1441 [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 07:28 AM

[quote]Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

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);

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; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

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 nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immun

A.J.

03-21-2003, 07:39 AM

If you are going to refer or base an argument on a resolution, law, etc. Don't twist what the law states or don't try to bend it so that it fits the mold of what you are trying to accomplish.

I guess that would put the Supreme Court out of business.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 07:41 AM

I guess that would put the Supreme Court out of business.

BIFF!!! BAM!!! ZAP!!! POW!!!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 07:44 AM

You really got me on that one...huddla huddla

I was obviously refering to people who's job don't include analysis, fairness and judgement of laws

....ie people's opinions, etc.

DarkHippie

03-21-2003, 07:47 AM

I'm still looking for the part that even calls for "military action," let alone the invasion, overthrowing, and annexation of a soveriegn nation.

It's not there, you say? But President Bush said that the UN wanted us to do this, that it was the only way to keep them relevant . . .

You mean, we're violating International Law? But how can that be, we're the good guys.

Hey, even the good guys make mistakes, but there's still time to fix it. come to the big protest tomorrow at noon. It's meeting just below Times square on Broadway. Let's not let us compound ourselves any further.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
<a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

Bigden

03-21-2003, 07:52 AM

Stop the lawyering for christ's sake, who are you David Boises Wake-up how soon you forget Terrorism is alive and well as long as Saddam is around. I guess it takes more than 3,000 people perishing in a fiery hell to get your attention? What do you want a nuke on the back of a suicide bomber in NYC? Is a dirty bomb what you want? Do you believe I fail to understand why you ani-war people don'e see an imminent threat to our way of life. Yours and mine.

1441 was Unanimously approved it dictakes that Iraq diassarms completely. Clearly it was broken and that pussy Hans Blix couldn't disarm my grandmother holding on to a soup spoon. We don't want another attack on America, and the rest of the world simply doesn't care enough. Self-interest is king
Heres the facts as I see them feel free to disagree-
The dissenters to military action and why:

France- self interest 101 at is most flagrent. It is owed $5 billion and with its crappy economy that's alot. Plus guess what will attack our troops (that is if the pieces of shit ever get off the ground- flying Renault's) Gazzelle attack helicopters, and Mirage jets. Pretty clear to me.

Germany- Vas Estas? what short memories- The Marshall plan; Where to start- Those specially milled cylinders used in Iraqi munitions were of course not built in Baghdad,(I doubt that they have the technology to craft a decent ashtray in that shit hole) but in Germany. They also helped build many of Saddam's bunkers - I guess the same plans as Hitler's. Everybody knows the German's will sell anything to anybody.

China- the other bunker building powerhouse, I guess in peace loving country's their is little need for this type of work. Their intel pinpointed where they all are- at least they are good for something- I guess that million man swim to Taiwan isn't working out so well.

Russia- Ah I have to give credit where credit is due- Putin is doing a brilliant job playing off old Europe with the U.S. He goes way back with Saddam- probably to his cold war days as a senior KGB operative. Remember he was an enemy only thirteen years ago. Oil contracts, Building contracts for infrastructure. Those F-ing palaces that that dickhead built all across his rogue state. It reminds me of Stalin with all the pretense. I can't wait till a howitzer shell oblitirates the statue in Baghdad with him holding a rifle. How many Iraqi's starved so he could build that piece of shit?

Enough said if you can't agree that he is a threat to US, then you don't have a grip on the facts.

A.J.

03-21-2003, 07:53 AM

You really got me on that one...huddla huddla

Sorry Man -- I couldn't resist...I had to swing for the fence on that one. :)

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

This message was edited by AJinDC on 3-21-03 @ 12:16 PM

IrishAlkey

03-21-2003, 07:53 AM

Did Iraq comply with this resolution? No, not fully or completely as requested.

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:

So, the UN fell back on its own, proposed resolutions, thus, the USA is taking it upon itself to follow through on it, without the approval of the UN.

