Yes, US will go ahead with the attacks. As there is more to this affair, than oil, the Americans want their stooges around the world, today its Iraq, tomorrow it might be Iran, and then maybe Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Boston-Karachi: *
Don't be too hard on US. Muslim countries Jordan, Eqypt, Qatar are backing US. What do you say about that?
Flip the coin dear!
[/QUOTE]
2 wrongs don't make a right.
Bush is absolutely right !!
Bushie is absolutely right when he says.. if we dont disarm iraq or make sure he is disarmed, americans will get hurt..
But hurt by who?? same group of people that hurted americans in WTC to make a statement that who really is in-charge..
For example.. now a days we have indiscriminate sniper killing going on everyday.. causing 'terror' and 'fear' in the hearts of americans so they dont even attempt getting out of the house forget protesting against the war and all.. fear and terror pays off.. american cia officials (ie israelis) know it well..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ali_R: *
2 wrongs don't make a right.
[/QUOTE]
Notta in the case of US Policies!
It really depends, if US will find someone to hide behind eg.. NA in Afghanistan or Kurds in Iraq, yes US will attack if not then no. US don't have the stomach for body bags vietnam/korea was more then enough.
Exception is if the benefits of black gold aka oil outweights body bags..
*Originally posted by Spock: *
**PT, tell me honestly, do you think anyone stops you if you rally against the american government in the US? No… But if you do that in other countries, you get busted… Hell, they even had a humour show in which they dissed Bush!! Can they have a ‘Thats our idiotic Blair’ show in England? No… Thats the difference… **
Yep, that is the difference!
**btw, PT are you in UCLA? If so, excellent, maybe I will go there for some research stuff and get to meet ya… **
I don’t meet with strangers :nono3:
In Gulf war, Arab countries, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait came to the United States for help when Saddam was near to capture Oil assests. United States fought it, even though it wasn't our war but we did liberate Kuwait.
I'm not sure when America is going to attack Iraq but let me tell you something, Bush has a great plan for Father's Day.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by An American Angel: *
...but we did liberate Kuwait.
[/QUOTE]
Depends upon one's definition of "liberate". Next in line - please liberate Turkish Kurds from the repressive policies of the Turkish government; please liberate Saudi women from the harsh policies of the Saudi government, and please liberate Egyptian political dissidents from the dictatorial policies of the Egyptian government. Not to get too spiteful here, but another group of people, residing in the Middle East, who are ushering in their 36th year of occupation, might also need a liberation.
Like it or not, I am coming, and staying with you!!! j/k
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Depends upon one's definition of "liberate". Next in line - please liberate Turkish Kurds from the repressive policies of the Turkish government; please liberate Saudi women from the harsh policies of the Saudi government, and please liberate Egyptian political dissidents from the dictatorial policies of the Egyptian government. Not to get too spiteful here, but another group of people, residing in the Middle East, who are ushering in their 36th year of occupation, might also need a liberation.
[/QUOTE]
Why stop there? You can do the list of every single Arab country and find groups (or even the whole population) that need to be liberated.
Definitely Yes..Even if it’s few days before Ramzan
House Approves Iraq Resolution
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Thursday authorized war-making powers for President Bush, giving him the extra muscle he needs in his determination to free America and the world from what he says is the growing threat of Saddam Hussein Iraq.
The 296-133 vote was a solid endorsement of Bush’s insistence that he will work with the United Nations (news - web sites) if possible, or alone if necessary, to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. A majority of Democrats voted against the resolution even though their House leader, Dick Gephardt, was one of its authors.
“Mr. President we are about to give you a great trust,” said Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas.
The Senate was prepared to act in chorus, rejecting by a 75-25 vote a bid by opponents to slow down a final vote and picking up the vital support of the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible, said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.
Bush has stressed he has made no decision about using military force against Iraq. It could take months, once that decision is made, for the military to prepare for an all-out strike.
With Congress behind him, Bush will press his case with the United Nations Security Council that it must approve a tough new resolution holding Iraq to unfettered inspections and disarmament and promising force if Iraq does not comply.
House Democrats urged the president to work closely with the U.N. before making a decision to go it alone against Iraq. “Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment,” said Gephardt.
