I am also FOR finishing the WOT, BEFORE we go after him,.... And when will it be finished? It could take decades.
Georgie's daddy did a MUCH better job of persuading other nations to join us in a righteous-fight. This is just one more example of how Inept GDubbya truly is. GW is doing a fine job. I think much better than his daddy. GW appears to be willing to actually lead.
“GIVE THE U.N. INSPECTIONS A CHANCE TO WORK”
I put that title in quotation marks for a reason. If you actually hear those words coming from someone’s mouth .. you know that person is either (a) a blithering idiot, (b) completely ignorant of the facts, or (c) secretly desirous of a decrease in United States respect and prestige around the world.
We’ll try to take this step-by-step so that even Democrats can understand it.
1. In 1991 American troops are poised to march on Baghdad to unseat Saddam Hussein.
2. Hussein wants to try to find a way to save his butt and retain some of his power in Iraq.
3.Acting through the U.N., the United States agrees to discontinue military action against Hussein if he will agree to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in his military arsenal.
4.Saddam is also forced to agree to a regimen of inspections to certify that he is actually disarming.
5.Saddam Hussein admits to the inspectors that he has thousands of gallons of various chemical and biological weapons, and the weapons systems to deliver these chemical and biological weapons throughout much of the Middle East.
6.In 1998 Hussein effectively kicks the inspectors out of Iraq. He then has a four-year period to do whatever he likes with his WMD program.
7.In the Fall of 2002, as the United States is threatening military action against Hussein, he repeatedly makes that claim that he has destroyed all WMDs in his arsenal, and that he has no more.
8.In 2002 the U.N. places inspectors back into Iraq. Their goal is not to find any WMDs, but rather to verify Saddam’s claim that he has now destroyed them all.
9.Saddam has provided not one bit of evidence to back up his claims that he has destroyed all WMDs in his possession when the inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
10.The U.N. inspectors find missile warheads capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons. These are warheads that Saddam said he had destroyed.
11. The U.N. inspectors find 3000 pages of documents in an Iraqi scientist’s home detailing an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
So ... now we have the left saying that we have to give the inspectors more time. More time for what? They’ve done their job. They have illustrated Hussein’s failure to abide by the terms of the U.N. resolutions to disarm.
You do realize you posted an article from common dreams ? That's Dennis' favorite website, no offense but If I posted something from townhall I'm sure you'd have a field day with it.
Eagleberger has changed his mind, Most of the others are no longer in power. Those in favor outnumber those opposed. There's also (D'S) in favor of going in.
This is where the U.N's 15 member security council members stand. *** The dates aren't givven. It's from CNN but I believe that this is not from after Powell's remarks to the general assembley.
Obviously we know where the U.S and Great Britain stand.
Russia Permanent Security Council member
Russia says there is no evidence Iraq is rearming and wants a diplomatic resolution, but may change its position if Iraq doesn't increase cooperation.
Source: AP
France Permanent Security Council member
France says inspections are starting to work and hinted it could use its veto to block authorization for force.
Source: AP
Permanent Security Council member
China says it believes inspections should continue and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully.
Source: AP
Permanent Security Council member
China says it believes inspections should continue and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully.
Source: AP
Bulgaria Elected Security Council member
Bulgaria says it backs a peaceful resolution and could support U.S.-led military intervention without authorization.
Source: AP
Cameroon Elected Security Council member
Cameroon says supports continued inspections and has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Chile Elected Security Council member
Chile says it is waiting for the U.N. Security Council meeting where U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will address the Security Council before announcing its position.
Elected Security Council member, holds council presidency
Germany says it insists Iraq must be disarmed peacefully and says it will not participate in force even if U.N. authorizes action continued inspections. Germany also says it has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Guinea Elected Security Council member
Guinea says it supports continued inspections and also says it has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Mexico Elected Security Council member
Mexico says it supports continued inspections and could support military action if authorized.
Source: AP
Pakistan Elected Security Council member
Pakistan says it supports continued weapons inspections and a diplomatic resolution.
Source: AP
Spain Elected Security Council member
Spain says it supports the Bush administration's stance and believes action could start without authorization.
Source: AP
Syria Elected Security Council member
Syria says Iraq is cooperating and sanctions should be lifted.
Source: AP ---------------------------------------------------------------
** Syria ? O.K then.
From what I cen tell from the latest news that the only likely no vote would be France. Germany is still up in the air. (Germany said it won't participate even if the U.N approves) A unanimous decision needs to be reached for apporval. At this point it looks like that one or two no votes would override the other 13 yes votes. If the U.N doesn't pass it the U.S and MANY other allies will more than likeley take action. SO we'd have a majority of U.N and NAto countries voting yes and many activley participating. Yet we're being unilateral ? Sure O.K.
Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:
Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.
Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.
We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: "We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq."
The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.
akin to many veterans and other folks who eke a living in the exercise of coercive might on behalf of national governments, you fail to see the distinction between the opinion of a nation's people and the leaders who claim to represent the people.
The people of UK, Italy, Czech, Slovakia, Poland and Australia appear to overwhelmingly oppose the American government stance on Iraq. The opposition is significant. The leaders - with their heads buried as deep in the the sand as American leadership - ignores public sentiment and thinks they are still democratic.
We are the only power globally and we really do not need the rest of the world to be behind us. little boy bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility. They are mistaken.
Well perhaps if the same courtesy was extended it might be easier to understand.
