Powell's case to the UN

[Sir John]

BTW: Powell did come up with a lot of evidence...

 

[MrPresident]

The security council is there for a reason

The UN has a habit of forgetting the reason for its creation. Take for example the human rights commission.

The Iraqis have said that under the present circumstances they cannot guarantee the safety of spyplanes in the no-fly-zones.

These are U2s were talking about it is not like they can be shot down by a maniac with a shotgun. You need sophisicated anti-aircraft weaponary to bring down a U2. Unless the Iraqis don't control their own air defences then I think their claim that they can't guarantee the safety of the spylanes is laughable (as indictated by the smilie).

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by joespaniel

I dont know, it could be.

Saddam is still in control of some territory below the Northern NFZ, the Kurds control a portion.

If the camp is under the NFZ, its is probably not in a Kurdish area.

Terrorists camps are usualy in a deserted area, with nothing and no one around.

It's been known before Powell's speech that some organizations closely linked to Al-Qaida are operating in the mountains of north Iraq. As far as I know, there are no mountain south of the NFZ. So this means that these camps are in the NFZ. Which means that US and British aircraft overfly the area around them on a daily basis, and still don't do anything about it.

After 9-11, the Kurds announced that they are fighting Muslim fundamentalist terrorists, so claiming they are part of the "War on Terror" as well.

In the NFZ, Saddam has practically no control, so implicating him in harbouring terrorists, is just plain silly. There are terrorist cells in practically country, but it does not mean that those countries are harbouring terrorists.

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by MrPresident

These are U2s were talking about it is not like they can be shot down by a maniac with a shotgun. You need sophisicated anti-aircraft weaponary to bring down a U2. Unless the Iraqis don't control their own air defences then I think their claim that they can't guarantee the safety of the spylanes is laughable (as indictated by the smilie).

Well, a U-2 has been shot down over the Soviet Union once, and Iraq currently uses more or less the same SAMs as USSR used at that time, so I see no reason why a U2 cannot be brought down by an Iraqi SAM.

I think what they imply by stating this, is that they might occasionally fire at the U2, and claim afterwards that they thought it was an attacking US fighter plane!

 

[MrPresident]

You need sophisicated anti-aircraft weaponary to bring down a U2.

so I see no reason why a U2 cannot be brought down by an Iraqi SAM.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Proof!? Where?
Would these "proof" be the truth cause "he looked confident"?

I see no difficulty at all for a government and nation like the one of USA, to produce "evidence" such as tape-recordings and photos.

Next thing they will stumble over a postcard addressed to Saddams grandmother, explaining that the "deception of the UN", and the evil alliance with North Korea, is going well.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by sgrig

I think what they imply by stating this, is that they might occasionally fire at the U2, and claim afterwards that they thought it was an attacking US fighter plane!

If they do not fire, the US planes will not attack..............

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
PS RIII, you need some prctice a tolerating fools. It is better to suffer fools than to be one.

Since I can only take this is implying that I'm "also" a fool, would you care to elaborate as to precisely how was being so foolish?



(the quotes around "also" are because I don't particularly think "fool" is a fair description of either post, poster or position; I understand where he was coming from, but only wanted to make it clear that there's somewhere where I'm coming from)


R.III

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by sgrig
let's face it - US going to war to enforce UN resolutions without UN approval, is a farce.

I agree. To me, the issue has nothing to do with any threat that Saddam might pose. It is all about the UN enforcing its own resolution. If they don't do so, they become irrelevant (or more so if you prefer). At the same time, it would be quite hypocritical for the US, alone or with a coalition, to defy the UN in order to enforce a UN resolution. I personally think that people realize this, and UN approval will be gained. What might happen though is that they will authorize the use of force after the war begins in a desperate attempt to save face.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I am so happy to see all of the opinions expressed in the past page and a half, people speaking sensibly instead of barking maniacally.

But Dralix- stop and think about your UN irrelevance argument: has the UN been irrelevant for the three decades that it has allowed Israel to flaunt its resolutions? The UN is not irrelevant- had there been no UN, we'd be fully embroiled in a massive regional war in the Middle East right now instead of tippy-toeing towards a peaceful resolution.

The UN will always be relevant, and necessary, for handling disputes between belligerent governments like those of Iraq and (sadly) the current junta ruling the USA.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I am so happy to see all of the opinions expressed in the past page and a half, people speaking sensibly instead of barking maniacally.

