go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:24 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2252329.stm

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.

40 iraqi villages have been gassed

the world must act.now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2253605.stm-main points of bushs speech
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:30 am

Agreed, that the UN should enforce its Resolutions in ALL countries. It should also act in an even-handed manner; and no UN member should be allowed to bar entry to UN Inspectors.

Incidentally, Abu Nidal was killed by the Iraqis a few weeks back ... you need to check things carefully before cutting and pasting!  Big grin Big grin
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:39 am

Incidentally, Abu Nidal was killed by the Iraqis a few weeks back

Didn't he commit suicide?
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:43 am

Yep, with five shots to the body and two to the head!  Big grin
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:59 am

"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
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:20 am

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.

The UN is becoming irrelevant.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:23 am

sas23, i didnt cut and paste, its my own words so that i couldnt be accused of copyright breaches
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:39 am

I read this, and apparently Kofi Annan appears to know what he's talking about.
NO URLS in signature
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:25 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2254288.stm

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
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:05 am

It's highly unlikely that Iraq is holding Al Qa'aida suspects as Iraq is the sort of state that OBL hates even more than the US.
 
Stretch 8
Posts: 2468
Joined: Fri May 28, 1999 4:00 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:32 am

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!!!
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:30 am

I think this is a crucial moment in the history of the UN. Its truly a test of why it was created.

SAS,

Btw, why does OBL hate Iraq more than the U.S.? If he did, why wasn't Iraq attacked instead? Explain your logic please.
NO URLS in signature
 
Rai
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:45 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:49 am

rai, sas...

dont forget about the universal mantra of middle east politics... the enemy of my enemy is....

you get it. i would not be surpirsed if saddam was harboring qaida thugs.

tnnh
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:02 am

GoCanada! Again....another thoughtful, intelligent post. As long as you are here I will not have to say anything on this subject because you say everything I want to, but better  Big grin  Smile

 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:27 am

Charles I agree with you. Then you have these stupid World summits that do nothing but want money from EU and the USA......its all a load of crap
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:46 am

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!




VH-ADG
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:11 am

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...

You guys have a short memory

Jeremy
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:30 am

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 !
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:36 am

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

Jeremy
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:41 am

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.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:44 am

if you are suggesting that there isnt anti americanism on these boards

Define this "anti americanism", please.
Dear moderators: No.
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:54 am

Define this "anti americanism", please.

Without going into endless detail, this thread has a lot of it..

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/278962/6/

or this one

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/278700/

 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:57 am

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 ?

Jeremy
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 8:04 am

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 ... "
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 8:10 am

Artysman you inferred there were people here denying Al quieda/Taliban responsibility. Naturally taliban clerics would say that but I don't think many of them are A.net members.You were quite clear about that accusation.

If you can't be bothered providing evidence about your claims then do yourself a favour and stop shooting from the lip. The fact the evidence doesn't exist regarding Iraq is neither here nor there I suppose.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:25 am

Artysman, I can't possibly pick through those threads. Why don't you give me an example of "anti americanism".
Dear moderators: No.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:38 am

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 a search yourself if you need 'proof'.
"Shaddap you!"
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:27 am

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 acted upon Americas best intrests? Of course we should act on our own intrests.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
IndianGuy
Posts: 3126
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:14 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:51 am


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 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


Lovely! I say go ahead Dubyaman!

Now onwards Russia can act freely against Chechen thugs and India can act freely (and unilaterally) against the Pakistani rogue regime, riding roughshod over the UN.

Nice trend right?

RIGHT!
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:56 am

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 that but why should we suddenly believe you are being the great white knight of morality in this case."

You will note the 'nothing wrong with that part'. Read, think, write. It's a logical sequence, give it a whirl.

Jetservice

You may not require proof of Artsyman's claims of denial threads and Iraqi intentions and weapons. No doubt such threads exist, as do ones on little green men shooting JFK, but his inference was that they were wide spread.

When making such claims - and denigrating others views at the same time - it is usual to provide evidence especially if challenged. So you can't be bothered ? You and GW have so much in common ... or am I being anti-american again ?
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:23 pm

"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?

"No doubt such threads exist, as do ones on little green men shooting JFK"

Then why did you insist he show them to you?

"...or am I being anti-american again ?"

You never stopped.
"Shaddap you!"
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:52 pm

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 you think we wre talking about ? Same advice as for galaxy5 read, think, write !

We disagree therefore I am anti-american. It is so obvious ! What will you do for a smoke screen when that one gets old ?
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:04 pm

"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 think we wre talking about ? Same advice as for galaxy5 read, think, write ! "

You were addressing me, not Artsyman.

"We disagree therefore I am anti-american"

Well, I have no idea why you're anti-American. But as with most, its either jealousy/envy or a feeble-minded, self-loathing, insecure individual's attempt to appear smart to the rest of the crew. But don't worry. You're just one of the lightweights. Kind of like a lapdog to the real USA-haters.
"Shaddap you!"
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:15 pm

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 don't want that discussion to be referred to. This is pointless ! Original request still stands to Artsyman to show what he is talking about or retract. I mentioned the normal procedure of at least attempting to prove what you say but for you the onus falls on the doubters.

