You're going to kill me; ... even if I confess. Thanks France, Russia!
Posted 16 May 2003 - 02:35 PM
>>"Why must France and Russia insist on having their blood $$$ contracts honored?"
On the flip side of this is that with lifting the sanctions the US will get their own blood $$$ contracts honored. Not to mention the fact the the Iraqi people will have to pay for their own reconstruction. So how will it break down? After the US/Briton and other "coalition of the willing" partners get their cut, then of course you have to take out for "reconstruction" and "occupational" costs...whatever is left might find it's way into the hands of the iraqi people.
baltoga, we are as guilty if not more of exploiting the iraqis here. Does anyone really care about them in this?
Posted 16 May 2003 - 02:57 PM
While I agree it is flogging a dead horse, one wonders why there was the effort to drum up support for a second resolution, when supposedly 1441 and the previous resolutions were enough legal basis for armed intervention. The fact is the invasion always was about regime change.
From the Telegraph...
"In his Parliamentary written answer he noted that all three resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force to restore international peace and security.
What Lord Goldsmith did not spell out is that Chapter VII authorises the Security Council, rather than individual states, to take such action as may be necessary to maintain or restore peace.
Resolution 678 of November 1990, passed after Iraq invaded Kuwait, "authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area".
In resolution 687 of April 1991, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, "the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area".
In Lord Goldsmith's view, the latter resolution "suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678". That authority was "revived" by a material breach of resolution 687, he argued.
Resolution 1441 said that Iraq "had been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)" because it had not fully complied with its obligations to disarm.
In resolution 1441, the Security Council also decided that "failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate 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".
Lord Goldsmith did not mention the requirement for a material breach to be referred back to the Security Council. Instead, he said it was "plain that Iraq has failed to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach".
Thus, he concluded, "the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today".
Lord Goldsmith's advice, while it may reassure those who wish to see a legal basis for the use of force, is unlikely to persuade lawyers who have already considered and dismissed this assessment of international law.
The Attorney General does not explain why the Government made such efforts to seek a further resolution if, as he now says, "an express further decision to use force" was not required by resolution 1441."
Posted 16 May 2003 - 02:59 PM
The only reason the US war criminals press about the lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq is because they would like to put their greedy hands on the Iraq oil faster. The logic of their arguments is apaling. First of all they did claim the food for oil programme has been adequate before their agression on Iraq, but the population starved because Saddam "hide the food". This means there is no reason to change the trend and the people of Iraq will get their humanitarian supply if the US swines do not hide it much like Saddam in order to show their "humanitarian face" relative to the UN. Then instead of letting the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job in Iraq needed to lift the UN sanctions on Iraq, the US war criminals balk about letting them in out of fear the truth of Iraq being disarmed during the first UN inspections before US pull them out in the 90 to resume the Iraq bombing will come out, so the legality of the US agression and occupation of Iraq will further be questionad by the World community.
And now some stupid yankz are talking of Iraq humanitarian concerns. Better go and count how many innocent women and children the dirty war criminals kill. They are so ashamed, they din't want to do a body count, but sooner or later the statistics will be used agains them in the ICC. LOL
Posted 16 May 2003 - 03:52 PM
There are some of you who go as far as making the stupid and insensitive statement .........................." Getting rid of Saddam won't bring back the people who he had killed"!!! Hey "Lefty" ............................. Pull your head out of your azz! Sure it won't bring back the ones he already killed , but it will surely stop him and his army of clowns from killing any more!
So if anyone feels that Saddam is a better alternative to the US getting rid of him them you are truely sick.
I feel that the world should hang it's head in shame that "we", as the world community, stood by know full well what he was doing and did nothing for years. And I mean every country on this planet.
How dare anyone say that what the Coalition did was wrong.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 04:31 PM
What the US etc. did wasn`t "wrong" in a face value black and white moral sense, even if it wasn`t entirely legal according to international law. The point is the war was never primarily for the benefit of the Iraqi people, that was just a side effect. The war was first and foremost to ensure the security of the US`s strategic interests in the Middle East. By removing Saddam, it subsequently also allowed the US to remove troops from Saudi Arabia and reduce the justification of a terrorist attack.
