952 replies to this topic

[Limitless]

Mar. 20, 2003. 06:57 AM


CBC has context U.S. news lacks (Toronto Star Website)
VINAY MENON

Dear Diary:
If nothing else, the television war logos seem quite revealing.
Take CNN's "Showdown: Iraq... The Brink of War," emblazoned across the bottom third of our screens. The colour-motif is fiery, primary, stark — like napalm rolling across the desert during a sunset.
Then there's MSNBC, with its unsubtle "Target: Iraq," cast in the bottom-left corner, across from the ominous "Deadline" countdown clock that, until 8 p.m. last night, kept ticking as if it was New Year's Eve.
(When it got to 00:00:00, one may have honestly expected an animated short in which a cartoon Saddam is obliterated by smart-bombs accompanied by the text, "Time's up, Mr. Dictator!")
Only CBC Newsworld seems to have graphically captured the tenor of this surreal conflict, opting for "Ultimatum: Iraq" which, when you think about it, says it all in an utterly Canadian way.
Speaking of Canadian, watching Newsworld yesterday afternoon, as it switched to a live broadcast during Question Period, four observations crystallized:
Stephen Harper is a transparent jackass.
Stockwell Day is astonishingly dim.
Joe Clark should, all things considered, get a life.
Canadian politics can get pretty lively.
What Canada is, or is not, going to do during this war, however, became less intriguing after 3 p.m., when new developments surfaced on the American networks:
The U.S. has launched some air strikes at selective targets ... At least 17 Iraqi soldiers have surrendered ... Ari Fleischer says the conflict will be "short and precise."
(You could feel the tick-tock intensity building just from reading the news scrolls.)
Mind you, Fleischer is probably right, since the U.S. and Britain launching a military offensive against Iraq is not dissimilar to a herd of ravenous lions ambushing a three-legged gazelle.
`The study found only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.'
Don't mistake that comment for bleeding-heart sympathy for the Iraqi military — the truth is, I doubt those sorry mooks could break into my house.
But what has also been "short and precise," at least on American television, is any serious discussion about the legitimacy of this conflict and the reckless danger it has suddenly imposed upon all of us.
In fact, if you've been watching CNN and MSNBC, you may be puzzled as to what all the anti-war fuss was about. Aside from the odd sound bite here, or ephemeral quip there, you'd never know that the majority of people on this planet are opposed to this unilateral act.
On Monday night, New York-based FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) released a study that showed a majority of on-camera experts and sources — featured on U.S. networks over a recent two-week period — were not only American (267 out of 393), but 75 per cent of these American guests were either current or former government or military officials.
Overall, the study found that only 68 on-camera sources, or 17 per cent of the total, were skeptical or critical of U.S. policy.
And by 5 p.m. yesterday, most discussions, for or against, had been replaced with an almost fetishistic appraisal of the U.S. weapons — bombs, artillery, tanks, jets — to be used in the war theatre.
Massive, electronic maps were used as backdrops. Former military experts were rushed into the studios. And, occasionally, speculation on how the combat would play out veered toward the unseemly.
To these bespectacled eyes, only CBC Newsworld provided balance and helpful information, including segments on the looming humanitarian disaster, ongoing international reaction, Pentagon strategy, and comments from a broad array of guests.
Charles Barron, a New York City councillor, appeared on the Canadian network and said the Big Apple had become the 140th American city to pass an anti-war resolution.
"The president has not made his case," Barron said.
"They have not proven that Saddam Hussein is linked to 9/11 at all. The CIA says that if a war occurs, it will increase the threat of terrorism, not decrease it.
"Many of us think that this is a war for oil, hegemony, control over that region. And I think it is a senseless waste of life."
Remember, he's from New York.
About two hours after this, MSNBC started to periodically cut away to a green, night vision long shot of Baghdad, eerily reminiscent of the 1991 Gulf War, when anti-aircraft tracer fire heralded more than three days of commercial-free coverage.
Expect much of the same as Operation Iraqi Freedom shifts into high gear today. Just don't expect it to make much sense.

vmenon@thestar.ca

[Limitless]

Mar. 20, 2003. 01:00 AM (Toronto Star Website -March 20th, 2003)


Turkey to vote on allowing U.S. to use airspace -But troops won't get parliament's OK Government too divided over Americans SONIA VERMA DIYARAKIR


—Turkey's parliament will vote today on whether to let the U.S. military use its airspace but will hold out on allowing combat troops on Turkish bases, dashing Washington's last hopes of launching a northern front from Turkey. The vote will have a deep impact on the Pentagon's military plan, which first hinged on the idea of using Turkey as a springboard to attack Iraq from the north. Today's vote, if it passes, would allow war planes to launch from two U.S. aircraft carriers still stationed in the Mediterranean, but about 30,000 troops — members of the 4th Infantry division — would be denied access to Turkish bases. Originally, Pentagon planners wanted to use the 4th Infantry to launch a back-door attack from the ground, creating a second front against President Saddam Hussein's army. The U.S. claimed their battle plan would make for a shorter, less bloody war. The ground troops would have also prevented clashes between Turkish and Kurdish forces along the northern border over the disputed oil fields of Kirkuk and Mosul, military officials said. With ground forces written out of the equation, the Pentagon will have to come up with a new plan for moving forces into northern Iraq. A lighter airborne force would take the 4th Infantry's place, flying over Turkey to airstrips to bases in northern Iraq. The decision to deny U.S. troops access to the country is a blow to Turkey's battered economy. Washington had offered at least $15 billion (U.S.) in aid and loans in exchange for access to Turkish soil and air bases, but the offer was withdrawn, causing the value of the Turkish lira to drop and the country's stock markets to plummet. Prime Minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan said Turkey's talks with the United States were now confined to military and political issues. There is no sign Washington would be willing to come up with a fresh offer of aid down the road. While the Turkish government has left the door open for a later motion on troop deployment, it would likely concern a follow-up force that would stabilize the region after the first wave of combat. "The motion we will present today will be to allow the transit of U.S. military aircraft and Turkish soldiers to be deployed abroad," a government spokesman said. "If further requests emerge in the future we will evaluate them, but at this moment the request from the United States is for permission for overflights through Turkish airspace." Observers say that the government was simply too fractured over their support of U.S. troops to put together a stronger motion. A Turkish official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said legislators still do not want to become complicit in an attack on a neighbouring Muslim country, Iraq. The country's top military general and prime minister's recent call for support of U.S. deployment came too late to swing public support, he said. While barring U.S. forces, Turkey is still insisting on its right to send its own troops into northern Iraq, massing on the border waiting for war to start. The Turkish government claims this force will be used to stem the flow of refugees across the Iraqi border into Turkey and keep Kurdish separatist demands in the region from spreading to Turkey. But Kurdish leaders are concerned their presence will serve only to fuel hostilities and possibly provoke violence. The U.S. special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, Zalmay Khalizad, met with Turkish and Iraqi opposition groups this week to ease tensions ahead of a possible war. After the meeting, Khalizad announced that Iraqi Kurds had agreed to work under the command of American-led coalition forces during the war and leave it up to the U.S. to secure Kirkuk and Mosul. "They (the Turks and Kurds) have taken it upon themselves to call on the people of the area not to move into these towns and to co-operate with the coalition," Khalizad said. Additional articles by Sonia Verma