I am no lightweight as I am not anti-american, just anti-bullshit as I have said before. Not only am I a US resident but I have shagged plenty of yours to boot. Not bad but they could do with less talk and more action ... seems to be a lot of that going around though.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:32 pm

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 why? Because what he said was correct and I doubt he cares if you disagree. So for your own piece of mind, do that search. Here's a hint: look between Sept. 01 and Dec. 01. Look for posts that have to do with the attacks and American response. Then look for posts by the same members that whine about Iraqi WMD proof. You'll find what you (don't) want to find.  Big grin
"Shaddap you!"
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:19 pm

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, OBL, fresh from helping to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, offered the Saudi government himself and his fighters to defend the Kingdom.
Of course in the open expanse of desert, OBL's boys would be slaughtered by Iraqi armour, being only lightly armed, so the Saudi government declined.
From OBL's point of view, this was an affront, made much worse by the Saudi's allowing 'infidel' US and Allied troops in the kingdom that houses Mecca.
Then, from his point of view, worse still was US troops remaining in the Kingdom after the conflict.
The road to Sept 11th really started at this point.
 
ryanb741
Posts: 5058
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 6:36 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:55 pm

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 Bush has probably put himself in a bit of a conundrum. If the UN accepts that it needs to enforce UN Resolutions on Iraq, what you are going to get in a few months is a Palestinian group insisting thet the UN enforces the Resolutions broken by Israel. 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.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support taking Saddam out and will be 100% behind the Allies if and when they attack Iraq, but I think that Bush might now be forced to take a hard look at the Israel situation and in particular the fact that Israel had broken UN resolutions. Bush has possibly got rid of the last 'safety card' on the part of the Israelis.
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
 
LJ
Posts: 4103
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:35 pm

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. However, I doubt GWB hasn't taken this into consideration (or must be really stupid), he already knows what he's going to answer should Arabs demand just the things you've said (the usual "I didn't recall what I said" or the usual "I've changed my position").
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:10 pm

Pacific journey you might take heed on your own advice.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
DragonRapide
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 6:59 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:31 pm

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 keep its legitimacy, or you don't and we invade Iraq anyway meaning the UN loses its legitimacy.

What's it with this US administration? Don't wanna comply with the International Court of Justice, continuing the fight in the Wolrd Trade Organisation that condemned them for the zillionth time, and now put them on a higher level of legitimacy than the UN and the rest of the world.

This US administration is acting as if it is God: above the rest of mankind. They sound more like fallen angels to me and they can go to hell.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:40 pm

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 due to oil or that israel was behind sept 11 as it wanted as many arabs dead as possible?

Oilhttp://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/278433/6/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/277870/6/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/277316/4/

anti-americanismhttp://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/278964/6/

9/11 was a fraud/israels fault
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/227706/6/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/132123/4/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/237965/4/
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/242538/4/

War on terror charade:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/255497/4/

pro-taliban thread-'taliban kinder than friendly'
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/136473/4/

SAS23, i didnt say OBL was in iraq? did i? did i say that sas23? did i?

No, i stated that al-queda members were in iraq, obl is dead, arab newspapers are stating as such today, im surprised since your such an expert in military affairs with 'hot' experience(and two masters degrees) and such a light for the arab cause that you would be the first to know.

It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:38 pm

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 responsibilty for 9/11 (and that those people were the same ones as questioning military action in Iraq now) and

" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:54 pm

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 far as to say the taliban were kind(one i posted a link too)!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:19 pm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/print/20020912.html

a decade of definance, 16 un resolutions, repeatedly brokern.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: Bushs UN Address

Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:50 pm

Whilst on the other hand, Israel has more than five decades of defiance and
65 UN Resolutions, repeatedly broken ... plus a further 30 Resolutions vetoed by the US.

(Thanks to Advancedkid for this...)

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 188 - 192)

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from council criticism:

....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern Lebanon and Syria..."
....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians..."
....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city by most world nations and the United Nations..."
....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva convention protocols of civilized nations..."
....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem..."
....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon..."
....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon..."
....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace..."
....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges its withdrawal..."
....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied territories..."
....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN auspices..."
....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the Palestinians..."
....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands..."
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 192 - 194)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
apathoid
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:19 pm

RE: Bush's UN Address

Sat Sep 14, 2002 12:13 am

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 strongly behind all of these UN resolutions, why don't you go and be the worlds police force for awhile?

I think it is fantastic that Bush finally called the UN what it really is, a spineless, talking head, obese bureaucracy.
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: Bushs UN Address

Sat Sep 14, 2002 12:15 am

No UN, NO attack on Iraq.
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: Iraqi Un Resolutions

Sat Sep 14, 2002 12:21 am

oh sas23, what a tangled web we are spinning, how many of those resolutions is israel still in definance off, remember israel withdrew from lebanon.

you want more un resolutions on iraq?heres a selection, theres so many.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2246037.stm


heres some more documents for you:
http://home.achilles.net/~sal/un-ros.html

so theres been 65 resolutions on israel, the majority regarding lebanon, how many resolutions have been placed on iraq?

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/index.html

56 un resolutions since 1990 and israel had 65 in 5 decades, hmm whos taking up the most time at the un then sas23? israel or iraq?

not to mention 13 resolutions at least from 1980 to 1990, one on iraq-israel regarding israels bombing of the iraqi nuclear sites which the un condemmed but everyone was delighted with.heres the 13http://home.achilles.net/~sal/un-resolutions.html

so 56+13 =69, 69 resolutions regarding iraq since 1980, 68 without the israel bombing in two decades and israel has 65 in 5 decades.

heres some more info on iraq:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/
http://home.achilles.net/~sal/un-ros.html

oh and heres the proof of Iraqs WMDS!!!!!!
http://www.iiss.org/news-more.php?itemID=88

iraqs use of chemical weapons
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

the dangers
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/9802/weapons.effects/

try telling me sas23 that iraq isnt a threat to the world!
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests