Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on April 02, 2004, 09:35:50 PM
-
Isn't it ironic? The USA did more to ensure the UN's weapons inspectors could do their job in Iraq than the UN or any other country did.
Don't you find it a little ironic when people say that the US/Bush wouldn't let the UN inpsectors do their job in Iraq? What country did more to ensure that inspectors could do their job in Iraq than the US?
Isn't it funny that the same people that say the US should have allowed the UN inspectors more time are the very same people that did nothing when the UN inspectors were kicked out? The same people that let Iraq have 12 years to comply?
The fact is that the ONLY reason UN inpsectors were able to go back into Iraq was that the USA, not the UN, but the USA, put troops in the area and threatened their use if Iraq did not comply. I guess the UN's words were taken as such by Iraq..... simply words.
And people say the US bypassed the UN..... lol.. if anyone bypassed the UN it was Iraq..... and I didn't hear anyone complaining back then.
The fact that it took the US and CREDIBLE threats of force to get Saddam to even think about complying makes the UN look pretty damn ineffective and irrelevent in the VERY matter they were charged with managing.
What did the UN do to get Saddam to comply with anything?
Finnaly, is it not hillarious that the UN wrote every resolution they could think of to get Iraq to comply with it's obligations and then threated "severe consequnces" if Iraq did not do so in a "last chance" resolution.
The kicker for me is that now every single UN demand is being complied with in Iraq, but this is not good enough for the morons of the world based simply on the fact that they were "lied to by Bush"
One big LOL for all you people that can't see beyond your nose.
-
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/yawn.gif)
NBB
-
I thought I would get at least one intelligent rebuttal.
I'm still wondering what exactly the UN did to ensure Iraq complied with all the UN resolutions.
-
How's this for a rebuttal:
Quit posting on here and get back to work on the secret project.
Works for you?
;)
-
Nuke.
Iraq did comply.
What are you talking about..
did they comply because of the threat of US miltary action..probably...but that shows you what appeasment gets you.
Us troops in the area where never about forcing compliance or security or terrorism or anything else..they where about power projection and getting ready to invade again.
There is nothing that Iraq could have dont to keep Bush from attacking. Nothing. No evidence of WMD at all. and the US invaded anyway.
As to the resolutions..they were more to appease the US then to preasure Iraq.
So everyone..from Sadam to the Security coucil was trying to Appease the US..and it didnt work..as it never works.
-
There was no requirement for WMD evidence to invade, all that was needed was evidence of non compliance to the resolution ultimatum which was uninamiously voted in by UN...
I do love how you are trying a new USA = NAZIS angle where poor iraq and the poor UN are pictured as some hopless pacifist optimists trying to appease an evil USA to no avail....
Is saddam chamberlain in your mind, or perhaps daladier? Is the UN the League of nations?
Saddam is not a victim...
-
poor ole saddam, should have just left him be ... mean ole US, what were they thinking?
u tell em canada - you world power you ~!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The invasion of Iraq has shown every dictator around the world that the only protection against US aggression is to have WMD.
Yeah G, that's EXACTLY what Qadaffi thought. Try again.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
There was no requirement for WMD evidence to invade, all that was needed was evidence of non compliance to the resolution ultimatum which was uninamiously voted in by UN...
The requirement for any UN sanctioned invasion is a resolution sanctioning said invasion to be passed by the UN Security council. With no such sanction for the Invasion of Iraq, you can't use the UN as justification. You'll have to look elsewhere for the casus belli: the UN dog won't hunt.
Bellyache all you like about the UN - right or wrong, it did not sanction the invasion at all.
The best you can get off the UN is 1441's provision of "serious consequences" a threat tempered with the reaffirmation of "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States".
Both the US and UK ambassadors to the UN stressed that these "serious consequences" were not an automatic validation of an invasion:
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. " - Ambassador John Negroponte of the US.
"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." - Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the UK
The other veto powers make it equally clear:
The French said this: " in the event the executive president of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission or the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency reports to the Security Council that Iraq has not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately to assess the seriousness of these violations and draw the consequences. France welcomes the fact that all ambiguity on this point and all element of automaticity have disappeared from the resolution."