Most of it is more of the same Sultan, they still don't seem to understand that 1441 was a last chance for Saddam to comply.
There won't be more "inspectors".
They were there to confirm the Iraqi contention that they disarmed, instead, Saddam pulled the same hijinx of the last decade.
They aern't detectives, they were supposed to be SHOWN EVERYTHING, BY IRAQ.
Didn't happen.

But Dralix- stop and think about your UN irrelevance argument: has the UN been irrelevant for the three decades that it has allowed Israel to flaunt its resolutions? The UN is not irrelevant- had there been no UN, we'd be fully embroiled in a massive regional war in the Middle East right now instead of tippy-toeing towards a peaceful resolution.

This is as insulting as it is vile.
There is not ONE SINGLE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION against Israel, there are SVENTEEN vs Iraq.
There are numerous general assembly attacks, orgastrated by RACIST ARAB STATES and pandering European countries vs Israel, and they are all SICKENING.

The UN will always be relevant, and necessary, for handling disputes between belligerent governments like those of Iraq and (sadly) the current junta ruling the USA.

You know, your one of the few people I'm tempted to call moron, but I will not do it, because I know your not one, despite these assinine comments you just posted.
Junta?
The US Military took over the United States?
No, it did not.
Again, further proof of how disgusting Democrats and the US Left have become, they couldn't steal the election, so they send out their minions to spread vile and insulting lies about the administration, the administration ELECTED BY US LAW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TWO CENTURIES OF US ELECTORAL PROCEDURES.

The UN is irrelvant because people LIKE YOU Sultan, who refuse to stand vs evil.

 

[MrPresident]

There is not ONE SINGLE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION against Israel, there are SVENTEEN vs Iraq.

Why do people find this so hard to understand? There is like some sort of collective ignorant concerning Israel. Facts don't seem to matter if there is just the appearance of any wrongdoing from the Israeli side and people will believe it in an instant. I don't understand it. If I didn't know better I would say it is anti-semitism but I can't believe that.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
The UN will always be relevant, and necessary, for handling disputes between belligerent governments like those of Iraq and (sadly) the current junta ruling the USA.

If the UN does nothing to enforce its resolutions, than it does indeed become irrelevant.

If Saddam is allowed to continually violate UN resolutions, then what effect do they have? What is to stop any other country from violating resolutions? A precedent will have been set, violate UN resolutions and ... nothing.

Further, if the US, or a US led coalition defies the UN by going to war against Iraq, then other countries may follow this example to wage war where they feel justified. India and Pakistan come to mind. Perhaps Canada decides to attack Spain over a dispute about fishing in the Grand Banks. (Highly unlikely considering Canada's military position, but it serves my point.)

The UN is only relevant if countries treat it as such. If Iraq is able to violate resolutions with impunity, or the US wages war without authorization, then the relevance is severly weakened, possibly to non existance.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

This is as insulting as it is vile.
There is not ONE SINGLE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION against Israel, there are SVENTEEN vs Iraq.
There are numerous general assembly attacks, orgastrated by RACIST ARAB STATES and pandering European countries vs Israel, and they are all SICKENING.

Are you posting this as mod or poster?

If as mod: please stay calm! You should be a shining example.

If as poster: what you say is no less vile and insulting than what you quote.

There have been repeated times where Israel pulled the 'we are the eternal victims' card out and thus got everyone to soft-peddal around the issues. Fact is that israel does what they want in disregard even of its friends. See the destruction of EU-paid schools and police stations in Palestina. You cannot go and ask otehrs to help the Arabs there, then destroy it all if you think it isn#t effective enouhg. i understand their view, but I still think they are overdoing it, and the UN doesn nothing about it. isral takes the moral high ground - well, I haven't seen much to that efffect from them!

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Most of it is more of the same Sultan, they still don't seem to understand that 1441 was a last chance for Saddam to comply.
There won't be more "inspectors".
They were there to confirm the Iraqi contention that they disarmed, instead, Saddam pulled the same hijinx of the last decade.
They aern't detectives, they were supposed to be SHOWN EVERYTHING, BY IRAQ.
Didn't happen.

