| Author |
Message |
    
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3337
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 6:20 pm: | 
|
After years as warring neighbors who have finally become allies, Pakistan becomes understandably insulted that India, formerly having had nuclear parity with Pakistan, is now eclipsed. Bush tipped the balance by offering India a special deal. Great! Now Pakistan in furious.
Way not to "insult" an ally, there, Bush!!!
If you really cared about not insulting allies, you'd consult with Congress before you make special deals.
|
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 753
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 6:40 pm: |
|
you're a fuvcking idiot. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3338
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
And you're a sweetheart. Bet you beat your wife. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 756
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
only with my penis |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3340
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:15 pm: |
|
kenny: Waddya think you are, a big guy? Go back to Howard Beach!!!
(I never realized how many jerks from Howard Beach moved to Maplewood. Must be a mess!!)
It's ironic that Bush, who thinks his port deal had a terrible, insulting impact on the precious United Arab Emirates, isn't concerned about beating up Pakistan. Especially when the Taliban are lurking on the borders, soaking up the dissenters, making more unified hatred of the US.
Great. Good thinking there Repubs. Take another swig will ya? Get off our PLANET! |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14735
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Can you be the captain of their spaceship? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3341
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Sbenois: Bush has insulted Pakistan and Musharaf.
Do you disagree? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14737
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Let's stay focused here. What about the ship? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3343
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
OK. I'll be the captain of the spaceship, if you'll admit that Bush has jostled the delicate balance of power between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nukes. Stupid, stupid, stupid. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 758
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:35 pm: |
|
you really have no clue, do you tulip?
spreads those legs and shut up until you do. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3344
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
You enjoy your cowardice, your stupidity and your crudity, don't you? Are you a rapist? You sound like it.
Bush has insulted Pakistan by supporting and encouraging nuclear weapons in India.
It was STUPID, no matter how abusive you are, thug.
Figures you'd support the thug in the white house.
Thug: re: you and your buddy in the White House:
You should have heard Ron Reagan Jr. just now on Hardball, and I quote:
"When you can't win by playing by the rules, just break the rules..."
Goes for you, thug, with your disgusting comments on MOL, and goes for Bush in the White House.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14738
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Kenny,
I see now that you and Tulip have apparently been going back and forth in a couple of threads but that last comment really is not acceptable.
Please retract it.
Thankey. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4568
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:48 pm: |
|
I'm less concerned that he insulted Pakistan than I am that he's encouraging nuclear proliferation. We've been working as a country -- how many decades? -- to keep the spread nuclear weapons in check. Why all of a sudden we need to start pushing other countries to enhance their nuclear capability is utterly incomprehensible. Absolutely no good can come of it. |
Mr. Big Poppa
Citizen
Username: Big_poppa
Post Number: 514
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Dave and Jamie, my account was suspended for less than what I've seen on this thread. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3346
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Then he talks about preemption. What's he doing, encouraging nuclear arms development and talking about preemptive strikes. He must be either drunk, or trying to bring on the apocalypse. This must be a result of some misconception that nukes can't do damage across national borders. What does he think? Nuclear radiation stops at the borders of his current allies?
What sheer and utter nonsense. He is trying to start a conflagration before he leaves, or he is just trying to upset most Americans who now distrust and/or despise him.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14739
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Tulip,
I do not see a problem with what Bush did. Sorry. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3347
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Thanks Sbenois, and Mr. Big Poppa:
At least the guy can't hit me. Sorry if I offended anyone. This guy is getting me ticked off. I have something to talk about, and it was announced on national news that Musharraf is insulted as a result of the deal with India. I wanted to start a conversation about that and see what you think. Instead, I get this creep after me.
Oh, well, guess it takes all kinds!!
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3348
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Just goes to show, Bush has some nasty folks among that 20% still on his side.
Figures porno dudes would support presidents who promote nuclear proliferation.
Same stupidity, same crap.
