US war against Iraq - The fucked up US doesn´t even have eno

[Fabio]

hey, i don´t understand this how come that the US is going to have a war against Iraq when they don´t have proof, all they do is to talk crap and why doesn´t other countries go against USA, i mean i know that saddam is a sucker, but what about all those who will die in the war!! and is there anything we (the young people) can do about it!!

i would bee so thankful if somebody could answer this!!!

[Stormin Norman]

Hey moron! Are you familiar with the U.N. resolution? I didn't think so. Here is the full text: Resolution 1441 (http://www.bigjweb.com/michnews/2002111386437788text_of_un_security_council_reso.a sp)

In case you couldn't follow that, here are the talking points:Highlights of Resolution 1441 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2412837.stm)

What you liberals fail to understand, because you haven't picked up an actual newspaper, is that the Security Counsel has already deemed Iraq to be in material breach. I posted a paper describing this back in October. Resolution 1441 gives Saddam 1 final chance to comply with the countless other resolutions that they failed to enforce. Furthermore it sets up an aggressive inspection regime that will evaluate the extent of Iraqi compliance. Another aspect of this was to give Hussein 30 days to describe his programs in an accurate report. The burden of proof lies on Iraq's leader.

The report he submitted was a joke. It clearly states in resolution 1441 that; "False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

According to the international law that liberals are so vocal in extolling, Saddam is in material breach. He was given an opportunity to rectify the situation and opt for peace, but has failed to capitalize on the good will of the U.S.. It can be said that Saddam was given a chance for peace, but chose war.

Any miserable lech claiming that Saddam has complied is allowing themselves to become the useful idiot of a complete despot. Leftists would rather align themselves with Saddam Hussein than George Bush. This would leave them in a position to be categorized as propagandist for a mass murder. As far as leftists go, what else is new? They stuck up for Stalin. They revered Chairman Mao. They drool over Castro, and now they portray Saddam as a victim. Is there any doubt that the left represents an enemy of the United States, perhaps as dangerous as al-Qaeda? Folks, we are fighting a two pronged war here. One component is fighting the enemies foreign; the other aspect combating is the enemies domestic. Liberal scum falls into the latter category.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Good response, SN.

As usual, the leftists are more interested in rhetoric than the facts.

The UN inspection teams have already determined that there are several chemical containers, weapons components, and other equipment missing and unaccounted for.

Where are they?

Why are they unaccounted for?

It is ostensible (for anyone with an iota of common sense) that these and I'm sure other things are arbitrarily buried somewhere 20 ft under the 1000's of square miles of Iraqi desert, marked with camel dung,and awaiting extraction after UN weapons teams leave.

Thankfully, the Bush administration realizes this, and the initial staging process for the invasion has begun.

There is only one option at this point:

regime change

[Stormin Norman]

Regime change is entirely in order. I would proceed quite differently in N. Korea. If I were commander in chief, I would conduct tactical strikes on their nuclear capability, reducing it to a pile pf rubble. Then I would wait to see how they wish to proceed in the matter.

[RedComrade]

Actually CI and SN it seems that we are the only ones who are interested in facts. In order to prove the statements of the 12,000 page document which in short says Iraq lacks weapons false we must first find weapons. Just because the document states they dont have weapons doesnt make it false. It will not be false untill the U.S or the U.N can come up with some evidence to the contrary. Untill the U.S does present the evidence to prove it false any military action is illegal and a violation of both the U.N charter and the constitution.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 7:25 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Regime change is entirely in order. I would proceed quite differently in N. Korea. If I were commander in chief, I would conduct tactical strikes on their nuclear capability, reducing it to a pile pf rubble. Then I would wait to see how they wish to proceed in the matter.


I wholeheartedly agree SN. I believe tactical nuclear strikes on NK would speak to them in their language.

America needs to send a message to the world that we will not tolerate saber-rattling of any kind towards us, from a nuclear power or otherwise. This especially applies to communist regimes and members of the Axis of Evil.