Huh?

Head... hurts... owie...

That's like my best friend saying to a bully, "hit me again and I'll punch you in the face"... the bully hits him, my friend just stands there and I have to beat the crap out of the bully to help my friend save face.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee>2%</marquee>

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 08:54 AM

how soon you forget Terrorism is alive and well as long as Saddam is around. I guess it takes more than 3,000 people perishing in a fiery hell to get your attention? What do you want a nuke on the back of a suicide bomber in NYC? Is a dirty bomb what you want? Do you believe I fail to understand why you ani-war people don'e see an imminent threat to our way of life. Yours and mine.

<img src=http://www.avi-writer.com/teachersgift/images/apples.jpg>

<img src="http://cgsd.com/rlatham/OaklandChinatown/640Res/Oranges.JPG"width=450>

What the hell is this logic?!? It really baffles me...it's like, "if I say '9/11' and 'Saddam' enough times in the same sentence, click my heels three times and cross my eyes...IT'LL BE TRUE."

Saddam supports Palestinian terrorists against Israel. This is proven. Yet it's NOT the reason we're going to war. We somehow have to twist that into, "well if he supports them, he MUST be willing to support ANY terrorist." Even the ones that hate his guts and want him dead, apparently. I mean, by that logic we should invade Ireland since their insistence on not cracking down on "Irish independence"-related terrorism means they could support ANY terrorist, right?

Look, the Palestinian terrorists are evil fucks, and they should be stopped for the sake of ISRAEL, but they've NEVER struck against us. Oh, well there's plenty of Saudis willing to kill us, but nobody up top seems really willing to address that.

Saddam supports terrorism. This is a fact. It's just yet to be shown that he supports terrorism that directly threatens US. Yeah, yeah, throw back the, "well, they're ALL connected" argument. Thanks for that, but until someone other than the Saudis, Lybians, Malaysians, Afghanis (Damn, that's like everyone BUT the Palestinians) et al tries as hard as them to blow us up, it's probably not the safest thing to try and crack down on anyone other than them on a scale this huge.

I mean, you bring up "dirty bombs." I feel MORE at threat from that kind of attack by us focusing on Iraq. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a head wound. Like I've said, we've got to be 100% selfish here. This needs to be all and only about protecting US...AMERICA. It's great and nice that we're "freeing" the people of Iraq, but wait until I'm not worried about my family being blown to pieces! Freeing Iraq won't change that!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-21-03 @ 1:06 PM

wilee

03-21-2003, 08:57 AM

From Bush's address on March 17th:

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

Note, no mention of resolution 1441.

From Resolution 678:

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to USE ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international pease and security in the area;
Emphasis added by me.

From Resolution 687:

Recalling also that Iraq has signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972,

Noting the importance of Iraq ratifying the Convention,

Noting also the importance of all States adhering to the Convention and encouraging its forthcoming review conference to reinforce the authority, efficiency and universal scope of the Convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on Disarmament of its work on a convention on the universal prohibition of chemical weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968

.
.
.

Recalling the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, opened for signature in New York on 18 December 1979, which categorizes all acts of taking hostages as manifestations of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM,

.
.
.

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto;

(b) all ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and related major parts and repair and production facilities;
There's your authorization.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infi.net/wilee.jpg">

Bigden

03-21-2003, 09:07 AM

Who ever said it was going to be safe? Why would we worry about safety now as I pass a NYPD officer with an assault rifle & body armor on my way to work. We will NEVER be safe again untill we knock off Terrorism wherever it lives. Afghanistan now Baghdad one at a time. God willing our children's children will be safe.

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 09:12 AM

Afghanistan now Baghdad one at a time. God willing our children's children will be safe.

Takes too long. I want to be safer NOW. Off the top of my head, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia are basically Muslim Extremist HQ's, yet we haven't even so much as coughed at them. Take these fuckers out, PRONTO.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 09:14 AM

I posted 1441 in order so people understand what is said and what is not said in it. The US officials are using 1441 as some sort of basis for international law and approval. Obviously you can see such items are NEVER mentioned.

