Another lie to die for is the one that says Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. Actually, they were told to get out by the U.S. 48 hours before the commencement of Operation Desert Fox.
By John M. Goshko Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 14 1997; Page A01
Iraq dramatically raised the stakes in its confrontation with the United Nations today by expellingsix Americans on a U.N. weapons inspection team, leading the world body to instruct the entire team to leave the country...
Ngo Dinh Diem was born into an aristocratic, Roman Catholic family with close ties to the Emperor. He served in Emperor Bao Dai's administration under French colonial rule until 1933. During and after World War II, he opposed both French colonial rule and the communist-led national independence movement. Already staunchly anticommunist,he rejected an offer to serve in Ho Chi Minh's brief postwar government in 1945. As independence forces battled the French, he spent several years in exile (4 years at Maryknoll Seminary in New Jersey-hardly making him a U.S. citizen as you imply), making political contacts and gaining crucial American support in hopes of leading a postwar government.
Did the Founding Fathers envision an America engaged in defacto empire-building via wars of aggression?
Yes, I believe they did. They understood that France and England were in the western part of the continent. I think that if you read history they understood America would expand westward. Certainly Jefferson did. He was just able to buy it rather than have to fight for it. They also anticipated taking land from the Indians. Later on we had an empire building war with Mexico.
This is not going to stop the Bush people at all. There's too much at stake for them. Among other things, the mid-term elections.
According to CNN:
"Rumsfeld said the administration's next step will be to bring the case against Iraq to Congress, while the United Nations deliberates, '"to connect the dots before a tragedy happens."'
In short, they want a vote. They want Democracts on record for or against some type of use of force. Maybe for a commitment, maybe for a campaign issue. Maybe both.
The Bush people must have had some kind of countermove in place in the event that Iraq decided to comply. I can't believe they would allow Saddam to outmaneuver them diplomatically.
Saddam has been playing the same cat and mouse game since the end of the war. It's sad that we have become so cynical. The cries two weeks ago from the left ad nauseum was that they wanted to be consulted and have congress make the ultimate choice. Now it looks like they'll get their wish and then complain that they might just have to vote during an election cycle. Yea we wouldn't want people to know where their elected officials stand before an election, can't have that. They need to make up their mind. Either they want to be consulted or they don't because they are worried it might mess up their re-election. What a shame.
If what Rummy says is true, doesn't sound to me like the White House is seeking out Congress for their views. They want a vote.
Well I'd say they are asking for thier views. What better way to get a viewpoint than a vote. It's the same thing. If they are opposed to ousting Sadamn or using force all they have to do is vote against it and their views will be well known one way or another. And then their constituents will also know.
In short, they want a vote. They want Democracts on record for or against some type of use of force.
They already are.
S. CON. RES. 71was co-sponsored by Daschel, Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Hagel.
Some excerpts:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the continued threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq's refusal to meet its international obligations and end its weapons of mass destruction programs;
(2) urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs; and
(3) urges the President to work with Congress in furthering a long-term policy aimed at definitively ending the threat to international peace and security posed by the government of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Daschle also went on to say: "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
But of course that was 1998 and we had a different president at that time.
The vote should be on what to do when the resolution is not met. If inspections should be tampered with, do you stand for action? Yea or Nea. I would personally love to see Iraq comply, but I don't think they will for the long-term. Hopefully I am wrong.
Interesting. Thanks Dan. Amazing how things change eh ?
BTW I heard Kerry on CNBC last night I think and he was essentially saying what the admin was saying, that it's another stall tactic by Saddink. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him say that, gotta give credit where it's due.
looking at Iraq's track record it is only a matter of time before they quit cooperating and kick the inspectors back out. He's done it a zillion times already and I'm sure he's hoping by then that he can get enough support or that the U.N (which stands for United Nuetered) will do what they've done the last 4 years which is essentially zip, other than condemming their actions and continuing down the same course that hasn't worked. I'm sure that's what he's counting on.
I just finished attending my third funeral in the last two months. My wife lost her uncle and grandfather, and I lost my grandmother last week. I've been busy so I haven't had much time to get on here.
Rick: Here is a list of the Authors:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Introduced in Senate)
S 2525 IS
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2525 To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq .
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 29, 1998 Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. KERREY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
my condolences as well. and i thought having to go to the funeral of one close family member in a summer was bad enough (that was five years ago, so no condolences in response are necessary)
foreign entanglements did not mean not expanding westward, fold. It meant not getting in Eurpopean wars specifically wars between France and England. Jeeez. Can you read a book?
No, I don not believe if we had fought a war with France to obtain the Louisiana Territory that Washington would have considered it a "foreign entanglement." The war if it had occured would have been mainly and maybe entirely on this continent. I believe he meant that the US should not ally itself with any European power over another. Would you consider the War of 1812 a "foreign entanglement?"
"No, I don not believe if we had fought a war with France to obtain the Louisiana Territory that Washington would have considered it a "foreign entanglement."'
We can't pick the brain of George Washington, today, nor did I really care to. I was asking what you thought. The Louisiana Territory was under the crown of France at the time. That would make it foreign.
Your question was "Wete the Sioux a nation?" My question was were the Sioux a foreign power? I don't know what your point was but my point is that fighting the Sioux or any of the Indian tribes was not a foreign entanglement.