[Limitless]

Mar. 20, 2003. 02:33 PM (Toronto Star Website - March 20th, 2003)


How Bush sold war to Americans
ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

Remember how, when you were a kid, the toy you saw on TV never turned out to be as good as you had expected? It was then that you first learned a painful lesson about truth in advertising.
Thanks to a consumer advocacy movement in the 1970s, one supported by "action hotlines" and investigative reporters, most advertisers have since cleaned up their acts.
But not all.
Now there's one marketing team that appears to have no qualms about lying, no hesitation about making false claims, no ethics at all when it comes to moving product: George W. Bush's White House.
So where are the media watchdogs now?
Consider the campaign to sell the war on Iraq.
(Don't forget that, last September, just as Bush began to roll it out, White House chief of staff Andrew Card said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'')
The pitch is familiar, as made most recently Monday by the Huckster-In-Chief:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Iraq "has aided, trained, and harboured terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda."
"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."
"The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war ... "
A mind-boggling 73 million Americans watched that speech. But, had they spun the dial afterwards, or read the papers the next day, they would have seen precious little questioning of any of Bush's claims.
No wonder polls show many Americans believe Saddam crashed the jets into the World Trade Center by remote control.
The fact is, there is plenty of doubt about what weapons Iraq has. (Note that, as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gave his final report yesterday, only BBC World gave him any live play.)
The truth is, no unequivocal proof has yet linked Iraq to Al Qaeda. Not unless you count that student paper British Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently handed U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
If the U.S. has the "sovereign authority'' to bomb Iraq, why is there an international debate about the legal basis for a war?
Not even Americans believe the terrorist threat "will be diminished'' with the obliteration of Saddam. Two, admittedly unscientific, polls, one for CNN and the other for Fox on Tuesday, showed a vast majority of respondents worry about repercussions.
Finally, Bush lied about having taken "every measure ... to avoid war." If he had, the weapons inspectors would still be inspecting.
But the biggest gap in the coverage was about the one thing Bush said that was probably true: "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honour and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."
Only an inside story in The New York Times caught Bush's implication: There is no choice for Iraq between regime change or invasion. The U.S. is coming in no matter what. Well, wasn't that the plan all along?
Which brings us back to the marketing campaign. The R&D on the war began years ago, in 1992 when deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz, a Pentagon strategy guy in both Bush administrations, drafted the Defence Planning Guidance on the U.S.' military stance toward the world. It advocated pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states.
It can't be a coincidence how much that document resembles Bush's National Security Strategy of September, 2002 — or the principles outlined by the Project For The New American Century, a might-is-right organization headed by William Kristol, editor of the right-wing magazine Weekly Standard.
An internet search has turned up precious few discussions of these connections in the mainstream American, or even Canadian, media.
But here's the thing: On Sept. 11, 2001, Kristol was on PBS' Newshour With Jim Lehrer, where he said, linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, "We are basically looking at finishing the job we began in 1990 with Saddam Hussein."
The product was designed.
Only the ad campaign had to be created — and the suckers lined up to buy it.
Those Vanilla Coke people could learn a thing or two from this, no?

Antonia Zerbisias appears every Thursday. You can reach her at azerbis@thestar.ca.

[bobdrake12]

The fact is, there is plenty of doubt about what weapons Iraq has. (Note that, as chief weapons inspector Hans Blix gave his final report yesterday, only BBC World gave him any live play.)

The pitch is familiar, as made most recently Monday by the Huckster-In-Chief:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Does anyone on this Forum actually believe that Iraq does not have WMD?

If so, how about standing up and being counted?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 01:25 AM.

[bobdrake12]

In fact, if you've been watching CNN and MSNBC, you may be puzzled as to what all the anti-war fuss was about. Aside from the odd sound bite here, or ephemeral quip there, you'd never know that the majority of people on this planet are opposed to this unilateral act.

http://www.insightma...ews/395267.html



American Unilateralism?

Posted March 19, 2003

By J. Michael Waller

Apart from Iraq itself, France has made itself the most vehement opponent of U.S. efforts to oust the terrorist-supporting regime of Saddam Hussein. The U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing" outnumbers the vocally unwilling.

Insight's count of declared and reported actions shows that 23 countries are supporting the United States with military resources and that another 22 openly have declared support for President George W. Bush's decision to destroy the regime in Baghdad. At least 13 Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries are assisting or supporting the United States. Insight's tally differs from an official State Department list of 30 nations in the so-called coalition.

The United Kingdom, Poland and Australia are providing troops. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine are providing chemical-weapons experts and other noncombat personnel. Bahrain, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Spain, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are allowing the United States to use their military bases or airspace. Saudi Arabia is playing it both ways, publicly declaring opposition to the military effort, while quietly allowing U.S. forces to operate from its territory.

In Europe, Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia and the Netherlands have voiced support. Canada has taken positions both for and against military action. Other open U.S. supporters include the African nations of Eritrea and Ethiopia, and the Latin American governments of Colombia, El Salvador and Nicaragua. In Asia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan have declared support for the war against Saddam, along with the Philippines, South Korea and Japan. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi declared Tokyo's support for President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam.

According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, another 15 countries privately support the war effort.

Communist China backed off criticism of the United States after Bush issued his ultimatum. Beijing's new president, Hu Jintao, issued a simple statement: "On the Iraq issue, China always advocates a political solution in the framework of the United Nations."

So France stands alone in the active attempt to save Saddam, having promised a U.N. Security Council veto of an American-British-Spanish resolution of force. Paris has outdone Russia and China, which did not pledge to veto, and which are believed to have been willing to abstain in a U.N. vote. Other declared opponents of the United States in this matter of life and death include Belgium, Canada (playing both sides), Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia (also playing both sides), South Africa, Sudan, Switzerland and Syria.

The score on the eve of the war: 45 backing the United States, 17 against.

J. Michael Waller is a senior writer for Insight.

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 01:57 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Only CBC Newsworld seems to have graphically captured the tenor of this surreal conflict, opting for "Ultimatum: Iraq" which, when you think about it, says it all in an utterly Canadian way.

