Bush v UN

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Virage
you are wrong

huh?

Saddam "kicked them out" by not abiding by the UN resolutions

the UN pulled the inspectors because the weak UN (US really) at the time was to busy with their admin zippers and a bubble poppin dow to care ...

[Gixer]

That would be a great victory, as he's been doing an incredibly bad job ever since 9/11. And the growing polls against his actions reflects this.

Have you read anything on the Hutton Inquiry in the UK recently (if at all) Eagler? Makes bad reading for the British government. And the polls there are something like 2/3 against for Blair and the worst is yet to come.

We'll see if Bush's popularity is any better in another 6 months.


...-Gixer

Originally posted by Eagler
Bush v UN

history will prove Bush won

[Virage]

Originally posted by Eagler

Saddam "kicked them out" by not abiding by the UN resolutions

you mean those resolutions that told him to cease his WMD program?  Yeah he didn't abide by those.  We will find them any day now.  

[LoneStarBuckeye]

The UN is the US's to use, abuse, and exploit as she sees fit.  I don't know why the rest of you earthlings can't understand that.  

Personally, I think we should extract ourselves from that miserable assemblage, but until we do, you should expect more use, abuse, and exploitation.

[miko2d]

muckmaw: 12 years, 14 resolutions, and a dictator laughed in the face of the world body.

 What, have you found the weapons?

 Bush, after having engaged the UN and having it demonstrate its effectiveness[/i] in resolving the issues his administration raised, brushed it aside anyway. No wonder US is pissed with Bush.

 It seems to me the Resolution #1441 (by a unanimous 15-to-0 vote) - warning Iraq of “serious consequences” if it did not cooperate with the UN inspection teams: UNMOVIK responsible for chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), responsible for nuclear weapons - was a resounding success.

 Bush was advised by congressional leaders that he could not get authorization from Congress to use force unless he demonstrated that diplomacy had failed to achieve the disarmament of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Secretary Powell believed on this go-round the UNMOVIK and IAEA inspectors would find Iraq un-cooperative, or would actually find hidden weapons of mass destruction, and that Bush could then activate the authority given him by Congress. It did not turn out that way.[/i]

 In fact, Resolution #1441 was working like a charm. UNMOVIK inspectors were crawling all over Iraq. They had gone to the several hundred places where they were most likely to find illegal activities and found not a scrap of evidence that could hold up to even casual questioning. Muhammed ElBaradei, chief of the IAEA, said that Iraq had no nukes and could not acquire them without being discovered. Hans Blix of UNMOVIK said his team was interviewing Iraqi scientists in private and that ALL THAT REMAINED was to clear up some of the discrepancies in how Iraq disposed of CW and BW in 1991. Blix said this would take perhaps two more months at most and that Iraq was cooperating to expedite the process! Because of constant hints from the US administration that UNMOVIK was not quick enough to spot WMD, Iraq invited US to send CIA teams into the country to swoop down at a moment’s notice on sites they suspect. How much clearer could it be that multinational diplomatic action by the United Nations was working?

 miko

[Swager]

Bush gave a speech?

Oh well, I missed another one.

[Drifter1234]

My simple proposal:

Since the U.N. is reluctant to assist in Iraq.  We should divert all the funds we are currently paying to the U.N. and use them in the rebuilding of Iraq.


Drftr

[Gadfly]

Don't let facts get in the way:

(VX)

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.


(Mustard Gas)

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Biological weapons:


There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

Hans Blix, in his report to THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003

[Animal]

Originally posted by Eagler
Bush v UN

history will prove Bush won

Ironic.
Yeah, history will prove many things. I've got a feeling you wont like history in 10 years.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Animal
Ironic.
Yeah, history will prove many things. I've got a feeling you wont like history in 10 years.

I think I will \\if I don't - it will not be due to the Bush vs the UN argument

you think the UN will even be around in another 10 years?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by muckmaw
Just remember, every night when you go to bed, you've got one less dictator developing WMD's. You've got one less anti-christ talking with terrorists, plotting the death and destruction of your family and your hometown. When your done with you little rant, remember to say thanks to GWB and the coalition of the willing. They went and did what the UN could only threaten for the past 12 years.

By the look of things, we had one less dictator developing WMD before we showed up.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Dowding
I'd like to see the evidence that so definitively proves that Iraq was developing or in the possession of WMD immediately prior to March 2003. To my knowledge, it doesn't (yet) exist. Until it does, save us the sermon, father.

If we want to talk about politicians aiding and abetting terrorists let's take a look at the US's stance towards the Real IRA post Omagh. GWB considers the lack of any action against known members of a terrorist organisation as collusion. I'd say that particularly case fits his bill nicely.

The sword you're wielding cuts both ways and is very sharp. Remember that as you kneel before Bush's altar.

Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas. You know as well as anyone, once a person like Saddam gets the taste of WMDs, he'd never let go. If there was no evidence of him having WMD's, why the resolutions? Why all the interest from the UN, and not just the US. Where the smoke, there's fire Dowding. Don't play coy, you know the minute the UN and the world turned it's back, Saddam would have continued his WMD program. Whether or not it was active when we went in, though a smoking gun, is not the only gun. Remember what they say about a smoking gun...it's already gone off.

Come on, guys. Admit it. We needed this guy gone. If he did not have active WMDs in his arsenal, he had the capability to make them. He has before. Worse, he had the propensity to use 'em. We all know he would have got them going again the minute we turned our back.

I'll admit it would have been great if we found WMD's, but we did'nt. I don't thin we're going to either. This alone made us look bad, and GWB worse. I admit this. But I don't hold GWB and the US as the sole conspirator. The UN believed this guy had WMDs for gods sake.

As for the terrorists link, Saddam had no links to Al Quaida, as far as we know. I never thought he did. But  you can not sit there and tell me he had no links to any terroist group, not withsatanding the 25K he gave to Hammas Suicide bombers. You can not tell me he would not have given a terror group a WMD if he knew they were going to detonate it in a US city, and he thought he could get away with it. You simply cannot tell me he would not have sold some Sarin to the highest bidder.

Some on guys. I know it's fun to debate, but let's be honest here.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
By the look of things, we had one less dictator developing WMD before we showed up.

Now GWB is a dictator?

Unbelievable.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by muckmaw
Now GWB is a dictator?

Unbelievable.

Hussein... no WMD to be found...

[miko2d]

muckmaw: Evidence: 5000+ Dead Kurds in the North, gassed. You want to watch the tape again? How many dead Iranians. Gas.

 That is a lie long since refuted. Few hundred kurds died during the battle for Halabja between Iraqi and Iranian armies. Both used chemical mortar rounds but the dead kurds were mostly the victims of Iranian gas.
 Human Rights Watch, CIA and United States Defense Intelligence Agency confirm that. Just read the papers.

United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

 As for fighting teocratic regime in Iran, US were his allies in that war.

 miko