It's depending on what the term foriegn means. Foreign doens not simply have to mean geographically separated. The native Americans were conquered just as nations have for thousands of years. Did they get a raw deal, You bet. they lost the war. The native Americans as a whole were many nations together and fought within themselves as well. The Souix took land from the Ojibwe etc. etc. Had it not been America as it is now that conquered them it would have been France, England, Spain etc. Would they get better treatment from them if today this was a part of Spain ? Who knows. But how far back do we go ? The Chippewa had land taken from other tribes. The Egyptians had land taken from the Romans etc. etc.
Using irrefutable, cross-corroborated evidence -- not sheer speculation or specious propaganda claims --PROVE that Iraq poses an ominous, imminent danger to anyone.
If that can't be done, than NOBODY should die in a Pearl Harbor-like aggression against a sovereign, foreign country, launched for patently wrong, outlandishly misrepresented reasons.
Least of all innocent Iraqis or OUR children, whom we brought into this world to live in peace and prosperity, and to live long enough to produce children of their own.
No blood for oil!
George Bush should be prosecuted and impeached for criminal fraud of the worst possible kind.
Go over to the "In the News" thread and check my posts on the consequences of our embargo.
You really need to delve past the facile demonizations.
For your own country's sake.
Remember the folly that ensued in the first instance when a whole nation and people were folded under and conflated with a prominently presented "evil" leader.
It was called Playa Giron.
The Bay of Pigs.
It wasn't Castro that whipped the invaders' asses.
It was the Cubans themselves.
Makes you kinda wonder how strong a resistance to invasion will be put up be ordinary folks (plus the military) in a country that's already seen over a million of its people die as a result of sanctions.
Go over to the "In the News" thread and check my posts on the consequences of our embargo.
I don't disagree the embargo is hurting Iraqis. That's what happens when you have an insane dictator running your country. What else do you suggest we do? Let Saddam do whatever the hell he wants? We tried that and he invaded Kuwait and killed as many Kurds as he could. This was long before any damn embargo.
Remember the folly that ensued in the first instance when a whole nation and people were folded under and conflated with a prominently presented "evil" leader.
Well, I wasn't around then but I remember the last one. In Afghanistan. Where children could once again fly kites. Where people are no longer fearful of having their limbs chopped off. Where people are no longer being executed in soccer stadiums. Where there's no fear of women being pistol whipped on the streets for looking at a man.
It was the Cubans themselves.
Don't kid yourself. It was the Cuban military which of course wants to keep Cuba as it is. They got the power, they don't want to lose it. It's the only way out of poverty in that God forsaken country.
I'd be fine with removing the Cuba embargo if Castro, a dictator, wasn't in charge.
Makes you kinda wonder how strong a resistance to invasion will be put up be ordinary folks (plus the military) in a country that's already seen over a million of its people die as a result of sanctions.
Well, we didn't have too much resistance during the Gulf War. They turned tail and ran.
Well, we didn't have too much resistance during the Gulf War. They turned tail and ran.
Not to defend Dennis but he is partially correct. There was alot more resistance then their was shown on CNN. My Dad used to tape the news all the time as they were hoping to catch a glimpse of me, I looked at it a few months after I had returned. Most of what you saw was aircraft footage and it looked alot easier then it was. The story on the ground was different. We didn't have reporters attached because they are a liability in combat. I remember my Major flat out refusing to let any reporters be attached to us. We were glad to hear it because we had it before and they are a liability and endagered us.
Where he is wrong and you are correct is this. The stiffest resistance we encountered were from mostly his "regular" army troops, or people who had willingly enlisted in the army. Some of them also turned and ran too because we cut off communications from their leaders, deprived them of re-supplying and had them frankly scared shitless after weeks of ariel bombardment. It would be safe to say that the majority of troops we encountered didn't have much fight left in them after all that. There were however some fanatical elements that fought very hard. They were the exception and they fought hard. And contrary to his assertion, any civilians we encountered were very glad to see us. extatic in most cases would be the best way to describe it. But make no mistake about it, it was not a cake walk and good people died.
One other little interesting tid-bit on Dennis' favorite new propoganda tool, ie; that misunderstood guy Saddam it's all our fault Hussein. He tried to use chemicals in 91' My unit got intell of a large force of troops that for some reason was static, everyone else was headed to the Baggie. We got orders and went out looking for them. We had a brief firefight and most of them gladly surrendered. What we didn't know until much later after we also fought and defeated a large number of R.G (republican guard|) troops was that Saddam had put the other troops out there as bait. They were reservists and conscripts (forcibbly taken) and he put a few hard asses in charge. His plan was to lure us into this fight and launch chemicals on us AND them, his own fucking troops! Nice huh ? We had chem suits, they didn't, had he succeeded they all would have died and many of us. The only reason it didn't happen was that we had cut all their communications and the R.G troops didn't know we had already defeated them. One of our p.t's found all the shells loaded with different chemicals and the orders to go along with it in them and they were destroyed by our eod people. We got lucky but we also did our job. He was willing to kill his own people and to use chemicals to achieve victory. The next time someone tries to tell me it's all our fault and that he's not a danger I am going to puke.
Anyone who would knowingly do such a thing should not be reasoned nor bargained with. Of course it's all our fault.