Has the CBC covered the following:?

bob

http://www.geocities.../docs/doc88.htm

Iraqi American Council (IAC)
7263 Maple Place #210,

Annadale, VA 22003,

Tel: 800-416-8684

Fax: 877-803-1800

http://www.al-iraq.org

e-mail: iraq@al-iraq.org

October 8, 2002

CONTACT:

Safia Taleb Al Souhail: SofiaAmin@aol.com

Zakia Ismail Hakki: salar4@juno.com – Tel: 1-703-658-3373 Fax: 1-703-658-1946


Iraqi Women Condemn Atrocities Committed by Saddam Hussein Regime

The terrible plight of Iraqi women under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein was brought into sharp focus at a recent press conference by a group of independent Iraqi women. The group, based in the Washington, DC, area, held their press conference on Oct. 4 at the National Press Club before a packed audience of media, prominent Iraq-Americans, supporters and representatives of non-government organizations.

The speakers, representing a broad geographic cross-section from various parts of Iraq (South, Central and Iraqi Kurdistan), reflected various ethnic and religious backgrounds. In a show of courage and open defiance against Saddam Hussein’s regime, they detailed the atrocities committed against Iraqi women and their loved ones by Saddam and his henchmen. The speakers stressed the need for the international community to condemn Saddam’s regime and its atrocities committed against humanity.

Moderator Safia Taleb Al Souhail, Advocacy Director for Middle East and Islamic World at International Alliance for Justice, was joined by Hon. Zakia Ismail Hakki, the first woman judge in Iraq and founding member of the Iraqi-American Council; Hetau Ibrahim Ahmad, a prominent Kurdish activist; and Dr. Katrine Michael, an Iraqi Chaldean and a Christian who joined the Kurdish resistance.

Safia Taleb Al Souhail described the 1994 assassination of her father Sheikh Taleb Al Souhail, eminent Iraqi leader and head of the Bani Tamim tribe, at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service, the Mukhabarat. Although the murderers confessed to the killing, the crime went unpunished. The perpetrators were released and sent back to Iraq by the Lebanese authorities as part of a diplomatic pact with Iraq.

The Hon. Zakia Ismail Hakki detailed the atrocities committed against the Faylee Kurds, mostly males aged 16-28, detained unlawfully in Saddam’s torture camps since 1980 as their families were deported to Iran. Judge Hakki appealed to the international community to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 regarding human rights for Iraqis and for worldwide support for the Iraqi people’s efforts to topple Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime. She also called for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his key officers before an international tribunal for crimes committed against humanity.

Hetau Ibrahim Ahmad, a prominent Kurdish activist, described her experiences as a lifelong displaced refugee fleeing from place to place. She described the systematic killings, oppression and displacement of the Kurds at the hands of Saddam Hussein-backed terroristic extremist groups.

Dr. Katrine Michael, a 1988 victim of chemical weapons, was forced to flee to Turkey to escape the continuous chemical bombardment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein. Since her arrival in 1997 in the United States, she has been a tireless champion for women’s rights in Iraq.

Conference organizers and their guests—Nidhal Muhi Shalal Aljuburi, Sabria Mahdi Naama and Peyman Halmat--shared personal accounts of Saddam Hussein’s crimes against women: women’s public beheadings, draggings through the streets, rapes by Saddam’s security agents, kidnapping and mass executions, disappearances and other atrocities.

Nidhal Muhi Shalal Aljuburi, a prominent member of the Iraqi Shi’a majority, described the almost total extinction of her Jibour tribe, including many of her close male relatives and their wives, by the Saddam regime. She described Saddam’s systematic environmental destruction of the southern Iraq marshlands and the subsequent demise of the habitat and ancient culture of the marsh Arabs.

Sabria Mahdi Naama described her family’s escape from Iraq after the 1991 Iraqi people’s uprising against Saddam. She called for increased involvement of Iraqi women in the Iraqi opposition to the Saddam regime.

The conference concluded with a show of support by representatives from Iraqi and Americans groups, including the Iraqi-American Council, represented by Aziz Al-Taee. The conference panelists stated that they will intensify their efforts to mobilize Iraqi women worldwide to help the Iraqi people reclaim their country and political freedom.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.guardian....,863569,00.html

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq

Friday December 20, 2002

The Security Council,

resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure tocomply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import anduse of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[bobdrake12]

Toronto activists gather at U.S. consulate
Larger protests take place in San Francisco, Washington

How many these demonstrators ever gathered to protest the known attrocities committed by the the government of Iraq much less being are aware of U.N. Resolution 688?

bob



http://www.fas.org/n...es/sres0688.htm



RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991

The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[Limitless]

The pitch is familiar, as made most recently Monday by the Huckster-In-Chief:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

I don't agree with every article I post. In this case, regarding Dr. Blix's statements: How about some evidence [?] I don't automatically believe everything I hear.......I thought America had a superior military [?] I'm sick of hearing about how America is a "Superpower", and the attitude that America is "Indestructible", and yet Iraq and its paltry 1 billion dollar military (1/400th of America's) poses such an "Imminent threat" that action is needed now.....oh yeah, and "Please don't set your oil wells on fire". "Iraq needs the money -that's why we care." [roll]..........................And what does "Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" mean [?] I thought America's had better technology and more firepower........apparently not. Oh yeah-that's right: VX Nerve Gas kills people from 10 000 miles away.

-I may be playing devil's advocate here, but nobody can deny that America, like any other country, usually, -is putting a greater value on the American lives this war "Might" save, than the Iraqi lives this war will definitely take......but that's human nature, I guess. (sighs)

Does anyone on this Forum actually believe that Iraq does not have WMD?

If so, how about standing up and being counted?

To answer your question, Bob, I do believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.......but I'm not sure that matters.....And I'm not anti-American, I'm actually a dual-citizen. (Canadian/American)

Iraq does have to defend itself against other nations than America & its bombing campaigns......at this stage, Iran & North Korea pose much greater threats to world peace than Iraq. North Korea (and its proven nuclear arsenal) gets diplomacy -Iraq gets war. Does that make sense [?] If you consider the US's history with Saddam Hussein, then I guess it does. The US is trying to "Save face" (as it gave Saddam his power originally), and also gain greater access (more predictable, that is)to Iraqi oil.) And what will happen when Iraq falls, after a possible prolonged war [?] Iraq would become a "Sitting duck" when it comes to defending itself against an attack from Iran.

In conclusion, if Iraq does have WMD's: isn't is reasonable to expect at least a little bit of proof [?] (Other than a masters student's paper) Or do you believe everything your government says......surely that American "Slip" justifies some skepticism, regarding further claims.

Also, if Iraq has WMD, -why haven't they used them [?] Or: where is the proof they've sold them to terrorists [?] .......Or should the world applaud America whenever it does what is feels like......and why is it every time a BUSH is president, there's a recession and a war [?] ......but that's another story.[roll]

Edited by Limitless, 21 March 2003 - 03:55 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.guardian....,392151,00.html

Murders and mutilation in Iraq revealed

New Iraqi abuses revealed

Special report: Iraq

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor

Friday November 3, 2000 - The Guardian

Barbarous acts perpetrated on Iraqi political prisoners and women persist under Saddam Hussein's regime in spite of a decade of international economic sanctions engineered by the west to topple him, according to restricted Foreign Office documents obtained by the Guardian.