So accoording to you then if just getting these other countries leaders is meaningless then why bother to even talk to the U.N ? Apparently then the people of these nations have no influence on their leaders. Hmmm Tell that to Schroeder and Chirac.
BTW, Please feel free to keep dispariging vets, your true charachter is showing. We already knew you were a racist so we can add that to list of your qualities.
I mock the ones who anoint themselves with halos and expect us other folks who often make equally wrenching sacrifices to perpetually elevate veterans to a divine pedestal and venerate them. Sounds phony to me.
The genuine vets I admire never whine and are not constanly demanding 21 gun salutes.
Mr. President, may I, like the foreign minister for China, congratulate Germany on taking the presidency of the Security Council and congratulate you personally on assuming the chair this morning.
Mr. President, we've just heard a most powerful and authoritative case against the Iraqi regime set out by United States Secretary of State Powell. The international community owes him its thanks for laying bare the deceit practiced by the regime of Saddam Hussein, and worse, the very great danger which that regime represents.
Three months ago, we united to send Iraq an uncompromising message: Cooperate fully with weapons inspectors or face disarmament by force.
After years of Iraqi deception, when resolutions were consistently flouted, Resolution 1441 was a powerful reminder of the importance of international law and of the authority of the Security Council itself.
United and determined, we gave Iraq a final opportunity to rid itself of its weapons of mass terror; of gasses which can poison thousands in one go; of bacilli and viruses like anthrax and smallpox, which can disable and kill by the tens of thousands; of the means to make nuclear weapons, which can kill by the million.
By Resolution 1441, we strengthened inspections massively. The only missing ingredient was full Iraqi compliance--immediate, full and active cooperation.
And the truth is, and we all know this, without that full and active cooperation, however strong the inspectors' powers, however good the inspectors, inspections in a country as huge as Iraq could never be sure of finding all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Now, Mr. President, sadly, the inspectors' reports last week and Secretary Powell's presentation today can leave us under no illusions about Saddam Hussein's response. Saddam Hussein holds United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 in the same contempt as all previous resolutions in respect of Iraq.
And let us reflect on what that means: That Saddam is defying every one of us, every nation here represented. He questions our resolve and is gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will.
Paragraph 1 of 1441 said that Saddam was and remained in material breach of Security Council resolutions. Paragraph 4 of 1441 then set two clear tests for a further material breach by Iraq.
First, that Iraq must not make false statements or omissions in its declaration. But the Iraqi document submitted to us on the 7th of December, as we've heard from Secretary Powell, was long on repetition but short on fact. It was neither full nor accurate nor complete. And by anyone's definition, it was a false statement. Its central premise, that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction, is a lie.
This outright lie was repeated yesterday on television by Saddam Hussein.
And the declaration also has obvious omissions, not least in the failure to explain what has happened to the large quantities of chemical and biological weapons material and munitions unaccounted for by U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
And there is no admission of Iraq's extensive efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction since the last round of UNSCOM inspections ended in December 1998.
Mr. President, paragraph 4 goes on to set a second test for a further material breach; namely, and I quote, ``a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and to cooperate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441.''
Following the presentation by the inspectors last week and today's briefing by Secretary Powell, it is clear that Iraq has failed this test. These briefings have confirmed our worst fears: that Iraq has no intention of relinquishing its weapons of mass destruction, no intention of following the path of peaceful disarmament set out in Security Council Resolution 1441.
Instead of open admissions and transparency, we have a charade where a veneer of superficial cooperation masks willful concealment, the extent of which has been devastatingly revealed this morning by Secretary Powell.
Mr. President, in his report last week, Dr. Blix set out a number of instances where Iraqi behavior reveals a determination to avoid compliance.
Why is Iraq refusing to allow UNMOVIC to use a U-2 plane to conduct aerial imagery and surveillance operations? When will Iraq account for the 6,500 bombs which could carry up to 1,000 tons of chemical agent? How will Iraq justify having a prohibited chemical precursor for mustard gas? But how will Iraq explain the concealment of nuclear documents and the development of a missile program in clear contravention of United Nations resolutions?
And there is, Mr. President, only one possible conclusion from all of this, which is that Iraq is in further material breach as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. And I believe that all colleagues here, all members will share our deep sense of frustration that Iraq is choosing to spurn this final opportunity to achieve a peaceful outcome.
Mr. President, given what has to follow and the difficult choice now facing us, it would be easy to turn a blind eye to the wording of Resolution 1441 and hope for a change of heart by Iraq. Easy but wrong, because if we did so, we would be repeating the mistakes of the past 12 years and empowering a dictator who believes that his diseases and poison gases are essential weapons to suppress his own people and to threaten his neighbors and that by defiance of the United Nations he can indefinitely hoodwink the world.
Mr. President, under the French presidency two weeks ago, we had a special session on the dangers of international terrorism, which I greatly welcomed, that session, of the grave danger to the world of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction through the connivance of rogue states.
Secretary Powell has today set out deeply worrying reports about the presence in Iraq of one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants, al-Zaqawi (ph), and other members of Al Qaida and their efforts to develop poisons. It defies imagination that all of this could be going on without the knowledge of Saddam Hussein. And the recent discovery of the poison ricin in London has underlined again that this is a threat which all of us face.
Mr. President, Saddam must be left in no doubt as to the serious consequences and the serious situation which he now faces. The United Kingdom does not want war. What we want is for the United Nations system to be upheld.
