BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Subject: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 02:58 AM

I posed this and another question in another thread and received only one reply. It was from Carol C., but she didn't address the questions. She just referred me to an obscure Australian Web Page (perhaps not to Australians) which contained an op-ed piece by a writer I was not familiar with, and a op-ed piece by the Director of Palestinan Media Watch. Both of her refrences were articles related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and had nothing to do with Iraq.

I think other questions of importance are: (1) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? (2) Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

What were, "...this and another question in another thread..." ? As for your questions above, they may be moot rather shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:37 AM

oops ! Of course it is the question posed in the title. Too much wine and song last night. Better have at least another cup of tea before I go to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:00 AM

Doug,

You ask three questions:

1. Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Certainly if he wishes to remain in power. That was their reason for agreeing to comply with them during the negotiations that brought about the cease-fire in 1991.

Unfortunately, the Ba'athists need these weapons, or feel that they need these weapons, in order to lend credibility to threats against large ethnic factions within Iraq's borders.

Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed more effective protection, from the excesses of Saddam's regime, under "Operation Enduring Freedom" than the Shia muslems in the South. Iraq maintains a largely conscript army and has relied on conscripts from both the Kurdish and Shia communitities - the Kurds are no longer conscripted whereas the Shia's are still within Saddam's catchment capability. Many have fled to Iran, and many of the Shia men thrown off their land, dispossessed and forced to move elsewhere in Iraq have now chosen to seek asylum in Jordan and elsewhere. Saddam doesn't have the men so he has to have the weapons as a means of protection from possible internal insurrection.

From the short term good of the people of Iraq, Saddam should have complied with the resolutions. Had he done so UN sanctions would never have been imposed. They would however still have been subject to Sadam's rule of terror.


2. If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance?

If Saddam does not comply, and does not honour his obligations to the international community, as represented by the United Nations Security Council. The terms of the cease-fire have been violated. In this particular case hostilities may recommence under the terms of existing UNSC Resolutions.


3. Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them?

Ideally, No it should not. Acting responsibly the UN, in issuing its resolutions, should clearly instruct as to the course of action required to fulfil the requirements of the resolution, give a clear timetable under which such compliance shall be completed by, and finally, give a clear advance warning of the consequenses resulting from non-compliance. That warning must specifically state that enforcement by the international community use of military force is not ruled out.

Unfortunately the United Nations as a body, is not the organisation many perceive it to be. Irrespective of the ideals that brought about its creation, it has become a collection of states and governments who are represented primarily to further their own interests. And as such is seriously flawed, as is clearly demonstrated by the organisations ineffectuality, when faced with major crises that conflict with the self-interests of its member states.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM

I think other questions of importance are:

(1) If Israel does not comply with the U. N. Resolutions it has been in violation of for years, what should the U. N. do to bring it into compliance?

(2) Should the U.S. be allowed to violate agreements it made when it joined the U.N. without consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Greg F

Both your questions are covered in other threads

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

how many angels can you shove up the a** of the pope? and are they Christian angels, Buddist angels or Muslim angels?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM

To the title question: Yes, he should have to avoid war. Now, the last two chances are (1) an overthrow of the regime from within and (2) Saddam choosing the exile option at the last possible moment.

I skip the second question as too difficult for me.

A big YES to question 3 (numbered (2) in the first post). Close to 99 % of all UN resolutions do not even mention means to enforce them. Like with individual people, they simply start by saying "You shouldn't do that" and so on. Agreement expressed in more or less strong words is their only weapon, in most cases.

Article 94

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

Well, a much stronger UN might consider enforcing that article.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:30 AM

Thanks, Teribus and Wolfgang. Interesting replies, both of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:59 AM

Well yes, Saddam should comply with the resolutions. So should the US so should Israel. But since those states only have to comply with the resolutions with with they agree. Why single out Iraq?
(1) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? Obviously they should enforce these resolutions against Iraq with their usual steadfast vigor.
(2) Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them? Why should they stop now?


Teribus - PM
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Greg F

Both your questions are covered in other threads

as is Teribus's credibility. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM

moot point, CBC has just announced that Colon Powell has stated that the US, Britain and Spain will no longer try for a UN resolution regarding Iraq as the cannot get support, therefore they will act on there own, as allowed by international law. Just curious, but what to what International Law is Colin Powell referring?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM

JtS,

As I've said elsewhere - your priceless:

"If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance?

Obviously they should enforce these resolutions against Iraq with their usual steadfast vigor."

Steadfast vigour - Eh?? Bloody priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM

Teribus, thank you for making my point. Perhaps you should get your solictor to explain irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:16 PM

I posed this and another question in another thread and received only one reply. It was from Carol C., but she didn't address the questions...

DougR, you're really getting vicious these days. Is it not enough fiber in your diet or do you need to go see a doctor? (Or are you just trying to goad JtS into coming after you?)

Here is the thread in question, and the posts DougR refers to in them, so people can judge for themselves whether or not DougR's assesment of my responses is legitimate or just a big ole poke with a sharp stick.

No more human shields in Iraq

DougR:

Do any of you anti-Bush policy folks believe Saddam should abide by U.N. Resolutions?

Do any of you (same people)believe that the U.N. should enforce the Resolutions it imposes? If so, how should they do that if a country refuses to comply?

Me:

I think everybody should abide by UN resolutions. And I think the UN should diligently enforce those resolutions. They can start with the country that has violated the most resolutions for the longest period of time. Can you guess which country that would be, DougR?

DougR:

I know WHO you will say it is Carol C: Would you propose waging war against US?

Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised.

How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?

Me:

Nope, not US, DougR.

(quoting DougR) "How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?"

Well, it would help if some countries were consistant in their zeal for enforcing UN resolutions. In this case, the US is one of the countries I'm talking about but not the only one. Some countries (such as the US) see the UN as only being obligated to enforce those resolutions that they, themselves, want enforced, and practice obstructionist tactics when the UN tries to enforce resolutions that they (countries like the US) don't like. So a little less hypocracy (actually, not a little, a LOT less hypocracy) by countries like the US would go a long way to help.

And the US could lose the mindset that UN resolutions can be enforced by violating the UN charter.

(quoting DougR)"Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised."

Oh, Dougie!! I'm cut to the quick!!!

Here's a couple of hints for you in case you can't figure it out for yourself:

scroll down to number 6 in this page (about 2/3 of the way down)

The Charlotte Observer

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:16 PM

where can I get a copy of International Law regarding invasion of another country?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM

So far as I can see the inspectyion adn disarmament process was going ahead, and there was no reason to stop it at thsi stage and go to war.

However there is every mreason to think that at all stages Bush had this war scheduled for as soon as the military forces were in place, amnd that is now.

The nightmare for him would have been that Saddam would have been able to demonstrate that he had complied with the requirements, and I think that was probably the main factor in ruling out any further delays.

Maybe we'll now see whether Saddam actually has any Weapons of Mass Destruction at his disposal? If he doesn't unleash them do you think Bush and Blair will apologise? I imagine what would happen would be that they'd explain how their initial bombardment just happened to destroy them...

I suppose if there was a resolution becfore the Security Council condemning this attack as a breach of the United Nations Charter, which it clearly is, when the US and UK vetoed it, that would be what they call a reasonable use of the veto. Like all the many many previous times they've vetoed resolutions that woudl otherwise have been carried. (Notably in regard to Israel.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:40 PM

Too late, the little bastard is going to do what he's had his black heart set on from day one; he never gave a flying fuck what the UN did or did not sanction, nor the rest of the international community.

Mets, this looks like a good place to start, a lot of reading, but should have an answer somewhere: Questia.com.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:51 PM

Maybe we'll now see whether Saddam actually has any Weapons of Mass Destruction at his disposal? If he doesn't unleash them do you think Bush and Blair will apologise?

Problem is, it isn't necessary for the WMDs to be in Iraq now for the US and UK to "find" them there, or even for them to get "used" there. Remember, the US and UK have already set themselves up to do pretty much anything they want to by floating rumours that Iraqi soldiers have obtained US and UK military uniforms. So no matter what the US and UK do there, they can blame it all on Saddam's forces.

Metchosin, here's Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression"

Charter of the United Nations

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM

I think it's very brave of CarolC and Jack The Sailor to take their stands in defence of Saadam and Arafat, and against Bush, here in America.

Of course, here in America, we have the right to dissent and freedom of speech.

If they were Iraqis or Palestinians in the Middle East, and taking similar stands against Saadam and Arafat, or defence of Bush, they would have been executed sumarily.

