48 Hours left till Bombs over Baghdad

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Seems like no one can stop Bush and his pals now. Anyone note how the guy made a point by saying “Dont burn the oil wells”. I find it fishy that he felt that it was so important that he had to put it in his speech.

BBC Link
Bush orders Saddam to quit

Mr Bush said he believed Saddam had banned weapons
US President George W Bush has given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.
In a televised address to the nation, Mr Bush said it was time for “decades of deceit and cruelty” to end in Iraq.

“Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours,” Mr Bush said shortly after 0100 GMT.

“Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”

Mr Bush said the US had the legal right to protect itself and warned that Iraq’s weapons could be used by terrorists against Americans.

“The danger is clear,” he said in his White House speech.

Appeal to Iraqis

Mr Bush also used part of his 13-minute address to send a message to Iraqis, stressing that any military action would be directed against the “lawless men” in power - such as Saddam Hussein and his sons, Qusay and Uday.

The tyrant will soon be gone

President George W Bush

“As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need,” the president said.

“We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

He promised: “The tyrant will soon be gone - the day of your liberation is near”.

**The US leader urged Iraqi forces not to destroy oil wells or use chemical weapons. **

He said war criminals would be prosecuted and it would be no good for them to argue that they had only been following orders.

Diplomatic failure

On Monday, diplomacy collapsed at the United Nations when the US, UK and Spain withdrew a draft resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, amid threats of a veto from France.

Mr Bush stressed that the US and other nations had tried to use diplomacy to ensure Iraq had no banned weapons of mass destruction since the end of the Gulf war in 1991.

“Peaceful efforts have failed again and again,” he said.

He added that he still believed in the role of the United Nations and said it had already given approval for force to be used if necessary against Iraq in earlier resolutions demanding disarmament.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said earlier that “any child” in Iraq knew a demand for Saddam to go into exile would fail.

Military build-up

The US now has more than 250,000 troops in the Gulf awaiting orders.

Thousands of British and Australian troops are also ready for action.

The Turkish Government says it will urgently reconsider a US request to deploy troops on its soil, which might allow an invasion of northern Iraq to complement an expected attack from Kuwait in the south.

The UN has ordered all its workers - including weapons inspectors - to leave Iraq.

2

I find it fishy that he felt that it was so important that he had to put it in his speech.

I think that should have come naturally. Isnt that what Saddam ordered his troops to do before they left Kuwait.

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RashGuy: *
I think that should have come naturally. Isnt that what Saddam ordered his troops to do before they left Kuwait.
[/QUOTE]

So... Would I be correct to interpret it as Bush saying - "Save some oil for me"?

4

so arrogant. hopefully a day will come when the roles will be reversed....

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hskhan: *

So... Would I be correct to interpret it as Bush saying - "Save some oil for me"?
[/QUOTE]

He also said don't use chemical weapons. Burning oil wells hurts the Iraqi people, it won't hurt the U.S.

6

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
...Burning oil wells hurts the Iraqi people, it won't hurt the U.S.
[/QUOTE]

Right, burning oil wells surely don't hurt US physically, but does hurt its "interests" deeply.

7

It’s clear - even IF Hussein were to leave Iraq and go into exile, the US would still invade Iraq. Must marvel at the lack of incentive being offered to Iraq to cooperate - we screw you if you cooperate, we screw you if you don’t.

US invasion of Iraq ‘inevitable’, BBC, 18 March 2003

The United States says American forces will enter Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction even if President Saddam Hussein complies with an ultimatum to leave.

President George W Bush’s spokesman Ari Fleischer said that allied troops would go into the country “no matter what”, but warned the Iraqi leader that if he did not leave it would be his “final mistake”.

Saddam Hussein, has flatly rejected Mr Bush’s ultimatum to go into exile within 48 hours or face war.

A statement from a cabinet meeting chaired by the Iraqi president said Iraq and all its people were “fully ready to confront the invading aggressors and repel them”.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell earlier said 45 nations had joined Mr Bush’s “coalition of the willing” - 30 had promised concrete support whilst 15 preferred to remain unnamed at the moment.