It will only be determined to be wrong if in time, Iraq turns into an anti American fundamentalist Shiite nut house, simultaneously at loggerheads with neighbouring Sunni Saudi Arabia. Then, the proverbial shit will hit the fan.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 04:31 PM
Yes, what a great catch phrase. Sorry, but that's all it was. Everytime we plan a military action you will see this type of hype to pull on our emotional heart strings for support.
Remember the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict? The media hype then was all about the terrible soviet occupation and oppression of Afghanistan. So what did we do? We armed and funded a bunch of crazy militants which eventually led to the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The truth of this war was nothing more than a proxy war with the SU. I mean just look at the outcome! The Taliban were far more oppressive than the Soviets could have dreamed up. At least if we had not interfered there, women would have had equal rights and a chance for an education. We screwed things up so bad we had to go back to clean up our own mess.
Iraq is not much different. We helped to put Sadam in power and to keep him in power to provide a balance to Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war we backed both sides in an effort to weaken their power in the region. Saddam was one of our favorite bad boys right up until the Kuwait invasion. And that war was all about oil. Kuwait was defying OPEC by overproduction of oil exports to us at a very cheap rate. They also were drilling across the Iraq border. Saddam got fed up with what he called "economic warfare" from Kuwait and went in for an attack. Then all of a sudden we were flooded with reports of how awful Saddam was. I'm not denying that he wasn't, the point is that we didn't care as long as he was doing what we wanted from him. Before that did anyone hear a peep in the news of the horrors of Saddam? I wonder why????
Sanctions were put on Saddam to keep him from being a strong economic/political power in the region. The birthplace of OPEC was in Bagdad, this in itself was threatening to the US and it's growth. The idea behind the sanctions was that the people would overthrow Saddam. When the sanctions failed to bring about the desired results, we had to change our strategy - which has led us to where we are now.
War politics are about balancing out power or attempting to create some sort of stabilization to further our own interests. Don't kid yourself with the morality lip-service we are fed.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 04:51 PM
Oh! I see now! You are the "all knowing" and "all seeing" maven of truth from Ohio???
Or is it that maybe you are the sister of "The Shadow" and only you know "what evil lies in the hearts of men"???
The "TRUTH" is that there were many reasons for the Coalition entering Iraq. One of which was to free the Iraqi people from a band of murderers! And if it wasn't for the stinking "world opinion" we would have gotten rid of that sewer rat and his pack of ****b a long time ago.
Why is it that many here have selective memory when it comes to the truth??? I believe that it's becuse if you and many others like you actually spoke the truth you wouldn't have any grounds for spewing much of the anti-american venom which seems to be the number one propaganda topic on this site.
I have yet to hear any "south paw" say that Saddam was a murderer and that the Iraqi people are much better off with the Coalition forces.
Or do you believe that they could have had their protests against Saddam and lived if Operation Iraqi Freedom never took place???
Posted 16 May 2003 - 05:03 PM
Look, I'm just stating my opinion as I see it - just as you are. I'm definately not claiming anything else. I guess you didn't like my analysis? My point is that foreign policy is more pragmatic than what you are claiming it to be. We would all love to rally behind some great humanitarian cause...especially if it centers around "freedom". I just don't buy it as a motivation for political decisions...way too much is a stake to make these decisions based on emotions or 'morality'. Governments have to make hard decisions and always the first priority for all heads of state is security, self-preservation, and securing your interests in the world. Just my opinion SeaBee.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 05:46 PM
East governs itself were somewhat dimmer during the
Cold War than they are now. There were things you
could not possibly achieve, much less attempt, while
there was a risk of infuriating the Soviet Union, which
included among its client states the secular Syria and Iraq.
Now you have more enlightened jurisdictions poppling
up like Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE.
They have no aspirations to being the centre of Islam
and their leaders are more benevolent than the Saudis.
They didn't indoctrinate the children full of Wahhabi
teachings the way the Saudis allowed for. The Saudis
paid off the imams and mullahs with generous educational
grants to sustain a fundamentalist, anti-west outlook.