I thank God that I'm an American and I pray for the safe return of our forces and the liberation of the Iraqis from a dictator who has killed more than 1,500,000 of his own people since seizing power.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:08 PM

Here's an interesting article from the CBC. This article does a much better job of describing how I see things than the GUEST of 17 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM.

Reality Check: A New American Century

I'm not pro-Saddam or Arafat. I'm anti US as the dictator of a "benevolent global hegemony" (actual words of William Krystol, advisor to President Bush), and pro human rights.

of course, here in America, we have the right to dissent and freedom of speech.

Not for long, if the neo-Conservatives of this "Project for a New American Century" continue on the path they're taking.

I pray for the...liberation of the Iraqis from a dictator who has killed more than 1,500,000 of his own people since seizing power.

So are you for human rights, or against them, GUEST? You can't be both. You can only be for them, or against them. If you're for human rights, you are for human rights for all humans. Not just Americans and Israelis, and those being oppressed by Saddam Hussien. If you're not for the rights of all humans, then you're not for human rights. If you don't support basic human rights for all people of the world, then all you are is one of the people of privelege, seeking to protect that privelege.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM

It would seem that international law are with Bush and Blair.

Articles 40 and 51 are the only ones that refer directly to this issue. Both of these support the position of the United States and Britain.


from Article 40
Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.

The actions of the Secuity Council do not in any way prejudice The USA's and Britain's right to engage Iraq


from Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

The Iraqi ground defenses have repeated fired upon Allied aircraft patrolling the "no fly zones" This can certainly be interpreted as an attack on the militaries of these countries.

All of the language of the charter refers to what the Security Council may do. The only way that USA and Britian would be defying the UN charter would be if the Security council were to sanction them. But that would be impossible because both governments have veto power. I'm not saying that what they are doing in Iraq is right. But this part of the UN charter certainly doesn't say that it is legally wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:19 PM

I'm very happy that such like minded people as CarolC and Jack The Sailor have found their true love.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:10 PM

JtS-Article 40 means that the UN will not, for example, call upon India to relinquish its claims to Kashmir to avoid conflict with Pakistan, even as a temporary measure. Neither the U.S. nor Britain have any "right to engage Iraq" that a cease-fire order would compromise. Article 51 is meant to allow countries to engage in actual self-defense. When occupying forces are given warning shots, that in no way is a threat to the national security of the occupiers, and is thus not a valid case of self-defense. Until the UN declares the cease-fire invalid, the U.S. and U.K. cannot resume offensive operations legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

A country's rights could only pre prejudiced if it it has those rights in the first place, Having signed up not to make war except in line with the Charter of the United Nations means that a country has no right to make war except in consistence with that charter's provisions.

Shooting at hostile aircraft flying over your country cannot constitute a hostile attack on the country carrying out those overflights. The no-fly zones do not actually appear to have any legal status.

An ingenious argument that is, which Jack the Sailor makes about an act not being illegal unless the Security Council votes that it is, which would means that nothing that a country prepared to use its veto can ever be illegal.

I don't actually thing it stands up. A country ready to use its veto can of course stop the UN doing anything about it, but that's always been the case. However the body which has the right to determine the legality of a country's actions wouldn't be the Security Council, it'd be the International Court, or in certain cases the International War Crimes Tribunal.

You may recall that the International Court was able to determine that when the USA mined waters off Nicaragua some years ago, it was acting illegally. Of course the USA didn't take any notice of the judgement, but that is another matter. (The term "rogue state" is perhaps relevant here.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

It is really quite clear.

Charter of the United Nations
Chapter VII

Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

There is no language declaring any act to be "illegal" unless the Security council says it is.

Forum Lurker, respectfully, if the Those articles "Meant" to say those things it would. The words "armed attack" are used, the words "national security" are not.

I believe that "Nothing shall impair", means nothing shall impair. It does not mean nothing except the absence of oof a UN declaration shall impair.

If you have documents other than these that indicate the "unlawful activity" of the US and Britian. I would love to see them, but this document does not even address the issue of what is not allowed except to say that the Security council can pass resolutions against goverments doing things which it doesn't like and back up these resolutions with sanctions up to and including military force. Unless the Security Council explicitly declares US and British actions to be "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" then these articles have no relevance to those actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:54 PM

MacGrath I believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head "means that nothing that a country prepared to use its veto (does) can ever be illegal." I believe that it means exactly that. To my knowledge no permanent member of the security has ever signed away the right to wage war as it sees fit. That is precisely why the permanent members have veto power.


This, I believe, is an assumption on your part. "Having signed up not to make war except in line with the Charter of the United Nations "
can you show me exactly what traety this is and who the signatories are. I do not believe such a document exists. I would actually be delighted if someone were to prove me wrong. I'm certainly against this war as it is being waged. I believe it sets a very very bad precident. But I do not think that it violates any "International law" which either the US or Britain recognize.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:59 PM

Forum Lurker, that is exactly what Saddam has been counting on; that the US would abide by the rules that he so easily ignores. He has spent 12 years flouting the agreement that he signed while he tried to rebuild his military machine with the help of, among others, the French.
So I guess that all the UN lovers want everyone to wait and continue to try the inspections and "diplomacy" that has worked so well since 1991. In the meantime, Saddam continues to work on his military hardware. I guess that when he is finally able to use nuclear blackmail to enforce his control of the whole Middle East the cry will go up for a UN resolution condemning his actions.
And he will give that resolution the same careful consideration that he has given the 16 or 17 that have been passed since the Gulf War.
And I am sure that someone will figure out a way to balme the whole thing on the US,the Republicans, and George Bush. Don't forget folks, you heard it here first.
BTW, I think the UN should enforce the resolutions that it has voted against Israel with the same diligence that it has enforced the resolutions against Iraq or any other country.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM

PEACE FOR OUR TIME
by Alistair Cooke, BBC

"I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.

"Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.

"There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

"This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 with the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. "Oh, dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."

"During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me -- every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

"Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

"The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease". In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

"At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword. After all, the Rhineland was what it said it was: a part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it? Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

"I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

"The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

"In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

"The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The League didn't have any shot to fire.

"But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons - the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace.

"But after the Rhineland, the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanised army and superior air force. But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

"Still, for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the saviour.

"Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:57 PM

In reality, GUEST, the current situation is going to have leaders of every poe-dunk third world country scambling for a nuke! Seems that "nukes" is all that the "super Power" respects. Yeah, sure, there will be a mad scramble to fix thousands of years worth of world problems by the Super Power but in doing so, it will exhaust it's own resources: something that is now resembling the light (the train) in the tunnel... Hmmmmm? What to do?

Well, Einstien said that "Insanity is repeating a behavior expecting different results." Maybe it's time, after thousands of years of men killing each other, that mankind makes a stand that it's time to move on. Yeah, the planet is too small and tribalized for the "luxary" of war!

This is what CarolC and Jacl the Sailor and Larry and lots of us have been saying. I know that it is a foriegn concept by reading the usual cast of naysayers but ya' got to start somewhere. Why not under out watch. Well, soon as we get the present Idiot in Chief retired, that is...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:33 AM

I get the impression lately that G.W. is asking Iraq not merely to disarm its alleged weapons of "mass destruction" (which may very well not even exist) but to disarm, period...completely disarm his nation, in other words.

It's hard to figure why any country would be willing to do that with 250,000 hostile troops and the World's biggest military machine poised on its borders, with 2/3's of its airspace violated on a daily basis by hostile aircraft, and with direct attacks upon its ground installations having been conducted on a regular basis for the last 13 years.

It's incomprehensible that Iraq or anyone else would be willing to unilaterally disarm under such circumstances, unless they wished to simply surrender themselves unconditionally to a foreign occupying army without raising a hand in their own defence.

Amazing newspeak from Big Brother in the White House is what I call it. Truly amazing. What is more amazing is how few Americans are willing to recognize this kind of Nazi thug blackmail and arrogance for what it truly is.

There is anger out there in the World now. Tremendous anger. And disgust. I now understand how my father felt about the German Reich in 1939 to '45, after they had lied and bullied their way into Austria and Czechoslovakia, after they had smashed up small countries like Denmark, Holland, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Belgium, after they had violated and scorned every principle of diplomacy and common moral conduct...and with an utterly breathless sense of their own moral superiority! I understand perfectly how he felt. He was ready to do anything to stop them.

Saddam is a very nasty dictator, but that is all to the convenience of the scoundrels who are presently running US national policy. He is a godsend to them, a propagandist's dream. He is the excuse for advancing their desired world program to the next logical step.

And this war is not being waged to free anyone, it's being waged to secure oil and strategic interests in the Middle East and in the whole World, to the detriment of all nations other than the USA, Israel and the U.K.

And the whole World knows it (except behind the media walls of America).

