The US case before the UN

by Yerusalyim 39 Replies latest jw friends

  • rem


    Where you see this as a brand new situation I see it as a continuation of a situation that has been going on since before the Gulf War. I suppose it's just a matter of perception, but that is why I don't see the US as being an 'aggressor' at all. To me, the US is no more an aggressor than any police man can be called an aggressor simply because he enforces law.


  • Realist


    i am just stating what the experts said. they said nothing new was revealed. security people knew all that already.

    the weapons inspectors did check the area for chemical remains...just liked they checked these empty warheads...neither the soil nor the warheads had any remains of requires apparently VERY intensive decontamination to remove all remains.

    now if saddam is indeed so stupid to built these things under the eyes of the inspectors and the CIA than for christ sake take him out!

    BUT to kill 100.000 people for no good reason is insane. Hussein does not pose a threat to the west. his army and weapons production i completely crippled...and he has no reason to risk a war with the west which would be his certain destruction.

  • Gerard

    Remember the days leading to Bay of Pigs?

    The US embassador to the United Nations presented fake photos of a "Cuban" figher airplane in order to justify an attack to Cuba. The American media blew it up by saying the truth.

    I think Sadam is dangerous but we -regular people- just do not have the information.

    Difficult choices ahead....

  • Yerusalyim

    Sorry Realist,

    I see it entirely differently. I do see him being a threat to the stability of the world. Connections have been made between Saddam and Terrorism, I'm all for taking him out now. Like I said in the beginning, the only people that will change opinion in this are those who were trully sitting on the fence.

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    In the early 1990's, a special corporation was formed (CAPCO) to facilitate negotiations and the future construction and delivery of natural energy resources to China.

    Many of ENRON's executives were directly associated with this venture. Many of the BUSH family's closest business associates maintained positions of influence with this venture.

    The purpose was to build several major pipelines into China to deliver natural gas and oil. The routes selected for the pipelines ran directly through much of what is central asia (Afghanistan, Iraq and a few former soviet republics) into the chinese interior.

    The american petroleum conglomerates and their political lobbyists backed by many of this administration's staff members and other notable southern republicans have been exercising influence in that region in order to make the pipelines a reality. China, although poor, does require public utilities to maintain an infrastructure for its population.

    Now, what does this have to do with IRAQ, the UN and BUSH? It should be obvious.

    I am sure we all agree that terrorists are eagerly pursuing the acquisition and deployment of nuclear and biological weapons, correct?

    Therefore, they are a world menace. However, if AL QUAEDA and IRAQ were truly bedfellows and receiving support from Saddam Hussein, I am sure the terrorists would have attacked with such a weapon by now! While IRAQ probably does maintain a supply of illegal weapons, that is entirely their business as long as they do not directly attack the US. There are no links between 9/11 and IRAQ and the US knows it.

    I notice a healthy dreadful fear of tangling with North Korea, Russia and China who all maintain rich supplies of weapons of mass destruction and will not hesitate to use them on anyone. It is extremely hypocritical that the US focus exclusively on IRAQ.

    The only weapons being touted here are weapons of "mass distraction". What else will this administration do for an encore? Let's review the last two years; first the election is tampered with to secure victory; then the US begins withdrawing from global treaties-thus displaying a cavalier nonchalant attitude about world affairs; then the economy is systematically destroyed; next its time to provide cover and protection, tax relief and favoritism for the wealthy and corporate america. Enough is enough.

    I will not swallow another "dirt sandwich" disguised as patriotism. This is the same country that purposely ignored advanced warnings about Pearl Harbour in order to justify war, while 2500 americans and their families suffered the price. This is the country of Watergate, Vietnam, Korea and the list goes on.

    If you serve now in the military, I am sorry for you. While you swallow patriotism, your income is below poverty level, below minimum wage and your fearless leader continues advancing the wealthy and privileged. This is the same leader who is tampering with affirmative action, while he himself recevied preference to attend YALE because of his father's alumni status, despite his "C" grade average making him unfit.

    Examine your history carefully before obeying with blindness. This war has capitalism-zionism written all over it. I am tired of american policies which favor israel, favor corporations and thier lobbies, and forget the basic honest good old fashioned american.

    The middle east problems are for the middle east to solve. We have much to do here domestically for our own ghettos and urban centers.

    War mongering is usually promoted by those who never served, or never served in combat.

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    In addition, it is obvious that this administration's strategies are NOT working in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is still free and the Taliban have been slowly making their way back into the country. Another american episode of bravado gone awry. I applause France & Germany for holding back on this foolish venture.

    The oil will only benefit certain american corporations and the UN/NATO will be left holding the bag trying to rebuild IRAQ after the damage is completed. Personally, I hope Turkey has the gumption to refuse the US. After all, where was the US in helping Turkey join the EU? Nowhere, of course. Who will pay for Turkish cooperation? If I were Turkey, I would demand two-billion dollars up front, in advance, plus military hardware, trade agreements, financial aid, and assistance in joining the EU or else go it alone!

    Washington is only interested in itself. The sooner americans realize they are not the world's primary concern, the better life will become for all. As an ex-marine, I know too well the lessons of the middle east.

  • ThiChi

    What a powerful presentation Powell provided. Though no one wants war, sometimes events demand it.

