If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraq agrees to the unconditional return of UN inspectors
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As for the rest of your comments above, I agree that the rhetoric has been used before and quite frankly its old and worn out. This is a new era, with new complexities which Bush doesnt have the mental capacity to understand in his rush to impose regime change there.
All that this will do is cause more civilian death on a large scale, and incite further hatred toward us as the claims of whacko terrorist groups around the globe are shown to be correct to even more disenfranchised conscripts for their cause.
In this situation i prefer to say that both sides are wrong in their intentions and we should be looking to empower the iraqi people by giving back to them what we've kept from them for so long with our sanctions, namely, dignity, a chance to rebuild their own shattered lives and ultimately down the road the stability that will allow grassroots insurgency movements to topple the regime from within.
Right now all we've left them is rags, prayers, and misery.
Ah, yes. It's all so much more complicated, only Clandestine can understand it... :rolleyes:
You underestimate the realities of human history. It's always been complicated. There is nothing new except some toys... just some of those toys are a bit more dangerous then they used to be.
and that would be a huge mistake becuase we don't have the resources or infrastructure to make that force work. Unless on a small scale, it certainly couln't fight on two fronts at once, which is what the US military is designed to do.
Funny that you don't see the link, perhaps that is because you miss the point that I don't think that US foreign policy is right all the time. I think you mistake my support for them here as support for them generally.
What I actually said is that the UN failure to act proves that they are toothless, and that by giving the right of veto to the US (and others) they have tied their own hands.
I also said that as these countries have this right, they should use it when it suits their countries interest, because they have that respoinsibility to their own people. Doesn't mean that I don't think this right should be withdrawn.
I concur in large part with that assessment.
WE?? In this case does that mean Sodam Insane has a frog in his pocket?
Take a look at Iraq's oil income. They can afford to buy anything they desire..
Sanctions?
Are you daft? Iraq can buy almost any item they choose in the way of the food, medical, building materials and such..
The Iraqi government choses not to do so.
Did you forget that Iraq just purchased some aluminum tubing for "agricultural" use?
Stop reading the tabloids and staring at the Page 3..
Estimates range between 12 and 20 billion dollars worth of oil smuggled out of Iraq. If that much oil could be "smuggled" out, exactly what could not be "smuggled" in?
Me thinks that Greenhat underestimates the "value" of an idealistically based perspective[/u], in his urgency to function in a reality based world.
See what experience has done for you?!?! :eek: It has forced you to deal with things without your blinders firmly in place! :eek:
Neville would drop you from his team...
First off, What Saddam can or cannot do is in no way equatable to what the poor civilians can or cannot do. The country is in a state of ruin already with water and electrical utilities mostly if not totally destroyed. Food is rationed and requires hours of queuing for basic necessities.
As hard as it might be to imagine for you in the smug comfort of your nice cosy US homes, these people are fighting for survival on a daily basis. Sure Saddam could spend his money on the people and he should, but he doesnt and wont. Nevertheless, he remains strongly entrenched despite the sanctions, so therefore (to spell it out so you might comprehend) the only people suffering from the sanctions are innocent Iraqi civilians. This is our legacy along with yet another inevitable invasion which will more than likely increase the civilian death toll considerably. All in the name of "helping the Iraqi people"????
It remains utter hypocrisy.
Where "reverse" and I gained our "insight" was not The Discovery Channel, nor even The History Channel, for although it certainly was history, it is not of the nature of such as might be sufficiently sanitized and truncated, then stored away in a neat little box, then viewed by the likes of you. Our "box" - and I doubt you might even comprehend the meaning of the word - was not of the theroretical, but of the here and now. What you read about, we lived, and what we lived? Bears little resemblance to the revised history you were suckled upon. And that history we lived? You would not, could not, understand...
Suffering? We walked in its midst, and carry the scars to bear witness to that fact.
Because of who we are? We are privy to conversation with them who would not allow you in their midst. And what they "say"? Is not so definitive as what they do NOT say. If you discover an 11Bravo or 0311 who might allow you entrance to the perimeter of his world, you might learn that communication in a hot place was other than through words... Concept of OPSEC familiar to you? Then best you should listen very carefully...
The oath that reverse, Greenhat, Deisel and I took? Concerned a loyalty to the constitution of the United States. It was not to the people of ANY other country, nor to a particular President, nor to the United Nations, or even NATO or SEATO or ANY other organization. None of us is so concerned with the "servivability" of Iraqi's as to ignore the consequential fate to our own countrymen and families.
Veterans of war are the last to clamor for a gratuitous conflict, because they have survived the reality of war. They are - however - extremely aware of the necessity of war in particular moments and circumstances. Reverse has friends, neighbors, and likely family who are waiting to deploy, if they have not already. My own son is awaiting deployment. We are FULLY aware of the reality of what we speak.
War with Sodamn Insane is coming, whether it is in the here and now, or in the near future. It is coming! ... and there is NOTHING that you and your ilk can do to stop it. It either comes now when we might have the initiative, or it comes in the future when Insane has had more time to spend the 12 > 20 billion dollars he has cached away from smuggled oil on more - and more lethal - weapons.
And you? Neville? Would be wise to get out of the way, lest you get trampled under by the reality you choose to ignore. You are so like the fool who insists upon walking the trestle with a train bearing down upon him, with his faith that the "inconceivable" cannot happen to him. Keep those blinders firmly in place: they suit you...
Ooh-Rah!!
Are you an American, and if so why all this concern for the Iraqi people over the American people.
Im not attacking you, Im just trying to gain insight into what your driving at? And just where you stand.
How Oliver North chose to mis-interpret his oath is his problem. The oath is very clear, and states "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
These types like Greenhat and the buddies whom he seemingly ran to bring on board here as his heckling committee think that security is further ensured by continuing the onslaught, when in point of fact they show zero comprehension for the fanatic mindset which is able to endure and abide in the face of such militarism until such time as the conditions for their reemergence are present.
The hatred building at what Bush is evidencing as little more than a American tirade gainst anyone and everyone who opposes our long history of hypocritical foreign policy and hegemony is tangible and cannot be ameliorated by guns or bombs. We are simply playing right into the hands of those who expect us to do as much and who use that to garner new recruits to their cause.
Let us look at the current situation in Iraq for a moment. Harmad Karzai and his government established and then left to themselves as we did previously after meddling in the affairs of that country. This has allowed the resumption of poppy cultivation of a scale that is set to restore Afghanistan to its premier place amongs heroine exporting nations. Further the warlords are quirtly returning to the factionalism that has always divided that land with little Karzai can do to prevent it.
Now the Hawks want to rush into Baghdad on grounds that conveniently evolve in parallel with the level of opposition it encounters.
The right wing is great at sable rattling and short on the long term obligations such action also brings with it.
The fact that they call me Neville because I refuse to be goaded into their narrow little black and white view of the world ala the evning news and CNN, only shows the effectiveness which a gun crazy society (such as the US has become) has on the general perception of conflict resolution.
I personally have moved from that right wing view on the world as ive gotten older and seen more than my fair share of the results of our past foreign policy blunders on several continents.
To say that those of us opposing this new invasion are evil or aligned with evil (as Bush & Co. - and by extension Greenhat and his Co.) is itself an undemocratic and Saddam-like position to take.
Such is the mindset of war though, Might makes Right. :rolleyes:
This thread is about UN inspectors in Iraq, Saddam kicked them out, violating a Treaty that he signed, his solemn oath.. So what is so unique about some one else breaking doing it..
I find it notable that so few American soldiers violated their solemn oath, but it all depends on what one chooses to focus on.. The millions that upheld their oath, or the few that broke it...
Clandestine
"Let us look at the current situation in Iraq for a moment. Harmad Karzai and his government established and then left to themselves as we did previously after meddling in the affairs of that country."
Damn I didn't know that, Karzai in Iraq, thans for setting the record straight... :rolleyes:
kathybrn:
"Are you an American, and if so why all this concern for the Iraqi people over the American people."
There was even people that were against fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor..
One thing all Nations have in common, whether good or bad, they would not be where they are without fighting for it..
Short form, we all fought to be free, those that won are free, those that lost aren't..
That's courtesy world history...
Let's explain Clandestine's world and perhaps the Neville comments further..
After WWI, Germany was restricted as far as arms. Hitler violated those restrictions, the world ignored it and as a result got WWII...
To Clandestine I am not making sense, but if one exchanges WWI for the war in Kuwait, Iraq for Germany, Hitler for Saddam, and lets leave WWII as a choice item.
I'm sure the point is obvious, history always repeats its self....
However I am sure in Clandestine's mind that some how the US, the UK and others owe an apology to Nazi Germany, for our hawkish ways...
There is only one reason why the US is pressing with an attack... and it's not to protect itself against Saddam.
And there is nothing unique about others breaking UN resolutions, what IS the issue (if you got your head of your gun nozzle long enough to comprehend) is that our government is ranting only about Saddam's failure to comply and willing to throw US lives at the conflict whilst ignoring those others who are similarly guilty.