There is indeed an Axis of Evil in this world, but it's not the one Bush has referred to in his speeches. Those are just his convenient scapegoats of the moment, his sacrificial goats waiting for the slaughter.

In the first Gulf War over 1,000 Iraquis died for each American soldier killed.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:11 AM

JtS-If the U.S. attacks Iraq, it violates the terms of the cease-fire. Until the UN declares the cease-fire broken or invalidated, it is still in effect FOR BOTH SIDES. You can't honestly believe that it constitutes self-defense for an occupier to assault and dismantle the government of an occupied country for warning shots which have never, in twelve years, threatened to cause harm to USAF equipment, much less soldiers.

Troll-No evidence has yet been presented, even on the brink of war, that Saddam has nuclear weapons. The United States has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; Iraq has not. As far as Israel is concerned (wherever that topic sprang up from), the UN has enforced all of its resolutions equally: it spends no more effort on the 1948 declaration of Israeli sovereignty than it does on its subsequent resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:22 AM

Bush is also, of course, suggesting that Saddam flee the country.

Well, it would be just ducky if he did (and VERY inconvenient for America's overall strategy in the region!), but I seriously doubt that he will.

After all, let's just put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose that a tremendously powerful alliance of foreign powers had been bombing the USA for the last ten years or so, applying crippling sanctions, and enforcing no-fly zones over all of the Northeast, the Mid-West, California, Texas, and the Mississippi regions (kindly allowing the USA to continue flying planes out of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington, and a few other isolated states here and there).

Suppose further that the alliance had demanded that the USA "immediately" disarm. I mean in a matter of days. Let's say...in 48 hours.

Or alternately...the alliance demands that Bush & Cheney & Powell within the next 48 hours should flee the country to some unnamed destination, thus allowing regime change, said regime change to be accomplished by the foreign alliance with immediate cooperation on the part of the American people. This would be accompanied, of course, by the "liberation" of the American people from their tyrranical rulers by the Alliance.

Well? Watcha gonna do, America?

Would you agree to such terms...or would you fight?

Ask yourself. It's that simple.

Oh, but I forgot...you're the "good guys", right? And international alliances never form against good guys, do they? Heavens, no!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 02:37 AM

Forum Worker, you are speaking of how things should be our how you would like them to be. There is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations Chapter VII which requires a resolution to end the ceasefire. I spoke of the rules which were posted. In the absence of other rules or laws, I stand by my previous statement.

Hawk, If Saddam flees then The US and Britain will still insist that they oversee the transitional government and the destruction of weapons facilities. It's a good thing there isn't a megapower trying to disarm the USA. It would really put a crimp in their plans to force peace on the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

The first tiny bit of good news in these bad news times came just on my ticker:

Saddam has declared he'd never go into exile.

Now bearing in mind that the last three times Saddam has declared he would never... each time he has given in hours before a deadline that brings me a little hope that he is a bit saner than our last dictator was.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM

To return to DougR's perfectly valid questions:

1) Should Saddam comply with {UN} resolutions? Yes.

2) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? IMHO, when and if peaceful means are exhausted, force compliance.

3) Should the U. N. issue resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them? No.

Also IMHO, Saddam has no intention of ever complying with any resolutions, the UN, or at least some members of it, has no intention of ever allowing a decision of whether or not peaceful means are exhausted, and none of this has anything to do with Dubya's penis envy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

LH-I'd support the idea of regime change. No one they installed could be more oppressive AND more incompetent than Dubya, and I'd rather have the gain in one area or another.

JtS-look at the ceasefire text. I don't recall it saying that the U.S. could resume hostilities whenever it wanted, and the basic idea of a cease-fire is that BOTH sides stop. If you want to argue that because the cease-fire doesn't explicitly deny America the right to resume hostilities at any time, we reserve that right, go ahead, but you'll be missing the point even more than you already are.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:41 AM

Wolfgang, I hope that you are right. Thanks for posting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:55 AM

Lurker, the cease-fire was based on the premise that Saddam -who had LOST THE WAR- would disarm as he promised to do. The US and its allies set the conditions, not Saddam. We did it so that no more Iraqis would have to die but implicit in the cease-fire agreement is the fact that IF Saddam did not comply with ALL the terms, the shooting could and would start again.
I suppose that the consequences of non-compliance should have been spelled out but I prefer to believe that it was an oversight instead of a deliberate omission. Remember, the document was put together fairly quickly and it is probable that everyone expected Saddam to comply.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:59 AM

However, the ceasefire resolution did not give the US the authority to decide what should be done about a breach of ceasefire. That should be decided by the UN. There was no use of the trigger term in that resolution. Back to the same argument again. The US is not the UN, it does not have the right to decide what should be done in isolation of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:55 AM

If Saddam Hussein gives even an inkling of a flying flip about his country, he'll abide by the resolutions.

How many of you would give someone 12 years to keep their word?

Go find some Kurdish refugees and ask them what they think. There is a large group of them here in Nashville who were ready for the Can of Whoopass to be unleashed a LOOOOOONG time ago. These are some of the people who had to endure Saddam's atrocities. Sure, you go tell them we need to negotiate some more, and see what you get.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:08 PM

So thank you, Artbrooks, for attempting to redirect the conversation to the subjects of this thread.

It is mightly difficult to get Bobert & Company to focus on directly asked questions. They prefer to ramble on and re-type the same old stuff they have been typing in multiple threads. How about it, Bobert? Will you address the questions this thread asks? kat? gnu?

Carol C feels she has addressed the questions. She says the U. N. should enforce resolutions imposed on all countries. I agree with that. What she fails to address, though, is HOW they should be enforced if the countries fail to comply. Carol?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:18 PM

DougR, the UN can only do what the member nations allow it to do. So my answer was very much on point. The US is one of the most obstructionist of the member nations in the UN, using its veto power in ways that cripple the UN's ability to do what is needed. I find myself wondering what would happen if none of the UN member nations had veto power. I don't know enough about the ramifications of such a change to really have a solid opinion on it, but I do wonder about it.

As far as specific strategies to force compliance, it would seem to me that each situation would necessitate a different approach. I seriously doubt that there can be a "one size fits all" approach to enforcing resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:12 PM

Kim C- the Kurds are safe from Saddam for the moment, but they're worried about the Turks, who may gain control of northern Iraq (where the Kurdish population is) in the event of war, and have just as bad a human rights record as Saddam where it involves the Kurds.

artbrooks-I agree, but the UN lacks the ability to enforce resolutions unless the entire security council likes the idea. I think CarolC's idea has some merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:15 PM

Actually, the United Nations should function the way any national or town assembly does, I think. It is not very sensible to allow any one permanent member of the Security Council to veto a resolution it doesn't like, while denying that privilege to all the other smaller countries. Ideally, no one should have a veto. To allow big countries to veto and small countries not to is undemocratic, and was done in order to maintain the rule of the powerful few over the rest of the nations. To allow one player to veto a resolution is foolish. It's fine for someone to vote against a resolution or abstain, but why should they be allowed to veto it?

If they don't like it, they can always get mad and walk out...and that's been done from time to time.

If voting was instead done in the General Assembly, and if the resolution required the assent of 75% of all the member nations to pass, that would be a far more democratic system, worthy of respect in the World.

It would also utterly screw the original plan the USA and its main allies after WWII had in mind when they set up the U.N.

Accordingly, you will not see it happen.

The U.N., like the present USA is a system "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich". Not quite what they taught you in American school, is it? Too bad. Jefferson would not be pleased if he saw what has happened since 1776.

I agree with Carol. No nation should have veto power. If that were the case, the French would not have needed to threaten a veto, because the resolution would have failed in any case if brought to a vote. Knowing this, America would have withdrawn it, just as they have done anyway, veto or not veto. That resolution was a dead duck.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:56 PM

Forum Lurker, you said, to me "but you'll be missing the point even more than you already are." It is you who are missing the point

Iraq has violated the ceasfire may times, both by failing to disarm and by talking pot shots at allied aircraft. One side cannot be bound by a ceasfire once the other has broken it. That's pretty simple and since there is no law stating other wise and there are no articles about broken cease fires other then the security council having the the option to apply additional pressure, and since there is specific language saying that "Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned." Then vis a vis the afforementioned section of the UN Charter the United States and Britain are not breaking "International Law".

If you think that they are breaking international law, go and arrest them. You will find that the permanent members of the UN security council are the only "International Law" that matters. When I made that point it wasn't to open a discussion on "the basic idea of a ceasefire" or anything like that. I was simply looking at what was written in Chapter VII of the UN charter. Please do not counter those words by making things up, assuming things not written, or saying how you would like things to be.   

