Disarmament Was Working... - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2003, 09:28 PM   #91
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 04:03 AM

Nice.. So you're negating the entire Inspection process, basically nulling any reports by the Kofi Annan PAID Hans Blix. But It's nice to see that they're launching Scud Missiles.. Ammunition they claimed they did not have.. Something tells me I'll put my money on new discoveries on munitions that the Iraqis have denied. Haven't the Iraqis threatened to use the Chemical Weapons they didn't have?.. These are questions that need to be answered.

And, don't tell me, and illegitimize any point of view from here on out that you support, that you actually believe the word of Saddam Hussien and his Regime.

It's nice to see that Factual Past Credibility, regardless of POV, means nothing.. at least in this Audience,

Beefeater
__________________

__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 09:54 PM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:03 PM
welcome back Speedracer!!!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 09:59 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:03 PM
1st of all the US wrote Resolution 1441.

2nd of all, I would think since they wrote it they knew what it meant.

3rdly France new what it meant and the Ambassador to the UN from France had given a handshake to Colin Powell that they understood it meant use of force and that while they may not vote for it, they certainly would not veto it.

4th You all are quoting Blix as saying it was working in his last report. Blix also pointed out that there still was not 100% compliance and theat Iraq had not yet completely moved towards disarmament.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:14 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Beefeater
Nice.. So you're negating the entire Inspection process, basically nulling any reports by the Kofi Annan PAID Hans Blix. But It's nice to see that they're launching Scud Missiles.. Ammunition they claimed they did not have.. Something tells me I'll put my money on new discoveries on munitions that the Iraqis have denied. Haven't the Iraqis threatened to use the Chemical Weapons they didn't have?.. These are questions that need to be answered.

And, don't tell me, and illegitimize any point of view from here on out that you support, that you actually believe the word of Saddam Hussien and his Regime.

It's nice to see that Factual Past Credibility, regardless of POV, means nothing.. at least in this Audience,

Beefeater
Uh, yes, I guess I am negating the entire inspection process.

The inspection process was a half-assed affair. There is no way it would have yielded any information or result that would change the mind of someone who had already taken a position on the war.

The only way it could have dissuaded the US from war is if Saddam gathered up his entire stash and destroyed it in front of the inspectors. There was no way this would ever happen, and Bush knew this.

The only way it would have convinced, say, France that war was necessary is if the inspectors acted on a tip and broke into a chemical weapons facility unannounced. There was no way this was going to happen either, and France knew this.

Hans Blix, the UN, and others were naive to think that inspections would "work" in any sense of the word, and they have been played for fools.

Bush knew full well that inspections would not yield any substantial results. His only aim was, by demonstrating patience and restraint, to garner international support for a war. He might have had more success if not for his, shall we say, less than stellar diplomatic abilities. (Rumsfeld deserves a lot of the blame too, perhaps more than Bush.)

That being said, I think that the Iraqi dictator's imprisonment and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people during his reign of terror justifies this war. But whether or not you agree with my stance of the war, my assessment of the weapons inspections is independent of my assessment of the war.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:37 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Beefeater, speedracer, and Dreadsox:

All three of you know that this war is against the UN Charta, regardless of what you may think of disarming, inspections, "being played for fools", "tainted investigation", "biasing", "irrrelevancy" et al.

You can just admit it. This war is not legal. There is no point in your interpretations. There may be reasons for and against the war, and interpretations about what Blix said, but we are not discussing about reasons here.

Read the UN Charta again. Read Art. 39 again.

What about the Security Council. The rules are very straight. If some permanent member(s) vote against war, or pre-emptive self defense, it is against this international right to attack.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:58 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Back to the topic about disarmament really working:

Leadership? Paris Is Playing a Perilous Game

By Benn Steil, Reinhard Wolf

International Herald Tribune, March 07, 2003


NEW YORK If Iraq were a game about advancing or obstructing U.S. war plans, France had a pretty good February. Sadly, though, Iraq is not a game, and, for the sake of peace and security in the Gulf and beyond, France must stop treating it like one.

Only one of us (the American) finds the case for an imminent war more compelling than the case against. Yet we are equally concerned that the French position is undermining not only the prospects for a peaceful disarming of Iraq but also the cohesiveness of the European Union, the effectiveness of NATO and the credibility of the United Nations.

Any responsible alternative to disarming Iraq by force must have either voluntary Iraqi disarmament or effective containment of its military as its centerpiece. France's memorandum to the UN Security Council, in contrast, encourages continued Iraqi noncompliance with Resolution 1441 while remaining wholly silent on the alternative of containment.