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5992
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
kenney that was disgusting and uncalled for. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
tulip,
Perhaps President Bush feels that Pakistan is unstable and that sooner or later Musharraf will be gone? India is a lot less likely to tilt towards Islam. They keep their Moslems on a pretty short leash. I am concerned about more job outsourcing and skeptical about foreign alliances in general, but I agree with this writer:
It is idle to pretend that America can be equally close to both India and Pakistan, since the two are natural enemies ideologically and territorially. We have argued for years that General Pervez Musharraf’s has been able to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds for far too long. Mr. Bush’s clear signal to Islamabad, which he visited briefly after India, that America has new priorities in the Subcontinent is good news. He has quite properly indicated that Pakistan cannot hope for an equivalent nuclear deal, in view of its awful record on nuclear proliferation.
Source:http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/2006/03/07#India__A_Rare __A__f
Cheers |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3349
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
3ring: May I ask you...That last sentence that "Pakistan cannot hope for an equivalent nuclear deal, in view of its awful record on nuclear proliferation."
Look, proliferation is proliferation.
What makes India's proliferation, or America's for that matter, better than Pakistan's, to the point that Bush has to come between warring neighbors and stir the waters?
Recently, there has been some cooperation between the two countries, India and Pakistan.
I guess, Bush is afraid of that, because if they were to form an alliance, and then join with China (as Pakistan is now threatening to do as a result of this recent India/US alliance) it could be hell to pay for the US.
Isn't the West/East standoff inevitable? Does Bush really think it's going to bridge that gap to play favorites in Southwestern Asia.
I'm just saying...what's the point? More nukes?
It's true that Bush didn't consult Congress in any way before his India trip. He really is determined to play it like a monarch, isn't he?
|
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 455
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:34 pm: |
|
kenney has been banned |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 94
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 8:54 pm: |
|
tulip,
You said:
Look, proliferation is proliferation.
True. But we are talking about a 60 year old technology that is becoming less difficult to acquire. You cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube. I am not that concerned about proliferation because in the end it cannot be stopped. I have zero confidence that a piece of paper or international organization can reverse it. The author I cited above also said:
The deal undoubtedly violates the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but Washington has routinely turned a blind eye to its other friends’ and allies’ nuclear ambitions—notably Israel, Pakistan, and South Africa, which have never ratified the NPT. By relaxing the formal rules governing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States is finally discarding a stance that was as hypocritical as it was harmful to American interests.
Isn't the West/East standoff inevitable?
Unfortunately, yes.
It's true that Bush didn't consult Congress in any way before his India trip. He really is determined to play it like a monarch, isn't he?
I admit that I don't know exactly what Congress is proposing to do about this. I haven't heard anything yet.
If it makes you feel any better, you appear to be of one mind with Pat Buchanan on this and I am in one of my rare disagreements with him:
http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8671
Cheers
PS Kenney's comments are way out of bounds.
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3351
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 9:03 pm: |
|
3ring:
Thanks for taking my argument seriously, and giving me a response I can...respond to.
I agree that a simple piece of paper will not stop proliferation, and that proliferation is currently a given. But, isn't there any way countries can try to agree to monitor the safety of all this?
If I am with Pat Buchanan on this, I don't mind.
I just don't understand why we have to "egg on" India when it's in a delicate balance with Pakistan. It's just another gung-ho, well-meaning but ultimately unsettling, major gaffe on the part of this Administration.
I hope it's not a gaffe that will cause a nuclear holocaust.
In three words re nukes:
Why celebrate escalation?
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4140
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
India strikes me as being a tad more stable than Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be a revolution removed from a chauvanistic Islamic regime.
India most certainly can benefit from a decent civilian nuclear power program.
Finally, this deal sets the groundwork for international oversight of India's civilian nuclear program and this should lead to better safeguards and controls. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4141
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:15 am: |
|
3ringale,
Please tell me about the inevitable confrontation between East and West. Is that the East that is the Muslim world? Or is it the East that is the Hindu world? Or is it the East that is the Confucian world?
Certainly the three won't unite against the West - well they might if we continue in the tradition of Bush the Uniter.
The reality is that we live in that most dangerous of times when the status quo power is starting to be eclipsed by rising powers in the East (India and China). We need good statesmanship to navigate these dangerous times.