These state that in the last few weeks President Saddam and members of his inner circle have signed orders for executions and other acts of brutality.

The material in the documents is said to have come directly from informants in Baghdad and, indirectly, from exiles. It will help Britain and the US in their efforts to shore up the sanctions - imposed on Iraq for igniting the Gulf war by invading Kuwait in 1990, but now under challenge.

They will argue that the world must go on trying to force such a monstrous regime out. Opponents will argue that the abuses show how ineffective sanctions have been in weakening the dictatorship.

The Foreign Office papers, classified as restricted, provide details of the extensive prison network in Baghdad and on individual cases that confirm the regime's reputation as one of the cruellest in the world.

Among many incidents, the documents say that:

o More than 50 mental health patients were executed in place of prisoners with the means to bribe their way out.

o Eight prisoners were executed in October for defacing murals of Saddam Hussein.

o Thirty prostitutes were beheaded in a "clean-up" during the last month and their heads were left on the doorsteps of their homes.

o A man's tongue was cut off in September under a new decree making slander of President Saddam an amputation crime.

While the international debate has gone on in recent years about the sanctions imposed on Iraq, and the bombing of its capital and missile sites by Britain and US, the regime's abuses have tended to be overlooked, partly because information is so hard to get.

One of the Foreign Office papers says that the Iraqi government is obsessive about cataloguing its abuses. "Each execution or torture order is signed by an immediate member of Saddam Hussein's family or his closest advisers." It adds: "The orders allow the signatory to record how they want the victim to be tortured or to die." The tor ture and execution orders are said to be held on the eighth floor of the ministry of interior's main building in Baghdad. "None of the normal lifts in the building stop at the eighth floor. This is only accessible by its own special lift."

Among the signatories are President Saddam, his two sons, Uday and Qusay, and various relatives including the president's half-brothers. A former minister of the interior, Watban Ibrahim al-Hassan, is said to have "had every execution videoed. Copies of the videos were kept in a vault in Hassan's office on the second floor of the ministry".

Among the many prisons dotted round Baghdad, the Mahjar (Sanctuary), near Palestine Street, holds about 600-700 political prisoners, according to the documents. To maintain the fear factor, and give an impression to the public of impartiality, the president has imprisoned relatives of his inner circle there to show that no one is immune.

"These high-level prisoners were held in the cells for detainees rather than in the prison itself and were only there for a number of days," one document says. Among those held was Ziyad Aziz, son of the deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz. The document de scribes the layout of the prison in detail. "The execution area, the hadiqa (garden) is located near the women's [part of the] prison. The hadiqua is an open area with a sandbank covered by an awning" where prisoners were killed by machine gun. Between 1993 and 1998 about 3,000 prisoners were executed there, it says.

At another Baghdad prison, Abu Gharaib, death-row inmates are said to have been able to buy their freedom from the governor for $5,000: "To meet the quota of people executed, and to avoid this scam being uncovered, someone would need to be executed. The prison governor devised a scheme whereby he would take a patient from al-Sha ma'eel mental hospital to be executed in place of the released prisoner." About 50-60 people died in this way until both the governor and the director of the hospital were transferred in July, it is alleged.

One of the groups carrying out the recent drive against prostitutes - the Fedayeen Saddam militia set up by Uday - is said to have "beheaded about 30 prostitutes in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. The ... heads were left on the front doorsteps of the prostitutes' homes as a deterrent."

Another paper reveals that last month "the Iraqi authorities executed eight prisoners on charges of forming an opposition organisation and defacing several murals depicting Saddam Hussein.

"Muhammed al-Naji, an engineer from Baghdad province, was the first to be charged with leading the organisation. His body, together with those of three of his companions, were handed on to their families on October 2."

When in September the authorities began cutting off the tongue of anyone slandering the president or his family, an early victim is said to have been driven around his home suburb, New Baghdad, "with a loudspeaker announcing the crime and the punishment".

[bobdrake12]

To answer your question, Bob, I do believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.......but I'm not sure that matters.....And I'm not anti-American, I'm actually a dual-citizen. (Canadian/American)

Iraq does has to defend itself against other nations than America & its bombing campaigns......at this stage, Iran & North Korea pose much greater threats to world peace than Iraq. North Korea (and its proven nuclear arsenal) gets diplomacy -Iraq gets war. Does that make sense  If you consider the US's history with Saddam Hussein, then I guess it does. The US is trying to "Save face" (as it gave Saddam his power originally), and also gain greater access (more predictable, that is)to Iraqi oil.) And what will happen when Iraq falls, after a possible prolonged war  Iraq would become a "Sitting duck" when it comes to defending itself against an attack from Iran.

In conclusion, if Iraq does have WMD's: isn't is reasonable to expect at least a little bit of proof  (Other than a masters student's paper) Or do you believe everything your government says......surely that American "Slip" justifies some skepticism, regarding further claims.

Limitless,

I also believe the Iraq has WMD. This does matter to me because of the UN resolutions (some of which I posted) and because of the track record of attrocities by the government of Iraq.

In conclusion, if Iraq does have WMD's: isn't is reasonable to expect at least a little bit of proof  (Other than a masters student's paper) Or do you believe everything your government says......

If you were to have done your research, you will have gone back in this thread and have found that I posted serveral articles about the paper you are referring to ("article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California") including the story covered by CNN (click on the URL below for the CNN article):

http://www.cnn.com/2...sier/index.html

Regarding the WMD, I merely quote from UN Resolution 1441:

" Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

I agree that N. Korea is a major concern, but this thread is about Iraq.

The US is trying to "Save face" (as it gave Saddam his power originally),

If you wish to believe that this is the reason for the war, you are entitled to it. I recommend that you you read the UN resolutions.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 03:24 AM.

[Limitless]

If you were to have done your research, you will have gone back in this thread and have found that I posted serveral articles about the paper you are referring to....

I've been pretty busy lately -sorry I haven't read that yet....although I still think that it was a poor decision to base much of an argument on a paper....but maybe I'm misinformed.

Regarding the WMD, I merely quote from UN Resolution 1441:

" Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

Okay......I have no way of knowing how accurate their research was, so I'll reserve judgment.

I agree that N. Korea is a major concern, but this thread is about Iraq.

Yeah, but I thought this was all connected in Bush's grand "War on terror" -if that isn't an oxymoron.....Perhaps a better question would be: "What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and the September 11th terrorist attacks [?] Bush claims they are connected, but has been a little light on proof regarding this subject, in my opinion.

If you wish to believe that this is the reason for the war, you are entitled to it.  I recommend that you you read the UN resolutions.

I'll certainly read the UN resolutions as soon as I get the chance.....thanks a lot for the links.

[bobdrake12]

I've been pretty busy lately -sorry I haven't read that yet....although I still think that it was a poor decision to base much of an argument on a paper....but maybe I'm misinformed.

