UN: Face your responsibilities.

Former Member · January 2003

In the days ahead, we believe the council and its member governments must face its responsibilities and consider what message council irresolution sends to Iraq and other proliferators," said John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

As quoted from CNN.

And France and Russia better be thinking up what to say to the new leaders of Iraq who will know how these two countries took monies in the Food for Oil program as payment for their weapons they sold Saddam. I don't think it's going to put them on the inside track for new oil deals with a democratic Iraq.

As quoted from me.

Former Member · January 2003

What message to send to other proliferators? Such as perhaps our own USA itself? UK? Germany? France? lol.

More Washington rhetoric that conveniently leaves out the whole truth.

Former Member · January 2003

Perhaps the US should face its own responsibilities and think carefully before making silly statements. They could start by stopping bragging about how they're going to attack Iraq without UN approval if it comes to that- which would be illegal. The Americans could also stop telling the inspectors how much time they have to come up with a final report- that is a matter for the inspectors and the UN to decide, not the US. And they could also stop putting words into the UN's mouth by saying there is a smoking gun on Iraq's weapons, when the UN has been saying exactly the opposite.

What I want to know is, what will the US do if the UN finally reports that Iraq is in no breach, that no weapons or smoking guns have been found, and that therefore their job is finished and Iraq can be left in peace? Will America then face its responsibilities and send its troops home? Or will it raise two fingers to the whole world and bomb Iraq regardless?

I'm afraid we all know the answer to that...

Former Member · January 2003

Oh, I know. Politics is one big mess. But on the site you only hear about America this or that. So I'm bringing other countries into the spotlight. :mad:

Former Member · January 2003

If we happen to talk about America is because their incredibly persistent push towards war has dominated the international arena for the 16 months. The war on Iraq is a matter of grave importance that will have worldwide repercussions, and since America is the instigator it's only normal it will get scrutinised.

We also talk about other countries in here: India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, France & other European countries, China, Israel... I'm perfectly happy to start or contribute to threads on other international issues, but we all (me the first) are a bit obsessed with Iraq at the moment.

Former Member · January 2003

Spain is one of the many countries in Europe backing us. The Netherlands is too. I'm glad.

Former Member · January 2003

Maybe the goevernments are pnj, by the general public is becoming increasingly fed up with our leaders every day.

Former Member · January 2003

Top weapons inspector Hans Blix on Monday said Baghdad had not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm...

But remember Clandestine most people in the US don't want war without the UN. Although, most people are flying American flags on their homes again. Kinda went away for a bit with the Christmas lights.

If I had even one of Saddam Palaces, I'd say the heck with the weapons so I could keep jerking around there. But then, if he doesn't come off like a tough guy, maybe he'd be overthrown. Maybe the tortures are to keep him in power. Fear factor.

Former Member · January 2003

6,000 chemical shells, unaccounted for and certainly not in the "declaration".

Whoops. Material breach...

Former Member · January 2003

exactly mok. Don't know if you've seen this on the BBC yet, but there's satellite photos of a big, new underground facility that he then put a lake over.

Former Member · January 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
Perhaps the US should face its own responsibilities and think carefully before making silly statements. They could start by stopping bragging about how they're going to attack Iraq without UN approval if it comes to that- which would be illegal.

Where did you get your degree in International law?

Former Member · January 2003

Originally posted by Aladdin
They could start by stopping bragging about how they're going to attack Iraq without UN approval if it comes to that- which would be illegal.

*coughs* Kosovo/Serbia *coughs*

Former Member · January 2003

Sorry MoK, bad comparison on your part. Serbia/Kosovo was a visible case of cross border agression and genocide which threatened to spread and destabilise the SE European region.

In the case of the current impending war, we cannot use the excuse we did in the first war (driving him out of Kuwait) since he isnt invading anyone.

What we have in this scenario, and what you should know perfectly well from the long running debate, is a pre-emptive attack based on claims of what Saddam has or doesnt have, and what he will do or not do in the future.

Insofar as this invasion would be pre-emptive, It does NOT have the legal basis under current international law and signals the start of a slippery slope which, as I am certain we will see, will lead to other nations using whatever pretexts they wish to attack neighbouring countries to suit their own interests.

Once this domino falls, you can kiss goodbye 50 years of diplomatic effort to bring the world out of the age of imperialistic chaos and welcome back the days of the rule of might makes right.

Hope youll be satisfied with that world when you see how much worse off we all will be on a global scale.

UN: Face your responsibilities.

Comments