The un has been given a choice, either its saves itself and its legitimacy by enforcing the un resolutions or it risks being irrelevant and collaspinf for if the usa does go it along with will remain unchallenged on the world scence.
It will eb the un who will be supporting unilaterialism because iraq is breaking every idea in the un books and it will eb the one deciding whether to have multi-laterial action or let the usa go it alone.
A few facts for you,
*600 P.o.Ws from the gulf war havent been released by iraq, inclduing a majority from arab states
*iraq has supported international terrorism through the attempt at assinating a us president and the leader of kuwait
*iraq is harbouring al-queda members who escaped from afghanistan.Iraq also harbour abu nidal, the palestinian terrorists
*iraq has broken un weapons inspectors resolution, it is exapnding its facilities
*In 1994 iraq admmited its weapons program and had it not been for the gulf war, iraq would have nuclear weapons no later than 1993
*iraq retains the phyiscal capability to build nuclear weapons and has spent 10 billion us dollars on its program, within 1 year iraq could have a nuclear bomb if it gets fissle material.
*it has brokern un resolutions regarding missle technology, the un said it could have missles to the range of 150 km, this has been brokern,
*iraq is purchasing missle technology,which threaterns muslim states
*torture is sued and wives are attacked in front of their husbands, the un human rights people say it has a 'most brutal record'.
*the Un in 1998 said iraqs behaviour was 'totally unacceptable'
*sanctions, military strikes and the oil for food program havent worked,
*we havehad 11 years of diplomacy
*the iraqi issue is a major threat to the un
*if iraqwanted peace it would sicolse its weaposn and destroy them, it would end terrorism support as required by the un, it would end the presecution of tis own people, it would release p.ows and accept liability for the invasions and have internationally supervised elections.
further more, not only has iraq invaded iran and kuwait its attacked, israel, bahrain and saudi arabia with ballastic missles as well as using them on iran.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 923 times:
"Abu Nidal was killed by the Iraqis a few weeks back ... you need to check things carefully before cutting and pasting"
yes but the iraqis also harboured him for a number of years and he was killed because he refused to take part in their plan to train terrorists, he was in there for a number of years, he didnt just pop up there one day to be killed the next.
if thats the only thing you pikc up on then i suppose you agree with the rest, other countries( i know who your trying to refer to ) work towards un resolutions, iraq flaty rejects them.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 918 times:
I for one have no faith in the U.N. Most of its member states are either tinpot dictatorships, or larger sorts of dictatorships, or led my people who are only trying to fill their pockets as fast as possible before their country realizes how much they've been fleeced, or are so spineless as to do nothing without popular support, or any combination of the above. Even the security council permanent members have their problems - China has no business making moral judgments on anyone, and Russia is a bit better but still has a long way to go. The French sell arms to anybody with cash, and are run by a clique of recycled politicians that trade jobs on occasion while pretending it means something. That leaves only the U.S. and the U.K. with any sort of trustworthy UN representation on the security council - a minority in a body that cannot do anything without unanimity.
experst from mr annans speech are on the above link:
"Every government that is committed to the rule of law at home must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All states have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. "
"Only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all states offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities"
"On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims. "
"Individual states may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them."
iraq is habouring al-queda suspects, bush said so today that al-queda members are hding after escapign afghanistan, further more until a few weeks ago iraq harboured abu nidal, the palestinian terror leader.
I honestly feel that after annan was briefed by the usa today that he sees the need for un action to enforce its own laws and that if iraq doesnt let the weapons inspectors back in on the UN(not the usa's) demands then the secuirty coucnil has got to in his own words "face up to its responsibilities'' and as i see it he will throw the weight of his office behind attempts to get a un action force because he wont risk the un falling down and his own personal reputation in tatters because the un failed to act to stop a madman with his wmds.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 856 times:
I thought the President's speech was right on target. He also made a sincere and powerful speech last night to all Americans, as part of the 9/11 observances. Additionally, CBS aired an exclusive interview (by Scott Pelley) with Mr. Bush taped on AF1 and in the Oval Office. The case against Iraq is being made, slowly but surely.
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
Rai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 838 times:
Tbar: Actually, SAS23 is right that OBL hates Iraq. He even stated so in an interview with Peter Arnott. OBL says that Iraq is a despotic and "Godless" regime. The reason why he hasn't attacked? Iraq has a good track record at quelling Islamic insurgencies within their own borders. No one is allowed in...and those that were in already were "put out".
The CIA and NSA can probably vouch this as well. The NY Times reported that out of all transmissions between Al-Qaeda operatives prior to 9-11 (nothing has been reported about it afterwards), not a single one originated from or was directed to the country of Iraq. Iran and Saudi Arabia are a different stories though, but one can discuss that later.
Not to say that Saddam is a good man man and that he should remain in power, but there is no solid evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
ADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 798 times:
dont forget about the universal mantra of middle east politics... the enemy of my enemy is....
Now who was it that said that?
I disagree with the negative comments on the UN. I believe we should have an organisation that is a voice of the people. All people. This validates action and counters arguments of vigilante-ism.
I can't see what all the fuss is about, if Bush has the evidence everyone claims he has there should be no problems getting UN approval and going into Iraq as a police action. It's not like he hasn't done it before in the last 12 months!
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 786 times:
ADG Wrote....I can't see what all the fuss is about, if Bush has the evidence everyone claims he has there should be no problems getting UN approval and going into Iraq as a police action. It's not like he hasn't done it before in the last 12 months!
