UN Passes Iraq Resolution

[Guest Kingpk]

This is from MSNBC.com:

 

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 8 —   In a unanimous vote, the U.N. Security Council put Iraq on notice Friday that it must either disarm or face possible military action. The new resolution was welcomed by President Bush, who warned that Saddam Hussein now faces the “final test.” The vote was a significant diplomatic triumph for the United States, which struggled to overcome many objections to its resolution during eight weeks of deliberations.

 

IN A HASTILY arranged Rose Garden appearance moments after the 15-0 vote, a triumphant but sober Bush said, “The outcome of the current crisis is already determined. The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how.”

      Bush, who spurred the council to action with a Sept. 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, kept up the pressure on allies.

      “Now comes the hard part: The Security Council must maintain its unity and sense of purpose so that the Iraqi regime cannot revert to the strategies of obstruction and deception it used so successfully in the past,” he said.

      The president, who has already won backing from the U.S. Congress for military action against Iraq, said Saddam must immediately comply with the new resolution. Otherwise, “he will face the severest consequences.”

      Close ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, was equally blunt, warning that if Iraq defied the United Nations, “We will disarm you by force.”

 

The whole story (including Syria's compliance) is right here

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Bush wanted a war, he got it. The republicans are happy because war=good enconomy.

[Guest bob_barron]

Wow- the UN actually did a good thing

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

This doesn't mean war. This means weapons inspectors are going in.

[Guest Invader3k]

Hey, maybe the UN isn't a bunch of gutless cowards after all...time will tell though. If they don't actually enforce any weapons inspections, then it doesn't really matter.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

If he doesnt let them, or they find something he shouldnt have, we get us a war. And im willing to bet one of those two things will happen.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No matter what you think of the guy, he's not dumb enough to take on the entire world.

 

If they find something, they'll take it out. He's not gonna hide anything at this point.

[Guest cynicalprofit]

For power, or to maintain it, people will do just about anything.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Even if Saddam complies, we'll still come up with some B.S. excuse to go ahead. If he actually has any weapons of mass destruction, backing him into a wall like this is probably the dumbest thing our government can do right now. Then again, that's probably the idea; if we mess with his head enough he might, you know, actually do something that merits war.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

No matter what you think of the guy, he's not dumb enough to take on the entire world.

Like in desert storm?

[Guest BaldFish]

IN A HASTILY arranged Rose Garden appearance moments after the 15-0 vote, a triumphant but sober Bush said, “The outcome of the current crisis is already determined. The full disarmament of weapons of mass destruction will occur. The only question for the Iraqi regime is to decide how.”

Oxymorons rule.

[Guest DrTom]

Even if Saddam complies, we'll still come up with some B.S. excuse to go ahead.

We have all the reasons we need to go ahead right now. He's a brutally oppressive dictator who terrorizes his own people, he's given millions of dollars to the cause of terrorism against the US and its allies, he hides evidence of WMD in his ~120,000 "presidential buildings," and reliable reports have him six months from nuclear capability. Even if he can't hit us, would you prefer we stand by and watch Israel take the nuke?

 

If he actually has any weapons of mass destruction, backing him into a wall like this is probably the dumbest thing our government can do right now.

No, letting him continue to make them is the dumbest thing we can do right now.

 

if we mess with his head enough he might, you know, actually do something that merits war.

He already has. Just because the cowards in the UN can't look at the evidence and see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Trucker parties indeed. What is right is not decided by popular vote.

[Guest BaldFish]

"Consensus is not truth, and inevitability is not morality."

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Never before in the history of the United States have we invaded or made the first blow on another soverign nation in the name of prevention of something that could or may or will inevitably happen.

 

That said, I'm glad the resolution passed, as it shows that we have at least superficial support now from the UN and won't go off on some cavalier action with our buddy Britain. It also binds us to wait until something really happens, in which event I wholeheartedly endorse military action. Until then, I will stand by my position that we shouldn't do anything until we have real reason to invade or use air strikes or anything, not just the "he's a dick and treats his people like garbage so we must go save them" excuse. Yes, there is the matter of funding terrorists as well, but we're actually courting Saudi Arabia, Terrorist Haven (est. 1970) for use of their airspace to combat Iraq. If this is a War on Terrorism, why aren't we using the same tough talk with Saudi Arabia as their neighbor? Also, when did the War on Terrorism, a concept with no soverignty, turn into a war on another soverign nation?

 

While I don't think we'll make up a BS reason to invade, I still think that the moment that Sadaam does so much as begin to start balking at an inspector initiative we'll have the country overrun in a matter of weeks. Sadaam's had his chance to cooperate, now we will no longer tolerate obstinance, and have the support of the United Nations this time. One slip-up and his ass is grass.

 

I know we'll invade eventually and I'm for it, I just want us to go about it in the most civil way, if there is such a thing.

 

Kotzenjunge

Just Talked Out Of Both Sides Of His Mouth, I Think

[Guest cynicalprofit]

I know we'll invade eventually and I'm for it, I just want us to go about it in the most civil way, if there is such a thing.