[Stormin Norman]

I am not sure nukes would be the best weapon of choice, as they might make China jumpy. I am sure the task could be accomplished with more conventional weaponry. However, I would not rule them out altogether.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from RedComrade on 7:31 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Actually CI and SN it seems that we are the only ones who are interested in facts. In order to prove the statements of the 12,000 page document which in short says Iraq lacks weapons false we must first find weapons. Just because the document states they dont have weapons doesnt make it false. It will not be false untill the U.S or the U.N can come up with some evidence to the contrary. Untill the U.S does present the evidence to prove it false any military action is illegal and a violation of both the U.N charter and the constitution.


But RC, it does not merely state that weapons are not there. It states that weapons and equipment previously there are missing and unaccounted for.

Iraq is in material breech per the provisions of the UN Security resolution!

Regime change in imminent!

[Geddan]

Yeah indeed, bomb that arab motherfucking piece of shit country back to the stone age! And don't care about the costs in human life, we can get the oil and some world-wide support for getting rid of our former friend Saddam Hussein! Yeah! What an incredible idea, hope at least GW Bush has got enough alphabetical skills to sign the bombing orders (or else Cheney will have to).

Yes indeed, people throughout the world shall rejoice when we see the water purification systems down, so that the filthy Iraqi people can starve to death, so they can't join al-fuckin-Qaida! You stupid liberals! Why do you care for human lives, and not profit? Don't you see that the world today is built on theft and profit from poor countries so we can live in overflow which makes us so fat we can't walk across the floor and switch channel on the TV (that ain't needed anymore, we've got remote controls... bad point :( )

Liberals, how dare you defy the stronger's rights to the world resources? To put people before profit is just ignorance, futile ignorance. And how dare you question the righteousness of the Colombian and Mexican government, not to mention Chile? We recovered PROFITS, man! The hundreds of thousands killed was just a bonus!

Yeah, let's bomb! DIIIIIIXXXIIIIIEEEE!!!!

;)

[Stormin Norman]

Geddan's post is a perfect example of the politics of feeling. You are so emotional that you have allowed yourself to be taken by some bubbling stupor. You and Mentalbunny should get along just fine.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 7:45 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Geddan's post is a perfect example of the politics of feeling. You are so emotional that you have allowed yourself to be taken by some bubbling stupor. You and Mentalbunny should get along just fine.

LOL, great action!

[Geddan]

Yes indeed, I am ruled by heart and not by mind, therefore I care for the people who will die in Iraq, unlike you, my dear Stormin Norman. For some reasons, people seem to have too much trust in the US... "yes, let's go unilaterally", "I don't give a damn about the UN, lets sanction them anyway". By US standards, the US is much more a rogue state than Iraq or Cuba. Of course, Saddam is bad, but when people remember that he was sponsored by the US, they prefer to talk about something else.

I am not totally against an intervention, but if it is a unilateral US attack with no proof, then the US could go repair their shit they screwed in Nicaragua for example.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Geddan on 7:54 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Yes indeed, I am ruled by heart and not by mind, therefore I care for the people who will die in Iraq, unlike you, my dear Stormin Norman. For some reasons, people seem to have too much trust in the US... "yes, let's go unilaterally", "I don't give a damn about the UN, lets sanction them anyway". By US standards, the US is much more a rogue state than Iraq or Cuba. Of course, Saddam is bad, but when people remember that he was sponsored by the US, they prefer to talk about something else.

I am not totally against an intervention, but if it is a unilateral US attack with no proof, then the US could go repair their shit they screwed in Nicaragua for example.

Did geddan care about the 1000's of kurds that saddam gassed too?

regime change ios the only option

[Geddan]

Yes I do. So, who sponsored him? The UK and the US supported him at that point (Who gave him the technology and the weapons? These two countries). They stopped supporting him when he disobeyed (misunderstood?) his orders and invaded Kuwait. When he turned an enemy at this point, he had a lot of control over large reserves of oil, and this could of course threaten 1st world trade. Now Saddam became a criminal.

(Edited by Geddan at 9:04 pm on Jan. 14, 2003)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Geddan on 8:02 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Yes I do. So, who sponsored him? The UK and the US supported him at that point. They stopped supporting him when he disobeyed (misunderstood?) his orders and invaded Kuwait. When he turned an enemy at this point, he had a lot of control over large reserves of oil, and this could of course threaten 1st world trade. Now Saddam became a criminal.