While concerns remained about the dangers of going to war against Iraq without a strong international coalition, Thursday’s vote showed stronger support for the president than his father, the George H.W. Bush, received in 1991. The House then voted 250-183 to endorse using American troops to drive Iraq from Kuwait.
Despite efforts by party leaders to defuse Iraq as a political issue four weeks before the election, 126 of the House’s 208 Democrats voted against it.
The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.
The House earlier rejected, by 270-155, the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force against Iraq after he decides that cooperative efforts with the United Nations are futile.
Rep. John Spratt D-S.C., said that without a multilateral approach, **“this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world.” **
The Senate, on a key test vote, choked off delaying tactics by a few Democratic opponents and made it all but certain that the Senate would pass the measure.
Only two Republicans voted against bringing debate to a close: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Senate, which has been debating the measure for a full week, was expected to approve it late Thursday or early Friday.
Daschle’s support was crucial to the administration’s hope for a substantial vote and brought him praise from the White House. “The president appreciates Senator Daschle’s decision to vote with the president on this matter,” Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said.
Progress was slower on the diplomatic front, where three members of the U.N. Security Council — France, Russia and China — continued to hold out against a U.S.-British proposal sanctioning military action if Iraq does not comply with coercive inspections.
A 25-minute telephone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday failed to yield a breakthrough over wording of a new Security Council resolution to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations,” White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.
In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered. In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov relayed a similar stance.
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. He said he considers Saddam **“deterrable and containable at this point.” **
**“I’m not convinced we need to do this now,” **Zinni said during a question-and-answer session at a Middle East Institute forum.
Debate in the House went deep into the night both Tuesday and Wednesday, with nearly every member intent on expressing the necessity, and gravity, of granting authority to send Americans into war.
“I know the heartache and pain of the families that are left behind,” said a tearful Rep. Randy Cunningham (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., who was a pilot in the Vietnam War.
But Cunningham and almost every Republican backed the president. “It’s time we go straight to the eye and dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive tyranny and terrorism radiate,” said Rep. Porter Goss (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., He said that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, **“I can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein.” **
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Why stop there? You can do the list of every single Arab country and find groups (or even the whole population) that need to be liberated.
[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't this example apply on Indian Minorites?
Looks like hard way for Saddam is near.
Congress Passes Iraq War Resolution
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress approved the use of America’s military might against Iraq, reinforcing President Bush’s insistence that Saddam Hussein’s government had no other option but to disarm. “The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end,” Bush said.
After days of solemn debate, both the House and Senate passed and sent to the White House a resolution authorizing the president to use military force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to get rid of its biological and chemical weapons and disband its nuclear weapons program.
The president, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, prevailed despite lingering Democratic concerns about the risks of a pre-emptive, unilateral strike on Iraq.
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council,” Bush said Friday in a statement. **“Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.” **
It was a major national security policy victory for Bush, and it occurred less than a month before midterm elections that will decide control of the House and Senate.
The House approved the resolution by a strong 296-133 margin Thursday. The Senate vote, coming early Friday, was 77-23.
The resolution emphasizes the need to work with the United Nations and exhaust diplomatic measures before resorting to force but allows the president to act with or without the United Nations. There was a sense that war was inevitable.
“Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war — on his terms, at a time of his choosing,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Bush, speaking to reporters after the House vote, said it **“sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: It must disarm and comply with all U.N. resolutions or it will be forced to comply.” **
Bush is pressing the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new resolution requiring Iraq to submit to unconditional inspections and disarm or face military retaliation.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said “talks are progressing” at the Security Council on wording of a new resolution that all five-veto holding permanent members can support. The United States and Britain continue to encounter resistance from France, Russia and China.
All but six Republicans in the House and one in the Senate — Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — backed the president, but Democrats were far more divided, with many voting for the resolution only after more restrictive alternatives were voted down.
Even House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, who helped negotiate the language of the resolution with the White House, urged the president not to rush to war. “Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment,” he said.
Gephardt added that the resolution was “not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush’s new policy of pre-emption,” or striking another nation because of a perceived threat to U.S. security.