I didn't re-start the argument of why we are going to war....cause we are already there. But I will say this, The US is lying and using false inniciatives in order to justify this war.

1441 DOES NOT prove this war is legal according to international law.

And everyone should also be aware this document never ever talks of regime change. It's basis is disarmament only.

the USA is taking it upon itself to follow through on it, without the approval of the UN
That is the difference between unilateral actions and multilateral actions. And this is clearly in the US interest (so they say anyways) to go to war. You should check what our government is saying...they are saying it complies with international law. A blatant lie.

Ps..Ajin Dc...It was a nice shot. I'll give you that much..hehe

Bigden

03-21-2003, 09:24 AM

I agree, but I think after we liberate Iraq we are going to have a "long talk" with Saudi Arabia.

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 09:27 AM

We'd better. Those guys are more two-faced than Arafat, and I'm getting sick of it because it's getting us DEAD.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 10:07 AM

Nothing will be said to Saudi Arabia until Iraq is settled with it's oil production back at full capacity.

Btw, Anyone else get a chuckle when yet more Saudi Arabian men were added to the terrorists to look out for list? But it's ok right...they are assisting the US vs. Iraq....right?..ugh

Bigden

03-21-2003, 10:12 AM

Five- actually Saudi Arabia was very hostile concerning this operation. I can't wait until we have a good relationship with Iraq- regime change. Then the 2nd biggest oil producer will be our ally. THEN Saudi Arabia will be dealt with. Hell we have the troops there time to squeze that f-ing royal family, and we would not need their oil.

wilee

03-21-2003, 10:21 AM

1441 DOES NOT prove this war is legal according to international law.But resolutions 678 and 687 do.

<IMG SRC="http://cwjr.home.infi.net/wilee.jpg">

Bergalad

03-21-2003, 11:05 AM

Wilee, you are absolutely right with your posting of the prior Resolutions. Exactly right. The US is legally justified to enforce those Resolutions at their discresion, and 1441 did not change that. I point to 1441 not as justification for conflict, but as proof that the UN will never enforce anything requiring force. They debate and debate all day, but in the end lack the courage to do anything tangible about it. Iraq violated the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement, and by international law the US is withing her rights to enforce the conditions. Right, 1441 doesn't support this action, but the prior ones do. No arguing that.

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 11:29 AM

When all this is said and done...it will be very interesting to see how it will be perceived by the world and in history.

As for your point Wiley, there is an arguement stating invasion from them, yes. But also note these items were never mentioned by the US in stating a case for war. The case Powell, Bush and others used was that Saddam is a threat, has terrorist ties, as well as the 1441 violation (to the UN as well as the US people).

DarkHippie

03-21-2003, 11:43 AM

Wilee, you are absolutely right with your posting of the prior Resolutions. Exactly right. The US is legally justified to enforce those Resolutions at their discresion
no, because the United States is not the world's Hitman. when it comes down to it, only the UN has the authority to decide what the UN enforces and what it doesn't.

To put it in Movie terms: The US is the rogue cop now, refusing to do things by the books, and going after the bad guy by himself, a "Dirty Harry" of a country.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
<a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

A.J.

03-21-2003, 11:59 AM

To put it in Movie terms: The US is the rogue cop now, refusing to do things by the books, and going after the bad guy by himself, a "Dirty Harry" of a country.

Not really -- since it was Harry who stopped the bad cops after they tried to recruit him: (Briggs [Hal Holbrook] and the rogue cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, and Robert Urich.

Remember, Harry said to Briggs "The system may not be perfect but it's the best one we've got".

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 12:35 PM

No one should expect any nation to follow UN/ international laws if the one enforcing them doesn't comply either. The US helps the UN in enforcement and future policy by going along with them....not around them.

travis151

03-21-2003, 12:45 PM

Stop you r whining B if you don't likehow this government is working in 2004 vote against Bush, I don't have to add anything else because Mojo just ripped apart your argument.

Red Sox=More Better

JerryTaker

03-21-2003, 01:12 PM

hmm, Ironically, the arguments here (finally backed up by some real documents) is making me turn around a bit and be more for this war...

We have an "in" in that our war with Iraq never ended, there was a "cease fire" based around things Saddam was supposed to do, but didn't.

We have a really easy time overrunning Iraq, essentially creating a colony in the middle east, hopefully backed up by our puppet government in Afghanistan.

We now control enough oil in the middle east to not be dependant on the Saudis for oil, PLUS we now have a HUGE standing army on thier border....

This puts us in a position to influence both Saudi Arabia and Palestine, because it decreases thier power..

It also diverts terrorism, because they would most likely try to attack the millitary in Iraq, to get thier land back than waste resources in the US...

I mean Stragically, it's making a lot of sense, and with Cheney and Powell at the helm, you can see why...

However this only works

IF we install our own puppet government in Iraq, that is proven loyal to us, as well as in Afghanastan

IF a large percentage of our millitary stays in Iraq

IF we join Isreal in millitary counterstrikes to acts of terrorism

I mean I may be completely off base here, and it may seem like Imperialism, but I think 9/11 gave us a bit of an "enough is enough" attitude toward the middle east, and this is only phase one to a full "cleansing" of the area. (of terrorists, not ethnic)...

What do you think?

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 04:53 PM

Travis...he didn't say anything that was untrue. Those are true resolutions from the last war. As for saying he ripped my argument apart...that is untrue. The US never made any mention of either of those resolutions in the case for war! Not only that, the previous mention of them doesn't set precedent, it's what was. Not what is.

And someone mentioned that technically, the last war never ended? Why don't you just come down a notch and get back to reality. Vietnam never occurred either cause it wasn't passed through congress right?

The resolutions from the last war at least give some sort of paper trail...it's an argument to be made....but not a fact by any means.

And I really enjoy how no one seems to be talking about how 1441 doesn't say anything regarding invasion, the US directly taking such actions or regime change. Yet this is what OUR PRESIDENT told the country.

The Jays

03-21-2003, 05:13 PM

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):

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: and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council:

1441 still holds 687 in regard. Iraq is in breach, which breaks the ceasefire. They were afforded a final opportunity to prove they have disarmed. Iraq could not prove it, thus they are in breach of 1441, and thus they are in breach of 687, and thus we can resume war.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 05:54 PM

It holds them in account to disarmament and compliance. Not war. That part is interpretive and subjective.

And if the 'war' trail is apparent as you want to make it, why did the UN Security Council need to reconvene to decide the possibility of invasion or more inspections? The US didn't make the case of previous resolutions and war until the diplomacy was ended. It was all after the fact and back trailing to try and justify it in the international realms of law.

The Jays

03-21-2003, 06:07 PM

It holds them in account to disarmament and compliance. Not war. That part is interpretive and subjective.

The consequence of non compliance is breaking the ceasefire. If they do not disarm and comply, then the conflict , begun in 1991, resumes.

And if the 'war' trail is apparent as you want to make it, why did the UN Security Council need to reconvene to decide the possibility of invasion or more inspections?

Because the UN avoids conflict at all costs, they fail to see when conflict is necessary. They have amended the terms of the first resolution 17 times in the last 12 years, to give Iraq every single chance to comply, and Saddam fails to do it every time.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

Lummox

03-21-2003, 06:24 PM

Is not MAN's law subjective, arbitrary, and open to interpretation? I see no moral or logical reason NOT to rid the world of Talibans and Saddam Husseins. All I see is Bush opposition digging, grasping at straws, and desperately clawing at any morsel they can find to bash the administration. I can't even call it the 'left' because those with sense on that side of the fence see the good reasons that the Bush administration is doing what it is doing. Even when all other arguments fail, they fuss over the chronology or sequence of regimes we take on. It will never end...

