'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation
spot on pope ... scarily accurate!
"We wil defy the UN because we are so annoyed at Saddam ... er ... defying the UN. Also, we'll use WoMD becasue we are afraid he may have ... WoMD !"
Who all helped arm him is now a moot point
Well, if you are the ones who helped arm him it is ... (conveniently)
He has used these WMD on his own people and apparently has plans to use them again, even though it is said he doesn't have them
When? where? Please explain ... but don't bother if you are going to drag up something that he did before the last war (ie. that we've already been to war over before)
My biggest worry is that he shares these weapons with ones like Osama Bin Ladin and uses them elsewhere, even in France
You believe all the scaremongering that the government feeds you? There is no link to Saddam from Osama although I gather that most Americans have now been convinced that Saddam was behind Sept 11 (ah, the power of TV). The USA has many, many more of these weapons (and it could be argued, more people with access to them) so should we be more afraid of them?
Here is a prediction for you:
In 2 months time, there will be reports of Osama (who always seems to get away) and Saddam being in [insert name of next country the USA wants to attack here like NK] and the American populace will be all for invading them and blaming them for Sept 11.
I know Dakota; but he invaded Poland and you know the rest.
The point I was trying to make was Hitler invaded and so others were justified in defending.
Kuwait was allowed to be protected because Saddan invaded.
The current UN resolutions DO NOT allow Saddam to be invadad NOW just because we have decided to suddenly take offense at his regime.It is illegal to invade a regime that is disaproved of. No one cared about the plight of the Iraqi people last year or the year before etc.I think the question should be ;why now?
Maybe because the could'nt find Bin laden?
Did they really think we did'nt notice the switch from one to the other on trumped up charges of Saddam hiding Bin laden in North Iraq? Saddam has no hold over Northern Iraq; if Bin laden is there it is nothing to do with Saddam.I do not approve of warmongering from any of them .
The British government todaystooped to new lows; trying to get us to rally around 'our troops' because war is inevitable was emotional blackmail- and a disgusting tactic- I, for one, will be back marching again tomorrow with a few million others.
Many wonder why they did'nt hunt him down last time - it all seems like a hidden adgendas to me and i'm wary because of their dishonesty and blatent lack of concern for the lives that will be lost.
You're right- we all had a part in arming him- and more fool us for thinking we can control such foolish dealings with evil dictators.
I'm quite depressed tonight, can't sleep; anyone else feel sense of sadness and bewilderment that it has come to this?
The current UN resolutions DO NOT allow Saddam to be invadad NOW
Yes they do, and the Attorney General confirms it.
Text of Attorney General's statement, as quoted on BBC:
All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.
Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.
6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
The authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today
7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.
Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses.
It dos'nt expatbrit because the use of force if he did not comply was only supposed to be used after consultation and approval with the UN . It was put in as a possible allowable option NOT as an obligation, that resolution was to be taken incontext not to be used seperately as a licence for any one (or more) countries to take the matter into their own hands.
They are behaving like the WTBS , picking and choosing sentences to 'prove' a point without taking into account the meaning behind surrounding statements. Most can see through their double speak.
I would like to know when the US and Britain will sort out the problems in North Korea . And when will they liberate all the other oppressed peoples of the world..oops, that was the first ploy we used to get support; when that did'nt work we tried to twist resolutions to fit the agenda.
The problem with this kind of action is the aftermath.The world does not have a good record of looking after the nations left after a leader has been opposed.They tend to shoot and run- life id no better now for many people after having had help from other nations, or the UN for that matter.If they do continue with this madness do they really think oppsession will end in Iraq? There must be another way.There is also the problem of Iraqis being too scared to stand against Saddam due to threats of death, and the chilling message from Blair tonight that there will be casualties but they are 'unavoidable' , very sad. they know what Saddam has, we kept records of what we sold him why not subract what has been found and then they'll know exactly what he has.
The point is that the UN has already authorised force. Such force was "suspended" but was not terminated. The suspension of force was contingent upon Iraqi compliance with existing UN resolutions. If they did not comply, the suspension of force lapses.
Resolution 1441 was a last ultimatum for the Iraqis to comply. They have not complied. The suspension of force has therefore lapsed. No further UN resolution authorising force is necessary because existing resolutions already authorise force.
I would like to know when the US and Britain will sort out the problems in North Korea . And when will they liberate all the other oppressed peoples of the world
I hope after they sort out Saddam. Just because they can't sort out all the problems at once is no reason to avoid sorting them out one at a time.
As for the aftermath, I would like to ask, what about the beforemath? In arguing against a war you argue for the continuance of the status quo, which has caused the premature death of around 700,000 Iraqi children (see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/48581/686873/post.ashx#686873).