 

I really dont think there is anymore.

 

Is anyone else just a little bit worried, this maybe the start of another war? I mean if we go in and find nothing there Sadam can say you did it without cause and it gives him and his supports a reaon to attack, false persecution. If we do find something, the Us will strike first and Sadam and his supports will probably strike back as a measure of defense.

 

Since I doubt they're gonna have tea and talk about it, I think we're gonna get us a war.

[Guest BaldFish]

I'm totally with Kotz here. I think someone needs to go take out Saddam, but that that someone shouldn't be the US, it should be the UN--even if the US is the muscle.

 

It's the principle of the thing. While that doesn't matter to most Americans, it DOES matter to the rest of the world. And if we were to act against the wishes of the UN, then WE would be a rogue nation.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Even if Saddam complies, we'll still come up with some B.S. excuse to go ahead.

We have all the reasons we need to go ahead right now. He's a brutally oppressive dictator who terrorizes his own people, he's given millions of dollars to the cause of terrorism against the US and its allies...

Not only does this describe half of Central and South America in the '80s (which, like Saddam, we set up, and which, unlike Saddam, we didn't go to war with), but it also applies to our "ally" Saudi Arabia, as mentioned by Kotz.

 

He already has. Just because the cowards in the UN can't look at the evidence and see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

Well, what is it then? Let's have it, because other than the generic dictator shpiel and the fact that big business benefits from war, I don't know of anything.

[Guest DrTom]

it shows that we have at least superficial support now from the UN and won't go off on some cavalier action with our buddy Britain.

We've never needed their support. They gave it to us precisely because they wanted to avoid the fate President Bush said was coming for them in his 9/12 speech: being an irrelevant body before the world. They're doing this so that they can save face in the whole thing.

 

Until then, I will stand by my position that we shouldn't do anything until we have real reason to invade...

What more do we need?

 

He has weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological agents. We know this, we've known it for years, and it expressly violates the terms he agreed to in the aftermath of Desert Storm, a war he lost.

 

He is close to nuclear capability. Traitors paid by Saddam say he's four years off, but more reliable reports place it at about six months. Even if he doesn't have the long-range weapons to hit us, he could easily wipe out Israel, and there is no reason we should sit around with our thumbs up our butts until a bunch of cowards are satisfied that we have "enough evidence."

 

Yes, there is the matter of funding terrorists as well, but we're actually courting Saudi Arabia, Terrorist Haven...

I hope those two-faced fuckers are next on the list.

 

Also, when did the War on Terrorism, a concept with no soverignty, turn into a war on another soverign nation?

When, following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President Bush said we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.

 

Sadaam's had his chance to cooperate...

He'd had chances for ELEVEN YEARS. He's more than used them all up.

 

I know we'll invade eventually and I'm for it, I just want us to go about it in the most civil way, if there is such a thing.

There is no such thing, which makes that statement meaningless.

[Guest DrTom]

I think someone needs to go take out Saddam, but that that someone shouldn't be the US, it should be the UN...

We ARE the UN. I'm really not trying to be jingoistic, but it's true.

[Guest DrTom]

but it also applies to our "ally" Saudi Arabia, as mentioned by Kotz.

They should be next on the list. I've already said we should pull all our troops out, stop buying oil from them, and watch the royal family die and the country twist in the wind. They've given as much money to terrorism as Saddam has, and Washington's continued mollycoddling of them is beyond the point of being disgusting.

 

Well, what is it then? Let's have it, because other than the generic dictator shpiel and the fact that big business benefits from war, I don't know of anything.

See my reply to Kotz.

 

A few months ago, aerial photographs were taken, showing trucks carrying materials to build nuclear missiles. They were also going to a set of buildings with the facilities to build nuclear missiles. When we presented this evidence to the UN, one individual (a coward even by UN standards), had the gall to say, "Maybe they were going to a truckers' party."

 

This is the kind of spinelessness and stupidity we've had to deal with.

 

The evidence is there: it's been presented, and a lot of it has been there for years. If you can't see it, then I can't help you, because even a doctor can't cure those who choose to be blind.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I think the message is being lost. I'm not saying we wait until they bomb another nation or gas their own citizens again, I'm saying wait until they balk on the inspections again, as per the resolution. I'm FOR this resolution, like I said. It binds us (in name at least) to practice a little restraint and wait for the kid to start reaching for the cookie jar instead of chiding him before he does anything wrong, so to speak.

 

Does Iraq actually harbor terrorists or just fund them? I know very well about the weapons, but have they been hiding terrorists for certain, or is this something we're just assuming because they're doing so much else that's wrong?

 

Kotzenjunge

Must We Call People Who Don't Want To Rush Into Things "Cowards?"

[Guest BaldFish]

I think someone needs to go take out Saddam, but that that someone shouldn't be the US, it should be the UN...

We ARE the UN. I'm really not trying to be jingoistic, but it's true.

You and I and the rest of the unwashed masses believe that. But the three-hundred-and-some-odd other countries in the world don't--and if they aren't the attacker, they'll wonder when THEY will piss off the US, which will sour relations for years to come.