I'm tired of arguing the same points again and again. Until and unless someone finds other applicable treatys or statutes, I'm done talking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:20 PM

Jack - You say..."Iraq has violated the ceasefire many times, both by failing to disarm and by talking pot shots at allied aircraft."

My friend, what were those aircraft doing? They were bombing Iraqui territory. They have been doing so for quite some time with righteous zeal, and they dropped a cumulative total of about 20 million pounds of explosives on Iraq between Dec 98 and Sep 99! (this was not considered worthy of being called a "war" by the press, however...)

What friggin' country would NOT shoot at foreign aircraft under such conditions??? I sure as hell would have taken "pot shots" at them if I was Iraqui! You bet I would!

And what friggin' country would disarm itself under such conditions?

What ceasefire? Britain and the USA have been fighting a limited and undeclared war on Iraq ever since the Gulf War, by one means or another.

My God...!

They couldn't find Osama (who HAS attacked the USA), and they couldn't just stand around looking ineffectual before the American public and the world, so they they are going after Iraq instead, when Iraq has NOT attacked them, so they can look victorious and "in control" and at the same time can steal the 2nd largest oil reserves in the World from a crippled and impoverished country under a vicious dictator they once funded and armed so he could kill Iranians and Kurds for the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:20 PM

When the UN was forming, it was thought to be desirable to have the largest powers at the table. Neither the UK, the US, the USSR nor France would have participated without veto power. None would have or will participate if a vote of the general assembly were binding upon them. The UN is mechanism for dispute resolution, not a world government. The UN is just a place where countries can talk and make deals.

Should Trinidad have exactly the same voice as China? Should ten little countries in the Carribean have ten times the voice that Britain does? Who's army would enforce a resolution against a Nato power, China or Russia without starting world war three? UN permission is desirable but not required. Should all resolutions be enforced? I would say actually no. Most resolutions are a statement of what the UN wants, not what it is prepared to or able to enforce. Israel/Palestine is a mess, a mess made by Britain and endorced by the UN. Make no mistake, the UN would have never created Israel if Britian had been against it. The UN is not equipped to clean up that mess, the only country with the means to do so is the US. UN resolutions don't mean squat if they aren't backed by real governments with real militaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM

Little Hawk, they agreed to those terms as a condition of the Cease fire. Iraq breaks the ceasefire, the ceasfire is over. US and Brit forces were there enforcing the ceasefire. I think, for the sake of politics, they showed restraint. Yes they have been at war since 1991. Yes the war was undeclared, but the US congress and the UN gave George Bush permission to start it. I agree that dropping bombs is a bad thing to do but so is trying to make Nuclear weapons when you agreed not to.

This isn't about Osama. It has no direct connection to Al Qaeda. its about trying to prevent a nuclear bomb from detonating in New York harbour five ten twenty or fifty years from now. I don't think it will work. I'm worried that they'll do more damage then they will prevent, but that damage will, for the most part, not be in the USA. Are they right or are they wrong? I don't know, but that is what I believe this war is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

Well said Jack!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:45 PM

Okay, Jack, fair enough. I understand what you believe, and it's simply different from what I believe in certain respects.

I wonder if you get a chance, maybe you could read a very interesting book called "Bush's Brain", by two journalists from Texas, both of whom know Bush going way back, and evidently consider him a rather likeable guy.

If you do, give special attention to the last couple of chapters in the book "General Rove" and "The Baghdad Road" for some powerful insights into when and how and why Bush decided to go after Iraq.

The authors know far more about George Bush than you or I do, they know him personally, and they do not demonize him at all, but they do see some serious problems with his foreign and domestic policies.

I hope you do get to read it.

Sleep well.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:02 AM

Excellent debating here.....good points back and forth.......all of which forces me to ask, does anyone actually believe that complying with sanctions has had anything at all to do with this upcoming war? Saddam could have handed over everything including three H-Bombs and his left nut and it would not have mattered one iota. This is about power, pure and simple.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:26 AM

Catspaw49

I keep learning more and more about this, My opinion may be change as I learn more.

Right now I firmly believe that if the USA could be absoultely sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction then the troops would come home. I believe that the administration is secretly quite relieved that Iraq did not do more to comply because if they had, support from the American people would be jeopardized.

As it stands today, they can accomplish quite a bit of their agenda. By showing the world that they are this willing to spend such a huge amount of treasure and by risking so many US lives, they get
leverage when they deal with all of the other countries which are sources of instability. It allows them to comb every inch of the country to find the weapons and weapons programs which the Iraqis and this way, the US can be sure that they got them all.

It allow them, they think, to do some PR and buy goodwill in the Arab world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:59 AM

Jack, I really don't know how much goodwill the US will garner from this operation. Remember that Turkey is the only Moslem country in the region that is a democracy. If the US can set up a viable democratic government in Iraq, it will show the common people in the other countries that there is another way besides the rule of "royal" families.
The current rulers are not going to be happy with that. The saudis support us right now because they are running a deficite that is greater than their GNP. They count on the US for help. The small countries like Kuwait and Qtar count on the US to protect them from their neighbors. I don't think they love us all that much.
I could be wrong and I hope that you are right.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 01:18 AM

I don't think they are looking for goodwill from the despots. I think the long term goal is the whole middle east.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:01 AM

Troll, your idea of the US "setting up a democracy" in Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter, has about as much chance as a snowball in hell. Democracy is not a suitcase. The best the US can hope for is to put in another dictator and be satisfied that at least he is your son of a bitch, rather than his own. I wish it wasn't so…but…

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:33 AM

For that matter take a look at Afghanistan, now and see how much the US has NOT followed through as promised.

Spaw, once again, I am posting "Ditto, what Spaw said.":-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM

"We've got too much money; we're looking for toys
Guns will be guns, and boys will be boys
But we'll gladly pay for all we've destroyed
"Cause we're the cops of the world, boys
We're the cops of the world."
       -Phil Ochs

But no longer, apparently. Now the US is going to have Iraq pay for the destruction & havoc it creates.

Once again: Stand Tall, America!
========

Iraqi Oil Money Slated to Pay for Relief

By DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:41 a.m., Wednesday, March 19, 2003

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States and Britain are drafting a plan to use Iraqi oil proceeds in a $40 billion U.N.-controlled account to pay for humanitarian relief during a war, The Associated Press has learned.

The plan would ease Washington and London's financial responsibilities for caring for the millions of Iraqis likely to be affected by the fighting...
FULL STORY HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:54 AM

ah! the "Food For Oil Account"?

CBC Radio just announced that Bush has stated that the US will still invade Iraq even if Saddam flees.

No surprise either that Britain and the US won't go through the UN regarding their attack, but they want to use it for the clean up. And I will expect that the usual contingent will whinge again about how expensive the UN is.

And, as usual, NGO's will also be expected to try to put shattered lives back together and deliver relief. Care Canada is having a devil of a time in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:44 PM

I suppose it's moot at this point, but I was surprised when Bush on 3/17 DIDN'T say that the assault takes place in the absence of disarmament, regardless of whether Saddam stays or leaves. Prior to 3/17, I heard Powell and one other official state that very clearly.

So the news you heard may be from a Bush quote that preceded 3/17.

The point is interesting in a legal or philospohical sense, as it directly relates to the motivation and justification for military intervention. On the surface, it could be interpreted as "I don't give a crap about the weapons, I want regime change." However, Saddam simply leaving certainly leaves questions about who's in charge the next day. What if Saddam should leave, with a civil war as the immediate result?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:26 PM

What Spaw said, with this addition: Saddam could even add his right nut to the list, and it would make no difference...the USA would attack anyway.

Needless to say, Saddam is not willing to give up his family jewels at this point.

If Saddam dies in the defence of Iraq, America will have given the Muslim World an unkillable martyr who will haunt the USA for at least a generation and inspire legions of suicide attackers and terrorists.

Bin Laden is no doubt delighted, as he could hardly have wished for anything more perfect than this, from the point of view of Al Queda. He hates Saddam, he hates the Ba'ath Party (for their anti-religious stand), and he has longed for the fall of Saddam from power, as he has longed to create a holy war between the USA and the entire Muslim world.

Now Bush is giving Al Queda exactly what they want, on a platter.

I wonder if Karl Rove (Bush's chief strategist behind the scenes) realizes that? I wonder if he cares? Probably not. He's never shown before that he cared about people's lives. Never once.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:26 PM

Why is this situation any different from what went on in 1998 under Bill Clinton? Even he said then, that Saddam had used up his nine lives.

