by teejay 43 Replies latest jw friends
Sargon,
If that was a little to vicious, my apologies. SORRY!!!
Roybatty,
That still doesn't answer any questions posed. Nothing indicated sitting back and doing nothing at all. Unless waiting another month = sitting back and doing nothing. I'm very curious to see how they'd be a threat to humanity with tons of inspectors, troops and spy planes all over their country. Please explain.
Compiled by the NY Times, 17 November 2002
Significant moments in: 1991-94
APRIL 3 -- Resolution 687 sets terms for a gulf war ceasefire and calls for Iraq to disarm and accept weapons inspections.
APRIL -- 18 Iraq declares some items, but not suspected biological weapons.
APRIL 6 -- Iraq accepts resolution 687.
JUNE 17 -- Resolution 699 reaffirms 687.
AUG. 15 -- Resolution 707 demands full disclosures.
OCT. 11 -- Resolution 715 calls for Iraq to accept inspectors unconditionally.
OCTOBER Iraq declares 715 unlawful.
FEB. 19, 1992 -- Security Council expresses "grave concern" over Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations.
MARCH 12 -- Security Council says Iraq has not complied "fully and unconditionally."
MARCH 19 -- Iraq declares the existence of previously undisclosed ballistic missiles and chemical weapons.
JUNE -- Iraq provides its first disclosure report on its chemical weapons program.
JULY -- United Nations begins destroying Iraq's chemical weapons and production facilities.
JULY 6 -- Iraq refuses to allow inspectors access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture.
OCT. 15 Iraq issues what appears to be a threat to all inspectors.
JANUARY, 1993 -- Iraq refuses U.N. aircraft, breaches the demilitarized zone near Kuwait and increases military activity in no-fly zones.
JAN. 8 -- Security Council warns of "serious consequences" for further defiance.
JAN. 19 -- France, Britain and the U.S. conduct air raids on targets in southern Iraq.
JUNE JULY -- Iraq refuses to allow the U.N. to install remote-controlled cameras at two of its missile engine test sites.
JUNE 18 -- Security Council expresses "deep concern" over Iraq's refusal of cameras. Warns of "serious consequences."
JULY 18 -- Iraq agrees to allow the installation of security cameras.
NOV. 26 -- Iraq accepts resolution 715 and continued monitoring.
JAN. -- British, French and American air strikes
FEB. 5, 1994 -- Iraq issues statement noting "serious progress" made in negotiations, and expresses readiness to expedite the monitoring.
APRIL 29 -- U.N. commits to conducting inspections and monitoring in a manner that respects Iraqs concerns regarding "sovereignty, independence, security and dignity."
SEPT. OCT. -- Iraq threatens to stop cooperation with inspectors and begins sending troops in the direction of Kuwait.
OCT. 15 -- Resolution 949 demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with inspectors and withdraw troops deployed to southern Iraq.
OCT 15 -- Iraq announces that it has withdrawn its troops and is prepared to resume working with inspectors. (pg. 2)
Some significant moments in: 1995-98
MARCH -- Iraq provides its second disclosure report on prohibited weapons.
JULY 1 -- Iraq admits that it has a biological weapons program.
JULY -- Iraq threatens to end all cooperation unless sanctions are lifted.
AUG 8 -- Iraq admits to advanced weapons programs and releases related documents that had been hidden on a chicken farm.
NOVEMBER -- Jordan intercepts shipment of high-grade missile components bound for Iraq.
MARCH 27, 1996 -- Resolution 1051 establishes monitoring of Iraqs imports and exports.
JUNE -- Iraq denies access to some sites suspected of being hiding places for prohibited items.
JUNE JULY -- After several incidents of defiance, the U.N. and Iraq agree on a Joint Program of Action, which takes into account Iraqs "legitimate security concerns."
JUNE JULY -- Iraq makes several new disclosures.
NOVEMBER -- Iraq blocks inspectors from removing remnants of missile engines.
DEC. 30 -- Security Council deplores Iraq's defiance and demands that Iraq allow removal of missile engines.
SEPT. -- Operation Desert Strike
FEBRUARY 1997 -- Iraq allows removal of engines.
JUNE -- Iraq threatens U.N. helicopters and crews.
JUNE 21 -- Resolution 1115 condemns Iraqs actions and calls for "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access to any and all sites.
SEPT. 13 -- An inspector is "manhandled" by an Iraqi officer while trying to photograph unauthorized vehicle movement at an inspection site.
OCT. 23 -- Resolution 1134 demands that Iraq cooperate fully with inspections.
OCT. 29 -- Iraq says it wont work with American inspectors.
NOV. 12 -- Resolution 1137 condemns Iraqs rejection of American inspectors.
