraq on 5 August 1998 that it had decided to suspend cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all disarmament activities and restrict ongoing monitoring and verification activities at declared sites, and/ or actions implementing the above decision,
Stressing that the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991),
Recalling the letter from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission to the President of the Security Council of 12 August 1998 (S/1998/767), which reported to the Council that Iraq had halted all disarmament activities of the Special Commission and placed limitations on the rights of the Commission to conduct its monitoring operations,
Recalling also the letter from the Director General of the IAEA to the President of the Security Council of 11 August 1998 (S/1998/766) which reported the refusal by Iraq to cooperate in any activity involving investigation of its clandestine nuclear programme and other restrictions of access placed by Iraq on the ongoing monitoring and verification programme of the IAEA,
Noting the letters of 18 August 1998 from the President of the Security Council to the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission and the Director General of the IAEA (S/1998/769, S/1998/768), which expressed the full support of the Security Council for those organizations in the implementation of the full range of their mandated activities, including inspections,
Recalling the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the Secretary-General on 23 February 1998 (S/1998/166), in which Iraq reiterated its undertaking to cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the IAEA,
This seems to indicate that Iraq was not cooperating with the UNSC.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 06/10/2001 16:17:57 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 16:49:43 [Permalink]
|
What I think you're trying to say is that Iraq has said they will not cooperate with new inspectors because all along they said that the inspectors that they had were illegally spying. This is different than when the corporate media said that Iraq "kicked out" the inspectors. The inspectors left under orders from the U.N. because of U.S. bombing.
Iraq thought the U.S. would do nothing to interfere with their attack on Kuwait. In fact, the U.S. probably thought that Iraq would invade, but not invade as far as they did. From what I can see, April Glaspie told Iraq that the U.S. was not interested in their disputes with Kuwait. There is a whole history here that the U.S. media ignores. You're not going to get that from one web site.
Yes, it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded. This isn't about saving Kuwait. This is about the balance of power in that part of the world.
You need to read up on this. I'm not talking about a couple of paragraphs from a couple of web sites.
quote:
I prefer to do my research when I can through the actual information provided by the organization. Here are two links that require Adobe Acrobat, you can download this software for free.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2000/res1330e.pdf
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1352e.pdf
I'm still looking so patience. Saddam was in the wrong when he invaded Kuwait. He has to expect the UN to impose sanctions against his government. He has to know that inspection teams would be searching through his country for evidences of weaponry that many member nations have agreed against production and use.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 19:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I think you're trying to say is that Iraq has said they will not cooperate with new inspectors because all along they said that the inspectors that they had were illegally spying.
If I have to make a choice between believing the UN or Saddam, the easy money is on the UN.
quote:
Iraq thought the U.S. would do nothing to interfere with their attack on Kuwait. In fact, the U.S. probably thought that Iraq would invade, but not invade as far as they did.
This is conjecture. Stick to what we know and not what probably happened.
quote:
Yes, it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded.
Panama, Cambodia and Laos are different issues. Nothing the US did years ago has anything to do with Iraq invading Kuwait.
quote:
This isn't about saving Kuwait. This is about the balance of power in that part of the world.
The US is an ally of Kuwait and has been for years. A good ally will help in times of need and thanks to Saddam Kuwait was up to its eyeballs in need.
quote:
You need to read up on this. I'm not talking about a couple of paragraphs from a couple of web sites.
The website mentioned is the UN website. it has nothing to do with corporate media you think is in cahoots with the government. This is an old story, ignore the facts and refuse to go look at them and at the same time blast the source because it's just plain wrong or part of the conspiracy.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 19:23:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
What I think you're trying to say is that Iraq has said they will not cooperate with new inspectors because all along they said that the inspectors that they had were illegally spying.
If I have to make a choice between believing the UN or Saddam, the easy money is on the UN.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that you don't think that there were spies in the original "inspection teams?"
quote:
Iraq thought the U.S. would do nothing to interfere with their attack on Kuwait. In fact, the U.S. probably thought that Iraq would invade, but not invade as far as they did.
This is conjecture. Stick to what we know and not what probably happened.
I don't think that I suggested that it was anything but conjecture. Conjecture based on past activities, statements made, etc.
quote:
Yes, it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded.
Panama, Cambodia and Laos are different issues. Nothing the US did years ago has anything to do with Iraq invading Kuwait.
Why doesn't it? The U.S. and U.K. attack of Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter. The sanctions are a violation of the U.N. Charter.
quote:
This isn't about saving Kuwait. This is about the balance of power in that part of the world.
The US is an ally of Kuwait and has been for years. A good ally will help in times of need and thanks to Saddam Kuwait was up to its eyeballs in need.
So were a lot of countries that the U.S. did nothing about. This has nothing to do with anything.
quote:
You need to read up on this. I'm not talking about a couple of paragraphs from a couple of web sites.