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:49 PM

its not KimC, please note that members of both US political parties signed the neo"Manifest Destinty" document, The New American Century.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:16 PM

Why does the conventional wisdom seem to think that Democracy will not work in Afghanistan or Iraq Are the Afghans or the Iraqis somehow inferior races that can't handle being free?
Or is the real reason that some people would rather see entire countries live under brutal dictatorships than see Bush and the Republicans succeed. How would you feel about it if the UN were running the whole show? Would that be better?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 07:12 PM

OK Metchosin - so why is the current administration being vilified for going back to finish something the previous administration started? That's what I don't get. It seems like, it was OK for Clinton, but it's not OK for Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:34 PM

Troll-It's the same reason why democracy is struggling in Russia: they've lived under dictators for a long time, and it's a hard tradition to break. The idea of an occupier creating democracy seems kind of contradictory, because if it starts going wrong, you can either step in, destroying autonomy, or let them make their mistakes, destroying democracy. Either way, it's no good. Afghanistan may be worse, because it suffered from warlordism rather than a single tyrant. That doesn't mean it will be easy to set up the apparatus of democracy in Iraq, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:53 PM

But they are breaking the tradition, F.L. and that's the important thing. Even if it doesn't work, they at least deserve a chance to try for it.
The Japanese were less than 100 years out of Feudalism at the end of WWII and they learned democracy as did the Germany. The Turks taught it to themselves after the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire which was about as autocratic as it gets.
What Afghanistan and Iraaq end up with will not be American-style democracy but something that is uniquely theirs. It's up to us to see that they get the chance.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:11 PM

Troll-I didn't say it couldn't happen, just that it would be a long, hard road. German democracy came into existence only after some of the worst trials-and-errors in human history. I hope that Iraq and Afghanistan will do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

And now Mr. Hussein's only goal is to die. To be martyred - well the United States and Britain are going to assist that process.

Spaw - you have no clue what would have occurred had Saddam complied with the resolution. You can't read minds any better than anyone else. You don't "know" anything because, like the rest of us, you sit on the speculative spatula of life.

And for Doug - Yes he should have complied and yes the damn UN should have enforced it. And as Jack so eloquently pointed out, with proof I might add, that the US and Britain are well within their rights to wage war on Iraq. Very good debate Jack - my hat's off to you.

And the UN should not pass resolutions it has no intention of following through on. My personal opinion is that the UN is out of date, step and time. Good idea - just not quite ready for prime time.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:22 AM

Moot point now........

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 12:33 AM

Troll: interesting question you asked, "would you prefer the U.N. were running the whole show." I'd venture to guess that most of our liberal friends here would answer a resounding, YES!

I, of course, believe that would be disastrous.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:46 AM

If the UN were what is was intended to be, an effective and unified international body, it wouldn't need to invade, because it would have prevented both human rights abuses and weapons production. The UN being an ineffectual, divided, and utterly powerless institution, if it were running things, there would be nothing to run. Either way, it means no war, which I would prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:22 PM

Troll, I don't doubt that you are a nationalist and have pride in you nation's accomplishments. There are many democratic nations in the world whose citizens are justifiably proud of their accomplishments.

However, when it comes to the US's self appointment as sole judge, jury and police of the entire world, dismissing the worldview of other nations in the process and without international checks and balances, in order to expand and protect American interests, you are a dangerous force indeed. In fact, IMO, you undermine the very fundamental principals of democracy itself. Adolf Hitler called this the New World Order and this was one of the reasons for the formation of the United Nations in the first place. How far the US has drifted from its original ideals.

The UN is indeed cumbersome and fraught with problems, as are most democratic institutions, but it was an American dream at one time too.

If the UN has strayed from the hope and promise of its inception, part of the blame lies squarely at the feet of the US and its willingness to collect its marbles and go home, when UN decisions do not favour American Interests.

America's ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, knew exactly what was going on in Rwanda but blocked the Security Council from deploying an effective UN force because it had lost 18 U.S. soldiers in Somalia five months earlier and didn't want to become embroiled in Africa again. And as has been pointed out, on numerous occasions, the Iraqi regime is not the only one in breach of UN resolutions.

No Troll, it never occurred to me that pointing out that democracy is a long drawn out process, would infer somehow that people who do not live in a democracy are somehow inferior. As I reiterated before, democracy is not a suitcase nor a MacDonalds' franchise, for that matter.

You can't expect to come rolling into a country in a tank, after bombing that country's infrastructure and people to hell, then hand the inhabitants a pencil to mark a ballot and expect them to believe you have offered them a better way. Unlike Japan, which most hold as an example of successful inception of Democracy at the point of a gun, Iraq and Afghanistan are neither religiously nor ethnically, highly organized, homogeneous societies.

Perhaps you should revisit The Ugly American in which Brando plays a smug reporter turned arrogant ambassador. At the end of the film, after Brando's cocksure attitude causes one disaster after another, Stewart Stern, the screenwriter, through Brando states "I can't preach the American heritage and expect to be believed if I act out of impatience or sacrifice my principles to expediency. I've learned that the only time we're hated is when we stop trying to be what we started out to be, 200 years ago. And I'm not blaming my country. I'm blaming the indifference that some of us show to its promises."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 03:13 PM

KimC, why do you assume I am vilifying one American administration over another? Given the lapse of time, by your reasoning, why not reenter Vietnam?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:41 PM

Great post, Metchosin.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 07:41 PM

Kim - I was tremendously opposed to Clinton's attacks on Iraq and various other small countries. He had the gall to bomb a pharmaceutical factory in Africa. This is not a partisan situation at all as far as I'm concerned. I regard both the Democrats and the Republicans as servants of the same game plan.

The only difference I can see is that the present administration has considerably poorer judgement in diplomacy than Clinton's and more of a tendency to flirt with real disaster. That makes them more dangerous than Bill Clinton was, but no less immoral.

You are the one who's reacting on a partisan basis, I think, so take a look at that and analyze your own motives.

troll - What did you mean by "the whole show"?

(How would you feel about it if the UN were running the whole show? Would that be better?)

Explain it, and then I'll tell you if I think that would be better. :-)

I certainly think it would be better if the USA would respect the opinions of a majority of other countries around the world before it launches pre-emptive (ha!) attacks on people. Putin's comments on the situation have been accurate, appropriate, and very much to the point. The USA is breaking international law, scorning the community of nations, launching an unjustified war, and telling lies on a regular basis to justify itself while it commits naked aggression on another opponent which it imagines it can easily destroy with little loss and much gain. Putin knows it. The World knows it. The World, however, is not strong enough yet to confront the USA directly (and they know it), so they will swallow their disgust, bide their time, and prepare...just as they did with Germany in the late 30's.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

By "the whole show" I meant the world.
I was unaware that Albright had blocked effective UN aid to Rwanda but I can understand it. After all, the US would be expected to provide the bulk of the supplies and men. Clinton had enough on his plate at that time. Still, it was pretty cynical of his administration.
BTW, L.H., I posted this on another thread but I think it bears repeating.
Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:58 PM

Troll- you're forgetting that 678 also calls for us to "restore international peace." That means that we don't get to start wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:20 AM

Peace will be restored when the threat of Saddam Hussein no longer exists. We are not starting this war. This is the Gulf War continued. It never ended. There was simply a cease-fire, remember? Saddam didn't comply with the terms of the cease-fire so now we have to finish the job. And it is up to us. The UNSC has shown its total irrevalence by hemming and hawing with Iraq for 12 years with little or no action. If anyone is to blane for this war, it is the UN because they did nothing to enforce their resolutions.
For all the good the Security Council has done with its resolutions, it might just as well ahve stayed home.
Whether anyone likes it or not, the US is the big kid on the block and we are better equpied than anyone else to handle this sort of job. It isn't unilateral, by the way. Last I heard there are 45 other countries who have pledged support in one form or another.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:58 AM

Yes, troll, 45...and there are far more than that who are opposed to the war. Of the USA's 5 major partners in the World (the U.K., Russia, France, Germany, and China) only ONE is in favor of launching this attack.

One out of five. What does that tell you?

This is not a "coalition of the willing" it is a coalition of "the bribed, the coerced, and the dragged kicking and screaming", to quote a Canadian editorial comment on the subject.

The Toronto Sun (our local attempt at reviving Mein Kampf), like you, proudly held up that pathetic "45 other countries who have pledged support in one form or another". (I added the italics to make a certain point.)

The USA has had quite a shock in the last few months, in that a whole bunch of states which they had gotten used to thinking were in their pocket turned out to have minds of their own and said "No!" That is just the beginning.

The Security Council was suckered into passing Resolution 1441 before they fully realized the actual American gameplan, which was this: to invade and take over Iraq regardless of whether they had ANY weapons of mass destruction or not, regardless of what any inspectors said, regardless of whether Saddam left or didn't leave, regardless of whether Iraq was really any threat to anyone after 12 years of economic and military devastation.