Peace through superior firepower...

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 07:57 PM

FiveB, I don't really get what you're trying to do here. Well, maybe I do...but it's not working...just as much as these resolutions don't openly suggest invasion, they also don't specifically oppose or forbid it.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

03-21-2003, 09:48 PM

Mojo...it's very simple. The US wants to hold every nation in the world accountable for their actions according to international law, UN resolutions as well as treaties. The US doesn't comply with any of these items. Instead they pick and choose to apply them when they deem correct, yet never hold themselves to the same standards. It's hypocritical and doesn't make actions justified. People complain about why no one complies with the UN, international law, etc...a lot of it has to do with the fact that the US does the same. It's a follow by example scenario. Laws and resolutions should be upheld by and hold to all nations....not just the ones the US decides necessary by their own interests.

The Jays...the US declared war on Japan in 1941. Does this still give them legitimacy to attack Japan now? I think not.

I have no problem with the US saying we are attacking and removing Saddam due to the fact they believe him to be a threat (even though I don't agree with it). But it's self interest, not international law or any other law for that matter. You can all sit around and accept the BS that our government throws around regarding policies, justifications and agenda's...but I choose to understand why things happen in the world, and not as a biased party of a nation's perspective. I've read many a posts by various people on this board regarding how politicians are corrupt, act upon their own interests as well as will do anything to be reelected. Not exactly noble or in the people's interest. So why then would I hold these same people acceptable to hold or protect our interests in war or international affairs? I hold our government accountable and responsible for all of their actions at all times...not just some of the times. To do anything otherwise would be picking items to prove a point. I look at every nation, issue and policy in the same context, level and according to the same laws. The way law is intended to be.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 3-22-03 @ 1:53 AM

sxymale

03-21-2003, 10:03 PM

from chronwatch.com

You asked why I support the war. You wanted to understand why now, and why with Iraq rather than other, equally noxious, tyrants. In this letter, I'll try to cover what this war is about and what it isn't about.

This isn't a war about American blood for Iraqi oil. The United States and Great Britain have maintained sanctions on Iraqi oil since 1991 in the face of European and Asian opposition. If we had wanted Iraqi oil, as our oil companies have lobbied for years, we could have simply lifted sanctions and bought it.

It is a war brought about by blood for oil, however. One of the reasons Iraq poses a threat is because of its oil revenues and what they have bought and can buy. In the hands of a megalomaniacal dictator, oil revenues purchased the technology, built the infrastructure, and produced biological weapons like anthrax and smallpox and chemical weapons like VX nerve agent and mustard gas. There is blood for oil here but it is on the hands of the French and Germans who sold Saddam Hussein the technology and equipment so he could gas thousands of his own Kurdish citizens. There is blood for oil, the blood of thousands of Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqi Shia Moslems who died under the treads of Hussein's tanks, and armored personnel carriers or who were machine-gunned or blown apart by attack helicopters. This blood is on the hands of the Russians and Chinese who sold him these things. To know Hussein, his methods, and goals, and to build a nuclear reactor for him, as the French did at Osirik, makes you his accomplice not just a trading partner.

He invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He gassed Iranians. He gassed Kurds. On retreating from Kuwait, his army set fire to every oil well they could reach creating the greatest ecological disaster in Mid-East history. He will use every weapon in his arsenal. When he develops atomic weapons, he will use them. If he had atomic weapons now, he would use them on our troops. If we wait until he obtains them, he will use them on our troops and on his neighbors. This war is happening now, specifically because he is close to developing them. He has the means and the motive, and all he lacks is time. We cannot await this inevitability.