Unfortunately, there is no other way. Saddam Hussein will never submit to diplomacy. The only way to get rid of his regime is by force. It is the only way the Iraqi people can have any hope of an end to their suffering and misery.
I think the fact that they felt they needed and went for a second resolution (authorising force) shows that any claims that they already had the authorisation is a week claim.
They have fallen back on this as justification but it's a very dubious position and certainly not a clear mandate for what they are doing (the fact that it's so easy to debate proves this)
The point of trying for a second resolution (why is it called the second? It's the seventeenth or eighteenth, isn't it?) was to demonstrate that the US/UK were trying to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to find a solution. They went above and beyond what was necessary, in other words.
I'm quite depressed tonight, can't sleep; anyone else feel sense of sadness and bewilderment that it has come to this?
Yes, Termite, although I support this action, it does sadden me that it has come about. It didn't need to if only the UN nations had stood together long ago and showed Saddam a show of solidarity against his refussal to disarm. Faced with the entire world against him, he would have had to disarm and not a shot be fired. With all the support he has received, he now feels he is invincible and war is once again upon us.
Diplomacy has failed over 12 years to do it and too many showed little or no backbone to stand solid opposed to him and demand he disarm. You cannot win the peace through weakness or appeasement of tyrants, but only from a position of strength. It's the only language they understand.
Do you think God is on the US's side on this??
A few months ago I was speaking with a New Zealander in his more senior years who had started out his career in the Merchant Navy. As a young man he crossed the Suez Canal and during the trip many Arab traders would climb the rope-work to get on the deck of the ship and try to sell their wares so that their families might eat. The more experienced sailors, who regularly made this passage delighted in these moments, for they would turn the water hoses on the Arab traders and propel them off the deck of the ships and resulting in them hurtling from great height into the sea below, often breaking limbs. Bets would be taken and the person who managed to hurl an Arab from the deck onto his boat below rather than the water, invariably resulting in a broken back would win the 'jackpot'. Why this reaction? Well, given the post war Palestinian problem and the fact that the Arabs sided with Hitler against the Jews perhaps its is not surprising. Not surprising perhaps, but plainly indicative of ideologies at battle stations with one another and ideologies prepared to dehumanize by propaganda in exactly the same way that Hitler was able to.
The Arabs do not trust Westerners, the West have turned selling out the Arabs to the highest bidder into an art form. For example, take a look at this political broadside, part of my own collection and printed during another period of Middle East turmoil and misery. I hope that the detail allows it to be read:
The religion of Islam found its roots and grew in a ruthless conquering zeal when it erupted on the world scene in the C7th. Within a hundred years the Middle East and North Africa, areas previously Christian were forced at the point of a saber to convert to Islam. The Crusades, perhaps the most misunderstood military missions in history were engaged to counter the massacre of Christians. Due to its checkered history Islam came to represent everything that Christianity was not, theologically, socially and politically and Islam took up its role as ‘enemy’ number one of the Church and the West, a role which it has maintained almost without break ever since except for a brief respite during the Reformation. Islam today consists historically of people and tribes often forced into worship under threat of annihilation. We may not respect this in the West, but this is the Arab way of theological life. They know no other and we need to understand this in order to deal with crisis situations such as the one that is engulfing us all now.
Fourteen centuries later the status quo remains unaltered. East against West. With its overwhelming military and financial status the West must learn to understand the Arab ideology if they wish to bring some sort of long-term peace in the Middle east. I suspect that Germany and France, who have long term first hand-experience in dealing with the Islamic mentality are trying to build some sort of intellectual bridge between these ideologies, for without that bridge, we have centuries of ‘Iraq’s’ ahead of us. The Iraqis greatest enemy is the enemy within, the West has consistently failed to utilize this powerful force, which given the right help at the right time would have caused the regime in Iraq to meet its maker a decade ago.
The Iraqis break resolutions made to the West. In the Arab mind this is ‘theocratic warfare’ and an honorable recourse where ‘infidels’ are concerned. To an Arab presented with overwhelming military source, its proverbs demand that they view survival as triumph. Saddam for example and his family and tribal cronies, are convinced that they won the Gulf War because they survived. This sounds like nonsense to the Western mind, but it makes crystal clear logic to the Arabian mind, a mind that the White House is dangerously ignorant of.
I see continual and opposing points of view on these threads but I have come to see that each viewpoint, and I include my own ( which is admittedly far more idealistic than the point of a bayonet ) has what the other lacks. What I do know is that it is impossible to win the Arab heart by Western modes of behavior and thinking, and this is an absolute necessity for world peace. I sing the swan song of the great Garibaldi in my refrain; ‘compromise and education will eventually result in peace and prosperity’.