If he wanted to he could end sanctions today, instead he has given the U.N the proverbial finger for years. He'd rather hold on to power and the only way to do so is to not abide by the U.N's many resolutions which would essentially take away his power and thereby making him alot easier to overthrow. Instead he chooses to not abide by the agreements he made that saved him from being ousted in 91' He has learned many lessons since then about how to avoid, delay and sidestep to hold onto his murderous regime and continue with his old ways. He could end his people's suffering, he won't, he has sacrificed and or killed his own people. That's a pretty good sign he couldn't care less about them. Yet some defend him and place the blame on us and the U.N. It says alot about their motive and charachter.
Sanctions are the method in our arsenal of ruthless lethality that proves Bush's "regime change" by invasion technique really isn't that new, just more blatantly audacious.
What is the purpose behind our Cuban and Iraqi embargoes?
To try to oust leaders we don't like, by inflicting injury on innocent people, in the sick hope that they'll blame those leaders for the resulting misery, instead of us, and rise up to replace them.
Peeing on Jesus Christ and Thomas Jefferson would be less sinful.
But wait...that's exactly what our policy does.
And all Fidel and Saddam would have to do to end our immoral life-squeezing...would be to roll over and play dead, and let U.S. sugar interests back into Cuba, and Enron types into the nationalized oilfields of Iraq!
Peeing on Jesus Christ and Thomas Jefferson would be less sinful.
Hmmm let's see a guy who supports abortion and a guy who wants nothing to do with one of the basic ideas behind this country. Looks like you're in good company.
And all Fidel and Saddam would have to do to end our immoral life-squeezing...would be to roll over and play dead, and let U.S. sugar interests back into Cuba, and Enron types into the nationalized oilfields of Iraq!
Yea and killing their own people, imprisioning people who disagree, developing nuke and chem weapons, supporting terrorists. You know piddly little stuff like that.
But holy crap, don't tell me big sugar is in on this too !
I say invade Hawaii right now !
And I'm sure the cigar interests have their eyes on the prize !
Actually, I'm pretty sure that you're also overlooking big cement, think of all the sand they can get their greedy capatalist hands on. No wait, actually that sand is too fine for cement making. I know it's that damn etch a' sketch interest ! They want it all. And don't forget about the big hourglass lobby. All that free sand !
By the way, if war worries and stock market jitters have you tossing and turning at night, bookmark this and begin reading when Mr. Insomnia comes around.
Iraq pledges it's clean of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons
Associated Press
Published Sep 19, 2002 UN20 UNITED NATIONS -- Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, Saddam Hussein told the United Nations in a speech read Thursday by his foreign minister
Now that the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 has passed, the United States is fast-approaching the one-year anniversary of the Bush administration's assault on domestic civil liberties.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, a grab bag of police-state schemes cobbled together by Attorney General John Ashcroft to capitalize on 9-11 fears, was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001.
It had been passed with almost no debate by the House of Representatives two days earlier, on a 357-66 vote. Of the 66 votes against the legislation, 62 came from Democrats, three from Republicans and one from Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. Among the members of the House who rejected Ashcroft's grab for dramatically enhanced surveillance powers and the ability to punish legitimate political activism were two Wisconsin House members: Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Tom Barrett, D-Milwaukee.
In the Senate, only one member opposed the grotesquely misnamed "USA Patriot Act": Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold. At the time, Feingold described the legislation as a "truly breathtaking expansion of police power." Almost a year later, he says, "I would cast the same vote today, but even more confidently, as we see how law enforcement is beginning to use the new powers in the bill and how the Department of Justice has proceeded on a variety of fronts not directly addressed in the bill."
As the United States approaches the one-year anniversary, some components of the USA Patriot Act have already been challenged with success in the courts. But, for the most part, the breathtaking expansion of police power remains every bit as breathtaking and expansive as when it was enacted.
It is for this reason that activists with the Madison Area Peace Coalition have proposed that the Madison City Council enact a resolution that puts the city on record in defense of civil liberties, provides direction for city police to respect those liberties, and calls upon Wisconsin's representatives in Congress "to actively work to repeal the USA Patriot Act." Council member Brenda Konkel is expected to introduce a version of the resolution this evening.
Madison is just one city where activists and local elected officials are moving to challenge federal legislation that, in the words of Nancy Chang, senior litigation attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, "sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government."
The one-year anniversary of the enactment of the USA Patriot Act cannot be allowed to pass unnoted - in Madison or anywhere else in America. On Oct. 26, 2001, fearmongers and fools began dismantling the Constitution. As Oct. 26, 2002, approaches, true patriots need to begin the hard work of dismantling the USA Patriot Act.
--John Nichols, associate editor for The Capital Times.
The hatchet job on Ramsey Clark nothwithstanding, he's a fine man performing an invaluable service by helping document U.S. atrocities in Yugolsvia, Iraq and Afghanistan
Of course you would defend him. I would expect no less. I mean he also is an apologist for war criminals. As long as he can use or turn a blind eye to war crimes and criminals like Milosevic to further a cause it doesn't matter what the other person do, including ethnic cleansing. Well as long as it's for a good cause then you don't have to mention it. Ramsey Clark, Milosevic two peas in a pod. Do I hear 3 ?