So what do you advocate, that we starts wars everywhere and perhaps take control of every country currently in the grip of dictatorial regimes? lol. Im sure that would boost our future security immensely.
There we have it at last, the military perspective on geo-politics and world history in a simplistic little nutshell the troops can swallow easily.
Hmmm seems to me the only time WE truly fought to "be free" (our nation that is) was the revolutionary war, and even the losers of that war are a free nation today. Apart from that we have fought wars to control resources, impose puppet regimes, intervene in other people's civil wars, and ultimately to further increase our hegemony over the planet. Of course there is WWII which was everyone's business, so i don't include that in this context of claims to our singular right to foreign invasion.
Even Vietnam was shown to have been a war of lies and corruption. Or have you conveniently forgotten CIA drug running that financed much of it in your nice tidy gunbarrel interpretation of history?
That would be an interesting stretch of history indeed since it was The Bismark who was at the helm during WWI, not Hitler. lol.
Actually, Bismarck was the Prussian / German civil leader at the time of German unification circa the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War. The 'guy at the helm' in World War I was Kaiser Wilhelm II, 'Kaiser Bill.'
Nevertheless, such simplistic analogies between WWII and Saddam's current fist waving show only a need to justify this action at any cost, which is why it IS in fact nothing more than a political move on Bush's part to shore up support as our domestic situation swirls down drain under him.
Aladdin,
Saddam poses a threat to the United States, to the United Kingdom, and to every nation on this Earth, including his own. I'm not joking, and I'm not guessing. And I am not making that judgement on the statements of President Bush or any other member of the Administration.
Yes.
Aladdin doesn't have a President. And I'm not interested in the job, or politics. Funny how my comments tie in so well with activity in Turkey, huh?
Only to those whose perspective is based in reality, rather than delusions.
As stated elsewhere - and in the same vein as the vaunted "War On Drugs", which claims success with a 10% interdiction rate on contraband - it is not the amount that was siezed that gives pause, but the amount which most certainly has passed through, undetected.
There is a radical difference in the thought processes of those who fight with words, and those who must confront and defeat the failures of those words. Words do not work with them whose only use for words is to gain the time to further your destruction, Words do not work with them whose MO is duplicity. Words do not work, when you are on the receiving end of the weapon. Wimper and simper all you choose, but words are meaningless when it comes to crunch time.
Look at the clock. Crunch time has come...
Fortunately there's still some common sense in positions of leadership in the world..
Tony Blair's politics are not my cup of tea, we are separated by miles on many issues.. Fortunately, there are leaders like a Blair, Bush and a few others can read handwriting on the Wall..
The UN Resolution will come and soon..
Saddam will ignore it and the hammer will fall...
Why is it, no one says none of this would happen if saddam would adher to the Treaties he signed and just quit persuing weapons of mass destruction..
Perhaps some people believe a signed contract is to be ignored, maybe that is the way they live, by breaking their word and contracts they signed....
Perhaps they will explain how a signed Treaty is not binding, after all we'd all appreciate getting out of paying our bills.
ROTFLMAO!
Interesting you should bring up that point reverse, given that our own government and military industrial complex doesn't have any interest in honouring or otherwise adhering to the contract it signed in 1972 (aka the BWC). Further evidence of this is the manner in which Bush's reps got up and walked out of the BWC conference earlier this year when calls for mandatory third party inspections of all signatory nations' labs and installations was called for. But then its okay for us not to honour our contracts yet hold the world to theirs is that it? Hypocrit.
ref: http://www.totse.com/en/politics/terrorists_and_freedom_fighters/163722.html
Excerpt:
"Many experts are still angry that the U.S. walked out of the Biological Weapons Convention conference this past July in Geneva, after the Bush administration rejected language that would have subjected signatory nations, including the U.S., to inspections to make sure they're not engaging in any prohibited offensive bioweapons development. "They [U.S. government officials] don't want the treaty to be tighter, and they don't want people coming here and investigating our facilities and stockpiles," says Meryl Nass, an MIT-trained physician who has long advocated for stricter arms control. "So it turns out that the U.S. did have this dry weaponized anthrax after all, and that was a big secret. But no one has really discussed the implications of this. They completely avoided the issue. But the rest of the biodefense establishment around the world knew exactly what it meant. They knew the U.S. had basically transgressed the weapons convention."
Why should nations like the UK or US be subject to third party inspections? Who would do these inspections without having someone commit espionage on us. When was the last time the UK spread sarion gas on an enemy? We are civilized nations and don't need to be kept in check because we wont do crazy shit like that to our enemies