[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
**Do you think we will find out the sources of this chemical or bio weapon technology to Iraq through this? because whoever helped them develop this technology has stores of the stuff too.*
Fraudz there is no need to know who supplies Iraq with these kind of weapons. The whole world knows. At least those who have a lil commen sense and are interested in world affairs.
[/QUOTE]
PA, I dont think anyone is 'bleeding' for Iraq here. Saddam is a menace, and that is universally agreed upon. What we are asking for is fairness and uniformity in the application of all United Nations laws.
As we have it now, there is one law for the strong, and another for the weak. And I dont see where fairness factors into that.
*Fraudz there is no need to know who supplies Iraq with these kind of weapons. The whole world knows. At least those who have a lil commen sense and are interested in world affairs. *
Ali
could you please be a little more specific? ;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Or maybe it's that you choose not to see what they do.
[/QUOTE]
Yep maybe that's it. i'm just inherently biased, you guessed it.
Can i find anyone who is interested in applying ALL UN Resolutions - what about Paragraph 14 of 687?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Fraudz: *
**Fraudz there is no need to know who supplies Iraq with these kind of weapons. The whole world knows. At least those who have a lil commen sense and are interested in world affairs. *
Ali
could you please be a little more specific? ;)
[/QUOTE]
Al-Qaida :D
Fraudz, a decent graduate school microbiology students possesses more than enough knowledge on how to make bio or chem weapons. Scientists who work in pharmaceutical labs can do that in their bathrooms. It is not such a brainy work that’s why other nations and US are concerned. South Africa had a very extensive program, and I have read it in places that it helped Iraqi program. You are right, it could be Russia too. But I think now the issue is not who supplied whom, but who posses a threat. If anyother country (read Israel) was a threat to the US and to the world, then something will be done to control that. It is now Iraq that is under the microscope. Saddam's gotta go.
Ali. Al-Qaeda can't even make a laundry detergent, let alone chems. They are a bunch of uneducated idiots.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Fraudz, a decent graduate school microbiology students possesses more than enough knowledge on how to make bio or chem weapons. .
[/QUOTE]
NY, not completely true, The latest report even on teh anthrax atatcks noted that it was done by experts with specialized systems. to make it deliverable by the letters, the size weight as well as ability to go "float" and sisperse in air.
knowledge is good. I have pulled apart old Norton and Triumph bikes and oput them together to actually know how to make one and can probably even out one together with some help, but unless I have specialized equipment etc, I cant make it competition quality.
same goes for this stuff. just making a bio weapon is not tough, I mean ask Roman, he makes them every time he eats taco bell, but weaponising them is hard work and needs expertise. I dont think those I-raqis have that knowhow.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Ali. Al-Qaeda can't even make a laundry detergent, let alone chems. They are a bunch of uneducated idiots.
[/QUOTE]
NYA It takes at least +160 IQ to book and plan a direct flight to WTC Airport.
I guess Madrassas did teach them maths at least.
anyways, i do believe that the resolutions mean jack if theya re not enforced I mean look at israel. what we should do is make all these punk lil countries comply or we send the lynch mob after them.
Iraq one, Israel next..and then we should go after that Mugabe. cant stand that guy
Ali..they learnt flying in Florida, not in Jeddah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Ali..they learnt flying in Florida, not in Jeddah.
[/QUOTE]
NYA, my perdon. Btw waz the difference Jeddah, Florida?! Do you know any?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
NYA, my perdon. Btw waz the difference Jeddah, Florida?! Do you know any?
[/QUOTE]
Ali_R: The most obvious difference between Jeddah and Florida is that people who live in Jeddah probably know how to vote.
Myvoice……hahahahhahaha…….ashole.
And also speak english.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Ali_R: The most obvious difference between Jeddah and Florida is that people who live in Jeddah probably know how to vote.
[/QUOTE]
That is surely an advantage since I would love to see Republicans spread all over the world!
What a pity that no one has yet replied to my query regarding whether anyone is in support of universally applying international laws and mandates - including paragraph 14 of Iraq’s first disarmament resolution, Security Council Resolution 687, adopted in 1991. (Naturally, going by the silence, that calls for the disarmament of Israel).
“Cheat and retreat will no longer be tolerated,” Mr Bush told us yesterday – forgetting, of course, UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 which call for Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. And after eight weeks of debate in the Security Council, no one mentioned the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, because – of course – Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 11 September. If the United States invades Iraq, we should remember that.
And what do we get from Mr Bush? Absolutely no gesture towards the Arab world. The joy of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, can be imagined. “Should we have to use troops,” Mr Bush tells us, “the US, with friends, will move swiftly – with force – to do the job.” In other words, he will invade Iraq, the “friends”, presumably, being British. The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war without UN permission.
So how many of the American tanks entering Baghdad will be flying UN pennants? None, I suspect. The BBC, with CNN and all the other television networks, was last night billing Resolution 1441 as “the last chance” for Saddam Hussein. In fact, it is the “last chance” for the United Nations. As the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, said, the road ahead will be “difficult and dangerous”. He can say that again.
It’s easy to see the traps. America’s UN ambassador, John Negroponte, insisted that the Security Council resolution “contains no hidden triggers”. But of course it does. It allows the United States to decide if Iraq has opposed the resolution. It allows the Security Council to discuss non-compliance without restraining the United States from attacking Baghdad.