But the logic of Resolution 1441 is inescapable. Time is now very short. This council will have further reports from the inspectors on Friday week, the 14th of February. If noncooperation continues, this council must meet its responsibilities.
Mr. President, our world faces many threats, from poverty and disease to civil war and terrorism. Working through this great institution, we have the capacity to tackle these challenges together. But if we are to do so, then the decisions we have to take must have a force beyond mere words.
This is a moment of choice for Saddam and for the Iraqi regime, but it is also a moment of choice for this institution, the United Nations.
The United Nations' pre-war predecessor, the League of Nations, had the same fine ideals as the United Nations, but the league failed because it could not create actions from its words. It could not back diplomacy with a credible threat and where necessary, the use of force.
So small evils went unchecked. Tyrants became emboldened. Then greater evils were unleashed.
At each stage good men said, ``Wait, the evil is not big enough to challenge.'' Then before their eyes, the evil became too big to challenge. We slipped slowly down a slope, never noticing how far we had gone until it was too late.
Mr. President, we owe it to our history, as well as to our future, not to make the same mistake again.
We are the only power globally and we really do not need the rest of the world to be behind us. little boy bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility. They are mistaken.
Wow, the anti-war group sure does change it's theories on almost a daily basis. I have seen folks here and elsewhere change from "we need the support of other countries" to "bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility", from "it's all about the oil" to "our gas prices will rise", from "he has no WOMD's" to "he may use WOMD's against us", from "he has no terrorist ties" to "he will use terrorism against us on our soil", etc. We keep hearing how the American people are against a war in Iraq, but all the polls show and have shown for quite a while now that people here are overwhelmingly for some sort of action. link
It appears to me that they agree with the current president, but do not want him to get the credit for taking care of business. If this is the case and they are putting us at risk simply for political gain, then that is about as scary as it gets.
Who hear is afraid of Saddam Husain? Osama Bin Laden?
Until there is convincing evidence that Iraq has the ability to attack US with the weapons that they have right now, I don't see why we are in such a hurry to go to war. People die in war, war is bad, and we should try to avoid war if at all possible. We do not have our backs against the wall, Saddam does. We have him pinned and the weapons inspectors, if allowed to do their jobs correctly will uncover what they need to, and hopefully then we can come to a peaceful resolution.
For once the US did something noble and prevented a Christian genocide of Muslims.
After all we ignored the black on black genocide in Rwanda. We were silent on the Cambodian genocide of Pol Pot. We were too scared to do anything on the Mao and Stalin pograms. We tried to distance ourselves from the Jewish Holocaust but a more sensible leadership refused to heed the voices of big barons like Henry Ford ( unlike today).
For once the US did something noble and prevented a Christian genocide of Muslims.
It was a waste of US resources. The US had no strategic interest in the area. What gets me is the number of people that supported intervention in the Balkans but are against action against Iraq.
Lampsos saw bin Laden at Saddam's palace in the 1980s, she said, and claimed Saddam's son Oday told her his father met with bin Laden again in the mid-1990s and gave him money.........
Even when relaxing, Saddam's brutal side could come out, she said. According to Lampsos, Saddam loved watching The Godfather, listening to "Strangers in the Night"by Frank Sinatra, or seeing videos of his enemies being tortured. He sometimes donned a cowboy hat, sipped whiskey on the rocks and puffed on a cigar as he watched the torture
Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed. Scores of suspected anti-government opponents, including people suspected of having contacts with opposition groups in exile, were arrested. The fate and whereabouts of most of those arrested, including those detained in previous years, remained unknown. Several people were given lengthy prison terms after grossly unfair trials before special courts. Torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and detainees were systematic. The two Kurdish political parties controlling Iraqi Kurdistan detained prisoners of conscience, and armed political groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings.
In the body of the report, AI said Iraqi authorities also are said to use such methods as forcing broken bottles and other objects into the anus of victims, extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extracting fingernails and toenails and piercing the hands with an electric drill. Victims also have been subjected to mock executions and rape, AI said...............
Relatives who do not report deserters may lose their ration cards for purchasing government-controlled food supplies, be evicted from their residences, or face the arrest of other family members. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq reported in October and December 1999 that authorities denied food ration cards to families that failed to send their young sons to the "Saddam's Cubs" compulsory weapons training camps.
Hitler ignored the surrender agreements Germany signed after World War I. He flaunted the Versailles Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, which was formed to maintain world peace. He occupied the Rhineland and invaded Austria. No one tried to stop him. Nations turned the other way rather than face war.
The Iraqi regime has consistently demonstrated its callous disregard for the dictates of international law and for the sanctity of human life. Saddam has employed weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Security Council passed 16 resolutions in an effort to curtail Saddam's weapons programs and to bring Iraq back into the community of nations. Sixteen times he defied those resolutions.
For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas, GB, also known as Sarin, as well as mustard gas.
It is very noble of us to be in charge of controlling human rights violations for the entire world, however I don't believe we have the authority. If it were shown that massive human rights violations were taking place currently, and that a war against Iraq would improve the situation, I would undoubtably be for this war. However I fail to believe that the powers that be give a flying fuck about the Kurdish people. I see this as what it is, an attempt for Bush to spread the United States power further beyond our borders, to increase American influence in a region that just happens to be rich with oil.
Former President Ronald Reagan, rarely seen in public since announcing he has Alzheimer's disease in 1994, quietly marked his 92nd birthday Thursday in his Bel-Air home with his wife, former first lady Nancy Reagan.