The Russians: "At all stages of this work, we were guided by the need to direct the process of a settlement onto a diplomatic and political path and not to allow a military scenario. As a result of intensive negotiations, the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force. It is important that the resolution’s sponsors today officially confirmed in the Security Council that that is their understanding and that they provided an assurance that the resolution’s objective is the implementation of existing Security Council decisions concerning Iraq through inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That is an objective shared by all members of the Council.
In that connection, it is of fundamental importance that the resolution clearly confirms that all Members of the United Nations respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and of all other States in the region. It is also confirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1382 (2001), whereby members of the Security Council undertook to seek a comprehensive settlement of the Iraq problem, which assumes the lifting of sanctions. "
The Chinese: "As the co-sponsors pointed out during their statements, the purpose of the resolution is to achieve the disarmament of Iraq through effective inspections. The text no longer includes automaticity for authorizing the use of force. According to the resolution, only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraq’s non-compliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall the Security Council consider the situation and take a position.
We are also pleased to note that at the request of many members, including China, the resolution has now included some important elements, e.g.'reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,' ”
It's also worth noting that all further Security Council Resolutions on Iraq prior to the invasion (1443, 1447, 1454) reiterate "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" but none mention the "serious consequences".
And finally, the US,UK & Spain did draw up this resolution proposal: http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf (http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-iraq-07mar03-en-rev.pdf) but it was withdrawn due to lack of support.
And now back to this week's excuse for the invasion of Iraq... I forget - what is this week's excuse?
-
DiabloTX
he does have a point.
If iraq had nukes and a way to deliver it to his neighbours then the us would never dare to invade. However this would not work if it was "only" bio/chem weapons as Gulf1 showed.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
DiabloTX
he does have a point.
If iraq had nukes and a way to deliver it to his neighbours then the us would never dare to invade. However this would not work if it was "only" bio/chem weapons as Gulf1 showed.
Though nuclear non-proliferation measures have to be pre-emptive to be most effective, no matter what form they take, that does not neccesarily preclude the use of force. A belligerent state that has exhibited it's willingness to use weapons of a similar nature on a whim would most certainly require pre-emptive measures by force if there's even a hint that they could be developing a nuclear arsenal. And if there proves to be evidence that they HAVE nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them, then the option of a sudden, overwhelming pre-emptive attack on their soil to eliminate the threat is most certainly an option ... just not the prefered of the two.
If you agree that the above is self evident in nature, then perhaps you'd be willing to agree that the better of two options was achieved. Or are you truly convinced that Saddam Hussain actually had no intent of eventually building (and quite likely using) a nuclear weapon within his lifetime?
And that being the case, Saddam, having been given every opportunity to convince the UN that he had no intention of doing such yet behaving in such a manner as to convince the UN inspectors that he, instead, was indeed hiding something from them AND having been given a second chance to comply, And a third. etc. ... played a dangerous game of "bluff the world" and lost.
This, of course, is America's fault.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
DiabloTX
he does have a point.
If iraq had nukes and a way to deliver it to his neighbours then the us would never dare to invade. However this would not work if it was "only" bio/chem weapons as Gulf1 showed.
And I had a point to. Not "every" dictator thought what G said. Qaddafy decided it wasn't worth the effort after seeing the results of Iraq now did he?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
And I had a point to. Not "every" dictator thought what G said. Qaddafy decided it wasn't worth the effort after seeing the results of Iraq now did he?
That's probably not the whole truth.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/wwwh31225.htm
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1168.html
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That's probably not the whole truth.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/wwwh31225.htm
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/dec/1168.html
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
As you libs like to point out, nothing ever is the whole truth. Like everything else, common sense prevails.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
As you libs like to point out, nothing ever is the whole truth. Like everything else, common sense prevails.
As we also like pointing out, nothing is ever simply black or white.
-
I don't think saddam would have developed his own nukes within his lifetime because he was way to greedy and developing nukes are expencive and fairly easy to trace. However...neither me or any of you have a clue as to what he had planned, but we may find out if he tells the truth in prison.