We need, among other thing, to cut our military guarantees to Taiwan. That is a Chinese affair and none of our business. Anyway, we just need to make China understand that if they use force against China, we will cancel our debt to them. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3353
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 8:25 am: |
|
I am not saying you can believe everything you hear in the news, but according to the reports last night, Musharraf's dissatisfaction with this new Bush push to India is making him (Musharraf) look to China as a new potential ally. When you have a powerful country like China on the other end of the globe, ready to back up other nations, you are looking at a new planet-wide shift in the balance of power, East/West.
I just think Bush is trying to replace the UN as the new decision-maker and power-broker, and it's not good policy. When everyone has nukes, you need a more careful decision-making process than this Machiavellian pursuit of allies through smiley-faced diplomacy. It just sets major nations apart from each other, and plays with the dangerous and fragile balance of power unilaterally, and without planning.
That's the appearance, anyway.
|
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
tulip-
I guess you never heard the phrase "can't please everyone", huh?
one question: What was Kerry doing during the 2004 election when he consistently discredited the entire "coalition of the willing."
Talk about insults. I know many Polish Americans who are still steamed.
-SLK
And please show so respect to others on this board. Kenney seems like a big prick and his comments are uncalled for but please refrain from pigeonholing all those who disagree with you as the same. It is insulting.
To be honest tulip, I am sure many have the desire to slap you in the head on this board, but it has nothing to do with you being a woman... |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 95
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 9:21 am: |
|
tjohn,
When I agreed with tulip about the East/West standoff, I had the Moslem world in mind. I don't see how a society that even pays lip service to tolerance and pluralism can ever accommodate a religion like Islam. The Ayatollah Khomeini once said that Islam is politics or it is nothing. I know that Khomeini was Shi'a, not majority Sunni, but I still wonder how much this would resonate with the Sunnis. I don't want to fight them or convert, I would just like to keep them at arm's length while we try to figure out a new energy strategy.
I don't think there is much of a military threat from the India/Hindu sector. They could be like another Japan, becoming Westernized consumers.. They could be an economic problem though.
China is another story. We are way too indebted to them. I am constantly amazed that our trade deficit (approaching $800 billion) is not a front-page issue more often. China's stringent one child policy has also left them with a surplus of males to females. That's a lot of testosterone to manage. At some point, they will either have to export a lot of young men or use them as cannon fodder. I agree with you that we should end our security guarantees for Taiwan. It is not worth a war. They will probably end up with a Hong Kong type arrangement. Why kill a goose that is laying golden eggs?
You are right that the world is a dangerous place. People have been fighting wars for thousands of years (even before Mr. Bush took office!) for any reason or no reason at all. There is nothing new under the sun. I would just like to see the US stay out of these conflicts, but remain vigilant and prepared to defend ourselves, if necessary.
Cheers
|
mantram
Citizen
Username: Mantram
Post Number: 224
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
3ringale -- India is a secular democracy and a country with over 120 million muslims, a country with the second largest number of muslims after Indonesia. So, yes, a country that believes in tolerance and pluralism can more than just accomodate the Islamic faith. India is 80% Hindu but its President is Muslim, the Prime Minister, Sikh and the leader of it's powerful Opposition Party, Christian. So there are countries where "tolerance" is not just lip service. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 97
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
mantram,
I was thinking about the periodic episodes when the Indian Moslems run amok. Instead of handwringing and promises of more goodies (a la France), the Hindus come right back at them. It looks like at least some European countries are starting to question the wisdom of having sizable Moslem minorities. Of course, it remains to be seen what they are willing to do about it.
Cheers |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 149
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
I think Kerry was saying the "coalition of the willing" wasn't such a big coalition and that Bush should have worked harder at diplomacy in an attempt to convince others to join our effort. He couldn't do that, instead saying he "expected" other countries to fall in line. Great diplomacy. He couldn't work on getting a bigger coalition anyway. When Hans Blix reported that he wasn't finding WMD's, Bush didn't say good, continue your work, maybe there isn't a threat and I don't have to send our men and women to die. No, he said get the hell out, we're going in. Funny he's asking all of us to be patient now. You go to war with the coalition you have, not the one you want or need. |
mantram
Citizen
Username: Mantram
Post Number: 225
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
I don't get it 3ringale-- French muslims are French. Indian muslims are Indian. What do you propose countries "do" about their own citizens? Are you seriously proposing a return of the Third Reich? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 103
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
mantram,
As I said earlier, Khomeinei said Islam is politics, or it is nothing. Taking him at his word, I would say it is not my kind of politics, and I hope it is not yours. If a Moslem immigrant advocates jihad or sharia, I think it should be legally deemed as subversive and that person should be given a one-way ticket to their country of origin. During the cold war, we did not accept people who were Communists or advocated the overthrow of the government as citizens, so I don't see why this should be such a big deal.