There's people here who must think the United States is the only nation that uses oil. And maybe they think Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, are the only people in all the US who use oil.
And it should be made clear, and unapologetically that oil plays a major role in the whole thing. And this is not the first time there has been major conflict over a commodity.
But it's not the accumulation of oil, but the free movement of oil, at market prices that matters. Not just for the US.
"No Blood for Oil" is easy to chant, and it doesn't crowd a bumper sticker. But it doesn't add enough context to the issue, either. And, it's kind of an odd slogen to put on a vehicle that uses oil.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil: drill in ANWR!!!!
easier and cheaper and quicker to kick out so dumb insane and grab his wells. All that defence spending over the years needs to have some ROI. Couple that with the need to test all these space age technologies. Wipe out a bunch and order more from the contractors who line political pockets. The capitalist way!!
Your first post essentially asked ,Hey they can't touch us so why go ?
Take a look at the links JT provided. It seems like an awfully selfish outlook. "Well he can't hit us, so who cares". That attitude worked well for Chamberlain in 38'.
It is very noble of us to be in charge of controlling human rights violations for the entire world, however I don't believe we have the authority.
Why not ? What was our authority in going into Bosnia ? There's oil there too ya know. Do we have the authority to pump 15 billion into fighting aids ? Why no cries of authority or unilateralism then ? How about Somolia ? Where our thanks for trying to help was 23 dead Rangers.
If it were shown that massive human rights violations were taking place currently, and that a war against Iraq would improve the situation, I would undoubtably be for this war.
Umm they are Tim, go look at numerous sources. You know who one of the MOST vocal groups for going in is ? Iraqi's who escaped there and have family there still. There are people imprisioned, tortured, raped and killed EVERY day, it's how he stays in power. But so what if last week he became a nice guy ? Oh I see you can kill thousands whole sale in genocide and if you stop then nothing should be done.
However I fail to believe that the powers that be give a flying fuck about the Kurdish people. I see this as what it is, an attempt for Bush to spread the United States power further beyond our borders, to increase American influence in a region that just happens to be rich with oil.
As Rick pointed out, it's absolutely part of it. Do they care about the Kurds ? Well We're pumping 15 billion into fighting aids in Africa so I'm sure they don't give a flying fuck about those people either right ? Hell some said Afghanistan was about oil too.
In 10 years or so I hope and think that cars will be running on hydrogen or other types of fuel. Ethanol isn't the answer and it takes more energy to make than it saves it's hard on cars and is a subsidy and nothing else.
I bet Al Qaeda would love to get their hands on a vehicle with a tank filled with God knows how many cubic feet of compressed hydrogen.
They could have a lot of fun with that.
Hmmmm, I Never thought of that. Does that hydrogen differ from what they'd put in the cars ? Wouldn't it have to go through some sort of process ? Or is all pretty much the same. If it was, What would an accident do ?
Jack up the insurance rate sky high? Actually I am interested in the hybrid cars. A combination gas/electric car I believe. Sounds like a really neat concept. I think it could do well.
For many people, the use of hydrogen as a fuel calls up images of the Hindenberg exploding into flames. But hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline and had nothing to do with the 1937 disaster. Instead, research has shown that the outer membrane of the dirigible, which was made of a volatile combination of aluminum and iron oxide coating, caught fire from a spark—possibly from lightning or even static electricity. Because hydrogen is lighter than air, it flowed up and out of harm's way.
Likewise, recent studies have shown that a hydrogen gas tank leak would be much less risky than a gasoline leak. The hydrogen dissipates quickly and disperses upward, while gasoline tends to pool—ready fuel for an explosion.
I am also FOR finishing the WOT, BEFORE we go after him,.... And when will it be finished? It could take decades.
Georgie's daddy did a MUCH better job of persuading other nations to join us in a righteous-fight. This is just one more example of how Inept GDubbya truly is. GW is doing a fine job. I think much better than his daddy. GW appears to be willing to actually lead.
I am also against us going after him without the support of the U.N.
Last time I checked there was still going to be a vote. The U.N. will eventually fall in line. Either way I do not care.
AM in favor of getting rid of Saddam. I am also FOR finishing the WOT, BEFORE we go after him
One and the same to me.
“GIVE THE U.N. INSPECTIONS A CHANCE TO WORK”
I put that title in quotation marks for a reason. If you actually hear those words coming from someone’s mouth .. you know that person is either (a) a blithering idiot, (b) completely ignorant of the facts, or (c) secretly desirous of a decrease in United States respect and prestige around the world.
We’ll try to take this step-by-step so that even Democrats can understand it.
1. In 1991 American troops are poised to march on Baghdad to unseat Saddam Hussein.
2. Hussein wants to try to find a way to save his butt and retain some of his power in Iraq.
3.Acting through the U.N., the United States agrees to discontinue military action against Hussein if he will agree to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in his military arsenal.
4.Saddam is also forced to agree to a regimen of inspections to certify that he is actually disarming.
5.Saddam Hussein admits to the inspectors that he has thousands of gallons of various chemical and biological weapons, and the weapons systems to deliver these chemical and biological weapons throughout much of the Middle East.
6.In 1998 Hussein effectively kicks the inspectors out of Iraq. He then has a four-year period to do whatever he likes with his WMD program.
7.In the Fall of 2002, as the United States is threatening military action against Hussein, he repeatedly makes that claim that he has destroyed all WMDs in his arsenal, and that he has no more.