The US/UK never supported the gassing of Kurds

[Geddan]

Yes, they did indeed support him, as they supported Suharto, Pol Pot, South Vietnam, Colombia, Mexico and this Somoza fellow I think. Hell, didn't they support the shah in Iran before he went rogue?

[RedComrade]

You idiot CI a bill was proposed in the house at the time of the gassings to impose sanctions on Iraq. It was proposed by liberal democrats the bill was crushed by ronnie and his cronies who were quick to chastise the bill. Ronnie never had a problem with the sanctions just like he never had a problem with the contras actions or similar murderous madmen...

[Corvus Corax]

Aaaaaaawwww, bless, SN still lives in the world where nobody lies, especially the government, and all opinions you see in news articles are 100% correct and unbiased. Yes, thats right, even the ones with a little Imperialist flag in the corner.

Oh, this thread just reminds me of two old air force colonels alone in a room smoking cigars and scoffing about how inferior the rest of the world is to them.

Sorry, but it had to be said...

C.C

[commie kg]

Quote: from Corvus Corax on 1:29 pm on Jan. 14, 2003
Aaaaaaawwww, bless, SN still lives in the world where nobody lies, especially the government, and all opinions you see in news articles are 100% correct and unbiased. Yes, thats right, even the ones with a little Imperialist flag in the corner.

Oh, this thread just reminds me of two old air force colonels alone in a room smoking cigars and scoffing about how inferior the rest of the world is to them.

Sorry, but it had to be said...

C.C

you hit the nail on the head...

[Stormin Norman]

You idiot CI a bill was proposed in the house at the time of the gassings to impose sanctions on Iraq. It was proposed by liberal democrats the bill was crushed by ronnie and his cronies who were quick to chastise the bill. Ronnie never had a problem with the sanctions just like he never had a problem with the contras actions or similar murderous madmen...

Do you know the bill number? Can you provide a credible link? Do I have to go digging everytime you liberals open your mouths?

[Stormin Norman]

from: Corvus Covax
Aaaaaaawwww, bless, SN still lives in the world where nobody lies, especially the government, and all opinions you see in news articles are 100% correct and unbiased. Yes, thats right, even the ones with a little Imperialist flag in the corner.

Hey moron! I have never presented myself as someone who blindly follows the opinion of someone else. Your aversion to the facts that I present you with, speak quite the opposite about you. The 1st link I provided was not a opinion piece. Had you bothered to read it, you might have known this. Instead, you are the one who wishes to hold an ignorant opinion. The link provides the full text of the U.N. resolution 1441.

Apparently, that news outlet doesn't have the same hatred for the U.S. as yourself. Therefore they feel it is okay to display a bit of patriotism. I know patriotism is a word with a bit of a masculine ring to it. Perhaps that is reason why such an effeminate person, like yourself, would take issue with the displaying of one's flag. The appearance of the website I directed you to is a non-issue, as it presents the hard facts that I wish to deal in. I could just as easily have directed you to CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or even NPR.

Anyone here can vouch for the diversity, and credibility of the sources I cite. Unlike the unthinking left, I don't need to find shelter in one or two questionable rags in order to develop an opinion. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions, which is more than I can say for most of the leftists on this board. It is the commie scum that have repeated problems with the credibility of their sources and information, not I. Which brings us to your next criticism of me.

Contrary to what you write, I do not put faith in the word of everybody. I am constantly correcting the left's deliberate attempts to smear the truth. I am constantly questioning your sources and 'facts'. I am constantly questioning your ability to think. Unlike those on this board that assume that any piece of trash allegation they make will go unchecked, I am very careful when using other people's data to butress my points.

Unfortunately, I am not sitting in the Library of Congress where I would have virtually every possible source of information at my disposal. I am constantly complaining to myself about the limited ability of the internet to disseminate information. However, it is one of the few tools I have at my disposal when I find time to post. When I make my fortune, I will build myself an adequate library, more to your liking.