I would encourage the European countries to consider adopting Steve Sailer's Moslem buyout
proposal. It would be expensive, but probably worth it in the long run:
http://vdare.com/sailer/051106_buyout.htm
Cheers |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 9:23 pm: |
|
After the London Underground bombings, Tony Blair (a very moderate political being) made it clear that British residents and subjects are expected to conduct themselves in law-abiding fashion.
You can be a Muslim, a Buddhist, a transcendalist, but you have no right to exhort to or practice violence in the name of your religion. That's not too much to expect. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5202
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
The facts that Mantram has pointed out, demonstrate that just because there are extremists, you cannot forget that there are many other people (of all faiths) who believe that we can all live together.
As for Steve Sailer, cited in a post above - he is an offensive bigot.
imho. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:19 am: |
|
I think this entire thread should be deleted. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5386
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
bettyd -- your encapsulation of what Blix and Bush said in the run-up to war is off the mark. Who's telling you that stuff?
Bush via the UN gave Hussein an ultimatum to follow the dictates of the UN Resolution regarding inspections. Blix said they weren't in compliance.
From the UK Telegraph:
The damning of Saddam
By Robin Gedye, Toby Harnden in Washington and Toby Helm
(Filed: 28/01/2003)
Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, stated unequivocally last night that Saddam Hussein had failed to disarm, greatly strengthening the American and British case for war.
His report to the UN Security Council about his inspectors' work in Iraq over the past 60 days gave an unexpectedly critical appraisal of Iraq's failure to comply fully with UN resolutions to disarm and actively co-operate.
He made plain that he believed Baghdad still possessed biological and chemical weapons and rockets in flagrant violation of international agreements.
Its testing of missiles with a range of more than 90 miles could be "prima facie" evidence that it had weapons banned by the UN, he said.
"So far Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," Mr Blix said.
President George W Bush's advisers seized on the report as powerful condemnation of Iraq, making it essential that the UN act to enforce the resolutions Saddam had flouted. But Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, led calls for the inspectors to be given more time.
John Negroponte, America's ambassador to the UN, said the chances of avoiding war were slim.
"Unfortunately, nothing we have heard today gives us hope that Iraq intends to fully comply with resolution 1441 or any of the 16 resolutions that preceded it over the last 12 years," he said.
"When a country has determined that it will voluntarily disarm, inspections are a means to an end. They cannot be expected to achieve disarmament when a country has an active programme of denial and deception, as is the case with Iraq."
Mr Negroponte listed areas in which Saddam had failed to comply: a "revealingly inaccurate" weapons declaration; the discovery of 12 empty chemical warheads; the hiding of documents; and the refusal to allow spy flights by U-2 aircraft.
Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, said the report showed that Iraq had fobbed off the UN with "empty claims, empty declarations and empty gestures".
Baghdad had little time left to "turn on the lights and come clean".
The UN inspectors are likely to remain in Iraq for several weeks, or at least until Mr Blix's next report on St Valentine's Day, but there can be little doubt that America is now intent on war.
It is possible that yet another very tight deadline may be set. But that would be a way of facilitating the diplomatic and military preparations for war rather than a serious attempt to avoid it.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, speaking after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, said the report showed "clear evidence that Saddam Hussein is . . . practising concealment".
In recognition of Franco-German opposition to war, he conceded that "further and careful digestion of what the inspectors have said" would be needed before a decision were taken on the next steps.
Downing Street insisted earlier that it was not necessary for weapons inspectors to find a "smoking gun" before military action were launched.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that failure to co-operate fully with inspectors amounted to a material breach of the UN's demands.