The French memorandum, backed by Germany, Russia and China, directly contradicts 1441, transferring the burden of Iraqi disarmament from Iraq to inspectors. Given the volume of deadly Iraqi VX, anthrax and nerve agent that remains unaccounted for, this plan is clearly not intended to disarm Iraq.

The plan, in fact, is meant to mark time. According to the memorandum, at least four months time, after which inspectors would be required yet again to report on their progress. As the costs to the United States of maintaining 150,000 troops in the desert through the summer and beyond would be unsustainable, they would have to be withdrawn. But at that point, all pressure on Saddam Hussein to cooperate will be off, and the burden must therefore be put wholly on the French to establish that inspections, on their own, or sanctions, which France has long wanted removed, can disarm Iraq after 12 years without ultimate success.


The only serious alternative to disarmament is containment. But containment means putting in place a threat of military action credible enough that Saddam will know that an attack against his neighbors would risk the immediate annihilation of his regime. Without thousands of Western troops on the Iraqi border, and with the prospect of yet more Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, this means France supporting the extension of nuclear deterrence to the Gulf.

Is such deterrence on the cards? We doubt it. It is therefore time for France to spell out for the world precisely how its policies can credibly lead either to Iraqi disarmament or long-term containment. If France is not forthcoming, then the world is simply obliged to conclude that there are ulterior motives behind its insistence on "peaceful solutions." Such motives would appear to be demonstrating its independence from the United States, reactivating its claim for European leadership, protecting French oil and other commercial interests in the Gulf, and placating its own Muslim population.

The costs and risks of France's current policies are enormous. First, France publicly wedded itself to the German chancellor's pacifist election strategy as a substitute for persuading its EU partners. This has led to a deep and potentially long-lasting split in the EU, compounded by alienation of the central and eastern European accession countries, which felt compelled to respond with public support for U.S. policy.

Second, France's refusal to support NATO moves to defend Turkey has provoked one of the gravest crises in NATO history, at a time when trans-Atlantic relations are already seriously strained.

Third, France is on the verge of scoring the ultimate political own-goal by pushing the United States to act outside the United Nations, which is the most important institution through which France can still constrain and direct U.S. behavior.

The current U.S. policy may prove to be the only one that addresses the issue of Iraqi disarmament directly. Although it is fraught with great costs and risks, merely obstructing it does not constitute a responsible alternative.

Peace is always a noble cause. But as such it is not yet a political strategy. True European leadership requires far more than grandstanding at the United Nations' last hurrah or proclaiming solidarity with peace rallies. It requires presenting a serious alternative whose likely consequences can be thoroughly weighed against a forceful implementation of 1441. It is time for France to offer such leadership or to step aside.

Benn Steil is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York. Reinhard Wolf is a professor of international relations at the University of Greifswald, Germany.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 11:13 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
Beefeater, speedracer, and Dreadsox:

All three of you know that this war is against the UN Charta, regardless of what you may think of disarming, inspections, "being played for fools", "tainted investigation", "biasing", "irrrelevancy" et al.

You can just admit it. This war is not legal. There is no point in your interpretations. There may be reasons for and against the war, and interpretations about what Blix said, but we are not discussing about reasons here.

Read the UN Charta again. Read Art. 39 again.

What about the Security Council. The rules are very straight. If some permanent member(s) vote against war, or pre-emptive self defense, it is against this international right to attack.
You cannot dismiss our arguments; you can only displace them. If you say that they are rendered moot by the fact that the war is not "legal", then we will bring the full force of our arguments to bear on the meaning and utility of the word "legal".

As in, "the UN's definition of `legal' has been rendered irrelevant because of (insert argument here)".
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 11:33 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


You cannot dismiss our arguments; you can only displace them. If you say that they are rendered moot by the fact that the war is not "legal", then we will bring the full force of our arguments to bear on the meaning and utility of the word "legal".

As in, "the UN has been rendered irrelevant because of (insert argument here)".
Fine, speedracer, then why is the U.S. still in the U.N.?

The administration could cancel its membership. If the U.S. doesn┤t want to play the rules, why are they still inside the U.N.?Without the U.N., the U.S. would be the only state, except of the Vatican, who is not part of the United Nations.

The Leader of the Free World could approach the Pope, and maybe Tony Blair. But I doubt that the Pope gives a shit.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 11:47 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 11:03 PM
A sort of side note to womanfish:

Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. That is from here.