8.In 2002 the U.N. places inspectors back into Iraq. Their goal is not to find any WMDs, but rather to verify Saddam’s claim that he has now destroyed them all.
9.Saddam has provided not one bit of evidence to back up his claims that he has destroyed all WMDs in his possession when the inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
10.The U.N. inspectors find missile warheads capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons. These are warheads that Saddam said he had destroyed.
11. The U.N. inspectors find 3000 pages of documents in an Iraqi scientist’s home detailing an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iraq.
So ... now we have the left saying that we have to give the inspectors more time. More time for what? They’ve done their job. They have illustrated Hussein’s failure to abide by the terms of the U.N. resolutions to disarm.
It’s time to finish the job. - Neal Boortz
Bill,
You do realize you posted an article from common dreams ? That's Dennis' favorite website, no offense but If I posted something from townhall I'm sure you'd have a field day with it.
Eagleberger has changed his mind, Most of the others are no longer in power. Those in favor outnumber those opposed. There's also (D'S) in favor of going in.
This is where the U.N's 15 member security council members stand. *** The dates aren't givven. It's from CNN but I believe that this is not from after Powell's remarks to the general assembley.
Obviously we know where the U.S and Great Britain stand.
Russia
Permanent Security Council member
Russia says there is no evidence Iraq is rearming and wants a diplomatic resolution, but may change its position if Iraq doesn't increase cooperation.
Source: AP
France
Permanent Security Council member
France says inspections are starting to work and hinted it could use its veto to block authorization for force.
Source: AP
Permanent Security Council member
China says it believes inspections should continue and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully.
Source: AP
Permanent Security Council member
China says it believes inspections should continue and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully.
Source: AP
Bulgaria
Elected Security Council member
Bulgaria says it backs a peaceful resolution and could support U.S.-led military intervention without authorization.
Source: AP
Cameroon
Elected Security Council member
Cameroon says supports continued inspections and has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Chile
Elected Security Council member
Chile says it is waiting for the U.N. Security Council meeting where U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will address the Security Council before announcing its position.
Source: AP
Continued on next.
Elected Security Council member, holds council presidency
Germany says it insists Iraq must be disarmed peacefully and says it will not participate in force even if U.N. authorizes action continued inspections. Germany also says it has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Guinea
Elected Security Council member
Guinea says it supports continued inspections and also says it has no position regarding military action.
Source: AP
Mexico
Elected Security Council member
Mexico says it supports continued inspections and could support military action if authorized.
Source: AP
Pakistan
Elected Security Council member
Pakistan says it supports continued weapons inspections and a diplomatic resolution.
Source: AP
Spain
Elected Security Council member
Spain says it supports the Bush administration's stance and believes action could start without authorization.
Source: AP
Syria
Elected Security Council member
Syria says Iraq is cooperating and sanctions should be lifted.
Source: AP
---------------------------------------------------------------
From what I cen tell from the latest news that the only likely no vote would be France. Germany is still up in the air. (Germany said it won't participate even if the U.N approves) A unanimous decision needs to be reached for apporval. At this point it looks like that one or two no votes would override the other 13 yes votes. If the U.N doesn't pass it the U.S and MANY other allies will more than likeley take action. SO we'd have a majority of U.N and NAto countries voting yes and many activley participating. Yet we're being unilateral ? Sure O.K.
Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries
For the record: 5 February 2003, Wednesday.
Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:
Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.
Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.
We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: "We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq."
The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.
hey - Luv2Fly 2/5/03 2:32pm
akin to many veterans and other folks who eke a living in the exercise of coercive might on behalf of national governments, you fail to see the distinction between the opinion of a nation's people and the leaders who claim to represent the people.
The people of UK, Italy, Czech, Slovakia, Poland and Australia appear to overwhelmingly oppose the American government stance on Iraq. The opposition is significant. The leaders - with their heads buried as deep in the the sand as American leadership - ignores public sentiment and thinks they are still democratic.
We are the only power globally and we really do not need the rest of the world to be behind us. little boy bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility. They are mistaken.
Well perhaps if the same courtesy was extended it might be easier to understand.
So accoording to you then if just getting these other countries leaders is meaningless then why bother to even talk to the U.N ? Apparently then the people of these nations have no influence on their leaders. Hmmm Tell that to Schroeder and Chirac.
BTW, Please feel free to keep dispariging vets, your true charachter is showing. We already knew you were a racist so we can add that to list of your qualities.
Dan Zachary 2/5/03 6:54pm
Yet more evidence of unilaterallism.
Please feel free to keep dispariging vets
I mock the ones who anoint themselves with halos and expect us other folks who often make equally wrenching sacrifices to perpetually elevate veterans to a divine pedestal and venerate them. Sounds phony to me.
The genuine vets I admire never whine and are not constanly demanding 21 gun salutes.
Hope Fold reads this too.
You mean like those who go on whole 3 week business trips !
I'm sure he will, count on it.
And trust me nobody wants a salute or anything from you.
Yet more evidence of unilaterallism.
LOL. Truth is that most of these folks know first hand about living under a cruel government (the old Soviet Union) and don't wish that upon anyone.
France says inspections are starting to work and hinted it could use its veto to block authorization for force.
We need these guys on our side just in case the war goes badly. We need someone to show us how to throw down our rifles and run the other way.
Dan Zachary 2/5/03 7:55pm
I know Rick will crucify me for this one but what the hell. I heard someone say this today and it's not verbatim but I thought it was funny.
Having the French with you in combat is about as usefull as bringing an accordion deer hunting.