The next time you try to tell me about how much you supposedly care for innocent people and go off into some twisted socialist rant, save it. By supporting Milosevic a known war criminal your real motives become transparent. It was always there but your support of a man who ethnically cleansed ie: MURDERED people is telling. But hey if it's not something bad we did turn a blind eye. He's a mass murdering thug but if his goals are in opposistion to ours he's suddenly your poster boy. It makes me sick.
I'm deeply concerned about the Middle East and the continuing crimes the Palestine people are suffering at the hands of Israel. They continue to occupy their lands, bulldoze their homes, come into their cities with hundreds of tanks and soldiers, and arrest and interrogate hundreds of citizens. Hopefully President Bush will firmly tell Ariel Sharon that he must treat his neighbors as equals. His blatant racism must be put down! What kind of democracy can that be? Much of the unrest in the Arab world is caused by this, and perhaps even 9/11!
Another tremendously ominous issue President Bush has set in motion is talk of attacking Iraq and bringing down the current regime. This would be as un-American an act, and as tyrannical, as anything we could do! For us to use our God-given power, wealth, military might and soldiers to perpetrate an unprovoked, destructive attack on another sovereign country would be a horrendous mistake!
The destabilization that could result from such an action could cause terrible chaos in the rest of the world, including our country. It could drive up the price of oil to a level that would create a worldwide depression the likes of which has never been seen before, not to mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Is that what we want?
Remember, we recently sponsored Iraq with modern weapons, billions of dollars, and perhaps biological and neurological weapons in an eight-year war against Iran. Please explain to me and the American people just exactly what our foreign policy is hoping to accomplish. What are our guiding principles? Why are we switching sides so often?
The threats and saber-rattling of Vice President Dick Cheney are incomprehensible and Donald Rumsfeld's adversarial and uncompromising attitude is detrimental for a negotiated settlement that would end in peace.
<answering> The usual questions about Iraq. Europe? How can we ignore their worries?
> We cannot ignore the Europeans, and must consult them. Still, in all    honesty, we must also accept that once the EU had placed its national    security in the hands of international accords and the U.N., its    members could hardly publicly support us without undermining the    very legitimacy of their new utopian protocols. Yet unilateralism is    hardly a dirty word; the singular obstinacy of a single country has    ended many of the world's great evils. The British took on the slave    trade, and later faced Hitler alone for two years. Few thought the    United States should station Pershing missiles in Europe to thwart the    nuclear intimidation of the Soviets. Had the United States waited for    European or United Nations approval last autumn, bin Laden and the    Taliban would still rule Afghanistan.
I think it's time to send the aircraft carrier 'Walter Mondale' to the Gulf to rattle things up a bit. It could be protected by the AEGIS ship 'Chamberlain'?
What were the circumstances that led the U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq in December 1998? The Bush administration and the media often repeat that Saddam "kicked out" the weapons inspectors, and that's why we face the necessity of war today.
Scott Ritter:
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Iraqis did not kick the inspectors out in December 1998. The Americans ordered the inspectors out, and then bombed Iraq using intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein and his security apparatus.
It's impossible to talk about the return of unfettered access until there's some guarantee that the U.S. won't again use the weapons inspectors as a vehicle for spying on Saddam, and targeting Saddam. As long as the Americans continue to say that regime removal is their number-one policy priority regarding Iraq, even ahead of disarmament, we have no chance of getting weapons inspectors back in.
--Excerpt from LA WEEKLY interview, Sept 20-26, 2002, issue
Dennis Rahkonen Post # 1645
Another lie to die for is the one that says Saddam Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. Actually, they were told to get out by the U.S. 48 hours before the commencement of Operation Desert Fox.
Iraq Expels 6 American Inspectors; U.N. Orders Team to Leave Baghdad
By John M. Goshko
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 14 1997; Page A01
Iraq dramatically raised the stakes in its confrontation with the United Nations today by expellingsix Americans on a U.N. weapons inspection team, leading the world body to instruct the entire team to leave the country...
Did the Founding Fathers envision an America engaged in defacto empire-building via wars of aggression?
I really wish you would quit your lies.
So stand up for this nation's original precepts and values.
Funny statement coming from a Socialist.
Or be prepared to live the rest of your lives with the onus of betrayal of our most sacred ideals.
This is why I am pointing out your lies and deceptions.
From New Jersey, as was the case with Vietnam's lackey, Ngo Dinh Diem
Vietnamese political leader (1901-1963).
Ngo Dinh Diem was born into an aristocratic, Roman Catholic family with close ties to the Emperor. He served in Emperor Bao Dai's administration under French colonial rule until 1933. During and after World War II, he opposed both French colonial rule and the communist-led national independence movement. Already staunchly anticommunist,he rejected an offer to serve in Ho Chi Minh's brief postwar government in 1945. As independence forces battled the French, he spent several years in exile (4 years at Maryknoll Seminary in New Jersey-hardly making him a U.S. citizen as you imply), making political contacts and gaining crucial American support in hopes of leading a postwar government.
Dennis, what's your stand on Slobodan Milosevic?
Did the Founding Fathers envision an America engaged in defacto empire-building via wars of aggression?
Yes, I believe they did. They understood that France and England were in the western part of the continent. I think that if you read history they understood America would expand westward. Certainly Jefferson did. He was just able to buy it rather than have to fight for it. They also anticipated taking land from the Indians. Later on we had an empire building war with Mexico.