Limitless,

When you get a chance, please read the CNN article I provided the URL for.

The reason for the decision of using the paper is beyond me.

There is another article which I believe is excellent. Please click on the URL below:

http://www.msnbc.com...p?0cv=KA01#BODY

But no matter how can find fault with the Bush Administration's diplomacy (or lack of diplomacy), the article states the following:

"The United States will soon be at war with Iraq. It would seem, on the face of it, a justifiable use of military force. Saddam Hussein runs one of the most tyrannical regimes in modern history."

Yeah, but I thought this was all connected in Bush's grand "War on terror" -if that isn't an oxymoron.....Perhaps a better question would be: "What does Iraq have to do with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and the September 11th terrorist attacks  Bush claims they are connected, but has been a little light on proof regarding this subject, in my opinion.

I am not an apologist for the Bush Administration. I will leave that task for others in this Forum.

My point is simply the following:

"It would seem, on the face of it, a justifiable use of military force. Saddam Hussein runs one of the most tyrannical regimes in modern history."


Being a US citizens allows us the freedom to criticize governmental policies. That is a freedom that is not allowed in tryannical governments like those in Iraq.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 04:31 AM.

[Limitless]

As for your question about whether the CBC (Canadian Braodcasting system -public, & funded by the federal government, besides the advertisors) has covered Iraq's atrocities against its own people -yes, CBC has covered these issues. (more than most stations.) ....................

I've always found that CBC is usually more objective than other Canadian TV stations, (perhaps because it's non-profit, in part) and most Americans TV stations. (though PBS's NewsHour isn't bad, either.)

-That all being said -you're right. Saddam Hussain's brutal actions against his own people have not gotten the air-play they deserve.



That's all for now.

Edited by Limitless, 21 March 2003 - 04:17 AM.

[bobdrake12]

I've always found that CBC is usually more objective than other Canadian TV stations, (perhaps because it's non-profit, in part) and most Americans TV stations. (though PBS's NewsHour isn't bad, either.)

Limitless,

I have enjoyed the reports on the CBC as well although I normally prefer the BBC.

I believe in listening to everybody, reading everything, but believing nothing until I perform my own research.

The issue on Iraq is not an easy one. I would have preferred many things to have been handled differently on the diplomatic front, but I don't believe the final decision would have changed. Iraq has a tryannical government which has essentially ignored many UN resolutions, and I doubt that more time would have changed much of anything. I sadly believe that eventually an invasion would have been necessary even if the diplomacy would have been handled differently.

I appreciate the open discussion with you, Limitless. lol lol

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 04:29 AM.

[Limitless]

Limitless,

I have enjoyed the reports on the CBC as well although I normally prefer the BBC.  

Yeah, the British broadcasts are pretty good-fairly objective, I think.....wish I got a chance to see them more often......and regarding the CBC, unless you're an American near Canada, or with some cable package, it sounds like your in Canada.... [?] Just wondering -I seem to recall you were listed as from Canada, back on BJKlein.com, when a user's country was given. (Why did they stop that? I really liked that feature [!] [angry])

I believe in listening to everybody, reading everything, but believing nothing until I perform my own research.

Makes sense to me.

The issue on Iraq is not an easy one.  I would have preferred many things to have been handled differently on the diplomatic front, but I don't believe the final decision would have changed.

That's true. America's stance isn't all bad, but even if it were: the country with the superior military can pretty much do what they want, within reason -when it comes down to it.

Iraq has a tryannical government which has essentially ignored many UN resolutions, and I doubt that more time would have changed much of anything.  I sadly believe that eventually an invasion would have been necessary even if the diplomacy would have been handled differently.

Yeah, probably. Dictators aren't known to lose their "Lust" for power. (at all costs.)

I appreciate the open discussion with you, Limitless.   lol    lol

bob

Me too [!] Take care, Bob. lol

[DJS]

Bombs Over Baghdad
By Kissinger

Last weekend I went to Club Exit in the City with two of my closest friends. I have always found raves to be fascinating. Now I do not take ecstasy mind you, I would never destroy myself with such vises. However I still love to go to a rave to dance and get blasted by the savage beats of techno.

So there I was at the bar waiting for another vodka tonic when a new beat was introduced to the floor. Dump-dumpdump-dump-Bombs Over Baghdad-dump-dump-dumpdump-Bombs Over Baghdad. The floor went nuts. People were jumping up and down, contorting their bodies in all kinds of odd manners. I should tell you that this happens with every song.

A pretty, early twenties girl turned around and asked me -- "Where is Baghdad anyway?"

Hardly containing my laughter I replied, "No where important."

I quickly took my vodka tonic and escaped from the company of my friends. Climbing to the second floor I hid myself in one of the recessed balconies with a good view of the dance floor. There, I watched the very fortunate, very mortal, children of an empire dance themselves into oblivion. All the while tapping my foot to Bombs Over Baghdad and feeling like an immortal.

Edited by Kissinger, 21 March 2003 - 08:44 AM.

[Saille Willow]

Tap your feet to the bombs over Baggdad
To the fear and screams of women and children
Children's eyeballs on the ceilings of bunkers
The sorrow and the pain
of not being able to protect
your loved ones
enjoy the glory it may
bring you
in your false security

As an ancient European King said to an invader:" May your morning be a beautiful one, may the sun shine on your soldiers armour, for in the afternoon, I will defeat you."Paulo Coelho

Do not underestimate the poiwer of the little people.

[Saille Willow]

Where are the mighty Empires that once ruled the world?

[DJS]

I am sorry Saille, I forgot you were here. I will never under estimate the power of the little people. I promise )

[Saille Willow]

It is not I that need an apology. It is so easy to destroy.

[DJS]

I'm sick of hearing about how America is a "Superpower", and the attitude that America is "Indestructible", and yet Iraq and its paltry 1 billion dollar military (1/400th of America's) poses such an "Imminent threat" that action is needed now.....oh yeah, and "Please don't set your oil wells on fire". "Iraq needs the money -that's why we care." [roll]..........................And what does "Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" mean [?] I thought America's had better technology and more firepower........apparently not. Oh yeah-that's right: VX Nerve Gas kills people from 10 000 miles away.

I guess you have learned absolutely nothing from 9/11. The "imminent threat" is not a conventional military. The threat is a terrorist network that can acquire proliferated WMD from outlaw regimes and then use that WMD to attack targets in the continental United States.

The oil reference is typical. You have to understand that individuals in this Administration may be "business savvy", but they are not stupid. Occupying a national such as Iraq is similar to a long term business investment. It could reap some really good dividends if things go right. But if things go wrong you wind up footing the bill. We want this to work out for everyone. And seriously, the Iraqi people do need the money.

Iraq does have to defend itself against other nations than America & its bombing campaigns......at this stage,

huh [huh]

Iran & North Korea pose much greater threats to world peace than Iraq. North Korea (and its proven nuclear arsenal) gets diplomacy -Iraq gets war. Does that make sense [?]

