UTD, what type of answer do you want from me? Have you ever had to explain to an Iraqi boy why his country has been ignored by the entire world for 12 years? Have you had to explain to him why it is necessary that we put his country through a man-made “humanitarian disaster” (in the words of a UN org) and for that, he has to drop out of school and work to support his family ? If this is what the US govt. means by “freedom” for the people of Iraq - then with all due respect and i am trying to state this as gently as is possible at this moment, they can stuff their freedom back to where it came from. The Iraqi people don’t need that kind of “freedom”.
New progress reports presented by the chief UN weapons inspectors yesterday offered no reason for the anti-war axis of France, Russia, China and Germany to drop their stiffening opposition to an early US-led attack on Iraq.
Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei’s verdict of mainly improved cooperation from Baghdad and demand for more time to finish their job bolstered the sceptics, three of whom are veto-wielding UN security council members.
The US president, George Bush, on Thursday warned security council members the time had come to “show their cards on Saddam”. These cards were displayed yesterday in the countries’ responses to Mr Blix’s statement, as their foreign ministers reiterated broad opposition to swift military action.
The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, implicitly threatened to use France’s veto to block a new resolution giving the green light to war. He also rejected setting any deadline for Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441, saying that would be a pretext for war.
“The reports tell us that for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating," Mr de Villepin said. "Why should we now engage in war with Iraq? Why smash the instruments that have just proved their effectiveness?”
Well now that we're on the topic of the liberation and humanitarian issues of Iraq, I have a fun one.
Y'know how when anti-war folks say this is all about oil (I know it's not) the most common response is "If we wanted that, why didn't we do it in 91?" Well.. if we want the liberation of the Iraqi people, why didn't we do that in 91?
Remember: You can't use international mandates or public opinion as your argument. We are openly disregarding it now, we could have then. Sure, there was a crumbling Soviet empire to deal with then, but now we have the War on Terror, North Korea, and numerous other problems. Why didn't we liberate the Iraqi people that we so love now, then?
Spoon :k: Good question. If we want liberation so badly now, why didn’t we go in and do the job back in '91? Sorry, but i simply cannot bring myself to believe that the motivation for this invasion is liberation from the hands of an evil tyrant. Tyrant, yes but liberation - hardly. i am certain Kuwaiti women have one or two things they could tell us about how “liberated” they feel when they are still not allowed to vote in 2002, the beginning of the 21st century.
Now the Russians are speaking out against any unilateral war declaration by the US-UK…
**“If the United States unilaterally begins military action in relation to Iraq, it would violate the U.N. Charter and, of course, when the U.N. Charter is violated, the Security Council must gather, discuss the situation and make the corresponding decisions,” Ivanov said. **](Yahoo News: Latest and Breaking News, Headlines, Live Updates, and More)
RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin and his French counterpart Jacques Chirac, two resolute opponents of a UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, voiced late today their conviction the measure doesn’t have the necessary support in the Security Council.
In a telephone conversation the two leaders “noted with satisfaction that a majority of UN Security Council members support the conclusion of (chief UN weapons inspector) Hans Blix … that there are no grounds for discontinuing inspections in Iraq,” Alexei Gromov told the Russian news agencies.** Putin and Chirac reiterated their belief that the crisis around Iraq should be solved peacefully through diplomatic means, Gromov added.**
US Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted today that the success of a new US-British-Spanish resolution that could open the way for war was unclear, but said he hoped it would get the required number of votes to be passed at the UN Security Council.However, he repeated that the United States was prepared to use force against Baghdad without a positive Security Council vote if necessary.
It's great that F G & R standing up but I just wish I didn't have these two nagging feelings: 1) they're doing it to protect their mutil-billion contracts with Iraq and not out of any noble feelings towards the ex-colnies and 2) Bush & Co have been too smug...do they have some ace up their sleeve?
TEHRAN, Iran – **Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov gave qualified support Tuesday to a French call for an emergency United Nations summit on Iraq, but said it required further study, the official Iranian news agency reported.
Ivanov spoke to reporters after talks with his Iranian counterpart, Kamal Kharrazi, in the Iranian capital. France has suggested calling a summit of U.N. Security Council heads of state to discuss the status of Iraq’s disarmament. “This is acceptable and Russia is studying this proposal,” Ivanov said, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. “We hope that the results of such a meeting bring good tidings.”**
Secretary of State Colin Powell has said he saw no need for such a summit when key powers have been expressing their views “openly and candidly.” The United States is seeking support for a resolution that contains a March 17 deadline for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war. Iraq has repeatedly denied possessing any banned weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council is divided over the ultimatum. It is supported by the United States, Britain and Spain but strongly opposed by France, Russia, China and Germany. Ivanov reiterated his country’s intentions vote against any resolution that could lead to a war in Iraq.