LOL. Better edit that before Rick sees it.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
Mr. President, may I, like the foreign minister for China, congratulate Germany on taking the presidency of the Security Council and congratulate you personally on assuming the chair this morning.
Mr. President, we've just heard a most powerful and authoritative case against the Iraqi regime set out by United States Secretary of State Powell. The international community owes him its thanks for laying bare the deceit practiced by the regime of Saddam Hussein, and worse, the very great danger which that regime represents.
Three months ago, we united to send Iraq an uncompromising message: Cooperate fully with weapons inspectors or face disarmament by force.
After years of Iraqi deception, when resolutions were consistently flouted, Resolution 1441 was a powerful reminder of the importance of international law and of the authority of the Security Council itself.
United and determined, we gave Iraq a final opportunity to rid itself of its weapons of mass terror; of gasses which can poison thousands in one go; of bacilli and viruses like anthrax and smallpox, which can disable and kill by the tens of thousands; of the means to make nuclear weapons, which can kill by the million.
By Resolution 1441, we strengthened inspections massively. The only missing ingredient was full Iraqi compliance--immediate, full and active cooperation.
And the truth is, and we all know this, without that full and active cooperation, however strong the inspectors' powers, however good the inspectors, inspections in a country as huge as Iraq could never be sure of finding all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Now, Mr. President, sadly, the inspectors' reports last week and Secretary Powell's presentation today can leave us under no illusions about Saddam Hussein's response. Saddam Hussein holds United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 in the same contempt as all previous resolutions in respect of Iraq.
And let us reflect on what that means: That Saddam is defying every one of us, every nation here represented. He questions our resolve and is gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will.
Paragraph 1 of 1441 said that Saddam was and remained in material breach of Security Council resolutions. Paragraph 4 of 1441 then set two clear tests for a further material breach by Iraq.
First, that Iraq must not make false statements or omissions in its declaration. But the Iraqi document submitted to us on the 7th of December, as we've heard from Secretary Powell, was long on repetition but short on fact. It was neither full nor accurate nor complete. And by anyone's definition, it was a false statement. Its central premise, that Iraq possesses no weapons of mass destruction, is a lie.
This outright lie was repeated yesterday on television by Saddam Hussein.
And the declaration also has obvious omissions, not least in the failure to explain what has happened to the large quantities of chemical and biological weapons material and munitions unaccounted for by U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
And there is no admission of Iraq's extensive efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction since the last round of UNSCOM inspections ended in December 1998.
Mr. President, paragraph 4 goes on to set a second test for a further material breach; namely, and I quote, ``a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and to cooperate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441.''
Following the presentation by the inspectors last week and today's briefing by Secretary Powell, it is clear that Iraq has failed this test. These briefings have confirmed our worst fears: that Iraq has no intention of relinquishing its weapons of mass destruction, no intention of following the path of peaceful disarmament set out in Security Council Resolution 1441.
Instead of open admissions and transparency, we have a charade where a veneer of superficial cooperation masks willful concealment, the extent of which has been devastatingly revealed this morning by Secretary Powell.
Mr. President, in his report last week, Dr. Blix set out a number of instances where Iraqi behavior reveals a determination to avoid compliance.
Why is Iraq refusing to allow UNMOVIC to use a U-2 plane to conduct aerial imagery and surveillance operations? When will Iraq account for the 6,500 bombs which could carry up to 1,000 tons of chemical agent? How will Iraq justify having a prohibited chemical precursor for mustard gas? But how will Iraq explain the concealment of nuclear documents and the development of a missile program in clear contravention of United Nations resolutions?
And there is, Mr. President, only one possible conclusion from all of this, which is that Iraq is in further material breach as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. And I believe that all colleagues here, all members will share our deep sense of frustration that Iraq is choosing to spurn this final opportunity to achieve a peaceful outcome.
Mr. President, given what has to follow and the difficult choice now facing us, it would be easy to turn a blind eye to the wording of Resolution 1441 and hope for a change of heart by Iraq. Easy but wrong, because if we did so, we would be repeating the mistakes of the past 12 years and empowering a dictator who believes that his diseases and poison gases are essential weapons to suppress his own people and to threaten his neighbors and that by defiance of the United Nations he can indefinitely hoodwink the world.
Mr. President, under the French presidency two weeks ago, we had a special session on the dangers of international terrorism, which I greatly welcomed, that session, of the grave danger to the world of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction through the connivance of rogue states.
Secretary Powell has today set out deeply worrying reports about the presence in Iraq of one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants, al-Zaqawi (ph), and other members of Al Qaida and their efforts to develop poisons. It defies imagination that all of this could be going on without the knowledge of Saddam Hussein. And the recent discovery of the poison ricin in London has underlined again that this is a threat which all of us face.
Mr. President, Saddam must be left in no doubt as to the serious consequences and the serious situation which he now faces. The United Kingdom does not want war. What we want is for the United Nations system to be upheld.
But the logic of Resolution 1441 is inescapable. Time is now very short. This council will have further reports from the inspectors on Friday week, the 14th of February. If noncooperation continues, this council must meet its responsibilities.
Mr. President, our world faces many threats, from poverty and disease to civil war and terrorism. Working through this great institution, we have the capacity to tackle these challenges together. But if we are to do so, then the decisions we have to take must have a force beyond mere words.
This is a moment of choice for Saddam and for the Iraqi regime, but it is also a moment of choice for this institution, the United Nations.