Oh, I forgot to mention Spain and Florida.
Prior to tonight, the Bush administration made UN weapons inspection in Iraq a bigger deal than Johnny Wad's claim to fame.
Then Baghdad announced immediate, unconditional return for said inspectors.
After which, the White House essentially declared inspections were now "irrelevant".
It's clear Bush wants war, no matter what.
It's also clear that he, and America, are now in an untenable position.
Grab onto something good and solid.
A global tidal wave of protest is coming.
This is not going to stop the Bush people at all. There's too much at stake for them. Among other things, the mid-term elections.
According to CNN:
"Rumsfeld said the administration's next step will be to bring the case against Iraq to Congress, while the United Nations deliberates, '"to connect the dots before a tragedy happens."'
In short, they want a vote. They want Democracts on record for or against some type of use of force. Maybe for a commitment, maybe for a campaign issue. Maybe both.
The Bush people must have had some kind of countermove in place in the event that Iraq decided to comply. I can't believe they would allow Saddam to outmaneuver them diplomatically.
Rick,
Saddam has been playing the same cat and mouse game since the end of the war. It's sad that we have become so cynical. The cries two weeks ago from the left ad nauseum was that they wanted to be consulted and have congress make the ultimate choice. Now it looks like they'll get their wish and then complain that they might just have to vote during an election cycle. Yea we wouldn't want people to know where their elected officials stand before an election, can't have that. They need to make up their mind. Either they want to be consulted or they don't because they are worried it might mess up their re-election. What a shame.
I see the liberals are showing their lack of a backbone once again.
"They need to make up their mind. Either they want to be consulted or they don't because they are worried it might mess up their re-election."
If what Rummy says is true, doesn't sound to me like the White House is seeking out Congress for their views. They want a vote.
But if Bush stands before the UN and says he wants inspections, and then he gets them, does he go ahead with the use of force vote?
Why? -- He got what he wanted. Things are moving in the right directon.
Rick,
Well I'd say they are asking for thier views. What better way to get a viewpoint than a vote. It's the same thing. If they are opposed to ousting Sadamn or using force all they have to do is vote against it and their views will be well known one way or another. And then their constituents will also know.
In short, they want a vote. They want Democracts on record for or against some type of use of force.
They already are.
S. CON. RES. 71was co-sponsored by Daschel, Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Hagel.
Some excerpts:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the continued threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq's refusal to meet its international obligations and end its weapons of mass destruction programs;
(2) urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs; and
(3) urges the President to work with Congress in furthering a long-term policy aimed at definitively ending the threat to international peace and security posed by the government of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Daschle also went on to say: "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
But of course that was 1998 and we had a different president at that time.
The vote should be on what to do when the resolution is not met. If inspections should be tampered with, do you stand for action? Yea or Nea. I would personally love to see Iraq comply, but I don't think they will for the long-term. Hopefully I am wrong.
Interesting. Thanks Dan. Amazing how things change eh ?
BTW I heard Kerry on CNBC last night I think and he was essentially saying what the admin was saying, that it's another stall tactic by Saddink. I was pleasantly surprised to hear him say that, gotta give credit where it's due.
Hey CSC, how ya been ?
looking at Iraq's track record it is only a matter of time before they quit cooperating and kick the inspectors back out. He's done it a zillion times already and I'm sure he's hoping by then that he can get enough support or that the U.N (which stands for United Nuetered) will do what they've done the last 4 years which is essentially zip, other than condemming their actions and continuing down the same course that hasn't worked. I'm sure that's what he's counting on.
"But of course that was 1998 and we had a different president at that time."
But now we have a new president with a new set of motives and one house of Congress in the hands of the other party.
BTW: I'm curious, is there any Republican Co-sponsors to that legislation?
If not, why not.? I guess the Republicans didn't percieve Saddam as a threat.
Or perhaps because there was a different president in office?
Can anyone here say exactly what the consequences of escalating the WOT to Iraq will be? Maybe that's what Daschle and Company are considering now.
I would say everything has changed since '98.
LUV2:
I just finished attending my third funeral in the last two months. My wife lost her uncle and grandfather, and I lost my grandmother last week. I've been busy so I haven't had much time to get on here.
Rick:
Here is a list of the Authors:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Introduced in Senate)
S 2525 IS
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2525
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq .
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 29, 1998
Mr. LOTT (for himself, Mr. KERREY, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. HELMS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. KYL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
CSC,
Sorry to hear that. Sounds like you've been having a tough summer. My condolences to you.
my condolences as well. and i thought having to go to the funeral of one close family member in a summer was bad enough (that was five years ago, so no condolences in response are necessary)
foreign entanglements did not mean not expanding westward, fold. It meant not getting in Eurpopean wars specifically wars between France and England. Jeeez. Can you read a book?
So:
If France had not agreed to sell much of what is now the South and Midwest, would fighting them for it be considered a Foreign Entanglement to you?
Were the Sioux not a nation?
No, I don not believe if we had fought a war with France to obtain the Louisiana Territory that Washington would have considered it a "foreign entanglement." The war if it had occured would have been mainly and maybe entirely on this continent. I believe he meant that the US should not ally itself with any European power over another. Would you consider the War of 1812 a "foreign entanglement?"