Ahead of the expected US-led bombing, which could start as early as 0100 GMT on Thursday with the expiry of Mr Bush’s ultimatum, all United Nations inspectors have now left Iraq.

8

tick tock tick tock

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
The United States says American forces will enter Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction
[/QUOTE]

All this time, US just wanted to find the "weapons of mass destruction". Such a boy scout!

They just couldn't rely on others to do this for them. They just have to send their G.I. Joes to search for all the buried treasures.

10

"It's clear - even IF Hussein were to leave Iraq and go into exile, the US would still invade Iraq. Must marvel at the lack of incentive being offered to Iraq to cooperate - we screw you if you cooperate, we screw you if you don't. "

That incentive was presented to him with the original exile offer a few months ago. I'd say he's had plenty of incentives to cooperate.

As an aside, I'm sorry I won't be getting you that T-shirt Nadia. The only thing to hope for now is a quick ending with minimal civilian casualties and speedy relief after the conflict.

11

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
All this time, US just wanted to find the "weapons of mass destruction". Such a boy scout!

They just couldn't rely on others to do this for them. They just have to send their G.I. Joes to search for all the buried treasures.
[/QUOTE]
That is rather obvious. After 12 long years, the very least that can be said is that NO, they couldn't just rely on others to do this for them.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
As an aside, I'm sorry I won't be getting you that T-shirt Nadia. The only thing to hope for now is a quick ending with minimal civilian casualties and speedy relief after the conflict.
[/QUOTE]

Stu, Yes, Iraq was given numerous incentives. i distinctly remember the numerous times Mad. Albright and Clinton both refused to lift sanctions even if Iraq cooperated vis-a-vis disarmament (even back then, they would settle for nothing less than seeing the Butcher of Baghdad dead). Or how about this latest 'incentive' that has backfired on Iraq so badly - i was reading this morning that, during the last few hours prior to the departure of the weapons inspectors today, Iraq was still destroying its remaining al Samoud missiles. Today, on the eve of their being bombed to smithereens. And what reward do they get for doing this? Precision-guided missiles, smart bombs, mines, and even DU - raining down upon Mosul, Baghdad, and all over this country. If this is the reward for cooperating - then it was probably better that Iraq not have cooperated from the start (atleast IMHO). If i am going to get kicked even when i am doing something right - what sort of impression does that leave upon me?

Stu my friend, i think your definition of "minimal" will vastly differ from mine. i am truly sorry about that t-shirt - had the requirement been fulfilled, i was looking forward to wearing it.

13

Nadia, for the life of me I cannot understand your argument that Hussein should be rewarded for cooperating. He is slowing, begrudgingly destroying missles that he shouldn't have had in the first place! He's given the UN the finger for 12 years and 18 Resolutions, LYING the whole way through.

You say it was in Iraq's best interest to have never cooperated from the start. They didn't! That was why 1441 was necessary. He's been lying for 12 years. When chemical weapons are found (or God forbid, used), will your feelings change? Or do you think he has a right to those weapons?

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
When chemical weapons are found (or God forbid, used), will your feelings change? Or do you think he has a right to those weapons?
[/QUOTE]

Seminole, i had a feeling you would have a bone to pick with my arguments, specifically that of Iraq (allegedly) cooperating.
In regards to your queries - how are you so certain that Iraq has this God-awful arsenal of WMD? How much of a threat is Iraq, in your honest opinion, towards the US - how many of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq? How many of the al Qaeda suspects, being detained in US bases around the world, have documented and conclusive ties with the Iraqi government? As for Resolutions, i can think of another country not too far away from Iraq that may - perhaps - need some dire help when it comes to implementing its obligatory Security Council Resolutions. Chemical weapons? No, Hussein has NO right to them whatsoever - just as he did not in March 1988 when the international community.... (you probably are aware of how i would finish this sentence). The US has admitted it will utilize DU when it undertakes its invasion of Iraq - in my books, DU is a WMD. i know you are a rational, caring person at heart - i hope you do not believe that the use of DU against children is justifiable under any circumstances. Hussein has no right to CW, just as no other country should.