The Russian minister said he discussed with Kharrazi plans to evacuate Russians in Iraq via Iran. “There are currently very few Russians left in Iraq. Many have been evacuated,” he said. Ivanov, who arrived in Tehran late Monday for a two-day visit, also met Tuesday with President Mohammad Khatami. Iran also opposes an attack on Iraq without U.N. approval.
…] The British proposals at the UN involve setting Saddam Hussein a series of tests to see if he is serious about disarmament. The idea is to entice doubters on the Council to support a new resolution.
These tests have been rejected by France, because Paris believes that the weapons inspectors should be doing the job and not the Council. France is sticking to its position that war is not necessary while inspections are working.
One British test requires Saddam Hussein to make a public statement, in Arabic and therefore to his own people, saying that he has hidden weapons of mass destruction and will give them up.
**This is perhaps the most difficult of the demands. The idea of Saddam Hussein going public with a humiliating climbdown and mea culpa is difficult to imagine.
Indeed, this demand brings to mind the demarche made by Austria to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. It was designed to be so harsh as to be rejected. War followed not long afterwards.**
[QUOTE]
One British test requires Saddam Hussein to make a public statement, in Arabic and therefore to his own people, saying that he has hidden weapons of mass destruction and will give them up.
*This is perhaps the most difficult of the demands. The idea of Saddam Hussein going public with a humiliating climbdown and mea culpa is difficult to imagine. *
[/QUOTE]
This is almost laughable. Someone is really concerned that Saddam might be humiliated because he has to admit to his subjects and his neighbors that he has been lieing to and deceiving them for 12 years. For goodness sakes, let's not force him to tell his people the truth about him gassing and torturing their fellow citizens either.
In effect, this guy is saying it ought to be the world's objective to keep the Iraqi people deaf and dumb to what Saddam has done to them for decades so that he can keep doing it to them for more decades. Appeasement knows no bounds when you believe that war is NEVER an option. And if, God forbid, the entire world ever comes to that belief, that is the day that the entire world will be enslaved under the tryanical, despotic rule of some monster.
i am not certain how you get from P. Reynolds discussing Blair's attack on France, all the way to "In effect, this guy is saying it ought to be the world's objective to keep the Iraqi people deaf and dumb to what Saddam has done to them for decades so that he can keep doing it to them for more decades." This requires a huge leap, if you will forgive me for saying so - the article is not even implying any such notion. All the BBC dude is discussing is Jack Straw's "extraordinary" comment and France's reasons for dismissing the latest British proposals. Their reason for doing so is rather valid: "weapons inspectors should be doing the job and not the [Security] Council" and "war is not necessary while inspections are working." You can disagree with either or both of these (i rather imagine you will) - that's fine, but nowhere is this BBC guy essentially arguing that the Iraqi people should be kept "deaf and dumb" to benefit Saddam Hussein. i might be wrong but IMHO, that's a totally wrong reading.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
i am not certain how you get from P. Reynolds discussing Blair's attack on France, all the way to "In effect, this guy is saying it ought to be the world's objective to keep the Iraqi people deaf and dumb to what Saddam has done to them for decades so that he can keep doing it to them for more decades." You can disagree with either or both of these (i rather imagine you will) - that's fine, but nowhere is this BBC guy essentially arguing that the Iraqi people should be kept "deaf and dumb" to benefit Saddam Hussein. i might be wrong but **IMHO*, that's a totally wrong reading.
[/QUOTE]
You get there from the quote I attached to my comments. This guy EXPRESSLY opines that the most difficult demand will be Saddam telling his people that he lied because he'll be humiliated. Poor, poor Saddam. You notice that the writer doesn't say it would be difficult for Saddam to admit to other people that he lied. Nor does he suggest it would be difficult for him to actually disarm.
You solved the puzzle, MV - Paul Reynolds must be anti-American and pro-Saddam to state these opinions. Isn't everyone who analyzes US policies automatically a Saddam-lover?
Maybe there's a historical analogy this BBC journalist is referring to, such as - Indeed, this demand brings to mind the demarche made by Austria to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. It was designed to be so harsh as to be rejected. War followed not long afterwards. Could it be that he is trying to analyze whether or not the current US policy vis-a-vis Iraq will work? Is it possible that he might be using his brains or does his studying this issue with a critical eye automatically entail that he must be pro-Saddam?