All you managed to do is demonstrate your own stupidity by ignoring the message of the link I provided, and calling it biased because it displays the American flag.


From: Commie kilogram
you hit the nail on the head...

You followed suit. What does that make you? I will let the audience fill in the blank.

I present an argument too strong for you to refute, so you question my credibility and bias. I suggest you go back, reread, and rethink your flimsy position on the Iraqi Resolution. Clearly, the originator of this post is wrong, and judging from your reaction to what I wrote so are you.

[seewot]

its gonna be a bad idea to go to war against iraq an i dont c how any1 can think that war will be revenge sure iraq is jus gonna nuk us neways so u dont wanna get them mad and neways the only reason uk is going to war now is that that blair is jus sucking up to the america an we is jus gonna all end up dead
noone wants to o to war so y r we?????

[Bored of Education]

The UN left Iraq in 1998 with 100% certainty that they had no nuclear weapons and no way to covertly make them. Even the premise of smuggling them in doesn't make sense because that country right now is getting scanned thru and thru with a fine-toothed comb like a doctor looking for pubic crabs.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from seewot on 11:20 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
its gonna be a bad idea to go to war against iraq an i dont c how any1 can think that war will be revenge sure iraq is jus gonna nuk us neways so u dont wanna get them mad and neways the only reason uk is going to war now is that that blair is jus sucking up to the america an we is jus gonna all end up dead
noone wants to o to war so y r we?????


Iraq does not have the ability to nuke the USA as of today

[Blibblob]

Oh come on, who would dare anyways, we have all of those illegal warheads we were supposed to disarm, and everybody knows it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:40 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
Oh come on, who would dare anyways, we have all of those illegal warheads we were supposed to disarm, and everybody knows it.


thats true, anyone who tried would be committing suicide

[Bored of Education]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:45 pm on Jan. 20, 2003

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:40 pm on Jan. 20, 2003
Oh come on, who would dare anyways, we have all of those illegal warheads we were supposed to disarm, and everybody knows it.


thats true, anyone who tried would be committing suicide
Exactly. Don't you think "terrorist" world leaders think that also?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Maybe, but terrorists have a different mindset. As 9/11 and the war in israel demonstrate, terrorists are all too willing to committ suicide and kill innocents in their operations.

The suicide factor is a non-issue for many terrorists.

[Blibblob]

thats "many", iraq isnt going to touch us, THEY are too afraid, the dont want war, it will be the end of their country.

And Saddam doesnt want his reign ended, that would mean less money for him.

[Bored of Education]

Yes what Blibblob said. Saddam is too much of an arrogant fuckface to jeopardize his position on the throne. Goes to show you what people who marry their first cousins are like.

;)

[abstractmentality]

Quoted from SN:
The report he submitted was a joke. It clearly states in resolution 1441 that; "False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment."

i think the key word in the above is and (which i have made bold). if i remember correctly, Russia, China, and France all said that Iraq's declaration of weapons of mass destruction was not, in itself, a material breech. Im not sure about what britain said about this, but it wouldnt surpise me if Tony Blair went along with whatever George Bush says.

Quote from CI:
Iraq does not have the ability to nuke the USA as of today.

I agree completly. As Scott Ritter is quick to point out, if they were in the process of becoming a nuclear nation, we have plenty of tools that would detect the radiation produced.

Quote from CI:
"...missing and unaccounted for." (speaking on weapons)

To quote Scott Ritter: "Iraq has destroyed 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction. Okay. we have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesnt necessarily constitute a threat. It doesnt even constitute a weapons program. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesnt amount to much.... just because we cant account for it doesnt mean iraq retains it. there is NO evidence iraq retains this material."

