Bacchus Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 i didn't read this one, USA domestic politics can't be discussed with right wing, even moderate ones, americans. Anyway, i'm not aware off all the campaign details.
Aileron Posted July 29, 2004 Report Posted July 29, 2004 Well, it really wasn't a campaign detail as much as a reporting one. I attended a Bush speech. In it, he discussed about ten things he was going to do with the next four years. A week later, Live posts an article written for the Washington Post. It basically said that Bush had set no policy during the same speech I heard. That article wasn't even advertising, it was flat-out wrong. If that's what I can expect from "unbiased" reporting, I'm willing to take my chances with this article. (Besides, I'm not a right-wing American. The last political comp!@#$%^&* I took placed me only one tick to the right, which was well within the center.)
MonteZuma Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 The bigger question that can be derived from this is - Why the sudden change in opinion in this matter? Whatever the reason, it can't be a good one - because Hussein made no action to merit such faith.There was no change in ideology. The USA, and to a lesser extent the UK were the only countries pushing war. In fact, back in November 1998 Russia and China insisted that resolutions did not mention the use of force to make Iraq comply. Russia, Germany and Turkey said at the beginning of 2002 that they would not support military action without UN backing. Russia, China, France and to a lesser extent Germany always wanted to avoid a war, and were uncomfortable with other military interventions. The most encouraging 'change' was that Hussein allowed unprededented access to inspectors. Inspectors could travel wherever and whenever they wanted without alerting the Iraqis. Consistently they found nothing to warrant a war, but they found plenty to warrant continued inspections. What is it about the Blix and El Baradei reports that you don't understand? The one criticism that I think can be laid at many nations is that some who supported the resolutions did not adequately assist in maintaining the military force that was stationed in the region. Coupled with sanctions, the military force was one of the biggest incentives that Hussein had to comply and was primarilly comprised of US and UK forces, although a few other small nations were also involved. Hussein probably would not have complied if the military force, including the naval blockade, marines, no-fly zone and strategic air strikes were not there.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 30, 2004 Author Report Posted July 30, 2004 There was no change in ideology. The USA, and to a lesser extent the UK were the only countries pushing war. In fact, back in November 1998 Russia and China insisted that resolutions did not mention the use of force to make Iraq comply. Russia, Germany and Turkey said at the beginning of 2002 that they would not support military action without UN backing. Russia, China, France and to a lesser extent Germany always wanted to avoid a war, and were uncomfortable with other military interventions. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about the 1998 resolution, but the resolution mentioned is a vote (which was 15-0) stating that Iraq was not making every effort to comply with UN requests. Since this being the case, he was in breach of the agreement he signed for the ceasefire proposed in 1991. Since he was in breach, the ceasefire was over which opened the door for Clinton to invade if he chose so. While the 15-0 vote wasn't a vote for invasion, it WAS a vote for allowing the use of armed force against Saddam. So, if in 1998 it was a unanimous vote to allow the use of force against Saddam, why the change of heart 4 years later? Yes, Saddam allowed inspectors back into the country in 2002, but Saddam wasn't 100% compliant, he refused to answer any questions provided him about activities that he engaged in during the inspector hiatus (1998-2002). He was completely compliant with Hanz, and in the 4 months of inspections Hanz completed inspections of 600 sites. All this stuff is in the article I posted. Yes, the article is slightly right slanted, but I wasn't after the slant, I was after the UN resolutions that were metioned, which I later cited in a followup article. You cant slant UN resolutions, they are what they are.
MonteZuma Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 (1) I'm not sure what you were trying to say about the 1998 resolution, but the resolution mentioned is a vote (which was 15-0) stating that Iraq was not making every effort to comply with UN requests. Since this being the case, he was in breach of the agreement he signed for the ceasefire proposed in 1991. Since he was in breach, the ceasefire was over which opened the door for Clinton to invade if he chose so. (2) While the 15-0 vote wasn't a vote for invasion, it WAS a vote for allowing the use of armed force against Saddam .... So, if in 1998 it was a unanimous vote to allow the use of force against Saddam, why the change of heart 4 years later? (3) Yes, Saddam allowed inspectors back into the country in 2002, but Saddam wasn't 100% compliant, he refused to answer any questions provided him about activities that he engaged in during the inspector hiatus (1998-2002). (4) He was completely compliant with Hanz, and in the 4 months of inspections Hanz completed inspections of 600 sites. (5) You cant slant UN resolutions, they are what they are.(1) Clinton's action was unilateral. It doesn't give us any insight into the thinking of any other government at all. (2) As I explained, it was not a vote to allow the use of force. Your government has misled you. Read the resolution for yourself -->here<--. As I explained, there was no change of heart in 2002/2003, but some members were encouraged by the reports given by the weapons and nuclear inspectors. (3) The US and Israel are not 100% compliant with UN resolutions either. So? This alone doesn't justify an invasion. (4) He wasn't completely compliant with Blix. But he was more compliant with him than others. He didn't trust some of the other teams - probably with good reason (eg Ritter and Butler). (5) Indeed. Show me where it says that the use of force is innevitable or automatic.