Powell's case to the UN

[Sultan Bhargash]

Amen Annares, you say what I wanted to say but was afraid just above to say.

It is sad to see the mindless execution of thousands of innocent people used to justify the mindless execution of thousands of innocent people. Nor did we ever get "justice" after 9-11.

I can't bear to participate in this discussion any more. It isn't worth my sanity to try and communicate what is right to the righteous.

PEACE be upon you all, whether you like it or not!

 

[IceBlaZe]

He's wrong.

The world did change, the only nation capable of contesting terror now activily tries to end it.

Before 9/11 we didn't

That's a very narrow-minded statement...
No one can end terrorism but the terrorists themselves, that's A.
B, the US is actively ignoring terrorism which does not threaten it.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by anarres
AoA, surely we should be asking 'Is it right for us to kill tens of thousands of Iraqies to get rid of one man', not 'Our "Goal" is to prevent a maniac from killing hundreds of thousands of people' (an unproven allegation anyway).

Incorrect, on many levels.
First, "Tens of thousands" is a slogan thought up by the anti-war side, not a military assessment.
Second, a "smoking gun" is an after the fact event, you would prefer to see thousands die to prove the case 100%?

Maybe we should ask the US why it supported Saddam when it suited them, and why they supported Osama when it suited them.

Maybe you should ask yourself why they betrayed the US, and we never supported Bin Laden, we supported resistance to the Soviets, he happened to show up, big difference.

People who talk about 9/11 as being an excuse for American Imerialism and international bullying are worse than the people they want to go to war againt.

"American Imperalism" is one of THE MOST assinine statements I have yet seen here.
Nobody in the US wants any part of Iraq, we want Saddam gone.

What happend on that sad day is appauling, but some people refuse to see that Saddam has nothing to do with Osama and his merry men.

The links with AlQaeda are proven.
You can refuse to accept it if you like.

I had by misgivings about the war in Afghanistan, but this war is so immoral and unjust as to beggar belief.

Nonsense.
It is immoral to stand by and do NOTHING while Saddam creates havok and murders his own people.

Whatever your opinion of the last war, this coming war is certainly not justifiable or linkable in any way to 9/11.

In your opinion.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
That's a very narrow-minded statement...
No one can end terrorism but the terrorists themselves, that's A.
B, the US is actively ignoring terrorism which does not threaten it.

Yes, the USA is very selective about who it goes after.

And to those who think we have the right to attack Iraq through the UN: did you know that the USA does not pay it's dues to the UN, that it refuses to let it's officers be accountable to the war crimes tribunal (under which the USA was quite happy to try Milosevic), and that it also is breaking it's fair share of UN resolutions itself.

The USA refuses to adhere to any international treaty or agreement, and thinks it has the right to play god, just becuase it is the most powerful. The USA are just international bullies that have no respect for anyone but themselves.

 

[Phantom Lord]

9/11 was a dark day for humanity. Absolutely.

But resolution 1441 is not about 9/11.

Saddam is not allowed to have N/B/C weapons - that's the point of the current crisis. So the question is, which means are best suited to achieve the goal of insuring Iraq doesn't tinker with N/B/C weapons.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The United Nations put Libya as chair of it's Human rights commision, Iraq is the chair of the disarmaments, should I continue?

Anyone trying to claim the US is somehow wrong is, quite frankly, delussional.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Anyone trying to claim the US is somehow wrong is, quite frankly, delussional.

I don't agree with this line... But it is a good one!
Cut and save.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by anarres
Yes, the USA is very selective about who it goes after.

It's enemies.

And to those who think we have the right to attack Iraq through the UN: did you know that the USA does not pay it's dues to the UN, that it refuses to let it's officers be accountable to the war crimes tribunal (under which the USA was quite happy to try Milosevic), and that it also is breaking it's fair share of UN resolutions itself.

Name a SINGLE resloution the United States broke.
This boartd is a no-spin zone.
Put up, or shut up.

The USA refuses to adhere to any international treaty or agreement, and thinks it has the right to play god, just becuase it is the most powerful. The USA are just international bullies that have no respect for anyone but themselves.

Name a SINGLE treaty it broke.

I'm waiting.

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Our "Goal" is to prevent a maniac from killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I thought you knew this.

Same goal on this side of the fence. Only we are trying to prevent a different maniac from doing the killing.

I thought you knew this.

 

[Phantom Lord]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The United Nations put Libya as chair of it's Human rights commision, Iraq is the chair of the disarmaments, should I continue?

Anyone trying to claim the US is somehow wrong is, quite frankly, delussional.

I claim that we can basically chose between cooperation of all nations or arbitrary law.

And I have no problem if someone I've never met personally calls me delusional for not sharing a point of view, feels a little like a graffity on a wall is telling me that. I can't take it personal (no offense meant).

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I am referring to the carping that the justifacation is not there.

To refresh memoris, since I see a few of you developed selective amenisa:

UN Resolution 1441:
Iraq is ORDERED to state ALL WMD.
To ACCOUNT FULLY for this.
To allow inspectors to VERIFY any statements.
Failure on any count would result in GRAVE concequences.

According to HANS BLIX, Iraq HAS NOT co-operated.

Anyone who claims the US cannot act now is defying the UN.