The website mentioned is the UN website. it has nothing to do with corporate media you think is in cahoots with the government. This is an old story, ignore the facts and refuse to go look at them and at the same time blast the source because it's just plain wrong or part of the conspiracy.
It seems as though you got into the middle of a conversation without really knowing what you're talking about.
Whenever people don't know what they're talking about they use the "C" word. This isn't about "black helicopters" and aliens.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 19:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Excuse me. I said a couple of times that you didn't know what you're talking about. What I mean to say is that you don't seem to understand what we, or I, were talking about.
It seems that you've jumped to some conclusions.
The problem with the media is not conspiracy. Do the media and the government get together? Of course they do. They're supposed to. What the problem is is that the corporate media do not do anything most of the time but take the State Department handouts and regurgitate them. They repeat their favorite catch phrases like "Saddam and his Weapons of Mass Destruction" as though that were something that they knew something about. It's not necessarily a conspiracy. Sometimes it's laziness. Sometimes it isn't.
quote:
quote:
quote:
What I think you're trying to say is that Iraq has said they will not cooperate with new inspectors because all along they said that the inspectors that they had were illegally spying.
If I have to make a choice between believing the UN or Saddam, the easy money is on the UN.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that you don't think that there were spies in the original "inspection teams?"
quote:
Iraq thought the U.S. would do nothing to interfere with their attack on Kuwait. In fact, the U.S. probably thought that Iraq would invade, but not invade as far as they did.
This is conjecture. Stick to what we know and not what probably happened.
I don't think that I suggested that it was anything but conjecture. Conjecture based on past activities, statements made, etc.
quote:
Yes, it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded.
Panama, Cambodia and Laos are different issues. Nothing the US did years ago has anything to do with Iraq invading Kuwait.
Why doesn't it? The U.S. and U.K. attack of Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter. The sanctions are a violation of the U.N. Charter.
quote:
This isn't about saving Kuwait. This is about the balance of power in that part of the world.
The US is an ally of Kuwait and has been for years. A good ally will help in times of need and thanks to Saddam Kuwait was up to its eyeballs in need.
So were a lot of countries that the U.S. did nothing about. This has nothing to do with anything.
quote:
You need to read up on this. I'm not talking about a couple of paragraphs from a couple of web sites.
The website mentioned is the UN website. it has nothing to do with corporate media you think is in cahoots with the government. This is an old story, ignore the facts and refuse to go look at them and at the same time blast the source because it's just plain wrong or part of the conspiracy.
It seems as though you got into the middle of a conversation without really knowing what you're talking about.
Whenever people don't know what they're talking about they use the "C" word. This isn't about "black helicopters" and aliens.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 19:43:18 [Permalink]
|
Phssst Gorgo, a word in your ear.
She's a Jarhead.
Jarheads never lose.
Never.
If you kill them more will show up and still kick your ass. They don't even know what losing means.
Best to just walk away.
If you are buying Saddams propaganda as 'gospel' then DON'T "tell it to a Marine"
---------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 19:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Where did the term "Jarhead" come from, anyway?
This isn't about losing. This is about participating in genocide.
I don't have any conversations with Saddam, so I don't know what you mean. The people I hear from have worked for the U.N., like Hans Von Sponeck, Denis Halliday, Scott Ritter, and many others. The people I hear from were in the U.S. military and have worked for the U.S. government. Please be careful about using terms like that. This feeds those that get a thrill from the genocide. Thinking that those that don't believe the State Department propaganda are friends with Saddam. It is the present regime of sanctions and almost daily bombing that keeps Saddam strong. It is the State Department that wants the Ba'ath party in power, not me.
quote:
Phssst Gorgo, a word in your ear.
She's a Jarhead.
Jarheads never lose.
Never.
If you kill them more will show up and still kick your ass. They don't even know what losing means.
Best to just walk away.
If you are buying Saddams propaganda as 'gospel' then DON'T "tell it to a Marine"
---------
When the dead talk -- they talk to him
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 20:31:20 [Permalink]
|
What is this daily bombing nonsense? It's not exaggeration, it's just not true.
Your talk about corporate media is meaningless. The big companies are more visable but there are many small, independent newspapers that investigate. Thanks to the web we also have access to news on the web.
quote:
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Are you saying that you don't think that there were spies in the original "inspection teams?"
You are saying there are. Throw us a fact or two. Assumptions don't mean anything.
quote:
I don't think that I suggested that it was anything but conjecture. Conjecture based on past activities, statements made, etc.
Conjecture is conjecture.
quote:
Panama, Cambodia and Laos are different issues. Nothing the US did years ago has anything to do with Iraq invading Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why doesn't it? The U.S. and U.K. attack of Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter. The sanctions are a violation of the U.N. Charter.
A UN force invaded and the sanctions were voted on by the UN. Am I missing something?
quote:
The US is an ally of Kuwait and has been for years. A good ally will help in times of need and thanks to Saddam Kuwait was up to its eyeballs in need.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So were a lot of countries that the U.S. did nothing about. This has nothing to do with anything.