DEC. 22 -- Iraq declares "Presidential Sites" off limits.
FEB. 20-23, 1998 -- Iraq and U.N. agree to a Memorandum of Understanding in which Iraq accepts all relevant resolutions and the U.N. commits to respecting Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
FEB. 20-23 -- Resolution 1154 endorses the memorandum.
AUG. 5 -- Iraq suspends cooperation.
SEPT. 9 -- Resolution 1194 condemns Iraq's decision.
OCT. 31 -- Iraq ends all cooperation.
NOV. 5 -- Resolution 1205 condemns Iraqs decision.
DEC. 16 -- Inspection teams are withdrawn from Iraq. U.S.-led forces begin bombing raids.
DEC. -- Operation Desert Fox
Inspections were never resumed. A 1999 Security Council resolution reaffirmed all previous resolutions and changed the name of the special commission charged with conducting inspections.
Significant moments in: 2002
JAN. 30 -- In his State of the Union address, President Bush names Iraq as part of an "axis of evil."
SEPT. 12 -- At the United Nations, President Bush says Iraq must be disarmed. "Delegates to the General Assembly," he says, "we have been more than patient."
SEPT. 16 -- The U.N. receives a letter from Iraq agreeing to a new round of inspections.
SEPT. 24 -- Responding to a British report detailing Iraq's weapons program, Baghdad offers "unfettered access" to inspectors.
SEPT. 28 -- Iraq rejects a draft of a U.N. Security Council resolution on new inspections.
SEPT. -- U.S. and British warplanes step up attacks on Iraqi air defenses
OCT. 4 -- New inspections are postponed while the Security Council completes work on a new resolution drafted by the U.S. and Britain.
OCT. 12 -- Baghdad sends a letter to the U.N. saying Iraq is ready allow the return of inspectors. The United States dismisses the offer.
OCT 15 -- Iraq says Mr. Hussein wins 100 percent of votes in a national election.
NOV. 8 -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441, which says Iraq must disarm or face "serious consequences."
NOV. 12 -- Iraq's parliament recommends rejecting resolution 1441.
NOV 13. -- Iraq accepts U.N. resolution 1441 and says it is awaiting the arrival of inspectors. (pg. 1)
When is enough time enough? If Saddam has really destroyed the WMD, why all the stonewalling? The job of the inspectors are to verify the destruction of known WMD, not dig through the countryside seeking hidden weapons. Saddam hasn't accounted for WMD he admitted to having earlier. Why?
When is enough time enough? If Saddam has really destroyed the WMD, why all the stonewalling? The job of the inspectors are to verify the destruction of known WMD, not dig through the countryside seeking hidden weapons. Saddam hasn't accounted for WMD he admitted to having earlier. Why?
I understand what you're saying - 100%. By the books Sadaam needs to be ousted - he's broken the rules. I don't believe that's the issue here though. It's the manner in which he is ousted. A U.S. led bombing campaign or a U.N. led campaign that could potentially end with Sadaam giving up but would more than likely lead to a bombing/invasion by the U.N. troops and armies. Which to you think is the safer method for the world and why?
I've changed my mind.
The Holy Coalition should start the bombing forthwith. Proof or not, bush is right. Hopefully the stealth bombers are already in flight. Who cares how many innocent Iraqis or U.S. servicemen die? Can you say, "collateral damage"? Who cares if our demands to send in UN appointed inspectors has been honored; or if they've been given enough time to do their job? And who cares to read their objective reports or decipher their meaning. "Regime change" is what we need, and pronto! Our president has spoken and we should fall in line, by god.
Forget the fact that 'we' have no proof of wrongdoing. Bush's gut feelings should satisfy everyone. "Ignore the nay sayers," I say! After all, everyone knows these opposers are just a buncha pacifist, un-American wimps. Don't they understand that America acts (and has ALWAYS acted) with the best interests of the world at heart? Today is not any different.
I've seen the light. Those that disagree with the obviously right course of action should be arrested, tried, and taken out back and shot as the traitors they are. May god be with us and against the infidels!! Allah akbar!!! Or, in the words of one of the greatest martyrs to ever live: Let's roll!
Roybatty,That still doesn't answer any questions posed. Nothing indicated sitting back and doing nothing at all. Unless waiting another month = sitting back and doing nothing.
Why wait just a month? Why not 6 months? How about a year?
I'm very curious to see how they'd be a threat to humanity with tons of inspectors, troops and spy planes all over their country. Please explain.
Um...you actually believe that Iraq will allow troops into their country?? I don't think so. Hell, how many times have they thrown out the UN inspectors?