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 30, 2004 Author Report Posted July 30, 2004 (5) Indeed. Show me where it says that the use of force is innevitable or automatic. I thought I had already explained it. The part of the resolution I am refering to was the part stating that Iraq hasn't put forth every effort it could to comply with the terms of the ceasefire. Since Iraq was in breach of the terms, the ceasefire would be null and void. (This ceasefire being what ended the first gulf war.) Since the ceasefire was void, armed action COULD be taken against Iraq. This isn't a vote FOR agressive action or AGAINST agressive action, it's simply the UN security councle saying "Hey, if you wanna go -*BAD WORD*- their -*BAD WORD*- up, you're more than welcome too" Yes, its the same resolution you linked. UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998 * "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions. Since they are in flagrant violation of UNSCR 687, Saddam has breached the contract. (1) Clinton's action was unilateral. It doesn't give us any insight into the thinking of any other government at all.Explained above. (2) As I explained, it was not a vote to allow the use of force. Your government has misled you. Read the resolution for yourself -->here<--. As I explained, there was no change of heart in 2002/2003, but some members were encouraged by the reports given by the weapons and nuclear inspectors. Heh, it has nothing to do with anything "My government" has told me. Read the resolutions. The terms of the ceasefire to the first gulf war demanded that Saddam comply with all demands of the UN. If Saddam refused at any point during the process, he would be in breach of contract which would render the ceasefire null and void. It's all there in the UN resolutions. (The UN resolution is #687) (3) The US and Israel are not 100% compliant with UN resolutions either. So? This alone doesn't justify an invasion.True. But we're not "Justifying" anything. The point being we had every right to invade if need be back in 1998, because Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire. (AS said in resolution 1205) (4) He wasn't completely compliant with Blix. But he was more compliant with him than others. He didn't trust some of the other teams - probably with good reason (eg Ritter and Butler). Oh, the modern day hitler was more compliant than he has been! Anything is more compliant than what *was* in place, a 4 year stint of allowing NO inspections what-so-ever. All of a sudden its now the UN inspectors that are the bad guys, picking on little ole Saddam. None of this conversation is about the recent invasion.. all of this pertains to Clintons right to invade if he had chosen to do so.
MonteZuma Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 (5) Indeed. Show me where it says that the use of force is innevitable or automatic. (1) I thought I had already explained it. (2) The part of the resolution I am refering to was the part stating that Iraq hasn't put forth every effort it could to comply with the terms of the ceasefire. Since Iraq was in breach of the terms, the ceasefire would be null and void. (This ceasefire being what ended the first gulf war.) Since the ceasefire was void, armed action COULD be taken against Iraq. (3) This isn't a vote FOR agressive action or AGAINST agressive action, it's simply the UN security councle saying "Hey, if you wanna go -*BAD WORD*- their -*BAD WORD*- up, you're more than welcome too" (4) Read the resolutions. The terms of the ceasefire to the first gulf war demanded that Saddam comply with all demands of the UN. If Saddam refused at any point during the process, he would be in breach of contract which would render the ceasefire null and void. It's all there in the UN resolutions. (The UN resolution is #687) (5) ... we had every right to invade if need be back in 1998, because Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire. (AS said in resolution 1205) (6) Oh, the modern day hitler was more compliant than he has been! Anything is more compliant than what *was* in place, a 4 year stint of allowing NO inspections what-so-ever. All of a sudden its now the UN inspectors that are the bad guys, picking on little ole Saddam. None of this conversation is about the recent invasion.. all of this pertains to Clintons right to invade if he had chosen to do so. (1) You haven't. You have made a series of false !@#$%^&*umptions though. (2) Please quote the part of the 1998 resolution that refers to the ceasefire. Please also quote the part of the 1998 resolution that makes you think that armed action could/should be taken against Iraq by the UN. Nothing of the sort is mentioned. You are confusing statements made by the US government with resolutions made by the UN. Your government wants you to be confused. The ceasefire mentioned in UNSCR 687 is a ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait and member states that supported Kuwait. It is not a ceasefire bewteen Iraq and the UN as a whole. UNSCR 687 does not say that military action is an inevitable consequence of non-compliance. Your government wants you to think that it does. (3) The resolutions say nothing of the sort. Russia, China and France disapproved of such action. (4) I have. Please re-read UNSCR 687 (Linky). It does not say that the cease-fire is rendered null and void in the event of non-compliance. The reason that it doesn't is because of Russia, China, France and probably a few other countries who opposed military strikes. (5) There was no 'right' to invade. The UN did not authorise an attack. None of the resolutions suggest that military action after 1991 is/was authorised by the UN. In fact if you want to take this to the extreme, some of the resolutions point to the sovereignty of Iraq. This almost suggests that an invasion is inappropriate, but that could be reading too much into it. (6) Do you seriously think that it is unreasonable to suggest that some of the inspection teams were infiltrated by intelligence agencies such as the CIA? And do you really think that it is unreasonable for a leader of *any* country to object to that? The inspection teams were there to do a job for the UN - not for the CIA. Do some research on Scott Ritter. His views are very interesting.
Recommended Posts