    So what if consideration to oil is given? Lets put it to good use, dont leave it in the hands of a madman.

  • ThiChi

    Oil for Blood

    Wednesday, February 05, 2003

    By Ken Adelman

    Placards with "No blood for oil" adorn anti-war protests. That slogan gained respectability last week from the respectable Nelson Mandela.

    The vile accusation that President Bush would sacrifice young American servicemen and women for cheap oil was among the insults Mandela hurled. This was disappointing to those of us who had long put Mandela on a pedestal.

    Yet Mandela showed no greatness when accusing George W. Bush -- a serious and decent man, by all accounts -- of having "no foresight," saying Bush "cannot think properly [and] is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

    Mandela then played the race card. Despite operatic machinations at the United Nations since Sept. 12 -- when Bush personally urged the U.N. to act against the U.N. outlaw, Saddam Hussein -- Mandela accused Bush of ignoring the U.N.

    "Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations is now a black man?" he asked rhetorically.

    Gifted public servants -- whether Kofi Annan, Colin Powell or Condi Rice -- shouldnt have to have race constantly thrown at them, especially by someone who personifies justice.

    Which raises the question of how much justice Mandela seeks for the Iraqi people. Evidently not much, as hes silent on their suffering.

    When addressing Congress in June 1990, Mandela praised the U.S. for having "given us the power to join hands with all people of conscience to fight for the victory of democracy and human rights throughout the world."

    Is not such "victory of democracy and human rights" due the people of Iraq? Could not George W. Bush and Tony Blair be considered "people of conscience" for their desire to end the brutal regime? One far worse than the Afrikaner regimes that cruelly imprisoned Mandela and repressed blacks.

    After Mandelas ad hominems and hypocrisy came the zinger: "They just want the oil," he said of Bush and Blair.

    Were that true, they could "just" get "the oil" quite easily, by scrapping the sanctions the U.N. imposed on Iraq a dozen years ago. Lifting these sanctions would free up all Iraqi oil, much more quickly and easily than war.

    Thats precisely why the French appease Saddam. "They" -- indeed -- "just want the oil." Hence they care little about Iraqi suffering or Saddams hell-bent drive for weapons of mass destruction.

    Moreover, Iraqs huge oil reserves prove two key points. First, just how desperately Saddam clings to his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. His refusal to scrap them 12 years ago, as he pledged, cost Iraq more than $100 billion in lost oil revenue, perhaps as much as $200 billion. Thats a lot to forgo for a WMD arsenal. But its WMD that Saddam values most. No price his people pay is too high for his personal ambitions.

    Second, Iraqs having gobs of oil shows how principled America and England are. For unlike the French and Russians, our leaders -- both Republican and Democratic, Labour and Conservative -- have willingly sacrificed acquiring cheaper oil to force Saddams scrapping his WMD arsenal.

    It was a nice try, but that effort obviously hasnt worked. So force must now be used.

    Two last points on "blood for oil."

    First and most obvious, its ugly to accuse any U.S. president to waste the lives of American soldiers, sailors and airmen for oil -- way beneath Mandela.

    Second, Iraqs having substantial reserves -- and the whole Middle East holding much of the worlds oil supply -- is a legitimate factor in our concerns in the region.

    Noble Peace Prize winner Mandelas recent mention of oil brings to mind a recent Noble Peace Prize winners focus on oil in 1979. After the Soviets brutally invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter asserted the Carter Doctrine, which offered U.S. protection of Gulf states precisely because of their abundant oil.

    During the Gulf War, the "blood for oil" placard was first hoisted. As the preeminent oil expert, Daniel Yergin, wrote in the New York Times last August: "The focus even then [during the 1991 Gulf War] was not so much on access to oil as on the ability of a Greater Iraq to transmutate oil into economic, political and military power -- especially weapons of mass destruction."

    Since then, new oil stocks, including those from Russia, have reduced the worlds reliance on Iraq, and somewhat on the Gulf states.

    Moreover, Iraqi oil is not just there for the grabbing after liberation. Iraqi oil fields have become as dilapidated as has Iraq under Saddam. The successor government will need huge resources to modernize and expand its oil equipment for exploitation.

    To turn Mandela and other critics on their head: Bush and Blair dont act on the basis of "blood for oil." Its Saddam whos been on a clear path of "oil for blood." That now must end.

    Kenneth Adelman is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, was assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977 and, under President Ronald Reagan, U.N. ambassador and arms-control director. Mr. Adelman is now co-host of

  • freeman

    Thank you Utopian Reformist for your well-expressed thoughts.

    Its nice to hear contrasting points of view. I was a bit puzzled by the sentiments expressed by you until I read your statement at the end of you post:

    As an ex-marine, I know too well the lessons of the middle east.

    Now it all makes perfect sense to me. So what is it like to be in the Iraqi marine core?


  • ISP

    Hi Hawk,

    On the contrary, I am quite happy to be convinced and see evidence!

    Interesting to note that the US accept he has no nuclear capability! He has some weaponry but who hasn't in that region? I would let the inspectors loose. Surely with satelite surveilance etc. they should be able to come up with a factory or something! Something that at least justifies the killing of many civilians.


Share this