The US has gone to great length to help allies. Open your history book to pages that mention WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam. This was another example of the US aiding an ally. It's why countries go to the trouble of establishing each other as allies.
You can use the word genocide all you want. It doesn't make it true. You also go on about the daily bombings. That's not true either.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 23:20:29 [Permalink]
|
Pssst, someone else wants to put a word in your ear.
Been over there. Yes, bought the T-shirt and even sent postcards. Watched our planes taking off and landing. Talked to lots of pilots. Don't know where your getting your "daily bombings" from, but someone just might be playing on your sympathies.
I won't deny the Iraqi people have had it tough. But Saddaam can stop these sanctions this minute if he chooses to. Come clean on his NBC program, and all sorts of possibilities will open up. Why doesn't he want to do that?
BTW, Trish is the resident Jarhead, I'm the resident Zoomie.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 23:28:35 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Slater, I'm gonna take that as the backhanded compliment you meant! 
Jarhead: US Marine, Devil Dog, Leatherneck, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children...Take your pick.
Noting the announcement by Iraq on 5 August 1998 that it had decided to suspend cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all disarmament activities and restrict ongoing monitoring and verification activities at declared sites, and/ or actions implementing the above decision,
Noting the announcement by Iraq....
Iraq made the decision....
That it (being Iraq) made the decision to suspend....
Get out UN!
UNSC is aka United Nations Security Council. How are the sanctions illegal? They are resolved and put forth by the UN not the US. May I suggest you get your acronyms straight next time.
I agree with @tomics many points. Your basing your information on other peoples word and conjecture. This just isn't enough proof. Read the UN Security Council Resolutions for yourself. The story is there.
I'm not going to add to @tomics points, he made them rather well.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 01:14:15 [Permalink]
|
Interesting where Iraq got much of their weaponary and training from.
The First Gulf war between Iran and Iraq resulted in the CIA building up the Iraqi military with state of the art equipment, as well as providing intelligence and training and a bit of money.
That was what gave Iraq the ability to invade Kuwait, without it he would never have been able do anything.
Going back further in time the reason the first gulf war started was because the US wanted to defeat Iran.
In 1979 the Shah of Iran fell, the Muslim fundies who took over were somewhat annoyed at the CIA helping SAVAK and took 52 yanks hostage at the US embassy.
Going back further to 1953 we find that the Shah was put in power by a coup that was supported largely by the CIA. This coup overthrew the democractically elected government which was going to nationalise some industry in the country, SAVAK are as brutal as the Gestapo.
The Gulf war was amost 40 years in the making.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 01:46:01 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the history lesson Bestonnet_00. The only interesting point you made that I was trully unaware of was the 1953 putting the Shah in power.
We should keep our nose out of foreign governments without considering the future ramifications of doing so. This is proof positive of that. However, I must qualify this with the caveat that the US and the UN have been *in* the business of foreign governments for so long that a US pull out would have major world ramifications. Also, with the shrinking world produced by technology, we as a country have a responsibility to the world and we must never shirk that responsibility for isolationism.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 01:57:39 [Permalink]
|
It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded.
Actually I'm going to respond to this. Have you ever heard the phrase Manifest Destiny? This is why we went into Panama. The US also used Manifest Destiny as the reason to prevent Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba. Um, JFK ring a bell here?
As for Cambodia and Loas, I'm not sure whether the US had troops in these countries. I will however speak to some friends (jarheads) that were in Nam. A jungle doesn't make a very good border. You can't see the line from the map drawn for the foliage.
Notably, this is a popular theory for movies, like Air America.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 05:35:49 [Permalink]
|
Again, I am at a loss as to what your point is and what you're talking about and why. Do you do this on purpose? Are you people putting me on, or what? Are you saying that "Manifest Destiny" offers some legitimate excuse for U.S. terrorism and brutality or are you kidding me?
manifest destiny
n.
1.A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.
2.often Manifest Destiny The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent.
quote:
It was also illegal for the U.S. to invade Iraq. It was illegal for the U.S. to invade Panama, and Cambodia and Laos, and the many other places that it has bombed and invaded.
Actually I'm going to respond to this. Have you ever heard the phrase Manifest Destiny? This is why we went into Panama. The US also used Manifest Destiny as the reason to prevent Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba. Um, JFK ring a bell here?
As for Cambodia and Loas, I'm not sure whether the US had troops in these countries. I will however speak to some friends (jarheads) that were in Nam. A jungle doesn't make a very good border. You can't see the line from the map drawn for the foliage.
Notably, this is a popular theory for movies, like Air America.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 05:38:07 [Permalink]
|
We have been told time and again that the sanctions are only sanctions on military items. Now we're being told that they're really this time going to be for military items only.
You call eleven years temporary?
quote:
Um, we weren't told we had smart sanctions. Many of the UNSC resolutions were in fact considered temporary solutions to these problems as stated in the text of the resolutions...
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1995/9510988e.htm
Stop the murder of the Iraq people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