Agree.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

This is as insulting as it is vile.
There is not ONE SINGLE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION against Israel, there are SVENTEEN vs Iraq.
There are numerous general assembly attacks, orgastrated by RACIST ARAB STATES and pandering European countries vs Israel, and they are all SICKENING.

Agree in principle but not wording- the Arabs have some legitimate beefs about land issues etc. and if we ignore them for "God's chosen ones" we look duplicitous should we enforce them elsewhere.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

You know, your one of the few people I'm tempted to call moron, but I will not do it, because I know your not one, despite these assinine comments you just posted.

Well I appreciate your "not calling me a moron" and I am aware that I post assinine once in awhile and as you know I'm under constant counselling to figure out how to stop...

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

Junta?
The US Military took over the United States?

Hmm, VP was defense secretary, Secretary of State was general, our defense secretary was a defense secretary. So, one way or another, yeah, sort of...

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

No, it did not.
Again, further proof of how disgusting Democrats and the US Left have become, they couldn't steal the election, so they send out their minions to spread vile and insulting lies about the administration, the administration ELECTED BY US LAW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TWO CENTURIES OF US ELECTORAL PROCEDURES.

This is another old argument (like Reagan vs. Clinton) that will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction. Appointed by lawyers yes, elected by law, not in any traditional sense. However please discontinue lumping me in with the Democrats because for the most part they are happy to bang the war drum and give Bushy a standing ovation. The "disgusting" that you see doesn't exist really. I am no one's minion.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

The UN is irrelvant because people LIKE YOU Sultan, who refuse to stand vs evil.

When I speak against George W. Bush I am taking a stand against what I consider to be the most dangerous "evil" on the planet at present- a too-proud demagogue armed with the weapons and the will to destroy civil society for ever with apparent disregard for the welfare of the people he was appointed to guard. It is a stand considerably more dangerous to take than the eye-rolling put downs of obvious villains like Saddam or Kim that all newsmen are giving us these days. I realize I am in an extreme minority in thinking this way... the opinions expressed by me do not necessarily reflect those of the democratic party or the American left...

But again, without the UN, no framework for satisfactory prosecution would exist, and history would record Bush as a much bigger villain than it will. I apologize in advance for insulting your hero but I have no choice but to express my real feelings on this. I am tired of living in a climate where suddenly I am labelled a supporter of terrrorists and dictators because I disagree with a small but in charge faction of our otherwise noble political spectrum.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Bullsh*t Mr M, they even tried to put forth Israel is racist, because ZIONISM is racist,

They are vile and sickening, as is ANYONE who would support such behavior as the assembly vs Israel.

NOT ONCE would they condem Arrafat, yet they lauched NUMEROUIS tirades vs Israel.

Don't try to play games, and here is a moderator warning:

Moderator Action: The next poster who insults me with a "Are posting as a modertor " coment will be banned a week.

You all damn well know the difference, there will be no more playing of this game.

You are ALL now OFFICALLY warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

There are numerous general assembly attacks, orgastrated by RACIST ARAB STATES and pandering European countries vs Israel, and they are all SICKENING.

The UN is irrelvant because people LIKE YOU Sultan, who refuse to stand vs evil.

Off course there is anti-Semitism/racism going on in Europe. But declaring everything ant-semitist/racist is not going to help. It barrs good criticism on the one hand and makes real anti-semitism/racism less threatening.
Not everything is black and white, like you suggest. I guess Europeans have just more of a problem with this "evil empire" view than Americans. (generalization, I know)

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

By consistantly attacking Israel with rediculous and supperlous attacks, they have lost ALL credibility in my mind.

It's like the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Nobody "consistantly" attacked Israel, but it is sad that you would find any criticism of a country that keeps its people in refugee camps and murders its "citizens" with military overkill, let alone expanded its borders without consultation or permission of any other nation "rediculous and supperlous". You aren't demonstrating that you have really given the situation in Israel any more thought than "they're the good guys because they always back us up". We always back them up, and so far that support has brought the US nothing but the fatal ire of some "Islamic" militants. The boy who cried wolf is a good metaphor right now for Powell and Co. - narrowly focusing our attention on an easily beaten flea of a dictator while things fall apart in every other national and international arena.

 

[MrPresident]

Nobody "consistantly" attacked Israel

What? Did the Arabs take a week off when I wasn't looking?