Also, since the Oslo Accords, 34 resolutions were passed against Israel, so that does surpass the number passed against Iraq, but the Israeli resolutions were passed under Chapter VI rules, which do not call for the use of force in order to uphold them.

You will find varying numbers wrt how many of these resolutions Israel is in breach of. I believe that Arab media generally says it is 66, but Israel disputes some of these. Therefore the number varies, but is nonetheless significant.

-------

OK, back to regularly scheduled programming.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 03-21-2003, 11:58 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 04:03 AM
thanks anitram. But i still stick by my opinion that Iraq which is ruled by a ruthless dictator who has used WMD's on surrounding countries and on his own people is much more of a threat than Israel.

And it begs the question, if they have such a horrible track record, then why doesn't someone do something about it? The UN makes no sanctions, or as you said, threatens use of force (serious consequenses) on Israel. And if it's because of the U.S. being allies with them and would vote down such things, then it again begs the question, is the UN a relevant body.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-21-2003, 11:59 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,181
Local Time: 04:03 AM
and also, that was an awesome article posted by dreadsox. Right on in my opinion. France has such see through alterior motives, and they provide no solutions to the roadblocks that they put up to stop the process.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:02 AM   #102
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
I think the problem on the other hand Hiphop is this. Iraq was in material breach when it submitted false and incomplete documents. And they also did not fully, completely and willingly disarm. It then says that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it violated the terms, which it did. Remember France and Russia also signed this, but then did not fulfill their agreement of bringing about serious consequences. I guess serious consequences to France meant to draft a 17th resolution for Iraq to ignore. I definitely do see the other point of view though.
And you are wrong once again. When 1441 resolution was under discussion Russian Foreign Minister (not only him) Ivanov was given assurances from US and UK that they shared the common understanding: 1441 resolution does not authorise automatic use of force. That's why 1441 was voted unanimously. That's why US made efforts (token though) to get the 2nd resolution voted. Russia and France announced they would veto the 2nd resolution precisely because it was opening the way for immediate war on Iraq.
"Serious consequences" means "war"? Why don't you interpret "serious consequences" as "authorisation to use nuclear weapons" then?
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 09:28 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


And you are wrong once again. When 1441 resolution was under discussion Russian Foreign Minister (not only him) Ivanov was given assurances from US and UK that they shared the common understanding: 1441 resolution does not authorise automatic use of force. That's why 1441 was voted unanimously. That's why US made efforts (token though) to get the 2nd resolution voted. Russia and France announced they would veto the 2nd resolution precisely because it was opening the way for immediate war on Iraq.
"Serious consequences" means "war"? Why don't you interpret "serious consequences" as "authorisation to use nuclear weapons" then?
How did "nuclear weapons" enter this argument?
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 10:35 AM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 05:03 AM
You know what's interesting? How it's OK to say French and Russia have their economic motives, but it's completely wrong to say US had any motives whatsoever regarding one of the world's biggest oil sources.

Womanfish: Really? UN acting against Israel? US will block it anytime - THAT's why nothing is or can be done about it. If you're so powerful I guess you decide what goes on...

It's a fact inspectors said they need MORE time, Iraq was destroying Al Samoud misiiles, and was getting a report on VX and anthrax ready. The often mentioned pro-war people fact that threat of force wass working is actually a contra-war argument: if the threat is working, why not stick with that?

Whatever Saddam did wouldn't help him would it? If he verifybly disarmed, the country gets attacked for "regime change" argument; if he left the country, it gets attacked for "disarmament" argument.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 03-22-2003, 10:41 AM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
You know what's interesting? How it's OK to say French and Russia have their economic motives, but it's completely wrong to say US had any motives whatsoever regarding one of the world's biggest oil sources.
Ummm...I think if you look on this board....you will clearly see that there are more posts saying the US is acting for oil than the other way around. I think it is sad however, that more than 12 gulf war's of people have died in twelve years, and would continue to, because of the threat of VETO by members of the security council. Peace at the price of lives, more lives than lost in a war. That is logical.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl

It's a fact inspectors said they need MORE time, Iraq was destroying Al Samoud misiiles, and was getting a report on VX and anthrax ready. The often mentioned pro-war people fact that threat of force wass working is actually a contra-war argument: if the threat is working, why not stick with that?
I would again say, for 12 years the United States foreign policy has been dominated in that region by keeping Iraq in cheque. 9/11 happened directly because of the US's intervention in the region because of this. Maybe, had the members of the security council jointly sent a force, then it would be equitable. Instead, as is the case in many places, we are paying the price monitarily and in lives. Why should we have to do that?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ┬ę Interference.com