Were the Sioux a foreign power?
"No, I don not believe if we had fought a war with France to obtain the Louisiana Territory that Washington would have considered it a "foreign entanglement."'
We can't pick the brain of George Washington, today, nor did I really care to. I was asking what you thought. The Louisiana Territory was under the crown of France at the time. That would make it foreign.
"Were the Sioux a foreign power?"
I asked a question, you can answer it or not.
Your question was "Wete the Sioux a nation?" My question was were the Sioux a foreign power? I don't know what your point was but my point is that fighting the Sioux or any of the Indian tribes was not a foreign entanglement.
Dont' want to answer, that's fine.
I don't know what the question means so I will not answer it. Define nation and maybe I can answer it.
It's depending on what the term foriegn means. Foreign doens not simply have to mean geographically separated.
The native Americans were conquered just as nations have for thousands of years. Did they get a raw deal, You bet. they lost the war. The native Americans as a whole were many nations together and fought within themselves as well. The Souix took land from the Ojibwe etc. etc. Had it not been America as it is now that conquered them it would have been France, England, Spain etc. Would they get better treatment from them if today this was a part of Spain ? Who knows. But how far back do we go ? The Chippewa had land taken from other tribes. The Egyptians had land taken from the Romans etc. etc.
Using irrefutable, cross-corroborated evidence -- not sheer speculation or specious propaganda claims --PROVE that Iraq poses an ominous, imminent danger to anyone.
If that can't be done, than NOBODY should die in a Pearl Harbor-like aggression against a sovereign, foreign country, launched for patently wrong, outlandishly misrepresented reasons.
Least of all innocent Iraqis or OUR children, whom we brought into this world to live in peace and prosperity, and to live long enough to produce children of their own.
No blood for oil!
George Bush should be prosecuted and impeached for criminal fraud of the worst possible kind.
PROVE that Iraq poses an ominous, imminent danger to anyone.
Gee Dennis, you not watch the news in the past 20 years?
Those innocent Iraqi's are more likely to be killed by Saddam than us.
Go over to the "In the News" thread and check my posts on the consequences of our embargo.
You really need to delve past the facile demonizations.
For your own country's sake.
Remember the folly that ensued in the first instance when a whole nation and people were folded under and conflated with a prominently presented "evil" leader.
It was called Playa Giron.
The Bay of Pigs.
It wasn't Castro that whipped the invaders' asses.
It was the Cubans themselves.
Makes you kinda wonder how strong a resistance to invasion will be put up be ordinary folks (plus the military) in a country that's already seen over a million of its people die as a result of sanctions.
Bay of Goats, maybe?
Go over to the "In the News" thread and check my posts on the consequences of our embargo.
I don't disagree the embargo is hurting Iraqis. That's what happens when you have an insane dictator running your country. What else do you suggest we do? Let Saddam do whatever the hell he wants? We tried that and he invaded Kuwait and killed as many Kurds as he could. This was long before any damn embargo.
Remember the folly that ensued in the first instance when a whole nation and people were folded under and conflated with a prominently presented "evil" leader.
Well, I wasn't around then but I remember the last one. In Afghanistan. Where children could once again fly kites. Where people are no longer fearful of having their limbs chopped off. Where people are no longer being executed in soccer stadiums. Where there's no fear of women being pistol whipped on the streets for looking at a man.
It was the Cubans themselves.
Don't kid yourself. It was the Cuban military which of course wants to keep Cuba as it is. They got the power, they don't want to lose it. It's the only way out of poverty in that God forsaken country.
I'd be fine with removing the Cuba embargo if Castro, a dictator, wasn't in charge.
Makes you kinda wonder how strong a resistance to invasion will be put up be ordinary folks (plus the military) in a country that's already seen over a million of its people die as a result of sanctions.
Well, we didn't have too much resistance during the Gulf War. They turned tail and ran.
JT,
Not to defend Dennis but he is partially correct. There was alot more resistance then their was shown on CNN. My Dad used to tape the news all the time as they were hoping to catch a glimpse of me, I looked at it a few months after I had returned. Most of what you saw was aircraft footage and it looked alot easier then it was. The story on the ground was different. We didn't have reporters attached because they are a liability in combat. I remember my Major flat out refusing to let any reporters be attached to us. We were glad to hear it because we had it before and they are a liability and endagered us.
Where he is wrong and you are correct is this. The stiffest resistance we encountered were from mostly his "regular" army troops, or people who had willingly enlisted in the army. Some of them also turned and ran too because we cut off communications from their leaders, deprived them of re-supplying and had them frankly scared shitless after weeks of ariel bombardment. It would be safe to say that the majority of troops we encountered didn't have much fight left in them after all that. There were however some fanatical elements that fought very hard. They were the exception and they fought hard. And contrary to his assertion, any civilians we encountered were very glad to see us. extatic in most cases would be the best way to describe it. But make no mistake about it, it was not a cake walk and good people died.
One other little interesting tid-bit on Dennis' favorite new propoganda tool, ie; that misunderstood guy Saddam it's all our fault Hussein.