If I remember correctly, ADG, SAS23 etc were all saying the same 'let's see the proof" statements when the Americans were talking about attacking the Taliban, we heard endless comments of the Americans have no proof, because there is no proof, because it was not OBL, well here we are a year later, OBL and various other Al Queda members accepting responsibility for it yet no acceptance of being wrong from the Taliban, the arab world as a whole or even SAS23, who claimed it was Israel that did it. Well now Iraq is the problem, proof is now being asked for.... the usual America Bashing is commencing...
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 778 times:
Please show where people asked about proof of Taliban involvement. These are hardly the same situation.
Having read this thread up to now I assumed GW must have given some convincing details in his speech but upon reading, no, just the usual 'our way or the highway' stuff. You want to label peoples desire for evidence as anti-american then go ahead but tell me why we should just do things your way ? We all belong to sovereign nations who are allowed to make their their own minds.
Why should we just take your word for it when the US consistently acts in it's best interests only. Nothing wrong with that but why should we suddenly believe you are being the great white knight of morality in this case.
Truth is GW started the hard-man talk, didn't get the support (international or domestic) he expected and now has no way of backing down without losing face (read votes). Instead of a war for oil it's now a war for politics. I am SO happy.
It's not anti-americanism Artysman it's anti-bullshit !
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 771 times:
pacificjourney, if you are suggesting that there isnt anti americanism on these boards... then you really need to get out more often. If you are saying that no one was saying that america had no proof of OBL being the mastermind of 9.11... you really really need to get out more...and last but not least, if you are suggesting that there were not loads of threads on here with people denying OBL of being responsible and that the US was making it up all in the name of oil etc.... you need help.... there were loads of them
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 766 times:
Show me the threads, show me the evidence, of course we are all out to get you (how dare we question what your government does). Stop talking tough Jeremy and give me what I ask for or just stop talking.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 752 times:
Pacificjourney, first things first, I am not American, I just see what happens on the boards. I do not have time to go trowling through the archives of airliners to dig out every thread on OBL. I am pretty sure that you are not serious about not remembering Taliban denials and world denials of OBLs guilt. Do you not remember the little Taliban clerics sitting in the caravan saying show us proof ?
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 743 times:
Still whining about that are we. perhaps some us are anti-gut churning sentimentality.
I'm not suggesting there is no anti-americanism here just as I wouldn't suggest there is no anti-european/israeli/arab/black/white/asian/christian/atheist/male/female/socialist/communist/pacifist/capitalist/taoist/daoist/shintoist ... sentiment expressed here either. What I am suggesting is that you stop using it as an excuse to actually answer a damn question or deferring any criticism you don't like.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
25 Pacificjourney: Artysman you inferred there were people here denying Al quieda/Taliban responsibility. Naturally taliban clerics would say that but I don't think many
26 We're Nuts: Artysman, I can't possibly pick through those threads. Why don't you give me an example of "anti americanism".
27 JetService: Pacificjourney, no one needs 'proof' about these clowns crying for 'proof' that the Taliban and OBL was behind 9/11 last year. I remember it well. Do
28 Galaxy5: and who's best intrests should the USA act on. yours pacific journey? why must the US act on other countries best intrests? when has any other counrty
29 Indianguy: We will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilisation with weapons of mass murder Every government that is committed to the rule of law
30 Pacificjourney: galaxy5 Do you really read others posts before commenting ? I said " ... when the US consistently acts in it's best interests only. Nothing wrong with
31 JetService: "You may not require proof of Artsyman's claims of denial threads..." I don't. I remember them. "...and Iraqi intentions and weapons" Did I say that?
32 Pacificjourney: Artsyman inferred a pattern of denial. I wanted to see it. "...and Iraqi intentions and weapons" "Did I say that?" No but Artsyman and I did what did
33 JetService: "Artsyman inferred a pattern of denial. I wanted to see it." Then do a search to cure your selective memory "No but Artsyman and I did what did you th
34 Pacificjourney: Wow jetservice don't hold back, let it out. We are now tangled in explanations of explanations. You comment on a discussion between 2 others and then
35 JetService: Pacificjourney, nah, no champion of bullshit. Just a bush-league bandwagon groupie. I'm guessing Artsyman isn't going to fulfil your request. You know
36 GDB: Without going into the 'should we attack Iraq' stuff, it's worth remembering that when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and was poised to attack Saudi, OB
37 Ryanb741: It was a good speech in general and he made a good point about the UN not punishing Saddam for breaking UN resolutions. However, in the Medium term Bu
38 Lj: The USA would now have no credibility if they reject this motion, as you can't say the UN must enforce rules on one state but not on another. Indeed.
39 Galaxy5: Pacific journey you might take heed on your own advice.
40 DragonRapide: The Bush speech shows - again - little of no respect to the rest of the world. Basically Bush said: either you give us the go-ahead and the UN can kee
41 Go Canada!: pacific journey, what proof would you like, the threads which say 9/11 was a fraud, that the campaign in afghanistan and a future conflict in iraq is
42 Pacificjourney: Thanks GC but it is clear which ones and none them were what you posted. Rather it is the 'many' threads where Artsyman claims people denied Taliban r
43 Go Canada!: pacific, there were the ones i could think of, off hand, there many more if you do a search, they do deny that the taliban were involved, one goes so
44 Go Canada!: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/print/20020912.html a decade of definance, 16 un resolutions, repeatedly brokern.
45 SAS23: Whilst on the other hand, Israel has more than five decades of defiance and 65 UN Resolutions, repeatedly broken ... plus a further 30 Resolutions vet
46 Apathoid: So once again, SAS, you think we ought to be the worlds police force but only if it is for a cause you agree with? If you and your countrymen are so s