The United Nations' pre-war predecessor, the League of Nations, had the same fine ideals as the United Nations, but the league failed because it could not create actions from its words. It could not back diplomacy with a credible threat and where necessary, the use of force.
So small evils went unchecked. Tyrants became emboldened. Then greater evils were unleashed.
At each stage good men said, ``Wait, the evil is not big enough to challenge.'' Then before their eyes, the evil became too big to challenge. We slipped slowly down a slope, never noticing how far we had gone until it was too late.
Mr. President, we owe it to our history, as well as to our future, not to make the same mistake again.
Thank you.
We are the only power globally and we really do not need the rest of the world to be behind us. little boy bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility. They are mistaken.
Wow, the anti-war group sure does change it's theories on almost a daily basis. I have seen folks here and elsewhere change from "we need the support of other countries" to "bush and cohorts think getting the leaders will impart credibility", from "it's all about the oil" to "our gas prices will rise", from "he has no WOMD's" to "he may use WOMD's against us", from "he has no terrorist ties" to "he will use terrorism against us on our soil", etc. We keep hearing how the American people are against a war in Iraq, but all the polls show and have shown for quite a while now that people here are overwhelmingly for some sort of action. link
It appears to me that they agree with the current president, but do not want him to get the credit for taking care of business. If this is the case and they are putting us at risk simply for political gain, then that is about as scary as it gets.
I am not sure if this is the article that L2F was posting about, but it is similar.
Powell dossier: Reaction
Having the French with you in combat is about as usefull as bringing an accordion deer hunting.
Why do the French get such a bad rap?
Did they not make the difference in our fight for independence from England?
LOL!
Who hear is afraid of Saddam Husain? Osama Bin Laden?
Until there is convincing evidence that Iraq has the ability to attack US with the weapons that they have right now, I don't see why we are in such a hurry to go to war. People die in war, war is bad, and we should try to avoid war if at all possible. We do not have our backs against the wall, Saddam does. We have him pinned and the weapons inspectors, if allowed to do their jobs correctly will uncover what they need to, and hopefully then we can come to a peaceful resolution.
So, tim, what was your position on US involvement in Serbia-Bosnia etc.?
US involvement in Serbia-Bosnia
For once the US did something noble and prevented a Christian genocide of Muslims.
After all we ignored the black on black genocide in Rwanda. We were silent on the Cambodian genocide of Pol Pot. We were too scared to do anything on the Mao and Stalin pograms. We tried to distance ourselves from the Jewish Holocaust but a more sensible leadership refused to heed the voices of big barons like Henry Ford ( unlike today).
We have him pinned and the weapons inspectors, if allowed to do their jobs correctly will uncover what they need to...
We've had him pinned for what, 10 - 11 years now?
Saddam is thumbing his nose at the world. He fails to abidide to just about every single U.N. Resolution.
Time to take him out.
US involvement in Serbia-Bosnia
For once the US did something noble and prevented a Christian genocide of Muslims.
It was a waste of US resources. The US had no strategic interest in the area. What gets me is the number of people that supported intervention in the Balkans but are against action against Iraq.
Reasons to kill Saddam:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/iraq_saddam_mistress020908.html
Lampsos saw bin Laden at Saddam's palace in the 1980s, she said, and claimed Saddam's son Oday told her his father met with bin Laden again in the mid-1990s and gave him money.........
Even when relaxing, Saddam's brutal side could come out, she said. According to Lampsos, Saddam loved watching The Godfather, listening to "Strangers in the Night"by Frank Sinatra, or seeing videos of his enemies being tortured. He sometimes donned a cowboy hat, sipped whiskey on the rocks and puffed on a cigar as he watched the torture
Amnesty International annual reports:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde14.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar97/MDE14.htm
Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed. Scores of suspected anti-government opponents, including people suspected of having contacts with opposition groups in exile, were arrested. The fate and whereabouts of most of those arrested, including those detained in previous years, remained unknown. Several people were given lengthy prison terms after grossly unfair trials before special courts. Torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and detainees were systematic. The two Kurdish political parties controlling Iraqi Kurdistan detained prisoners of conscience, and armed political groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings.
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/
Recent Amnesty International press release:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/offtxts/amnestyint0821.htm
In the body of the report, AI said Iraqi authorities also are said to use such methods as forcing broken bottles and other objects into the anus of victims, extinguishing cigarettes on various parts of the body, extracting fingernails and toenails and piercing the hands with an electric drill. Victims also have been subjected to mock executions and rape, AI said...............
From the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html
Relatives who do not report deserters may lose their ration cards for purchasing government-controlled food supplies, be evicted from their residences, or face the arrest of other family members. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq reported in October and December 1999 that authorities denied food ration cards to families that failed to send their young sons to the "Saddam's Cubs" compulsory weapons training camps.
Saddam, our modern day Hitler?
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/press/1015hitler.htm
Hitler ignored the surrender agreements Germany signed after World War I. He flaunted the Versailles Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, which was formed to maintain world peace. He occupied the Rhineland and invaded Austria. No one tried to stop him. Nations turned the other way rather than face war.
The Iraqi regime has consistently demonstrated its callous disregard for the dictates of international law and for the sanctity of human life. Saddam has employed weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people. After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations Security Council passed 16 resolutions in an effort to curtail Saddam's weapons programs and to bring Iraq back into the community of nations. Sixteen times he defied those resolutions.