You don't see it. You believe the propaganda of an administration that has kept changing its story about what its objectives are every time the wind changes. First it's fighting a war against terrorism. But it can't find Bin Laden. Then it's looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...but it can't find them either. Then it's looking for a Security Council Resolution to make war on Iraq, but it can't get that either. Then it's demanding "regime change", and demanding that Saddam flee the country. These were NOT the things that France, Germany, Russia, and China had in mind when Resolution 1441 was approved...they only had in mind that Iraq should dismantle and destroy any weapons of mass destruction that might exist there...and they had in mind sending inspectors in to determine if those weapons existed in the first place. The inspectors went in. They found no such weapons as yet, and there probably are none, or virtually none of such weapons in Iraq's inventory. Even if there were, Iraq would only be committing suicide by using them, so why would they? One has to wonder...

America also presented forged documents to the U.N. purporting to prove that an African country had sold "fissionable material" to Iraq recently. The documents were proven to be forgeries (very good ones) by forgery detection experts hired by the U.N. Accordingly, you will not have heard a peep on the American news about those documents since, but the Europeans and Chinese have not forgotten about them.

They have been lied to by the USA, they have been tricked, and they will not be tricked again. That's why the last resolution went down like a lead balloon. Even normally subservient American clients like Chile could not stomach any more at that point.

You are defending something that has no legitimate defence left, Alex. And it doesn't matter how evil Saddam is (and he is), that is not the point here. Saddam is a mere convenient excuse for imperial conquest by the World's biggest and most paranoid empire, and Iran is the next target after that...

And the World is not fooled. They were fooled for the last time when they passed Resolution 1441.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:25 AM

troll - "Should the U.N. run the whole show (the world)?"

I don't think that anyone should "run the world", but I do think that eventually a world assembly of nations should do the following:

1. establish a worldwide Bill of Rights, which would guarantee human rights in much the way the the Bill of Rights does in the USA or the Charter of Rights does in Canada, etc...

2. establish a worldwide system of economic justice such that: people get paid at basically the same approximate level for doing basically the same level of work. What do I mean? If a factory worker in the USA gets US $20/hour and one in China gets US 50 cents per hour, that is unjust in the extreme, and it leads to...

a) loss of traditional jobs in the USA

b) semi-enslavement of people in places like China

c) desperate attempts to emigrate to richer places by the poor in the poor countries, causing all manner of disturbance and suffering and graft

Until people in all parts of the world get a decent level of pay, there is no economic justice, and there will be great strife.

3. Establish a World Court to resolve international disputes. This has been attempted, but when the World Court rules against a powerful country like the USA, they are routinely ignored.

Thus...

4. There has to be a World Military authority of some kind to enforce international law, and it cannot be merely a coalition patched together on an adhoc basis by the richest, most powerful country, to serve its own interests. It has to be composed of enough non-aligned countries that it represents broader viewpoints, not parochial ones.

5. The above is not possible when certain great powers are armed to the teeth, such that the World Assembly is utterly weak in comparison. That is the present situation. It's actually anarchy out there, with rule by the robber barons. The USA is the biggest robber baron, but there are several others as well.

6. None of this is possible at this point, because there is not the will, at the highest levels of power, to actually do it.

7. However, some efforts have been made in these directions and will continue to be made.

8. There has to be a general disarmament of all nations to a great extent, but there isn't yet the will to do that either.

The fact is, we are still in a very immature state of social development, crippled by greed and fear.

So, given present conditions...no, I don't think the U.N. should run "the whole show", because they simply can't...but efforts should be made toward a more united and cooperative world, with a great deal more equality (specially on the economic level), and with plenty of local and regional autonomy at the same time, on a democratic basis. People cannot be forced to do things like this, they must be willing to and they must want to. Otherwise, it just won't work.

And with that I say...good night.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:39 AM

Little Hawk,

With regard to Resolution 1441 - I don't believe anyone was tricked into signing up to it - the five permanent members spent about eight weeks, collectively agreeing the wording of it. The original call for a new resolution came from the US, and it was fears on the part of Iraq as to what that new resolution might say that prompted their invitation to the UN for weapons inspection teams to return. France, Russia and China saw no need for a new resolution after this invitation had been issued. The US and the UK begged to differ, had the inspectors gone back on the premise of the previous resolutions it would have been easier for Saddam to give them the same run-around they experienced before. Even with 1441, the respective heads of the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspection teams did not receive the co-operation they required from the Iraqi authorities

Had the wording of 1441 been left as originally proposed by the US and UK, the inspectors would have returned to an Iraq that could be in no doubt about the consequences of non-cooperation - that would have made the task of the inspectors that much easier. As it transpired - Saddam saw that with the resolution as passed he still had room to manoeuvre.

Your proposal for the "world assembly of nations" is nothing more than a recipe for the creation of "Animal Farm".

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Gareth
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:08 AM

Mmmmm ! Call me a cynic, but if Saddam Hussain was cooperating with the Inspectors where did those missels fired at Quawait in the last few days come from then ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:26 AM

Good point Gareth, from reports by BBC's reporters in Kuwait the last two missiles fired from Iraq were aimed at targets (oil installations) 40 kilometers south of Kuwait City.

For those missiles to have been "legal" under UN terms they would have had to have been fired from inside Kuwait. They weren't they were fired from inside Iraq, from a position not yet reached by US forces. Launch signature would seem to indicate SCUD - not Al-Samoud 2. i.e. Saddam is firing missiles he says he does not possess, but missiles that UNSCOM said they suspected that he did have in 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:51 AM

Wasn't sure which of the many Iraq threads to post this to, but I thought the following article might interest some people.

Inspectors say US intelligence was wrong

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:19 AM

Ah, "The Guardian" again. Right. It seems our intellegence was pretty much on the ball in identifying where Saddam would be Wednesday night though, right? I have a feeling the inspectors could not find the weapons if they were pointed out to them.

As to those Scuds the Iraqis fired into Kuwait, I'm shocked. Saddam said he had no such offensive weapons! Saddam said he was abiding by UN rules! You just can't believe some people I guess.

Teribus: there you go again, confusing L. H. with facts. You did it in a kindly way though and that's nice.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:33 AM

Doug R - I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone here who believed that Saddam had none of the weapons he is not supposed to have. You are putting words into our mouths. Many of us do however believe that the most effective way of uncovering them and disposing of them was through the inspection process and that firce should only be considered as an alternative if and when it became clear to the weapons inspectors that no further progress was being made - and the weapons inspectors *did* believe they were still making progress.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:35 AM

I don't see why Saddam should not have a few scuds and why he should not use them under the present circumstance. They are hardly awe-inspiring weapons by today's standards. :-)

Your outrage that he is doing so is kind of like a guy with a machine gun and a grenade launcher bitching bitterly about the 12-year-old kid next door who just winged a pebble at him with a slingshot, after he ventilated the kid's house with 500 rounds of 50 calibre armour-piercing bullets. What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are! They can't bear to lose even one man for a thousand in a fight. My, my.

Facts work like this, Doug. People sift through them and find the ones that support their own position, while paying little or no attention to the ones that don't. They interpret facts in a way that they find convenient and agreeable.

You do it. I do it. Everybody does it. We do it because we are convinced of certain pre-existing moral conditions which underlie our opinions.

The difference is just this: The people whom you and teribus and troll trust the most are the people whom I and numerous others on this forum trust the least. And THAT is the whole reason why we continue to disagree...NOT the various facts that you or I marshall to support out views.

It's an emotional disagreement, period. There are enough facts out there to allow any one of us to compose a marvelously convincing position on whatever we choose, providing the listener is willing and eager to BE convinced.

Trust me on this. We are all opinionated and stubborn people, wedded to our established opinions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:42 AM

I think that now war has started, all bets are off regarding what conventional weapons he can use. The prohibitions were put on him to prevent him attacking a weaker neighbour, not from defending himself from an attack from a much more powerful attacker. But I agree things would be different if he used internationally prohibited weapons, like chemical and biological ones. But even if he did, it might be pointed out that many people said before the war that he would be extremely unlikely now to use those types of weapons (if he indeed has the capability to do so) unless he were attacked and backed into a corner. Another reason the inspections should have gone on longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:47 AM

So Little Hawk China and Russia are "Partners" of the US now? That's pretty funny. I guess they are "Allies" in the war on terror, but only because they have their own problems with radical Islam. None of those country except the UK has traditionally agreed with US policy. Why do you expect it to be different now? How did you pick "that" five? What about Japan, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Italy, Mexico or Spain? All of these are at least as close as partners.