For all its dictatorial dysfunction, does the Middle East deserve to be under the nuclear thumb of one murdering tyrant? Do we wait for the illicit transfer of a backpack nuke to a terrorist organization who walks it into Los Angeles or New York or on a container ship coming into Oakland? Containment only works with rational governments and leaders who pay the price for their aggression. It doesn't work with stateless, suicidal Islamofacist terrorists.

This is not a threat you can see or touch now. This is frustrating for most Americans. But when you can see it or touch it, it will be too late to act. A new era was ushered in by the attacks of September 11, 2001. As you know, my wife was in Manhattan on 9/11 and watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center. She smelled the ozone and dust in the air, wondering if chemical or biological weapons were there as well. Even now, we have friends who will not go into Manhattan. How many other attacks in how many other cities must we endure? Is this the type of world we are consigned to live in? Do you want to live in a world like this? Do you want your children to live in a world like this?

Some say that North Korea is a more immediate threat. Is their motive to face one threat or avoid facing another? North Korea is an isolated, bankrupt ghost of Stalinism whose people are reducing to eating tree bark to stay alive. They will soon collapse on their own.

Some say that we must have the sanction of the United Nations. Where were these people during the Yugoslavian war, the Haitian intervention, or the Somalia debacle? Their vision ends at America's shores. Their signs and chants offer no viable alternative. They linger on hatred of the U.S. pre

TheMojoPin

03-21-2003, 10:09 PM

Woulda.

Coulda.

Shoulda.

Maybe.

Kinda.

Possibly.

Could be.

Someday.

Might be.

9/11 isn't some kind of universal "magic trick" and I REALLY wish people would stop using it that way. It's insulting.

All I know is what I hear from people I know in The Agency, and the general mood seems to be that this will in little or no way curb the kind of terrorism most Americans picture when they think of the term these days. I just want to be safe, and this Iraq issue does NOT do that. It doesn't make it worse or better...it's just like it's a diversion.

Ultimately, it COULD work for some good. The last Gulf War actually painted us in a much better light in many eyes around the MIddle East. It helped establish avenues and audiences that basically made much of the 90's the most stable and semi-peaceful era the Middle East had seen in decades. If we pull this off, and Iraq is genuinely fully "freed" and made into its OWN independent country or various free states, it'll steal a LOT of thunder from the bullshit lies terrorists spread about us. It's just too bad that is yet another one of the MANY legitimate reasons we could have used as opposed to using a variety of half-truths, assumptions and guesses. But here's hoping that we end up stumbling into some really, really great opportunities.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-03 @ 2:44 AM

Dewey

03-22-2003, 01:09 AM

Don't get sucked into this "International Law" business. We are a sovereign nation, and should remain so. Goodness knows we have little enough influence over our elected officials regarding the passage of laws. I'll be damned if I'm going to approve of the submission of our national will to a bunch of thugs and dictators who are not accountable to us in any way whatsoever. They would love to shackle us under the auspices of "International Law" from doing anything that might strengthen our nation and make it safer.

Just look at the UN Security council, for example. Would you feel comfortable with France, Germany, China, Russia, Cameroon, etc., creating the laws by which we must abide? I don't think so.

<IMG SRC="http://www.agw-werbeartikel.de/images/easy-rider.jpg"> "Still searching for America."

The Jays

03-22-2003, 03:56 AM

The Jays...the US declared war on Japan in 1941. Does this still give them legitimacy to attack Japan now? I think not.

Totally different war. Totally different peace resolution, and one which Japan never broke. Iraq did.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

TheMojoPin

03-22-2003, 08:06 AM

Would you feel comfortable with France, Germany, China, Russia, Cameroon, etc., creating the laws by which we must abide? I don't think so.

You're very right. But on the flipside, are all these other nations just to sit back and always totally abide whatever it is we decide that we "need" to do? We're clearly the most powerful nation in the world, and should lead by having them do as we do AND as we say.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-03 @ 12:13 PM

FiveB247

03-22-2003, 08:41 AM

Don't get sucked into this "International Law" business. We are a sovereign nation, and should remain so.