Of 208 House Democrats, 126 voted against the resolution, and this significant number “does send a message that the support for this war is not what the administration asked for,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas. In the Senate, 21 of the 50 Democrats voted against the measure. Vermont independent Sen. James Jeffords (news - web sites) also opposed the measure.
Senate action on the resolution was slowed by 84-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a master of parliamentary procedure and an implacable defender of the constitutional powers of Congress. “Let us not give this president, or any power, unchecked power,” he said.
But his resistance was undercut Thursday morning when the Senate voted 75-25 to stop Byrd’s delaying tactics and move the measure toward a final vote. At about the same time, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who had objected to what he said was giving the president overly broad authority, announced he was supporting the resolution.
“I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice,” said Daschle. **“It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values.” **
Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record), D-S.C., and Sen. Carl Levin , D-Mich., offered similar alternatives committing the United States to working with the United Nations in disarming Iraq and requiring the president to come back to Congress for a second vote if he decided that unilateral action was the only recourse. Those proposals went down, 270-155 in the House and 75-24 in the Senate.
The Iraqi vote came 11 years after Congress engaged in a similar debate over whether to grant the first President Bush the authority to use American troops to drive Iraq from occupied Kuwait. The votes in favor that time, when an international coalition was already in place in the Middle East, were less decisive: 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
Meanwhile, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. Zinni, a former U.S. envoy to the Mideast for the Bush administration, said he considers Saddam **“deterrable and containable at this point.” **
“I’m not convinced we need to do this now,” Zinni said at a foreign-policy forum.
Now they dont need the UN at all. So why care. International laws mean nothing to the US govt. So why do they bother with their own domestic laws? I am ready for the war in Iraq. I hope the US wins, this will stroke the flames of resent even more. Next time Al-Qaeda attack you will find no sympathy in the Islamic world if the US continues as it is doing so now.
Russia Rejects US Proposal on Iraq
MOSCOW: Russia will not accept a US proposal for a UN resolution threatening the use of force against Iraq, a senior Russian foreign ministry official said on Friday, after a visit by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
“The US draft resolution cannot be accepted as a basis for a future UN Security Council resolution on Iraq as it contains clearly unfulfillable demands,” Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.
“If we are to reach a new decision (in the Security Council over Iraq) it should reflect the views of all members of the Security Council, including Russia,” Fedotov added. The statement came after President Vladimir Putin held talks with Blair at which he agreed that a tough new UN regime of weapons inspections was needed in Iraq but made clear that in his vie w the case for military action against Baghdad remained unconvincing.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - are engaged in tough consultations over the framing of a resolution that would require Iraq to abandon its capability for acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Russia has previously consistently opposed US demands for a resolution that would allow it to take military action if Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein fails to allow complete unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors.
A US-British draft resolution would give Baghdad seven days to declare all its weapons of mass destruction programs or face military action, and another 23 days to cooperate fully with UN inspection teams.
Russia has expressed interest in a French proposal for a two-stage ultimatum: one resolution that would demand more effective inspections, and another later if necessary to green-light the use of military force
Tension is getting up!
Iraq’s Muslim Clerics Urge Jihad if U.S. Attacks
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Some 500 Iraqi Muslim clerics and scholars issued a religious edict on Saturday calling on Muslims to launch a holy war to “burn the earth under the feet” of the United States if it attacked Iraq.
“If, God forbid, the aggression takes place, declaring Jihad against the evil American administration is the duty of every able Muslim,” said the fatwa, or edict, approved by the clerics and scholars at a meeting in Baghdad.
The fatwa said the holy war should include enlisting to fight alongside Iraq, striking U.S. interests and launching economic boycott of the United States and its allies.
President Bush (news - web sites) is considering a U.S. military invasion of Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), who Washington accuses of developing weapons of mass destruction.
Baghdad denies having nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. It has vowed to defeat any attack.
“If they try to attack, they will find in every iota of sand, every mountain, plain and valley a fire that will burn the earth under their feet,” the edict said.
The clerics said attacking Iraq was part of what they called the U.S. war on Islam in Afghanistan and against the Palestinians.
“Muslims: Your religion and your Islam calls on you to join the Jihad alongside Iraq, the Iraq of the faithful…,” the fatwa said.