No one in the Security Council has argued that Iraq did not have weapons of Mass Destruction. Which is to be expected. When the inspectors in 1998 left the world knew Saddam was hiding a weapons program and since then he's done nothing to indicate otherwise. The security council only argued for delays, but of course they didn't have young soldiers, in theater, wearing charcoal lined chemical suits over their uniforms who could litterally be killed by 120 degree heat if the delay stretched into summer.

America did lose the diplomatic contest and they certainly chose the elimination of Hussein over the long term usefulness of the security council. But don't pretend that they lost friends over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:58 AM

Yes, Jack. Russia has been an international partner of the USA in most respects that matter since the fall of the Soviet Union. They are referred to as an "ally" now.

China is one of the USA's biggest trading partners. Go check it out at your local stores.

Following Sep 11 America had partners (and sympathetic ones) in the whole developed world, and most of the rest of the world. That is not the case now. The Bush administration has squandered the goodwill of most of the World.

I picked those five because they are the most important and influential players...except that you are quite correct that I should have included Japan in the list. Japan is a major player, economically speaking and technologically speaking.

What you've fairly much got now in the World is the separation of the English-speaking nations from most of rest of the World, with the English-speaking nations embarking on a self-serving road to war, political anarchy, and disaster. Canada has had the wisdom not to engage in the latest round of hostilities...so far.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM

"What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!"

Fuck you LH - since you have no experience or expertise in this area I'll assume you are just having a stupid attacks. Say what you like about the war or the political aspects - but you can take your asshole attitude about the men and women who are doing what they believe to be correct and stick it in your ass.

If you were anywhere close to me and made that statement I'd bloody your punk assed nose -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:27 PM

Well, I'm glad you don't live next door, Steve. :-) I would have an injured nose, and you would be under arrest, and that wouldn't be helpful to either one of us.

It's not actually the soldiers I am criticizing, so my choice of words may have given the wrong impression. It's the war policy makers at the top I am criticizing. The World in general has noticed how loath the American military is to risk casualties in a conflict. This has nothing to do with a lack of courage on the part of the American soldier whatsoever! It has to do with your politicians who are terrified of losing public support at home if too many body bags come back. They are haunted by Vietnam. Accordingly, they devise high tech ways of massacring 3rd World opponents from a safe distance. It is this that strikes the World in general as cowardly.

This does not mean American troops are cowards, and I have never wished to imply that they are, although you may think I have. The "warriors" I was referring to are the armchair warriors in the White House. I am implying that the American political leadership is lacking in moral courage and lacking in moral responsibility.

George Bush is about as inexperienced when it comes to war as I am, but he has no compunction about killing non-Americans whatsoever, and for no good reason whatsoever.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:19 PM

Steve, calm down Bro. He's a light-weight mouth and not worth your time. He has a right to express his opinion. You and I and our brothers and sisters in arms fought and bled to make sure he had that right.
I feel quite sure that the Web is the only place that he expresses his opinions, because if he spoke like that in front of any Canadian soldiers or sailors, they'd probably react just like you did.

The Navy and The Corps! Semper Fi!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:20 PM

"What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!" Read the below e-mail for how much of a baby our "Warriors" really are. This is from my daughter who has survived artillery fire two days ago and this message about the rocket attacks she endured yesterday. Get clear on your speech - And I may have gone under arrest - but you'd still be shy a chunk of your persona - the nose you stuck where it didn't belong. Whiney little no nothing on this issue - a simple apology would have sufficed.

Troll - Roger that Brother - and he really isn't bothering me - I'm just not going to let my children come home to idiots that I came home to. There will be a major scrap if it occurs - and jail is not a deterent.

Semper Fi Brother
Steve

Hi Loved Ones,

Well as you have seen on TV it has been a really rough day for us here. Yes I am right in the middle of it near Kuwait City. Today when the alert went off I ran outside while putting on my gear at mach 10. I heard a noise in the sky and I looked up to see two of our Missiles going to attack the Missile from Iraq headed our way. Thank God they took it out before it got to us. Its amazing I am not really stressed out. When I am in the bunkers with 60 LBS of gear on I start to really think about the value of my life and how much I want to live it.

I think what kept me calm is helping the soldiers out that were doing things the wrong way, not putting their gear on right ect. I could see the fear in a lot of the younger soldiers and it is my job to show them all is alright. Under attack I'm sitting there in the bunker cracking jokes about how they should give me some C-4, a big gun, and a truck and send me up to Bagdag to take out Saddam.

Nothing worse than the wrath of a pissed off, tired, haven't showered in 3 days woman who has a huge attitude. It cracked everyone up. The second and third alert freaked me out. I felt as if we were going to be in this gear for life, tell you the truth I am scared to death to get out of it. I really never thought I would be so close to being in harms way. I am a chic, an intel analyst. But I guess I should have realized that Missiles go a long way and they always target the logistics.

I am keeping my head up, and have lots of hope to come home. I really thought today was it when the artillery boomed and I heard and saw missiles screaching across the sky. I don't think I have been that scared since I was a kid and afraid of the boogy man in my closet. We will have internet to the end, so stay in touch. Pray we don't get hit with any chemical. I don't know if I can handle being constricted for 24-48 hours with no food or bathroom ability. Just water through a drinking tube in my mask. I am definetly done with the military. I am serving my time to have my freedom and to keep things free and safe for our families. Now it is time for me to have my freedom and not have to worry if I am going to live or die through what ever it is we face.

Don't take that as a scary thing, but try to imagine being in my shoes right now. If you've never been in the military I don't think you can understand. So just love me a lot and write.

Love Danielle
US Army somewhere in Iraq/Kuwait

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:28 PM

Hey Steve. My best thoughts to you and yours for the safe return of your family members.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 05:30 PM

Oh, great, now we've got a dick-waving contest going, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:32 PM

Well Greg - at least we've one to wave -

Thanks CarolC

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:11 PM

Norton1: thanks for sharing that email with us. I hope your daughter and all the other sons and daughters get out of there alive and in good health. They won't all get back, of course, but I devoutly wish they could.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:37 PM

Ah, steve, I am understanding you better all the time. I repeat, I do not regard American servicemen (and women) as cowards. They have proven in any number of conflicts that they are not.

I am almost flattered that troll regards me as a "lightweight mouth", just because we happen to disagree. It's such a weight off my tired brow to know that the things I say don't really matter. :-) I would sure never make that mistake about him, though.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:21 PM

Brilliant, Nort. That's tellin' me. What a guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

I wouldn't go so far as to say that people should pretend their opinions have changed, temporarily or permanently, under our current circumstances. However, we can keep in mind that some times are better than others for almost all things. Remember the immortal words of Rodney King.



(Some peacenicks verbally accosted some cub scouts I know yesterday.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:37 PM

Mahatma Ghandi and Jesus were peacenicks. Buddha too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:39 PM

It is a very honorable thing to be a peacenick. I meant nothing derogatory by the term. It was necessary to explain the setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:42 PM

And - - oh MAN - you did it again. YOU SPELLED Gandhi WITH A GH!!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM

Right. Gandhi. Thanks. Ghag me with a spoon, eh? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:28 PM

Little Hawk, when you disconnect your brain and make dumb statements what do you expect? You have a good mind, a little mixed up it's true, but we're working on that.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:06 AM

Well Greg - knew you'd like it - LOL -

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:30 AM

SteveBro, thanks for sharing Danielle's letter. She has my respect and my thanks givings for her safety.

luvyakat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:27 AM

and just in case this has not been been linked to before, for those that still think that this is about weapons of mass destruction and bringing Democracy to Iraq, a little info on
Power Brokering in the Middle East

The players in this game couldn't care less about the plight of the average Iraqi as long as they have control.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:30 AM

Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus were peace nicks. Buddha too.

Lh,if your implying that Nortons daughter or any military are not Christ like,or not following their God, would the Old Testament support your peace nicks claim about Jesus and his Father? I'm referring to the amount of smiting/smoting God commanded.

As for Norton his daughter has my thanks and respect, here is a woman admitting to her fear and still doing her duty, that has to be admired.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

The Old Testament doesn't say anything at all about Jesus. Jesus preached love and goodwill. Most Christian theologians view the commandments in the New Testament to override those of the Old, so it is not, in fact, divinely permissible to go around smiting people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:35 AM

I am implying nothing of the sort, Ireland. I respect Norton's daughter, and wish her well. I hope she comes back safe and sound. Ditto for the other young men and women serving overseas. My criticism was for the USA political leaders, not for the individual soldiers or the general public.