The way forward looks far clearer now for Iraq and Syria
than it does for Saudi, thanks in part to the secular tradition
of the Iraqis.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 08:55 PM
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" Quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski Jan, 1998* (This interview was deleted from the version of Le Nouvel Observateur sent to the US) [this translation into English by Blum]
read the rest.......... http://www.represent...Ladenphoto.html
Posted 16 May 2003 - 09:16 PM
America wants the UN to lift the sanctions now but they wont because Russia and France veto it.
Only months ago Russia and France wanted the sanctions lifted and America told them and the UN to more or less **** Off.
America didnt give a damn what the others wanted and invaded Iraq against UN will.
But now they can blame them for the sanctions. Funny how they follow UN edict now but not for their invasion. If America really gave a shit they would simply lift the sanctions themselves as they invaded themselves.
Bush and his bunch of pigs are simplyt using the Un and Russia/France as their excuse to do nothing and let more starve or die of illness, thirst etc. Every death is one less mouth to feed later and less problems later they figure.And sanctions make control easier.
Those lying bastards in Washington love the sanctions and hope they stay in place as long as possable. Then when they are ready to flood Iraq with American goods the sanctions will be lifted.
I bet warehouses are being filled right now ready for fast delivery before other countries can make a buck.
The crookedest country on earth. Bush needs to be executed like Bin Ladin needs to be, or like Saddam...Owl
Posted 16 May 2003 - 09:40 PM
Posted 16 May 2003 - 10:16 PM
<The only reason the US war criminals press about the lifting the UN sanctions on Iraq is because they would like to put their greedy hands on the Iraq oil faster. The logic of their arguments is apaling. First of all they did claim the food for oil programme has been adequate before their agression on Iraq, but the population starved because Saddam "hide the food". This means there is no reason to change the trend and the people of Iraq will get their humanitarian supply if the US swines do not hide it much like Saddam in order to show their "humanitarian face" relative to the UN. Then instead of letting the UN weapons inspectors to finish their job in Iraq needed to lift the UN sanctions on Iraq, the US war criminals balk about letting them in out of fear the truth of Iraq being disarmed during the first UN inspections before US pull them out in the 90 to resume the Iraq bombing will come out, so the legality of the US agression and occupation of Iraq will further be questionad by the World community.
And now some stupid yankz are talking of Iraq humanitarian concerns. Better go and count how many innocent women and children the dirty war criminals kill. They are so ashamed, they din't want to do a body count, but sooner or later the statistics will be used agains them in the ICC. LOL>
Compared2What hufed and pufed ->
<My my aren't we pissy this morning...did you miss your nap or medicine?>
No need even to comment. Getting in debate with mentaly retarded isn't fun . LOL
Posted 16 May 2003 - 10:52 PM
No Deal on UN Resolution Over Iraq
By Christophe de Roquefeuil
Agence France Presse
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday failed to convince Russian leaders to support an immediate end to UN sanctions on Iraq, with Moscow insisting that UN weapons inspectors return first to Baghdad.
Two weeks after British Prime Minister Tony Blair returned empty-handed to London after a similar mission, Powell said the two sides would continue to try and reach a compromise but there was little sign of common ground.
Powell said he and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov would "be working closely in the days ahead on the resolution that is pending before the UN to see if we can come into agreement with our other Security Council partners."
"We have described our position to each other, there are outstanding issues," he told reporters after meeting with President Vladimir Putin.
Powell said Washington did not agree with Moscow that UN inspectors should be allowed back to Iraq to certify that it has no weapons of mass destruction before the sanctions regime can be removed. "We did not resolve that," he said.
The UN Security Council is on Thursday to discuss a draft U.S. resolution that would lift sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War and enable Washington and its allies to effectively run the country and control its oil revenues for at least a year.
Moscow's position is broadly backed by France and China, fellow veto-wielding members of the Security Council that also opposed the U.S.-led invasion.
Posted 16 May 2003 - 11:01 PM
<And now some stupid yankz are talking of Iraq humanitarian concerns. Better go and count how many innocent women and children the dirty war criminals kill. They are so ashamed, they din't want to do a body count, but sooner or later the statistics will be used agains them in the ICC. >
The disgusting US redneck war criminal confess ->
<"I think they thought we wouldn't shoot kids, But we showed them we don't care. I did what I had to do. I don't have a big problem with it" - U.S. Army Pvt. Nick Boggs>
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users