Do they? It is debatable, but only Iraq has violated so many UN resolutions. Man, we can't even stop Iran from building their nuclear reactor because they follow IAEA guidelines. Saddam has been stupid in many ways, Iran has not. You're complaining about this conflict, I can only imagine what you would say about a conflict with Iran or North Korea!

And North Korea does not have a proven nuclear arsenal. It is estimated that they have enough fissile material, but it is conjecture. Actually having a missile with a deliverable payload is another matter all together. You keep saying that one "should always question what one is told." I find it interesting that you take speculation as fact.

And you don't know that North Korea is going to get diplomacy. You assume that. Okay, let's just say that we do deal with North Korea diplomatically. Let's use your scenario. Diplomacy could possibly be the best course of action against North Korea because of the DPRK's deterrence capabilities. However we can't make concessions. As long as North Korea doesn't start selling nukes wholesale we have some room to work things out. North Korea serves as an example of why we can't allow Iraq to fester into a nuclear power. Rogue states must be dealt with before they get acquire nuclear capabilities, not after.

And I already know the argument you would respond to this with. That by taking out Iraq and not North Korea we will be "setting a precedent that would encourage rogue states to go nuclear as soon as possible". Maybe so, but that doesn't change the logic of the previous assertions. You can't restrain all of your offensive action because you are afraid of hypothetical cause-effect relationships. In the end, if a rogue state feels compelled to accelerate its nuclear program then the intent was there to begin with. And consequently, the threat would have to have been dealt with eventually anyway.

If you consider the US's history with Saddam Hussein, then I guess it does. The US is trying to "Save face" (as it gave Saddam his power originally),

Come again [?] [?] The US did not originally give Saddam his power. Sorry man, but that is simply incorrect. Saddam acquired his power on his own. You must be referring to our partial support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. This was a purely geo-strategic matter and this is nothing compared to the duplicity that will be uncovered regarding the French.

and also gain greater access (more predictable, that is)to Iraqi oil.) And what will happen when Iraq falls, after a possible prolonged war [?] Iraq would become a "Sitting duck" when it comes to defending itself against an attack from Iran.

I hate to tell you this but if we really wanted to have a reliable oil source in Iraq we would have lifted the sanctions. World oil supplies are pooled together and sold on the international market. All we would have had to do is lift the sanctions and let Saddam start pumping out his gas again. We didn't do this because we didn't want to give him the resources to develop a formidable arsenal. This is about more than oil.

Do you really think this is going to be a prolonged war? How prolonged, two weeks? And an attack from Iran? What? An Iraq under the defensive umbrella of the United States would never be attacked by anyone ever again.

In conclusion, if Iraq does have WMD's: isn't is reasonable to expect at least a little bit of proof [?] (Other than a masters student's paper)  Or do you believe everything your government says......surely that American "Slip" justifies some skepticism, regarding further claims.

No one, not even in the world community, is debating that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. All of the world governments' intelligence services know that Iraq has WMD. Iraq's possession of WMD was an established fact in 1998 when the inspectors were forced to leave. Thousands of liters of anthrax do not disappear.

Also, if Iraq has WMD, -why haven't they used them [?] Or: where is the proof they've sold them to terrorists [?] .......Or should the world applaud America whenever it does what is feels like......and why is it every time a BUSH is president, there's a recession and a war [?] ......but that's another story.[roll]

Exactly! Where is the proof they've sold it to terrorists? I'll tell you where. It's that split second when a nuclear weapon goes off in the downtown of a city. It's the split second 2,000 people die in a packed basketball arena because of a chemical attack. That is when you will have your proof.

Iraq is one of the largest state sponsors of terror in the world. The chance of proliferation of WMD from Iraq to terrorist entities is real. You have to ask yourself whether you are willing to accept this risk. I am not.

Finally, your reference to the Bush Presidencies having poor economic records is not credible. The economy was not as bad as everyone thought during the 1992 election. It is now agreed that the economy had started to recover six months before the election. George W. Bush inherited an economy on its way to recession. 9/11 didn't help. And you use the term recession loosely. We are not in a recession currently. Recession indicates negative growth rates. We have positive growth rates.

Edited by Kissinger, 21 March 2003 - 12:13 PM.

[Thomas]

Reading about brutality of the Sadam's regime ... I ask myself, are those "peace protestors" stupid - or are they evil?

Is anything else possible?

I mean really: Are we - Bob, Kissinger and myself somehow blind - or what the hell is going on?


- Thomas

[Lazarus Long]

The divisions are deepening not really coalescing into a majority around the middle. This isn't going to diminsh in scope, it is now going to contribute to a visceral global polarization and I think this entire process bodes ill, regardless that is somewhat inevitable. I think that this almost childishh playing with fire will ignite much more than what was desired for this is how Prairie Fires begin.

I do however expect the tides of war and peace to ebb and flow as the human glacier accelerates and the magnitude of the force we represent as a species becomes more apparant to those capable of understanding.

http://story.news.ya.../war_us_rallies
Anti-War Demonstrations Cause Mayhem
6 minutes ago
By JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - The start of war in Iraq triggered one of the heaviest days of anti-government protesting in years, leading to thousands of arrests across the United States and prompting pro-war counter-demonstrations.

In San Francisco, police wearing helmets and carrying nightsticks arrested more than 1,300 people Thursday as a shifting mass of thousands of anti-war protesters commandeered the streets and paralyzed the evening commute.

Traffic was snarled in cities from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., as anti-war protesters blocked off major intersections, some chaining themselves together. Scores of high school and college students walked out of class. In all, more than 1,800 people were arrested.

"The United States is acting in a completely aggressive way," said Howard Lisnoff, who donned a rubber President Bush (news - web sites) mask at a protest in Providence, R.I. and held a sign reading "War Criminal."

But the anti-war groundswell brought out thousands of counterdemonstrators, including 2,000 who gathered outside the state Capitol in Mississippi.

Marlena Puckett, who is engaged to a Marine in the war zone, fought back tears as she watched people waving American flags and carrying handmade signs with slogans like "God bless our troops" and "Let's roll."

Sheila Murphy attended a rally in Lincoln, Neb., where more than 200 people sang, cheered and prayed. "This is a time they need to know that everyone is behind the troops and supporting the troops," she said.

Though most of the anti-war rallies were peaceful, pockets of protesters in San Francisco scuffled with police, broke windows and heaved newspaper racks and debris into streets. Some protesters hurled rocks at trains, briefly halting service at a station in nearby Oakland.

"We went from what I would call legal protests to absolute anarchy," Assistant Police Chief Alex Fagan Sr. said.

One protester died after tumbling from the Golden Gate Bridge. Authorities were investigating the death as a possible suicide.