**After insinuations for weeks and then outright assertions, it is quite clear that Americans are going ahead with what they call a ‘pre-emptive’ strike on Iraq. The end goal is said to be to neutralize the weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological and nuclear) developed by the Iraqis. However, even without inspections, the US government is well aware that Iraq has weapons of mass destructions. This is because during friendlier times, American themselves provided the raw materials for these weapons to the Iraqis. **
In accordance with the terms of surrender marking the end of Gulf War, Iraq agreed to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and open up this process for verification by the United Nations inspectors. As a part of its punishment, severe economic and military sanctions were put on Iraq by the rest of the world community. However, over the years the Iraqis have argued that not the sanctions but the length of these sanctions has caused a devastating toll on the life of Iraqi civilians. It is estimated that over 500,000 children under the age of 5 have died due to malnutrition and lack of medical treatment.
Realizing the gravity of the situation a ‘food for oil’ program was established in late 1990s allowing Iraq to sell oil in exchange for food. However, the task of dismantling the weapons of mass destructions should have been over by now, a final inspection taken place and Iraq certified to be ‘weapons free.’ None of this has happened, mostly because Iraq has refused entry to the weapons inspectors, stating there should be an end to the sanctions and once again starting a debate about the length of sanctions, complaints that it is unjustified, and again seeking the lifting of sanctions.
It is clearly a ‘chicken & egg’ situation. If Iraq quickly allows all inspections and the dismantling of weapons that it agreed to do, should that result in immediate lifting of all sanctions? How many more years of inspections and re-inspections are needed to verify Iraq’s compliance to the terms of its Gulf War surrender?
Historically, in the case of Haiti, Rawanda, even genocidal Serbia, a clear path to lifting of sanctions was provided, giving those countries a chance to redeem themselves. The world community could have bombed their civilization into oblivion as well. It chose a clear path to lifting of sanctions, which provided hope and incentive for compliance to the demands.
Should not a similar approach be adopted towards Iraq and perhaps would be more fruitful than the current confrontational approach?
Iraq says it reserves the right to end co-operation with the UN, if you US manipulates!
Iraq Warns on Weapons Inspections
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq reserves the right to end cooperation with U.N. weapons inspections if it deems Washington is manipulating them, the Iraqi inspections chief said, clouding prospects of the high-stakes U.N. missions before they even resume.
The Iraqi warning by inspections chief Gen. Hussan Mohammed Amin _
made in the face of threatened U.S. military action — raises the possibility that old problems would haunt any new U.N. inspections to ensure Iraq can no longer produce weapons of mass destruction.
In a letter Saturday, Iraq promised to behave “professionally” if U.N. weapons inspectors return to the country and gain access to Saddam Hussein’s palaces and other suspect sites.
In the letter, sent to the Vienna headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Saddam adviser Gen. Amir al-Sadi said Baghdad sees no obstacles to a resumption of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told The Associated Press in Vienna.
That letter came a day after another letter from al-Sadi, this time to U.N. weapons inspectors, appeared to ignore details of agreements hammered out with the inspectors on their eventual return.
In Washington, the State Department expressed skepticism at the latest letter. “Iraq continues to want to play word games, not comply. They will continue to make contradictory promises, and then choose the version of most tactical benefit at any given moment,” spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said Saturday.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s parliament met in an emergency session Saturday, but said nothing about a resolution by the U.S. Congress giving President Bush (news - web sites) authority to use force against Iraq. Instead, Iraq lawmakers condemned a resolution by Congress that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Charges of Iraqi deception, and U.S. double-dealing, have dogged the inspections — inaugurated in 1991 with volleys of Iraqi bullets over the heads of newly arrived inspectors, and ended in 1998 with punishing U.S.-British airstrikes the night thwarted inspectors finally withdrew.
Trying to stave off a new U.S. attack over what Washington says are covert weapon programs, Iraq has dropped objections to inspectors’ return, and says it hopes to see an advance team back as soon as Oct. 19.
Asked if Iraq reserves the right to again revoke cooperation with inspectors, Baghad’s inspections chief Amin told The Associated Press: **“Of course.” **
“We gave commitments to cooperate, if they said they will follow scientific and logical measures for inspections, and will not misuse them for spying, collecting information,” Amin said, speaking inside a walled industrial complex where Washington asserts nuclear weapons work could be under way.