I still don't see why many of you can't seem to grasp this.

 

[philippe]

The no fly zone AOA?
I think that is still not acknowledged by the UN...
Or am i not informed enough?

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
It's enemies.

Name a SINGLE resloution the United States broke.
This boartd is a no-spin zone.
Put up, or shut up.

Name a SINGLE treaty it broke.

I'm waiting.

US retreated from the Kyoto agreement. US retreated from the treatment-thingie prohibiting its missile defense shield.

US has sent its planes several times over Austrian territory without UN authorisation (only recently).

US breaches the no-flight zone over Iraq on a regular basis (according to interview with UN guys).

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Name a SINGLE treaty it broke.

I'm waiting.

The enabling agreements for the WTO and NAFTA.

My woodland people in the beautiful forests of B.C. are not permitted to sell lumber to the US without tariffs despite several WTO rulings that the logs ain't subsidized. This is the third time this has happened. So much for free trade, so much for the WTO.

Sorry!



I should add that it's a little harsh to say that anyone who "Anyone trying to claim the US is somehow wrong is, quite frankly, delussional." A slip of the tongue, I hope? Since surely you mean "anyone trying to claim that Powell's material was manufactured is, quite frankly, delusional?" Subtle difference, but an important one...

R.III

 

[JollyRoger]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
I am referring to the carping that the justifacation is not there.

To refresh memoris, since I see a few of you developed selective amenisa:

UN Resolution 1441:
Iraq is ORDERED to state ALL WMD.
To ACCOUNT FULLY for this.
To allow inspectors to VERIFY any statements.
Failure on any count would result in GRAVE concequences.

According to HANS BLIX, Iraq HAS NOT co-operated.

Anyone who claims the US cannot act now is defying the UN.

I still don't see why many of you can't seem to grasp this.

And what grave consequences does UN Resolution 1441 specify? I don't recall it specifically authorizing the US to take unilateral military action w/o official UN permission. I don't recall it giving Bush and Powell the sole oppurtunity to determine level of compliance and resulting grave consequences. It would seem to me that the consequences are the call of the UN after measuring the degree of noncompliance.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by test_specimen

US retreated from the Kyoto agreement. US retreated from the treatment-thingie prohibiting its missile defense shield.

Treaties can ONLY be enacted in the United States by CONGRESS.
Congress DID NOT agree to EITHER treaty.

US has sent its planes several times over Austrian territory without UN authorisation (only recently).

Austrian?
I think you need to explain.

US breaches the no-flight zone over Iraq on a regular basis (according to interview with UN guys).

The US and Britain CREATED the no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam from gassing his own people.

Still waiting.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Richard, I made that clear in the follow up post.
Also, see the comments about CONGRESS making treaties, NOT the president.

Originally posted by JollyRoger


And what grave consequences does UN Resolution 1441 specify? I don't recall it specifically authorizing the US to take unilateral military action w/o official UN permission. I don't recall it giving Bush and Powell the sole oppurtunity to determine level of compliance and resulting grave consequences. It would seem to me that the consequences are the call of the UN after measuring the degree of noncompliance.

UNILATERAL means without support.

Only France and Germany object.

Who's being unilateral again?

 

[Richard III]

Oh and PS, re: "Anyone who claims the US cannot act now is defying the UN," I have absolutely no problem with defying the UN, I think it's a lousy, biased and morally polluted organization to begin with! In fact, I encourage the US to do all it can to sink the damn thing in the toilet, not to expand an already bad apple.


But AoA, humor aside, I am saying all this as someone who is more supportive of military action today than I was six weeks ago. But I also remain supportive of the fact that this is not as simple or as easy a decision as some make out. As I've said elsewhere, history does suggest that we have to be more careful about what this is all for, how it will be done, and what the final result should be. That can be accomplished very quickly or very slowly. But accomplishing it means the US administration has to spend more time saying "this is what we are going to do" and a lot less time insulting foreign governments with cheap rhetoric, however deserving the governments might be.

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Richard, I made that clear in the follow up post.
Also, see the comments about CONGRESS making treaties, NOT the president.

I will admit I only mentioned the lumber thing for fun, but for the record, Congress signed THOSE (trade) treaties, not just the President. I'm not sure what other follow-up you're referring to (and sorry, we seem to be posting over each other, which isn't helping.

Nevertheless, unlike your critics here, my primary concern about unilateral action is PR related; I don't think having more or fewer allies makes you more or less right, it just makes you look better, which is not necessarily the most important factor in planning. So I will step back into the shadows on that issue.

R.III

 

[test_specimen]

Explanation: since Austria is a neutral country and in no military pact, military flights may only traverse Austria if ordered by the UN. (of which Austria is a member). This was the case in the Kosovo war.

The US has a significant number of bases in northern Europe, namely Germany and sometimes needs to send troops or material south. A week ago ridiculously old Austrian jets forced a US plane to retreat, because it was not allowed to cross Austria. And this is not the only instance.


As for congress: so if your president signs a treaty that does mean nothing? If this is of no relevance, why does he even sign it before he got backing from congress?

Obviously the no-flight zone does not only apply to Iraq, but also to other nations. If this was not so, why would the UN people say that the US is commiting a breach of the no-flight zone?