About 1,000 protesters remained on San Francisco's downtown streets late Thursday, vowing to shut down the city again Friday. Sirens and the whirring of helicopters rattled through downtown from dawn to dusk. Television video showed one man getting out of his car to throttle and punch several protesters.

In Portland, Ore., protesters smashed in three windows at a McDonald's restaurant, set a flag on fire and sprayed graffiti on a sign at a Shell gas station. More than 100 people were arrested.

"I like the idea of shutting down commerce and the city to counteract Bush's economic motives for this war," said Eric Anholt, 19, of Portland.

About 1,000 anti-war protesters demonstrated outside the West Los Angeles Federal Building, briefly clashing with police and forcing the closure of one of the city's busiest intersections at rush hour. At least 14 were arrested, and another 50 were arrested in Santa Rosa for blocking traffic.

Several thousand marchers snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic along Chicago's main arteries, repeatedly breaking through lines of police on horseback or in riot gear.

In Washington, D.C., dozens of activists temporarily shut down inbound lanes of a Potomac River crossing, holding up the morning commute. Outside the White House, about 50 shouted, "No blood for oil!"

Anti-war activists in Philadelphia blocked entrances to the downtown federal building, forcing police to detour motorists away from the area. More than 200 people were arrested in protests across Pennsylvania.

In New York, more than 300 protesters snarled traffic in Times Square during the evening commute. Police arrested 36 people.

Counterdemonstrators gathered alongside anti-war protesters in many places, shouting patriotic slogans and encouraging support of the president.

"The debate is over, we've had the debate," Robert Strickland, an Army veteran, said as he waved an American flag in Louisville, Ky. "It's time to rally around our troops and rally around our leaders."

Dennise Linville, 33, stood at the edge of a rally in Cleveland, with a placard declaring President Bush a hero.

"I have children and if this (Iraq) is not taken care of now, in five or 10 years they're going to be the ones who will have to go in the military and take care of it," Linville said.

Some anti-war demonstrators took pains to express their support for U.S. troops as they denounced the policy that sent them into Iraq.

"We support them so much that we don't want one to die in an unjust war," said Mike Slaton, who demonstrated in Louisville, Ky.

Students walked out of class at some high schools, while protests were held at several colleges.

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites), in Cambridge, about 600 students converged on the student center, some chanting and wearing mock biochemical protective suits. A protest and sit-in at the University of California at Berkeley, led to 110 arrests.

In Texas, several hundred University of Texas at Austin students linked arms and sat down in a busy street. Police closed the area to traffic. Several hundred people blocked traffic in Asheville, N.C., and about 20 were arrested.

Nancy Parkinson, 62, who took part in a protest at the University of Florida, said she broke out her peace sign necklace and pink and lime green paisley shirt from her Vietnam protest days to show her support.

"I thought I would never have to wear it again," she said.

In St. Louis, as many as 1,000 anti-war protesters linked arms to form a human chain around the federal courthouse. Peaceful marches of about 2,000 people were held in Seattle and Madison, Wis.

Other demonstrations were solemn, with the reciting of Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers through a bullhorn at a federal building in Pittsburgh.

In Des Moines, Iowa, about 400 people gathered Thursday night to pray for peace and the safety of all those touched by the war with Iraq. Joann McCracken, 50, of Des Moines, said it was a time of mourning.

"It's a sad, sad time for our country, for Iraq and really the whole world."

[DJS]

Reading about brutality of the Sadam's regime ... I ask myself, are those "peace protestors" stupid - or are they evil?

Is anything else possible?

I mean really: Are we - Bob, Kissinger and myself somehow blind - or what the hell is going on?

- Thomas

Thomas, most of them are just very stupid. I would debate against any of them and take them out X-man style. Most of them are completely uneducated on world affairs. Those who do bother to educate themselves are nut jobs who have wacked out world views. One can only imagine the level of idiocy when peace protesters are protesting in defense of one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen. Its not like we're taking out the Dali Lama here.

Organizations like ANSWER are way way out there. It is a testament to the freedom of our society that they are allowed to exist.

[DJS]

First, I would like to say that I am glad to see that people who understand what is going on in this world final put their foot down. Enough is enough.

In an interview on Fox News, Harlan Ullman (a military theorist) admitted that he was the author of the "shock and awe" concept. He made clear that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was well aware of his work.

Pentagon officials said the most formidable barrage, the long predicted "shock and awe" to be inflicted upon Iraq, was yet to come. Yesterday, SoD Donald Rumsfeld promised action of "a force and scope and scale beyond what has been seen before."

Rummy, Rummy, Rummy. You almost had me fooled [blush] . What great psy-ops! Much better to leave the threat hanging over head than to implement it right away and take its influence out of the decision making process of resistance forces.

Or then again, maybe we are going to implement "shock and awe", but only after we see how the Iraqi military infrastructure works in times of actual conflict. "Give Iraq a few pokes with a stick before you go in for the kill."

--------------------
I'm also wondering whether HPM was used to secure wells in the west and north of Iraq (or was it just special forces?) Of course, at this point we are not going to be privy to this information.

Edited by Kissinger, 21 March 2003 - 09:05 PM.

[Thomas]

most of them are just very stupid.

That must be the key word, yes. Plain stupid is not enough.

The assertion, that Iraq should be left alone and that only Iraqi people should overthrow Saddam, if and when they want - is either very stupid or quite evil.

Yet, this is the key argument in almost all Arab (and Europe) countries.

However, I can't help myself, not to see a degree of evil here. One can't be that stupid!

- Thomas

[bobdrake12]

Yeah, the British broadcasts are pretty good-fairly objective, I think.....wish I got a chance to see them more often......and regarding the CBC, unless you're an American near Canada, or with some cable package, it sounds like your in Canada.... [?] Just wondering -I seem to recall you were listed as from Canada, back on BJKlein.com, when a user's country was given. (Why did they stop that? I really liked that feature [!]  [angry])

Limitless,

I get some 300+ cable channels but actually don't watch a lot of TV. Even so, I do enjoy CBC and BBC. I seldom watch the dominant media (NBC, ABC and CBS) TV news moguls except for entertainment purposes. [unsure]

I am from Los Angeles, California. [B)]

When I lived in Detroit, I used to go to Windsor on the weekends. Windsor is one of my favorite cities.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

You also thought Mr. Kissinger that there wouldn't be demonstrations and obviously that prediction is out the window. This is only the beginning, it took over six years before the domestic population here even reached a comparable level with the Vietnam War.

Have you seen the riots that are starting in the Middle East in Egypt and Yemen, and all the various regimes that are about to be threatened with change? The kind we claim we want and fear the most, grassroots rebellions of whole sale populations at the polls and on the streets?

The longer we are there the more this will occur, and not just in the places I have mentioned but in Indonesia, Malaysia, and even Pakistan. Even peace talks that had been going well are now collapsing in Sri Lanka and the Phillipines. I guess you can consider it collateral damage Mr. Kissinger.