He tried to use chemicals in 91' My unit got intell of a large force of troops that for some reason was static, everyone else was headed to the Baggie. We got orders and went out looking for them. We had a brief firefight and most of them gladly surrendered. What we didn't know until much later after we also fought and defeated a large number of R.G (republican guard|) troops was that Saddam had put the other troops out there as bait. They were reservists and conscripts (forcibbly taken) and he put a few hard asses in charge. His plan was to lure us into this fight and launch chemicals on us AND them, his own fucking troops! Nice huh ? We had chem suits, they didn't, had he succeeded they all would have died and many of us. The only reason it didn't happen was that we had cut all their communications and the R.G troops didn't know we had already defeated them. One of our p.t's found all the shells loaded with different chemicals and the orders to go along with it in them and they were destroyed by our eod people. We got lucky but we also did our job. He was willing to kill his own people and to use chemicals to achieve victory. The next time someone tries to tell me it's all our fault and that he's not a danger I am going to puke.
Anyone who would knowingly do such a thing should not be reasoned nor bargained with. Of course it's all our fault.
If he wanted to he could end sanctions today, instead he has given the U.N the proverbial finger for years. He'd rather hold on to power and the only way to do so is to not abide by the U.N's many resolutions which would essentially take away his power and thereby making him alot easier to overthrow. Instead he chooses to not abide by the agreements he made that saved him from being ousted in 91' He has learned many lessons since then about how to avoid, delay and sidestep to hold onto his murderous regime and continue with his old ways. He could end his people's suffering, he won't, he has sacrificed and or killed his own people. That's a pretty good sign he couldn't care less about them. Yet some defend him and place the blame on us and the U.N. It says alot about their motive and charachter.
Sanctions are the method in our arsenal of ruthless lethality that proves Bush's "regime change" by invasion technique really isn't that new, just more blatantly audacious.
What is the purpose behind our Cuban and Iraqi embargoes?
To try to oust leaders we don't like, by inflicting injury on innocent people, in the sick hope that they'll blame those leaders for the resulting misery, instead of us, and rise up to replace them.
Peeing on Jesus Christ and Thomas Jefferson would be less sinful.
But wait...that's exactly what our policy does.
And all Fidel and Saddam would have to do to end our immoral life-squeezing...would be to roll over and play dead, and let U.S. sugar interests back into Cuba, and Enron types into the nationalized oilfields of Iraq!
http://athena.tbwt.com/content/article.asp?articleid=1547
So why was Saddam "our boy" (without complaint) when it was useful
to us?
Thank you Ramsey Clark Jr.
Hmmm let's see a guy who supports abortion and a guy who wants nothing to do with one of the basic ideas behind this country. Looks like you're in good company.
Yea and killing their own people, imprisioning people who disagree, developing nuke and chem weapons, supporting terrorists. You know piddly little stuff like that.
But holy crap, don't tell me big sugar is in on this too !
I say invade Hawaii right now !
And I'm sure the cigar interests have their eyes on the prize !
Actually, I'm pretty sure that you're also overlooking big cement, think of all the sand they can get their greedy capatalist hands on. No wait, actually that sand is too fine for cement making. I know it's that damn etch a' sketch interest ! They want it all. And don't forget about the big hourglass lobby. All that free sand !
Rob's hopped up on goofballs...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
By the way, if war worries and stock market jitters have you tossing and turning at night, bookmark this and begin reading when Mr. Insomnia comes around.
You'll be comatose in seconds.
Thanks Ramsey, Have good night :)
Iraq pledges it's clean of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons
Associated Press
Published Sep 19, 2002 UN20
UNITED NATIONS -- Iraq is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, Saddam Hussein told the United Nations in a speech read Thursday by his foreign minister
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3242303.html
Whew, glad they cleared that up, thank goodness they told us.
USA PATRIOT ACT NEEDS DISMANTLING
Now that the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 has passed, the United States is fast-approaching the one-year anniversary of the Bush administration's assault on domestic civil liberties.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, a grab bag of police-state schemes cobbled together by Attorney General John Ashcroft to capitalize on 9-11 fears, was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001.
It had been passed with almost no debate by the House of Representatives two days earlier, on a 357-66 vote. Of the 66 votes against the legislation, 62 came from Democrats, three from Republicans and one from Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. Among the members of the House who rejected Ashcroft's grab for dramatically enhanced surveillance powers and the ability to punish legitimate political activism were two Wisconsin House members: Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Tom Barrett, D-Milwaukee.
In the Senate, only one member opposed the grotesquely misnamed "USA Patriot Act": Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold. At the time, Feingold described the legislation as a "truly breathtaking expansion of police power." Almost a year later, he says, "I would cast the same vote today, but even more confidently, as we see how law enforcement is beginning to use the new powers in the bill and how the Department of Justice has proceeded on a variety of fronts not directly addressed in the bill."
As the United States approaches the one-year anniversary, some components of the USA Patriot Act have already been challenged with success in the courts. But, for the most part, the breathtaking expansion of police power remains every bit as breathtaking and expansive as when it was enacted.
It is for this reason that activists with the Madison Area Peace Coalition have proposed that the Madison City Council enact a resolution that puts the city on record in defense of civil liberties, provides direction for city police to respect those liberties, and calls upon Wisconsin's representatives in Congress "to actively work to repeal the USA Patriot Act." Council member Brenda Konkel is expected to introduce a version of the resolution this evening.