I guess this can summarize Iraq's 'sovereign right' as a nation to invade Kuwait? Is that their 'national interest'? It goes both ways.

CaptClown

03-22-2003, 09:11 AM

I guess this can summarize Iraq's 'sovereign right' as a nation to invade Kuwait? Is that their 'national interest'? It goes both ways.

It was in their right to do so, but as an ally of Kuwait the US is within it's rights to go and defend Kuwait.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

FiveB247

03-22-2003, 09:14 AM

It was in their right to do so, but as an ally of Kuwait the US is within it's rights to go and defend Kuwait.

So basically you want Rogue States doing as they please, and the only legitimate answer or response to these types of actions is war? Sounds like a nice future you want to build. We should have stability and peace by no time...Nice Head Deeek!

CaptClown

03-22-2003, 09:23 AM

So basically you want Rogue States doing as they please, and the only legitimate answer or response to these types of actions is war? Sounds like a nice future you want to build. We should have stability and peace by no time...Nice Head Deeek!

They do that anyway. If you took your head out of your ass and look around a little you might see that. It would be nice if there was another way to deal with them another way but they only understand "Foot in ass." Talking has failed. Sanctions have failed. So what is left?

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

TheMojoPin

03-22-2003, 10:11 AM

So basically you want Rogue States doing as they please, and the only legitimate answer or response to these types of actions is war?

But you DO realize that pretty much the only things that stops these "rogue states" from running rampant IS either war or the threat of war, right? They can't be contained by wishful thinking and good intentions...these kind of geo-politics are inherently violent (Or the implication of violence) by nature. That's just how the world works, and has always worked.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

The Jays

03-22-2003, 10:56 AM

But you DO realize that pretty much the only things that stops these "rogue states" from running rampant IS either war or the threat of war, right? They can't be contained by wishful thinking and good intentions...these kind of geo-politics are inherently violent (Or the implication of violence) by nature. That's just how the world works, and has always worked.

Exactly. When the UN says there will be serious consequences, those serious consequences inlcude military conflict. We tried diplomacy, we tried sanctions, we tried threatening. When everything else doesn't work, do we just go back to the drawing board and re-think strategy? No, we go to the last resort.

 Fuck what you heard.
 That cab has a dent in it. [center]
[center]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morecoolestgroup/files/house.gif

TheMojoPin

03-22-2003, 11:24 AM

We tried diplomacy, we tried sanctions, we tried threatening. When everything else doesn't work, do we just go back to the drawing board and re-think strategy? No, we go to the last resort.

Well, this is where I'll still disagree. I readily admit other options were tried, but I still don't think ALL options were explored. While Iraq IS somewhat of a "threat" to regional stability, I still don't understand where the "we have to go, now-now-NOW"-mentality came from. I very much believe Saddam should have been taken out by the end of this year, but I really have yet to be convinced that ALL options were explored, and that this last resort was truly needed NOW.

But, we ARE there now, so mainly I'm just concerned with what needs to be done getting done. The time for the "why?" has passed, and we should really focus on the "what can be done now?"

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-22-03 @ 3:30 PM

FiveB247

03-22-2003, 10:51 PM

If the US is serious about peace, security, ending terrorism, etc... acting upon their own interests is not the way to go. A large part of UN failure to be held as a forum for diplomacy with peaceful solutions is due to the fact that the US themselves would rather use its military might rather then diplomatic solutionis. The US is the world power. We should be the ones setting standards and laying ground work for peace, security and diplomacy through the UN and laws. Whether we want to be or not...we are in charge and should take responsibility in order to create diplomacy without military action or war. And if you even hesitate to think we don't pursue military action before diplomatic action, just look at the way we fund our military when we already have far superior technology, numbers and economic holds to keep other 'threat nations' at bay. The US doesn't want to pursue such diplomacy due to the fact that we would be the ones losing some control over our destiny. So we'd rather keep a clenched fist ready to throw at a nation...