“One way or another,” Mr Negroponte said, “Iraq will be disarmed”. It’s the “another” way that the UN should be worried about. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s nightmare headmaster at the UN, performed appropriately. “Crystal clear”, “unequivocal choice”, “serious consequences”, “ambiguous modalities”. You could almost feel the cane. No mention, of course, of the CIA’s manipulation of the last team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
Iraqis want peace and an end to sanctions – let’s forget President Saddam for a moment – and President Bush seems to want war. So Mr Bush must be praying that the Iraqi President does something to obstruct the UN arms inspectors. In which case – I quote Mr Bush – “we will act in the interest of the world”. Thanks George. And thanks Saddam if this feckless, vicious dictator chooses to defy the UN.
Washington wants a UN fig leaf for a war on Iraq and is willing to go through an inspection process in the hope that Iraq obstructs it. Mr Annan was talking yesterday about the “unique legitimacy of the UN”. But the cruel dictator of Baghdad cares as much about that as President Bush.
Source: George Bush crosses Rubicon - but what lies beyond?, Robert Fisk, The Independent, 9 November 2002
N.
I can't help the feeling I have, that either the whole thing was a political bluff.... (sinse the vote occured after the election day...).
Or we are planning to go to WAR.
I pray not.
So....now there will be massive defense and military spending in the U.S.
Even more massive then before, and newer, scarier weapons will be built. ... by the U.S. and other countries, then treaties and agreements to destroy, and disarm hopefully.
And prayers by the majority of us, (all of us average people..;) that we all remain peaceful, and that everyone has a home or shelter, food, health, happiness, trust and freedom to just be.
(At least thats what I pray for.)
What do the rest of you pray for?
Except for some of the sorry majority in power, (guess they must have been spoiled), that feel the necessity to keep up with the Jones...
Those that are so unintelligent, that they believe massive weapons, and power and militaries bring about peace..
Does anyone here think that large militaries and huge secret weapons are a key to Peace? Or an hindrince?
Btw N.
I don't really think the U.S. truly wants to be a part of the U.N. anymore, truthfully...unless it suits us.
And ... don't get me wrong...I love this country and the constitution.
I don't love..politicians getting lawyers to defend their stance on issuses that circumvent the constitution, especially if its for their own Agenda, and not in the Peoples best interest.
I do think we have the best constitution in the world though, I know that people in some countries don't have a voice at all. I like that some things can be debated.
I don't like that majority of the time, those with the biggest bankroll usually are elected, and you see them much of the time voting with the ones that bankrolled em.
I think that politicians need to abide by election reforms and not find ways around the law. I think that all political debates should be broadcast on public televison only. Television that ALL have access to, not just those with a cable connection.
I would love to watch an election that had no negative advertisement, and all candidates debated out their views and feelings on issues on public television.
I would like votes on each issue...not chocolate coated bills. I think there still would be give and take, however I think issues would be more uniformly debated and passed.
Well, I guess I'm optimistic...:)
N.
Before I got off on a tangent...yeah..
I think the U.S. should be a signatory to the international world court and be subject and a signatory to those laws.
As..I believe President Clinton did sign prior to leaving office...but never ratified. And the Republicans were not at all for it. They rejected, I think because our leaders felt it would negate our sovereignty.
(Words might not be correct, and I could be completely wrong on the matter but this is how I understood it.)
(and I did write to 2 senators in my state about it)
So some treaties we agree with, and some not.... hmmm. Ok..well, there are some treaties we agree with, that other countries don't and visa versa.
Well if WE (the world community), want a United Nations, and a World Court/Tribunal: Laws voted for and passed by a majority of the members shouldn't have to be ratified. All signatory members of the U.N. have to agree that if a resolution passes by a majority vote by member countries, any country wishing to remain a part of the U.N. must accept the decision as law, even if they decline to vote, or the outcome of the vote isn't in their interest. If they disagree..they must forfiet membership in the U.N.
And if majority ofl member countries agree? Why is there a need for a veto?
I think each member of the U.N. should have an equal vote..., however, that doesn't mean that you join the U.N. whenever you feel it will benefit yourself, and ignore/exit the U.N. whenever you dislike the outcome.
So a trial period I suppose is necessary. Perhaps 3 years? (I don't know..?)... After which you a full voting member. If you should decide to not ratify international laws passed by voting countries, ONCE, you are a voting member, then your membership, (or right to vote) within the U.N. should be revoked, and you lose your voting status until it re-earned. ( 3 years?)
I would like to see all countries recognize an International World Court/Tribunal.
An International Law..that all countries who are signatory to it, are equal in status and voice.
An Interrnational Rule that doesn't favor one country above another because of business transactions or religious opinions.
You will have a long wait there
N.
Is the resolution illegal? Factually and positively illegal?
Or just immoral?
Do you think that its possible that "those in the know? in the U.S. who originally supplied Iraq with weapons might have non-publically-documented evidence that Iraq is holding and building weapons of mass destruction?
Do you think Saddam is capable of using one?
Do you think George Busch would push the button?
If it's economic, do you think that allowing Iraq free trade would benefit the Iraqi's as well as Americans?
Do you think that Americans could survive without Iraqi Oil? and just not trade with them period? just like Iran?
Do you think Americans could survive without any Middle Eastern Oil?
Do you think Middle Eastern Countries could survive without midwestern farmers?
In my humble opinion, my hope, my prayer is that we come to realize that we all need each other.