This represented a shift of tone from a fortnight ago, when Mr Blair, under strong pressure from Labour MPs to justify a war, hinted strongly that, given sufficient time, the inspectors would find the necessary evidence.
Whitehall insiders concede that Mr Blair made a tactical error by stating that the inspectors would quickly uncover evidence incriminating enough to convince sceptical nations and the British public of the need to disarm Saddam by force. With Mr Bush determined to force the pace and impatient with the United Nations process, the Prime Minister is instead switching his emphasis to Saddam's history of non-compliance with UN resolutions.
Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN, sounded a more cautious note when he said that tomorrow's Security Council deliberations on Iraqi disarmament "would not necessarily be conclusive".
He said: "Most members of the Security Council, if not all, regard this as a part of a continuing process."
European foreign ministers issued a statement in Brussels expressing their concern about the situation in Iraq and calling on Baghdad to "ensure full and immediate compliance with all relevant UN resolutions".
|
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 152
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:18 pm: |
|
That article is dated January 28, 2003. The war was not launched for almost two months after that. In the interim, the inspectors went back in and did not find any WMD's, even in the places we told them they most certainly would be. And that was reported back to the U.S. Hans Blix did ask for more time, saying perhaps Iraq had no WMD's, but the Bush administration wanted to hear none of it. Hans Blix told me this. He said it on Meet the Press or Face the Nation before March 20, 2003, after he was ordered out and before the war began.
Notice how the Bush administration "seized" on the above report, which just happened to confirm their beliefs (which eventually turned out to be incorrect) and support their case for war. However, as the subsequent inspection work continued and Blix stated that the inspectors were not finding WMD's and that the inspections should continue (in the hopes that perhaps war was not necessary), the Bush administration did not "seize" upon this information, even though it was coming from the same source. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5388
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
"Perhaps Iraq has no WMDs" wasn't a tolerable outcome, and Iraq would not come clean on the issue as say Rhodesia/S. Africa did. Suddenly, Hussein would change course and cooperate completely? Wasn't going to happen, and didn't happen.
Here's what Blix told me at the UN on March 7, 2003:
"One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.
This is not yet clear.
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, "immediately, unconditionally and actively," with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.
However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/
Blix wanted to continue inspections, as did Saddam. At that point it looked like the UN was being strung along again, and Bush rightly decided that wasn't going to be happen in a post 9/11 world, given the intelligence that the world had saying Saddam had those weapons. That intelligence turned out to be wrong, but it's what the world had at the time. Even those vehemently against the war thought Saddam had those weapons.
What Bush 'seized' upon is that Hussein was not in complete and immediate compliance with the UN Resolution. Talk about Bush all you want, but Hussein had the ability to avoid this war. He probably thought Bush wouldn't move. He thought wrong. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 955
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
I think the phrase a post 9/11 world is a catch all that means nothing.
The world has not changed with the exception of our war on Iraq. Al Qaeda are still criminals and are still wanted and hiding in Pakistan. Iraq had nothing to do with planes crashing into the WTC.
Even if Saddam still had WMD they were never going to be used against the US and certainly more diplomacy and inspections would have routed them out. Husein was a target from before Bush went into office and 9/11 was a handy excuse to attack.
Every time the phrase 'post 9/11 world' is used it means we have less liberty and are less secure in our rights then 'pre 9/11'.
Its a false premise. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 105
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
It has been six days since the major ground war began. It's been five days since the major air war began. And every day has brought us closer to our objective. At the opening of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Special Forces helped to secure air fields and bridges and oil fields, to clear the way for our forces and to prevent sabotage and environmental catastrophe. Our pilots and Cruise missiles have struck vital military targets with lethal precision.
Source:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030326-4.html
If we knew that Iraq had WMDs, it stands to reason that we knew where they were.
Question: Why were our Special Forces, from the beginning, securing air fields, bridges and oil fields instead of WMD sites? I can see the importance of these things, but wouldn't prudent military doctrine make it our prime objective to secure the WMD sites first? After all, they could have been used against our troops in the field, not to mention our homeland. Just wondering.
Cheers
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6011
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
3ring...this same wonder has been expressed before and not sufficiently answered. At least to the satisfaction of many. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page