Human Rights Watch Reports on Iraq:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/world/iraq-pubs.php
For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas, GB, also known as Sarin, as well as mustard gas.
It is very noble of us to be in charge of controlling human rights violations for the entire world, however I don't believe we have the authority. If it were shown that massive human rights violations were taking place currently, and that a war against Iraq would improve the situation, I would undoubtably be for this war. However I fail to believe that the powers that be give a flying fuck about the Kurdish people. I see this as what it is, an attempt for Bush to spread the United States power further beyond our borders, to increase American influence in a region that just happens to be rich with oil.
So, tim, what was your position on US involvement in Serbia-Bosnia etc.?
Happy Birthday Ronnie!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77769,00.html
Former President Ronald Reagan, rarely seen in public since announcing he has Alzheimer's disease in 1994, quietly marked his 92nd birthday Thursday in his Bel-Air home with his wife, former first lady Nancy Reagan.
Tim, do you have any idea how much of our oil we get from the Middle East?
There's people here who must think the United States is the only nation that uses oil. And maybe they think Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, are the only people in all the US who use oil.
And it should be made clear, and unapologetically that oil plays a major role in the whole thing. And this is not the first time there has been major conflict over a commodity.
But it's not the accumulation of oil, but the free movement of oil, at market prices that matters. Not just for the US.
"No Blood for Oil" is easy to chant, and it doesn't crowd a bumper sticker. But it doesn't add enough context to the issue, either. And, it's kind of an odd slogen to put on a vehicle that uses oil.
do not know where this going - but here is my source
http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm
In 2001 30% of imports coming from the Persian Gulf.
After we get Iraq's oil fields, gas will plunge below $1. I will by my new European SUV.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil: drill in ANWR!!!!
We have an SUV -- A Subaru Forester. You might want to consider that, Naradar, probably $10,000 less than a Volvo.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil: drill in ANWR!!!!
easier and cheaper and quicker to kick out so dumb insane and grab his wells. All that defence spending over the years needs to have some ROI. Couple that with the need to test all these space age technologies. Wipe out a bunch and order more from the contractors who line political pockets. The capitalist way!!
Reduce dependence on foreign oil: drill in ANWR!!!!
No, no, no! Save our oil for when the rest of the worlds is depleted.
By that time no one with give a rats ass about any caribou.
Tim The Hunter,
Your first post essentially asked ,Hey they can't touch us so why go ?
Take a look at the links JT provided. It seems like an awfully selfish outlook. "Well he can't hit us, so who cares". That attitude worked well for Chamberlain in 38'.
Why not ? What was our authority in going into Bosnia ? There's oil there too ya know. Do we have the authority to pump 15 billion into fighting aids ? Why no cries of authority or unilateralism then ? How about Somolia ? Where our thanks for trying to help was 23 dead Rangers.
Umm they are Tim, go look at numerous sources. You know who one of the MOST vocal groups for going in is ? Iraqi's who escaped there and have family there still. There are people imprisioned, tortured, raped and killed EVERY day, it's how he stays in power. But so what if last week he became a nice guy ? Oh I see you can kill thousands whole sale in genocide and if you stop then nothing should be done.
As Rick pointed out, it's absolutely part of it. Do they care about the Kurds ? Well We're pumping 15 billion into fighting aids in Africa so I'm sure they don't give a flying fuck about those people either right ? Hell some said Afghanistan was about oil too.
Or oil.
You think they won't give a rats ass about oil?
What if we developed a car that ran on ground up Caribou ?
Betcha never thought of that !
In 10 years or so I hope and think that cars will be running on hydrogen or other types of fuel. Ethanol isn't the answer and it takes more energy to make than it saves it's hard on cars and is a subsidy and nothing else.
I bet Al Qaeda would love to get their hands on a vehicle with a tank filled with God knows how many cubic feet of compressed hydrogen.
They could have a lot of fun with that.
Hmmmm, I Never thought of that. Does that hydrogen differ from what they'd put in the cars ? Wouldn't it have to go through some sort of process ? Or is all pretty much the same. If it was, What would an accident do ?
If it was, What would an accident do ?
Jack up the insurance rate sky high? Actually I am interested in the hybrid cars. A combination gas/electric car I believe. Sounds like a really neat concept. I think it could do well.
I'm not a chemist but it doesn't seem to me that there is an inert form of hydrogen. It's a pretty volatile element.
Gasoline works pretty well. You can put it in a box, carry it around for a long time. Doesn't break down much. Fairly efficient.
From National Geographic
Hydrogen Safety
For many people, the use of hydrogen as a fuel calls up images of the Hindenberg exploding into flames. But hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline and had nothing to do with the 1937 disaster. Instead, research has shown that the outer membrane of the dirigible, which was made of a volatile combination of aluminum and iron oxide coating, caught fire from a spark—possibly from lightning or even static electricity. Because hydrogen is lighter than air, it flowed up and out of harm's way.
Likewise, recent studies have shown that a hydrogen gas tank leak would be much less risky than a gasoline leak. The hydrogen dissipates quickly and disperses upward, while gasoline tends to pool—ready fuel for an explosion.
fold wrote: I knew it was only a matter of time before someone of a republican stripe, castigated Powell as an enemy.
Not saying that YOU feel that way Dan...
WHAT?
fodl wrote: Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
Not you, fold! How could YOU be wrong?!!!!
the poodle and Uncle Tom lie thru their teeth
Blair’s blatant plagiarism and Powell’s pat on the back
Get ready for war, Naradar.