 

Is that fair for them to think? No, perhaps not. But it's still how the rest of the world feels.

 

We Americans tend to think of America as all that matters--and while we are the top dog, we are not the ONLY dog.

[Guest BaldFish]

Another point: the nature of terrorism is such that it does not NEED harborers. Particularly suicide terrorism.

 

If we just unilaterally run in and stomp a haven for terrorists, where do you think those terrorists will choose as their next target?

 

I think the only solution is to pursue alternative fuels and get the fuck out of the Middle East. Israel's military is capable enough to fend for itself.

[Guest DrTom]

Must We Call People Who Don't Want To Rush Into Things "Cowards?"

We've been building this case for eleven years. And short of a help-I'm-about-to-be-impeached attack, we've done nothing at all to Saddam. I hardly think this is "rushing in," especially since we have evidence, and now the backing of the UN that everyone has been pining for for so long.

[Guest DrTom]

But the three-hundred-and-some-odd other countries in the world don't--and if they aren't the attacker, they'll wonder when THEY will piss off the US, which will sour relations for years to come.

The UN's reluctance and utter cowardice are appalling, though, and they've combined to frustrate me greatly. It's nice to have them behind us, and I guess it's good that we waited for it. But it's incredibly irritating to see a bunch of bureaucrats and pencil pushers holding up what everyone should know is the right thing to do.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

A few months ago, aerial photographs were taken, showing trucks carrying materials to build nuclear missiles. They were also going to a set of buildings with the facilities to build nuclear missiles. When we presented this evidence to the UN, one individual (a coward even by UN standards), had the gall to say, "Maybe they were going to a truckers' party."

I can honestly say I never heard anything about this photograph. Where can I find it?

 

Even if it were true, however, just because a country HAS nukes doesn't mean they're willing to use nukes. We have nukes. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. India has nukes. Hell, even Pakistan has nukes (the same Pakistan that was "harboring" most of the ex-Al Qaedan's after we destroyed Afghanistan and has ). Why are Iraqi nukes any different?

 

Also, remember what happened LAST time we went to war with Iraq? A decade of retaliation from the Jihad, justified in their minds because we struck first:

 

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

 

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

 

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless.

...

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Even if it were true, however, just because a country HAS nukes doesn't mean they're willing to use nukes. We have nukes. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. India has nukes. Hell, even Pakistan has nukes (the same Pakistan that was "harboring" most of the ex-Al Qaedan's after we destroyed Afghanistan and has ). Why are Iraqi nukes any different?

Is it not better to restrict the number of countries that have nukes than to take the chance that a country like Iraq isn't going to use them. During the Cuban missile crisis, Fidel Castro actually encouraged the Kremlin to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against America, with the assumption that Cuba would literally be obliterated in response. I don't think we can necessarily trust that other state's will treat the gravity of nuclear power with the responsibility it deserves, even knowing that there will be a vicious response should they fail to do so. As such I think it is the common sense appoach to take all appropriate measures to prevent other countries from obtaining the technology.

[Guest BaldFish]

But the three-hundred-and-some-odd other countries in the world don't--and if they aren't the attacker, they'll wonder when THEY will piss off the US, which will sour relations for years to come.

The UN's reluctance and utter cowardice are appalling, though, and they've combined to frustrate me greatly. It's nice to have them behind us, and I guess it's good that we waited for it. But it's incredibly irritating to see a bunch of bureaucrats and pencil pushers holding up what everyone should know is the right thing to do.

I never said they weren't reticent or that I agreed with the UN. And it is irritating to see them slow the process. But I see it as an unpleasant necessity that must be borne if we are to think globally, rather than just of our country.

[Guest DrTom]

I can honestly say I never heard anything about this photograph. Where can I find it?

I'm not sure if it's been made public. A lot of the evidence people have been demanding to see isn't the kind of stuff that can be released into the public domain. If it is available, though, I'm going to presume you've heard of Google, and pretend you didn't ask a question like that.

 

Even if it were true, however, just because a country HAS nukes doesn't mean they're willing to use nukes.

Because Iraq is expressly forbidden to have them, according to the terms of the treaty THEY SIGNED after they LOST A WAR. I really don't see how this is a diffcult issue, but I've never seen how the Left can continue to be apologists for brutal, terrorist-supporting dictators.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I can honestly say I never heard anything about this photograph. Where can I find it?

I'm not sure if it's been made public. A lot of the evidence people have been demanding to see isn't the kind of stuff that can be released into the public domain. If it is available, though, I'm going to presume you've heard of Google, and pretend you didn't ask a question like that.

I asked because I was looking for it on Google and didn't find it. The closest thing I could find is a photograph of a regular location that the British government claimed housed the capabilities to build nuclear weapons. Simply put, I'm not going to trust these unconfirmed claims unless they can be backed up with physical evidence. If it's a "security issue", then the fact that its existence was made public in the first place is foolish and unprofessional.

 

And I really don't see how the Right keeping building up and tearing down their own brutal, terrorist-supporting dictators accomplishes anything other than killing my friends and innocent foreign civilians.