Also, when people speak of the biological and chemical weapons that he was able to produce prior to 1998, one must also remember that the shelf life of these materials is not long, and, according to Scott Ritter, they have all (or what he speaks of in War on Iraq) expired and become useless. "Liquid bulk anthrax, even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years becoming useless.... Iraq has no biological weapons today, because both anthrax and botulinum toxin are useless....
We know enough to say that as of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."
"...when you ... look at the evidence at hand, you see a destroyed research and development plant, destroyed precursors, detroyed agent, destroyed weapons, and a destroyed factory.
...Even if Iraq had held on to stabilized VX agent,... it would have degraded by today.... The real question is: Is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life."
then speaking on whether or not they could have re-started the VX program:
"...they'd have to start from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities, and research. They'd have to produce the complicated tools and technology required through front companies. This would be detected. The manufacture of chemical weapons emits vented gases that would have been detected by now if they existed."

Onto the idea of regime change instituted by the USA. If one is to think that the USA is going to bring about a democratic regime in Iraq, think again. if you look to the numbers of the people in Iraq, you have about 60% of the population as Shi'a Muslims, who are "theocratically alligned with Iran." As many people know, Iran has a lot of anti-american sympathies, and i personally dont think that the US is willing to have two large suppliers of oil in countries with distinct anti-americanism within it. The second largest group is the Kurds, coming in at around 23% of the population. The Turks have been fighting to keep the Kurds from becoming independent, and Ritter and myself think Turkey, being a nice spot for US military to be in, will not allow the kurds to become the rulers. that leaves 17%, which are the Sunni Muslims, of which Saddam is. so, what do we have? a new Sunni muslim that is in a huge minority ruling over Iraq. harldy a democracy.

In addition to the above, the people that have made the list for possible replacements for Saddam are not that impressive. For instance, you have (or had) Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji, who was Husseins chief of staff from 1980-1991. i say had because he has been arrested by Danish police and is going on trial for war crimes for being the field commander of the 1988 chemical weapons usage on Kurdush civilians. an eyewitness also testified to seeing him kick a Kurdish child to death after his forces entered a villiage in 1988.
another person on this list is Gen Najib al-Salhi, who helped to crush the revolt against the government after the Gulf War. Doesnt really seem like somebody i would like to replace Saddam. if these two people are present on the list of possible replacements for Hussein, then i can only imagine who else is on the list.

Also, somebody in this thread (forgive me that i cant remember) said something about the US telling Hussein to not invade Kuwait, but this is not true. Iraq consulted an ambassador (i believe) of the US, and the ambassador didnt tell him not to invade, but didnt tell him to invade. This is documented in the book War Crimes (cant remember the author(s)).

note: anything quoted in this text, unless otherwise stated, comes from War on Iraq by William Rivers Pitt and Scott Ritter.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 9:37 pm on Jan. 20, 2003)

(Edited by abstractmentality at 9:46 pm on Jan. 20, 2003)

[Stormin Norman]

i think the key word in the above is and (which i have made bold). if i remember correctly, Russia, China, and France all said that Iraq's declaration of weapons of mass destruction was not, in itself, a material breech. Im not sure about what britain said about this, but it wouldnt surpise me if Tony Blair went along with whatever George Bush says.

As I have demonstrated, the wording of Resolution 1441 is very clear. It does not matter how the Russians or any other member of the secrutiy counsel view it. Their reluctance to act further demonstrates the inept nature of the U.N., and is probably why Bush decided to go that route. Two enemies of the United States can now be nuetralized. We can invade Iraq, and we can deem the U.N. to be another failure, on the magnitude of the League of Nations, in order to justify removing support for such a world government. Not only is the future of Saddam Hussien in question, the U.N. finds its survival in question, since it is largely funded by the United States. Excellent move, Bush. Clearly, this was a clever manuever on the part of the administration.

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:10 pm on Jan. 21, 2003
It does not matter how the Russians or any other member of the secrutiy counsel view it.

the fact Resolution 1441 is a UNITED NATIONS resolution has the obvious connection to what the other nations involved have to say. although i do not believe that Russia, France, Germany, or China really care about the Iraqi people as a whole, the fact that they are a portion of the UNITED NATIONS means that their opinions and thoughts do matter.

SN: every post i read of yours, the more i see you as a "realist" in the international relations meaning of the word. do you see yourself along those lines?