Madison is just one city where activists and local elected officials are moving to challenge federal legislation that, in the words of Nancy Chang, senior litigation attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, "sacrifices our political freedoms in the name of national security and upsets the democratic values that define our nation by consolidating vast new powers in the executive branch of government."
The one-year anniversary of the enactment of the USA Patriot Act cannot be allowed to pass unnoted - in Madison or anywhere else in America. On Oct. 26, 2001, fearmongers and fools began dismantling the Constitution. As Oct. 26, 2002, approaches, true patriots need to begin the hard work of dismantling the USA Patriot Act.
--John Nichols, associate editor for The Capital Times.
Of course you would defend him. I would expect no less. I mean he also is an apologist for war criminals. As long as he can use or turn a blind eye to war crimes and criminals like Milosevic to further a cause it doesn't matter what the other person do, including ethnic cleansing. Well as long as it's for a good cause then you don't have to mention it. Ramsey Clark, Milosevic two peas in a pod. Do I hear 3 ?
The next time you try to tell me about how much you supposedly care for innocent people and go off into some twisted socialist rant, save it. By supporting Milosevic a known war criminal your real motives become transparent. It was always there but your support of a man who ethnically cleansed ie: MURDERED people is telling. But hey if it's not something bad we did turn a blind eye. He's a mass murdering thug but if his goals are in opposistion to ours he's suddenly your poster boy. It makes me sick.
Poor Slobodan.
He had to suffer all through childhood with a name all the kids cruelly shortened.
"Slob".
Made him take it out on innocents years later.
I can hear him singing in his prison shower now:
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!"
As for Saddam, well...
He's a gas.
U.S. FAILS IN MIDEAST POLICIES
I'm deeply concerned about the Middle East and the continuing crimes the Palestine people are suffering at the hands of Israel. They continue to occupy their lands, bulldoze their homes, come into their cities with hundreds of tanks and soldiers, and arrest and interrogate hundreds of citizens. Hopefully President Bush will firmly tell Ariel Sharon that he must treat his neighbors as equals. His blatant racism must be put down! What kind of democracy can that be? Much of the unrest in the Arab world is caused by this, and perhaps even 9/11!
Another tremendously ominous issue President Bush has set in motion is talk of attacking Iraq and bringing down the current regime. This would be as un-American an act, and as tyrannical, as anything we could do! For us to use our God-given power, wealth, military might and soldiers to perpetrate an unprovoked, destructive attack on another sovereign country would be a horrendous mistake!
The destabilization that could result from such an action could cause terrible chaos in the rest of the world, including our country. It could drive up the price of oil to a level that would create a worldwide depression the likes of which has never been seen before, not to mention the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Is that what we want?
Remember, we recently sponsored Iraq with modern weapons, billions of dollars, and perhaps biological and neurological weapons in an eight-year war against Iran. Please explain to me and the American people just exactly what our foreign policy is hoping to accomplish. What are our guiding principles? Why are we switching sides so often?
The threats and saber-rattling of Vice President Dick Cheney are incomprehensible and Donald Rumsfeld's adversarial and uncompromising attitude is detrimental for a negotiated settlement that would end in peace.
--SIGURD RANDA, DULUTH (News Tribune letter)
An interesting read....
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092002.asp
<answering> The usual questions about Iraq. Europe? How can we ignore their worries?
> We cannot ignore the Europeans, and must consult them. Still, in all
   honesty, we must also accept that once the EU had placed its national
   security in the hands of international accords and the U.N., its
   members could hardly publicly support us without undermining the
   very legitimacy of their new utopian protocols. Yet unilateralism is
   hardly a dirty word; the singular obstinacy of a single country has
   ended many of the world's great evils. The British took on the slave
   trade, and later faced Hitler alone for two years. Few thought the
   United States should station Pershing missiles in Europe to thwart the
   nuclear intimidation of the Soviets. Had the United States waited for
   European or United Nations approval last autumn, bin Laden and the
   Taliban would still rule Afghanistan.
I think it's time to send the aircraft carrier 'Walter Mondale' to the Gulf to rattle things up a bit. It could be protected by the AEGIS ship 'Chamberlain'?
Good Posts Apple. Nice job.
"THE IRAQIS DID NOT KICK THE INSPECTORS OUT..."
Jon Weiner:
What were the circumstances that led the U.N. weapons inspectors to leave Iraq in December 1998? The Bush administration and the media often repeat that Saddam "kicked out" the weapons inspectors, and that's why we face the necessity of war today.
Scott Ritter:
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Iraqis did not kick the inspectors out in December 1998. The Americans ordered the inspectors out, and then bombed Iraq using intelligence information gathered by the inspectors to target Saddam Hussein and his security apparatus.
It's impossible to talk about the return of unfettered access until there's some guarantee that the U.S. won't again use the weapons inspectors as a vehicle for spying on Saddam, and targeting Saddam. As long as the Americans continue to say that regime removal is their number-one policy priority regarding Iraq, even ahead of disarmament, we have no chance of getting weapons inspectors back in.
--Excerpt from LA WEEKLY interview, Sept 20-26, 2002, issue
http://liberalslant.com/temp3.htm
COMPARE GEORGE TO ADOLF...
(written before yesterday's Declaration of World Domination)