15

What if the chemical weapons are planted by the US military and shown to the world as held by Iraq? I strongly suspect that some WMD weapons will be "found" during this preemptive invasion and they will be planted by the coalition to show to the world "told you so". What guarantee one has that such evidence of WMDs found in Iraq wont be forged just like other evidences that have been shown to be forged/plagerised lately.

It's clear - even IF Hussein were to leave Iraq and go into exile, the US would still invade Iraq. Must marvel at the lack of incentive being offered to Iraq to cooperate - we screw you if you cooperate, we screw you if you don't.

Exactly my sentiments Nadia. Lets say Saddam does leave in 48 hours. What happens then? Will the G.I's be told to halt the invasion? Will they still bring a military ruler and neo-cons as pseudo-ministers ?

16

The threat of Saddam to the US, the region and world stability is very real if he is left unchecked. I wish the US would have had the foresight to take him out 12 years ago. I wish UN weapons inspections would have worked. I wish the sanctions could be removed so the Iraqi economy and society could flouish without the probability of Hussein using that money to restock his war chest. I wish the maniac and his sons would leave power.

Blix said today that he was still worried about Iraq’s account of its anthrax stocks. Blix in his reports has disputed Iraq’s claim to have destroyed 21,000 liters, or about 5,500 gallons, of biological-warfare agents, including anthrax, 12 years ago. We think that is perhaps the one area of the Iraq declaration where we are the most skeptical," he said.

With those type of comments coming from Blind Blix, I’m not the least bit comfortable leaving this maniac to hold the world hostage. I wish the world or UN could come up with a better solution. After 12 years, they haven’t.

Still, if chemical weapons show up, will this war have been justified - or would you suggest another 12 years of hoping he doesn’t use or proliferate them? Or even a further stretch - the 18th resolution and the current cast of characters “inspecting” Iraq would finally be the right combination to find WMD.

17

What, why? Why not trust Saddam?

18

Exactly, 5Abi. :k:
If you have not read it already, i would strongly suggest reading Fisk’s The war of misinformation has begun - it’s worthy of a thread on its own. Sorry, just an excerpt from his article if you don’t mind: "Far better for the US and British governments will be the macabre discovery of torture chambers and “rape-rooms” and prisoners with personal accounts of the most terrible suffering at the hands of Saddam’s secret police. This will “prove” how right “we” are to liberate these poor people. Then the US will have to find the “weapons of mass destruction” that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do for the moment.

Bunkers allegedly containing chemical weapons will be cordoned off – too dangerous for any journalist to approach, of course. Perhaps they actually do contain VX or anthrax. But for the moment, the all-important thing for Washington and London is to convince the world that the causus belli was true – and reporters, in or out of military costume, will be on hand to say just that."

**Will the G.I’s be told to halt the invasion? Will they still bring a military ruler and neo-cons as pseudo-ministers ? **
i think the message from the US is clear, 5Abi - the ultimatum that Bush gave Hussein is only for the sake of allowing Saddam Hussein an opportunity to go into exile, it is NOT a signal that US forces will desist from invading Iraq. Hussein and his sons can save their lives, according to Bush, if they take up this opportunity to escape Iraq - but even IF that were to occur, it would be Bush’s “moral responsibility”, to use routine US administration media catchphrases, to go into Iraq and make the world safe of WMD. :rolleyes: It’s die if you do, die if you don’t. Iraq has its hands tied behind its back - there is absolutely nothing they can do, short of setting off a nuclear bomb upon their own citizens, that will satisfy particular countries and individuals.

19

can u imagine being in iraq and knowing u r going to be bombed tomorrow?

for a child to think tomorrow i might lose my family and be left alone in the world.

for a mother to think her children might not be alive tomorrow.

what is this? :mad:

how can that !$#@%$#^%$&%^**& bush do this? :mad3:

can the world do nothing? :teary3:

this is soooooo frustrating :mad3: makes me wanna cry everytime i think abt this :mad3:

:teary3: Allah will do justice

20

^ Irem I feel the same way but sometimes we are left with no choice. I was so against US going around the UN and into Kosovo to save them from the serbians, but no one here on this board said that US is being a bully and US is going around the UN. It is this hypocrisy that is woefully evident.