If a nation whoever it is decides to invade a nation that has nukes and a way to deliver them to his neighbours or eveen further away then the invading nation is also in part responsible for the thousands that would die if the invaded nation would start launching nukes. No nation would dare do this.....not even USA.
Do you belive the US would invade a country with nukes without making damn sure that you can prevent them from using nukes?
-
Yes, Nils. If we had solid proof that Saddam had even one nuke scud or even a better missle, we would have acted quickly, decisively and eliminated the threat. If Israel didn't beat us to it. Surgical strikes - followed by occupation (in our case).
It's not like invading China or Russia, my friend.
Nuclear non-proliferation amongst the Arab states is a good thing. Trust me.
As it is, the scenario turned out better. Pre-emptive before he could develop them.
Saddam being too greedy to want to develop a nuke? :lol
-
So you think your goverment would risk the lives of thousands?
I find it more likley that he would try to buy second hand nukes.
Yes i think he was to greedy to make his own nukes.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
As we also like pointing out, nothing is ever simply black or white.
I never claimed that nor will I ever. MOST things are black and white. It's up to your convictions to decide what is what. I think Qaddafy saw the writing on the wall and capitulated. Whether you think it was something else influencing his decision is, of course, your prerogative. Funny thing is, if you have a take on an issue, you can search the web and find anything that will support your view. The truth is always sandwiched between two rocks labelled "common" and "sense".
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
So you think your goverment would risk the lives of thousands?
I find it more likley that he would try to buy second hand nukes.
Yes i think he was to greedy to make his own nukes.
Do you think allowing Saddam Hussain to retain possession of a nuclear missle wouldn't be a greater risk? It WOULD have been used. Saddam isn't a world champion poker player but he IS a megalomaniac.
The only difference in the scenario is that the UN wouldn't have been involved at all. Sometime in the early morning hours with the skies still dark over Baghdad, there would have been a rather large conventional explosion and Saddam would have lost his toy.
As far as greed was concerned ... there's enough evidence to prove that he spent more than enough in his R&D programs to finance a few more palaces, yachts and whatnot.
Granted, his R&D did center on projects that were easier for him to produce - delivery systems, chemical and biological weapons - but nuclear was certainly on his mind, as well.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html
As it is, he got cagey and tried to bluff the UN and he failed. You should be glad of this and not enraged at "the huge injustice" done him. :lol
-
And how would you be sure that a conventional explosion vould take out his toy like magic? The intelligence that the coaliton has gathered so far regarding his "toys" has been wrong? For the "surgical" strikes to work it needs a precise target. During GW1 the coalition could not even find all the scuds he had hidden around the desert.
Although i bet some here would argue that carpet bombing Iraq and turn it into a parkinglot would take care of the problem I don't :D
To clarify why i think saddam is to greedy to develope his own nukes:
If he would do that then he would guarantee that the world would retain the sanctions against him and his oil export and by doing that he would not get the $$$ that he is very fond of. In addition to that comes the R&D cost + all the parts and equipment + missiles etc etc.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
If he would do that then he would guarantee that the world would retain the sanctions against him and his oil export and by doing that he would not get the $$$ that he is very fond of. In addition to that comes the R&D cost + all the parts and equipment + missiles etc etc.
As it is, he was smart enough to avoid all that by cooperating fully with the UN inspectors thus allowing him to continue on as the dictator of Iraq. Don't go pretending he was rational in any degree. ;)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I think Qaddafy saw the writing on the wall and capitulated.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?
So much for common sense.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc?
So much for common sense.
There was nothing coincidental about his action. It was common sense.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
There was nothing coincidental about his action. It was common sense.
Sure thing there, sparky. Believe what you want.
The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled, as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sure thing there, sparky. Believe what you want.
Gee, thanks Dad. I couldn't ever think without your "multiple shades of gray" insight.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis
exponebantur ad necem.
-
First you call me, Dad. Then you call me a child. Make up your mind, sport.
-
Remember now, all things aren't black and white. One was literal, one was metaphorical.