As for "peacenick", I was simply reacting to the word "peacenick" itself, which is usually used as a term of abuse these days. (As if it was somehow wrongful and cowardly for people to ever argue in the direction of peace...) So, you have mistaken the intent of my reaction. It had nothing to do with Steve's daughter.

The differences between the Old Testament and the New are striking indeed, and I am not very well impressed by the Old Testament. I am very well impressed by Jesus and his life and mission. That does not mean I necessarily consider the Bible (either Old or New Testament) to be an infallible source of information. I do not. I think the Bible as it presently exists has been altered, edited by the early Church leaders several times, and was never infallible in the first place anyway! It was written by a whole bunch of different people at different times, all with their particular axe to grind. Like I say, it's Jesus and his conduct that impresses me, not the Bible or the Christian churches. You can find out a good deal of useful things about Jesus from the Bible (and from a number of other less well known sources...), so that's fine with me. I read the Bible with interest, but I don't swallow it whole.

troll - Yeah, we'll be shaking our heads over each other for who knows how long... :-) If we had been born in alternate families, we'd probably each be arguing the other side of the issue now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Ireland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:52 AM

People who believe in the Holy trinity,Father Son and the holy Ghost all as one, so the actions of one is the actions of the other.

We have the same entity as God smitting people and then as his own son Jesus, who preached love and goodwill.

What I'm saying is simple,God and Jesus to many is the same person,Jesus may not have sanctioned smitting,but in his persona as God he did.

I'm not using this as a reason or justification for war, just pointing out that it is too simplistic a view to label Jesus a peacenick. And during time on earth Jesus has made or issued quite a few threats against those who would transgress against his Father (GoD). In other words the potentail of violence is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but I see it a bit differently. Seriously, we would have to sit down in a cafe and talk about it for oh, six hours, to even begin to cover these things.

This forum isn't big enough for such a discussion.

Subject: ADDPOP: Jesus Was a Capricorn (Kristofferson)
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 12:00 PM

Jesus Was A Capricorn
Kris Kirstofferson

Jesus was a Capricorn
He ate organic foods
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes


Long hair, beard and sandles
And a funky bunch of friends
Rekcon we'd just nail him up
If he come down again



Chorus: 'Cause everybody's got to have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on
You can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me


Eggheads cussin' Rednecks cussin'
Hippies for their hair
Others laugh at straights who laugh at
Freaks who laugh at squares


Some folks hate the Whites
Who hate the Blacks who hate the Klan
Most of us hate anything that
We don't understand

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:29 PM

To tell the truth, I don't believe I've heard the word peacenick in at least thirty years, until I used it yesterday. I was wondering whether there negative conotations still wafting from it (if there ever were), but I used it anyway, forgetting about the times we are in. Now (watch this Little Hawk):

Sorry about that.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:03 PM

No problem, Dan. I wasn't sure how you were using it.

About the only time I ever hear it is when it is spat out contemptuously by someone who hates antiwar protestors.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM

Do we really need to resort to playground insults to make our points?
Calling anyone directly involved with this conflict a coward is not very useful. It would be impossible to prove and it removes attention from the real issues. Yes the US uses technology which allows a maximum of damage with a minimum of casualties but any other government which afford it would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 05:01 PM

Hmmm...

Have I not clarified by now that it is the political leaders I was referring to, not the soldiers?

Okay, then. Steve (Norton1), I apologize without reservation for having upset you by saying "What a bunch of babies the warriors of America are!" I spoke hastily and without care. I do not regard American soldiers as babies or cowards, and I doubt that anyone else does either, if he's had the displeasure of having to fight them. I regret causing offence to you, your daughter, or anyone else by my statement.

Next time I will be sure to say "armchair warriors in high places" in order to make it clear who I am referring to (I hope).

Jack - You're right about that ("any other government which afford it would do the same). The British used fast-firing rifles and early machine guns to massacre African tribesmen by the thousands and thousands at battles like Ulundi and in the Sudan after Karthoum. It was pitiable, and entirely predictable. The Africans fought and died anyway, because they appeared to have no other choice except to lie down and surrender their way of life to a foreign invader without resistance. That's the way it goes in power politics. To the victors the spoils. Just don't pretend that it's not what it is...conquest for imperial gain. (But we'll disagree about that, in the case of Iraq.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

Well spoken LH - Apology accepted without reservation - you are most forgiven my friend. As Jan says - "We live in troubled times." And that we can have this dialogue is good. AllI could see is my kid in a ditch trying to keep her troops alive and trying to imagine how she could even remotely be connected with your statement.

I've run my mouth before out of emotion - we all do and I believe it is our job to let each other know when we transgress so we can apologize, reframe, and be forgiven.

Have a superb evening - I have not heard from my kid for a day or two and I see that her unit has been under grenade attack and that several were hurt - yippy fecking skippy - sometimes being a dad sucks

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM

Metchosin, if it were really just about the oil, why didn't we just take over kuwait and Iraq in '91 when we pretty much owned them anyway? Why wait 12 years until Saddam has had the chance to build up his military machine? Davidsons essay on client states is all well and good but Saddam hasn't been a client of anybody for a number of years. He has, however, worried his neighbors a lot.
No one seems to have a viable alternative to someone going in and removing him. And that needs to be done.
I am aware that the US supported Saddam years ago. You could say we created him so we must share the guilt for what he has done.
OK.
Now it is our duty to remove him. As far as France and Russia losing money on oil contracts that will not be honored by the new government, it would surprise me if that were not true. Those contracts were negotiated with a different government and it would be up to an international court to decide if they need be honored. The world economy has changed since the contracts were let and the new Iraqi government could probably make much better deals, possibly with the same countries.
I am sure that the US will have influence in the matter as we will be, after all, the ones who toppled Saddam and ended his reign of terror. France and Russia held back and the Iraqis won't forget that.
Steve, I hope your daughter is ok. It's hell not being able to be there to look after them isn't it?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:36 PM

Steve, your blood runs through her veins; don't forget that, Bro. Strength and courage and safety to her and ease of heart to you, darlin'.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM

Troll-you speak as if twelve years ago, Bush II were sitting in the White House, and his policy were the same now as it was twelve years ago. Quite frankly, the world would be a much better place if Bush I had gone in during the first Gulf War and taken Saddam out when world opinion would have supported him. France and Russia do lose economically from this invasion, but American companies gain. Either the rebels' promises will be honored, granting oil contracts to those companies which supported them, or the U.S. military government will award contracts, most likely leaning toward those companies who donated to Bush's campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM

It was quite odd, I think, that Bush the elder did not push on to Baghdad in '91, and I've always wondered what the behind-the-scenes maneuverings and decisions were that led to that not occuring.

Clearly, anyone whom Saddam has hurt in the past (such as Kurds, Iranians, and numerous Iraquis) will be delighted at the thought of him being brought down by this war, and that's perfectly understandable.

Be that as it may, I don't think the war is being fought on behalf of Kurds or Iraquis or anyone like that. I think it's part of a much larger plan being implemented by what has been called the New World Order. That plan has worldwide purposes, and Iraq is just one piece in the puzzle. The War on Terrorism is another piece, and will be used to justify many aggressive actions. Removing the constitutional protections of Americans is another piece in the puzzle. Securing control of world oil supplies is another. "Taking out" Iran (presently) is another. And so it goes...

When the Iranian thing comes around, some excuse will be found. Some incredibly "evil" Iranian leader will be discovered, and then focused on relentlessly by the N.W.O. media (mostly emanating from the USA), and if necessary some hideous terrorist act will occur to supposedly justify a military move on Iran. That is my expectation.

America cares not a fig for the welfare of Kurds or Iraquis, but you can't say that on TV! Today America does what makes Kurds happy, tomorrow America will sell them down the river to the Turks or to somebody else. That's the way it always goes with empire-building by big empires. They talk humanitarianism, they practice conquest and obliteration of the competition, whoever that competition might be.

Those who are momentarily benefited in some way by the empire's latest move will naturally argue in favour of that move, unless they are able to look well beyond it to the further ramifications.

Still, I can't fault them for looking forward to Saddam's defeat. As I said, it is completely understandable that they should feel that way.

Steve - I feel sort of sick at the thought of the daughter of someone I actually know being in that sort of danger. I'm not kidding. It really brings it home when it's someone you know. What can I say? I hope and pray that she comes to no harm.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 01:58 PM

"I think it's part of a much larger plan being implemented by what has been called the New World Order."

Nope its aliens, little grey shinned aliens with big lightbulb shaped heads.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:45 PM

Check THIS out, Jack, follow a few of the links to the actual text, then come back. This ISN'T alien abduction/ "X-Files" stuff- unfortunately.