[Weatherman]

SN, I am new to this site but I have read a lot of your discussions with people and it seems that in the end your always wrong and never want to admit it. It's not a matter of differing of opinion, whenever somebody proves you wrong you move on to something else or counter the attack with pointing out something wrong in your opponents argument. Because of this you will never change your views. You are a static creature, unable to learn, unable to change. Ofcourse you will respond to this defensivly, as if I have attacked you. I just made in observation in order to hopefully better someone else, to the best of my knowledge. I am not attacking you, and you are not my enemy. I would say the same to a commie I saw with a defective pattern in argument.

Oh and by the way, yes Saddam was our ***** when he gassed the Kurds, we could have stopped him but the truth is we wanted it. We wanted him to stay in power because he was our *****, and so he was allowed to gas Kurd dissidents with weapons we gave him. So lets see, we are responsible for the man, the order and the weapon; I would say we're to blame.

No Saddamn is not an angel, if he was we wouldnt have put him in power. But our goals with Iraq are too keep them impoverished so they can be a workforce for the rich. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

What you call a legitamate news source (all the majors ones you mentioned) is bullshit. All mass media in the U.S. is controlled by about 25 rich conservative capitalist who have a vested interest in the government and above all, staying rich. They dont write about all views and only some alternative points of view, just in order to keep the illusion of a free press. Read some Noam Chomsky to learn more about that.

[abstractmentality]

just to add to what i wrote earlier, the quote you use, SN, from the UN resolution 1441 also says that in the event of a material breach, the material breach "will be reported to the Council for assessment." this is also a key in the resolution. if you deem the UN credible enough to think it gives the right of the US to attack Iraq, then you must also accept the rules of the resolution. you cant abide by what aspects of the UN you like and dismiss all other attempts of the UN as illigitimate because they are attempts of the UN.

[Stormin Norman]

just to add to what i wrote earlier, the quote you use, SN, from the UN resolution 1441 also says that in the event of a material breach, the material breach "will be reported to the Council for assessment." this is also a key in the resolution.

You're right. Paragraphs 11 and 12 do elude to the fact that the UN should reconvene in the event that the inspectors give a failing grade to Iraqi compliance. However, I disagree that this is the key to the resolution. This is the soft wording that was needed in order to get reluctant countries like France, Russia, and China to sign on to the resolution. I need not remind you that all three nations which required that specific wording are guilty of illegally dealing with Iraq, in terms of oil and weapons deals.

I would argue that paragraph 14:

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

-is the heart of the issue. This is the tough wording that Rice and Powell demanded, as a shrewd way of pointing out the impotent nature of the UN. In the event that they continue dragging their feet with respect to the countless resolutions that they have failed to enforce in the past ten years; the U.S. reserves the right to defend itself against Iraq potentially passing weapons on to terrorist organizations; in Accordance to article 51 of the UN Charter; which states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Besides, the UN is an undemocratic diplomatic body. UN law in no way supercedes the U.S. Constitution. If we must dissolve all ties to this organization to defend our nation, we reserve that right. Once it is shown that the UN is incapable of living up to its stated purpose, it will be the end of that body of cannibals and despots. Without U.S. support the United Nations lacks teeth and credibility.

Cheer up, you are witnessing an event not seen since the League of Nations broke down prior to World War II. The main purpose of the United Nations was laid out in Article 1(1) of its charter:

to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.

A failure by the UN to act, after the Weapons inspectors submit their report on the 27th, is the ulimate example of the UN being rendered useless by the conflicts of interest its member nations possess. This is why paragraph 14 of UN Resolution 1441 remain the most important key point of the measure. Further inability of that body to disarm Saddam Hussien is a failure to prevent and remove threats to the peace. If the UN reconvenes on the matter of Iraq, and fails to demonstrate willingness to accomplish their stated goal, defined in 1945, then it would be an embarrasment for our nation-state to continue with the charade. We must count ourselves out of "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS". We becomes they, and United Nations becomes divided nations. What a disgrace to the original sentiments of establishing "conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 9:45 pm on Jan. 23, 2003)

[Stormin Norman]

I know abstractmentality will respond when he gets the chance, but does anyone else want a crack at what I have said here, with respect to the U.S. dissolving ties with the U.N.?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:46 pm on Jan. 23, 2003
I know abstractmentality will respond when he gets the chance, but does anyone else want a crack at what I have said here, with respect to the U.S. dissolving ties with the U.N.?