Look at the numbers Mr. Kissinger and understand that what has happened is that the unwilling are being organized by reaction into a Coalition in Opposition. NATO is threatened and even EU stability before this will get over. Ignoring risk has never ever meant it wasn't there.

Here is a note someone shared with me of how the press sees this abroad. I don't have the links to the original but I trust my source.

LL/kxs
*********
This is from an article by Pauolo Coelho, translated from Portuguese by Margaret Jull Costa.

"...Thank you, great leader George W Bush...

Thank you for having achieved something that very few have so far
managed to do in this century: the bringing together of millions of people on all continents to fight for the same idea, even though that idea is opposed to yours.

Thank you for making us feel once more that though our words may not be heard, they are at least spoken-this will make us stronger in the future.

Thank you for ignoring us, for marginalising all those who oppose your decision, because the future of the Earth belongs to the excluded.

Thank you, because, without you, we would not have realised our own ability to mobilise. It may serve no purpose this time, but it will doubtless be useful later on.

Now that there seems no way of silencing the drums of war, I would like to say, as an ancient European king said to an invader:"May your morning be a beautiful one, may the sun shine on your soldiers' armour, for in the afternoon, I will defeat you."

Thank you for allowing us - an army of anonymous people filling the streets in an attempt to stop a process that is already under way-to know what it feels like to be powerless and to learn to grapple with that feeling and to transform it.

So, enjoy your morning and what-ever glory it may bring you.

Thank you for not listening to us and not taking us seriously, but know that we are listening to you and that we will not forget your words.

Thank you, great leader George W Bush.

Thank you very much."

[bobdrake12]

Reading about brutality of the Sadam's regime ... I ask myself, are those "peace protestors" stupid - or are they evil?

Is anything else possible?

I mean really: Are we - Bob, Kissinger and myself somehow blind - or what the hell is going on?

Thomas,

Perhaps, they are unaware of history.

bob




Who in this Forum would like to live in a country governed by Saddam Hussein?


http://www.worldhist...com/hussein.htm



Saddam Hussein


28 April 1937 Saddam Hussein was born in Tikrit, Iraq. He was sent to live with his maternal uncle soon after he was born. During his early years, reports have linked Saddam to the murders of a school teacher and/or a cousin.
1955 Saddam moved to Baghdad.
1956 Hussein joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party.
1957 Hussein was denied the admission to the Baghdad Military Academy.
1958 Hussein married Sajida.
1959 Hussein attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of Iraq. He was arrested for six months. Hussein was shot in the leg by the prime minister's bodyguard.
25 February 1960 After being convicted for his assassination attempt, Hussein was sentenced to death, although he later escaped to Syria and then to Egypt. 1962 Hussein completed his secondary studies.
1962-1963 Hussein studied law in Cairo, but he did not complete it.
8 February 1963 Hussein returned to Iraq after the Ramadan Revolution and was elected to the Baath Party.
14 October 1964 Hussein was arrested for charges accusing him of rebelling against the regime.
September 1966 While in prison, Hussein was elected the Deputy Secretary General of the Baath Party Leadership.
1967 Hussein escaped from prison.
July 1968 Hussein participated in a coup to overthrow Iraq's president and the regime.
1968 Hussein graduated from the College of Law.
9 November 1969 Hussein was elected the Vice-chairman of the Revolution Command Council.
1 June 1972 Hussein nationalized all of the oil companies in Iraq.
1 July 1973 Hussein was dubbed the rank of Lieutenant general and the Rafadain Order, First Class.
11 March 1974 Hussein helped to implement the Autonomy Law for Iraqi Kurdish Citizens. The Kurds were forced to go to Iran.
1 February 1976 Hussein was awarded M.A. Honors Degree in Military Sciences
8 October 1977 Hussein was elected the Assistant Secretary General of the National Pan-Arab Leadership of the Baath Party.
16 July 1979 Hussein was elected as the President of Iraq and as the Chairman of Revolution Command Council.
17 July 1979 Hussein was promoted to the rank of Field Marshall.
8 October 1979 Hussein was elected Deputy Secretary General of the Pan-Arab Leadership of the Baath party.
4 September 1980 Hussein initiated a war with Iran as he attacked the oil-reserves in Iran.
1982 Former President Bakr died mysteriously. It was widely suspected that Hussein was involved.
30 July 1983 Hussein was dubbed the Revolution Order, First Class.
1984 Hussein was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Law from the University of Baghdad.
1987-1988 Hussein launched the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds. 180,000 Kurds disappeared and 4,000 villages were destroyed.
28 April 1988 Hussein was dubbed the Order of the People.
March 1988 The Kurdish town, Halabaja, was gassed. 5,000 people were killed and 10,000 were injured.
8 August 1988 Hussein agreed to a cease-fire with Iran. Iraq won the conflict.
August 1988 Many Kurdish villages on the Turkish border were gassed. Thousands of people died.
2 August 1990 Hussein seized Kuwait.
16 January 1991 The United States began bombing Baghdad in response to Hussein not turning over Kuwait.
February 1991 The Persian Gulf War ended. President George Bush of the United States declared a cease-fire.
1993 Hussein broke the peace terms from the end of the Persian Gulf War. The United States bombed Iraq as a result.
29 September 1998 The United States passed the Iraq Liberation Act. The Act stated that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution.
October 1998 Hussein failed to comply with the united Nations weapons inspectors. This action led to a four-day bombing raid by the United States.
16-19 December 1998 The United Nations pulled their workers out of Iraq. The United States and the United Kingdom began air raids on Iraq called Operation Desert Fox.
1999 Throughout the year continual air strikes hit Iraq.
2000 It is reported that Hussein has used humanitarian funds to build presidential palaces and for other personal enrichment items.
2002 The United States began to initiate a plan to overthrow Hussein.
2002 Hussein allows the United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.
January 2003 Other Arab leaders in the middle east request that Saddam Hussein go into exile to avoid war with the United States.
February 2003 Saddam Hussein interviewed with news reporter, Dan Rather. Hussein said that he would not go into exile and that he would not surrender in a possible war. He claimed that Iraq does not have any weapons that go against UN resolutions.
17 March 2003 United States President George W. Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum. Either he leave Iraq within 48 hours with his sons or the United States would pursue military action.

Works Cited
Saddam Hussein. Online. http://top-biography...sein/index1.asp.
Biography of President Saddam Hussein: President of Iraq. Online. http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/bio.htm.
Biography of President Saddam Hussein, President of the Republic of Iraq. Online. http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/bio.htm.
Biography of Saddam Hussein of Tikrit. Online. http://www.iraqfound...search/bio.html.
Howard Kurtz. "Off Camera, Saddam interviewed Rather." Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service http://www.gulf-news...ArticleID=78789

Sponsored by 10x Marketing, leader in Affiliate Marketing

Edited by bobdrake12, 21 March 2003 - 10:39 PM.