If they will follow scientific measures, and they will take measures from the United Nations (news - web sites) and not the United States, they should come on the date," he said.
The Bush Administration said that Iraq has never complied with inspectors.
“The world is done playing the Iraqi game of denial, deception and obfuscation. The Security Council needs to act to pass an effective new resolution that leads to Iraqi disarmament,” an administration official said on condition of anonymity.
Iraqi Islamic leaders appealed to the Muslim world Saturday to come to their aid if the U.S. attacks.
“Take the word of Iraq, which already has lost so much flesh and blood to this country: If no one stops it, it will destroy the whole world!” Iraq’s Popular Islamic Conference said in a fatwa, or religious edict, signed by 500 clerics of Iraq’s Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni minority.
In the United Nations, Iraq’s ambassador said in an interview that Saddam has changed since he lost the Gulf War (news - web sites) 11 years ago and his country is now doing everything it can now to avert another conflict.
“War must be behind us, not before us,” Mohammed al-Douri said. He spoke as the Bush administration pressed the U.N. Security Council to act to match the resolution passed by the U.S. Congress.
Al-Douri said the Iraqi leadership had changed its policies and tactics since it fought Iran in the 1980s, used chemical weapons against its Kurdish minority, invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990 and lobbed Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the ensuing Gulf War.
“Ten or even 12 years is enough to judge the behavior of governments and the kind of relationship we now have with our neighbors. We think of how we can improve relationships, even with the United States,” al-Douri said.
For the second time in three days, Iraqis threw open another U.S.-targeted site to Western and Iraqi camera crews and reporters. Iraqi generals called it proof of their eagerness to show the world Iraq is innocent of U.S. accusations.
Anti-aircraft guns, trenches and sandbags surrounded the Al-Furat site — newly fortified against what Iraq fears will be imminent U.S. airstrikes, plant director Gen. Sa’adi Abbas Khudeir said.
Inside, bristling clusters of microphones and camera lenses recorded Iraqis working at computers.
Khudeir told journalists the workers were civilian and military researchers, laboring on peaceful electronics research and on weapons systems allowed by the United Nations.
“Believe me, no nukes, no physicists, no program — just programs that serve the army, maintenance and development, that’s all,” he said, pointing to equipment.
For reporters with little technical knowledge, it was impossible to judge.
The Al Furat site, south of Baghdad, was one of the four sites that the United States suggested were being developed to produce nuclear weapons, although it admits conclusive evidence is lacking.
Al Furat has been the most closely scrutinized of the four. Washington alleges Iraqis have been caught trying to smuggle aluminum tubes into the complex — parts the United States says could be used in a centrifuge to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality.
Iraq denies ever having a nuclear weapons program. U.N. authorities say they caught Iraq in the early 1990s with a nuclear arms program.
Iraq has remained under U.N. sanctions since the 1991 Gulf War. The United Nations says the sanctions cannot be lifted until inspectors verify that Iraq has no chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
In 1991, Iraqi soldiers fired into the air when one of the newly arriving inspection teams gave chase to a speeding convoy. Inspectors said they believed the trucks were carrying parts for uranium-enrichment devices.
Two months later, the IAEA charged that Iraqis had tried to hide radioactive material contained in nuclear fuel rods by driving it around in trucks when inspection teams visited.
Fitful squabbles and dustups followed in the ensuing years. Throughout, the United States and Britain and others complained that Iraq spoke of full cooperation while blocking access on the ground. Iraq contends the United States upheld the sanctions as a vendetta against Saddam.
In 1998, work broke down for good. Iraq declared all cooperation over. U.N. teams withdrew. That same evening, the United States and Britain led four nights of the most intense bombardment on Baghdad and other points in Iraq since the Gulf War.
In an interview with a German magazine Saturday, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan held out the prospect renewed inspections for the first time could include Saddam’s dozen-plus palaces.
Asked about the palaces by Der Spiegel magazine, Ramadan said, **“Our position is that the inspectors can seek and inspect however and where ever they would like to.” **