I am in full favor of it.

[Stormin Norman]

I already know you are on the level. Keep up the good work.

[abstractmentality]

"I know abstractmentality will respond when he gets the chance...." -SN.

So much confidence in me you have there, SN. lol.

Ok, ill take a crack at it.

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations"

i have emboldened the portion that i think to be particularly important in the current possibility (i personally think war will come, no matter what happens) of war with iraq. to my knowledge, Iraq has not taken part in any type of "armed attack" upon the united states, and therefore the united states has no backing within the UN to attack Iraq "PRE-emptively."

"to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."

This can be taken many ways. Iraq is currently in peace. We are making it not peaceful. Therefore, by the above quote, the rest of the UN should be able to attack us because we are "threats to peace." i am not sure if you have read Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut, but in there he has one line in which he says that in the future, the US is balkanized so that it will never be a threat to world peace again. interesting...

once again, i will say that if the US uses reasons given by the UN to attack Iraq, then it must listen to ALL portions of the resolution. the US can not simply abide by the portions of the UN that it chooses to, it must either abide by all, or none. if it chooses none, as you propose, than the nations left over in the UN would be capable to (although it wouldnt happen) wage war on the US for being a "threat to peace" of a member of the UN, Iraq. i may be stretching it, but this, within what you have quoted of the UN, is technically possible.

"This is the soft wording that was needed in order to get reluctant countries like France, Russia, and China to sign on to the resolution."

As i have said before, i highly doubt that any of these countries actually care about the innocent iraqi civilians that will die in the upcoming war; the ties to oil amongst all is clear. to tell you the truth, i think that if a deal was worked out that all of them got the percentage of oil after the war that they wanted, you wouldnt have any objection from the UN as a whole. however, the fact that resolutions must be something that is comprimised between the nations present shows that it is the middle road of the situation, and is therefore not the extreme in either direction. all people within the agreement are not 100% in alliance with the compromise, some want more action (the US and britain) and some want more inspections (others), so not all are happy. therefore, since they are making compromises that they are not happy with, we should also make those compromises within the UN.

The UN is an attempt to bring some sort of higher power to an international system that is, in a sense, anarchical. i personally think it to be funny that the US loves the UN when it agrees with what the US wants, but as soon as the UN disagrees with the US, the UN all of a suden loses all of its credibility, and the US does not need to go through it. over all, i like the idea of the UN, how well it works in all cases is another story.

[GWF]

You can say as much about the U$ war against Iraq, but the weapons Saddam has, has Bush alot more, and why can he have them? I mean, he's a sick fuck too! so why don't all nations attack the U$? Because they have more dangerous weapons, officially they don't, but the have to be the mightiest nation (why???) so they have to have the most dangerous weapons. This is also madness.

And Bush does this only to show "what a great nation they are" to collect oil and to try to accieve what his daddy could do in the Gulfwar.
Isn't there the possibility that the U$ has put the weapons there themselves, to start the war with a 'reason'.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from GWF on 2:04 pm on Jan. 25, 2003
You can say as much about the U$ war against Iraq, but the weapons Saddam has, has Bush alot more, and why can he have them?

Because of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty signed by the world.

I startred a thread to it in this forum a couple of weeks ago. Check it out.

[Stormin Norman]

You can say as much about the U$ war against Iraq, but the weapons Saddam has, has Bush alot more, and why can he have them? I mean, he's a sick fuck too! so why don't all nations attack the U$? Because they have more dangerous weapons, officially they don't, but the have to be the mightiest nation (why???) so they have to have the most dangerous weapons. This is also madness.

And Bush does this only to show "what a great nation they are" to collect oil and to try to accieve what his daddy could do in the Gulfwar.
Isn't there the possibility that the U$ has put the weapons there themselves, to start the war with a 'reason'.

Moron!! Where does this ninny get his information? Barbera Striessand, I presume.