You want to know how they are a threat to humanity? Ok, Iraq continues the cat and mouse game and develops not only WMD but also long range missles. Now they have the ability to hold the world hostage just as NK has done.
*sigh*
Roybatty,
Please provide straightforward answers to the questions presented. Nobody implied waiting 6-12 months. The scenario proposed was for a month - just a little more time to get this to happen without bombing baghdad to bits. Others have stated we don't need the UN and that's it's worthless, however if this is all done under the umbrella of the UN, it becomes a move made and supported by the WORLD, not just the USA, and that would mean a world of difference.
If they don't allow the troops in, again, the U.N. moves in by force. Again, a world decision, not the USA's.
You want to know how they are a threat to humanity? Ok, Iraq continues the cat and mouse game and develops not only WMD but also long range missles. Now they have the ability to hold the world hostage just as NK has done.
Again I'll ask, how are they going to actively develop these weapons under the noses of inspectors, troops and spy planes? ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE!!!
How do you propose to "make" Iraq accept things like spy planes. THEY DON'T WANT TO! There is not a diplomatic way to make them do anything. The only way we can is if we whack them. Take 'em out!
What you describe as arrogance is us doing our job. Like it or not, we ARE the policeman, because we ARE the strongest.
Europe has such a nice record of colonialism and imperialism, and they just wish they had that power back.
CZAR
How do you propose to "make" Iraq accept things like spy planes. THEY DON'T WANT TO! There is not a diplomatic way to make them do anything. The only way we can is if we whack them. Take 'em out!What you describe as arrogance is us doing our job. Like it or not, we ARE the policeman, because we ARE the strongest.
Iraq do not have a choice in the matter, they either comply to the requirements of the UN resolutions, or they suffer the consequences, likely another coalition war sanctioned by the UN. On more than one occassion the UN has extended the mandate of the weapons inspectors in order for them to carry out their investigations.
The world did not appoint America to be the international police, the UN Security Council (of which the US is a permanent member) was so appointed however, and has all the authority they need to legally enforce UN resolutions.
I find it a little saddening that so many equate not going to war before such action is legal with 'doing nothing'.
All I can say is thank God it was the US involved in the Cold War and not some of these wishy washy victim nations. Saddam is playing the UN like a rope-a-dope. The number one risk of continued inspections is that Saddam submits to the minimun cooperation required and is allowed to stay in power! The US has been down this road before.
Why do so many want to keep a murderous tyrant in power over innocent millions? Have a little compassion!! The Iraqi people deserve liberation and criminals deserve to go to jail. He gassed the Iranians, He's gassed his own Kurds, He attacked all his neighbors and has a documented history of torture, rape and murder or Iraqi civilians. He produced enough Chemical and Biological weapons to destroy EVERY PERSON ON EARTH 3x over. The UN estimates they destroyed only 60% of it before getting KICKED OUT in 1998.
There are only certain conditions that should delay justice.
1) all mobile launches must be assembled and destroyed.
2) all mobile weapons labs must be assembled and destroyed.
3) all WMD must be revealed instantly (not "found" by inspectors).
4) Saddam and company must submit to a court of inquiry for his previous crimes against humanity.
5) democratic elections must be held by the end of the year.
Anything else is just plain cruel to the innocent people his is allowed to terrorize daily.
Who's gonna call the US 'arrogant' when video footage reveals the fullest extent of Saddams secret military programs? I hope France and Germany stand firm against the US and DO NOT participate. How foolish they will look when TONS of Anthrax, VX and Biologicals are revealed before the world audience. Just think of all those images that are certain to come soon. How embarrassing it will be.
So were you folks the same ones calling for 'Diplomacy' with the Taliban regime? If so aren't you a little embarrased about that??
Back2dafront: " how are they going to actively develop these weapons under the noses of inspectors, troops and spy planes? ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE!!! "
I tend to agree with you, but occupation (i.e. troops in Iraq) is not being advocated by the UN. Essentially this plan is exactly what the US wants. Troops, inspectors supervising and monitoring the disarmorment, and taking Saddam into custody to face the allegations of torture geonocide etc. You really are advocating the same thing as the US. However one needs to ask, if its clear you can't get unanimous concurrance by world community, do you capitulate? - or do you do the right thing regardless of unanimous sentiment?
Edited by - Freewilly on 10 February 2003 4:55:5
It's amazing and depressing to see how many ex-JW's have replaced the
WTS for their government.To me they are not ex-JW's,they still have the *same* mindset
which makes it very convenient for their leaders to do what they want with them.
So the US wants to go to war and all criticism stops.I mean what's the difference
between a JW who can't hear a wrong word about their organization and a supposed ex-JW
who slavishly follows the *worst* president in American history to go to war with him,without any reservation?
