|   Anti-war protesters should know better | Random_Thought
Mar 21, 2003 10:58 PM | | Anti-war protesters should know better.
The majority doesn't matter.
Popular vote didn't work for elections, why should it work for anti-war rallies?!?
The U.S. is in some serious fuxing trouble |
| You should know better | matt
Mar 22, 2003 4:24 AM | | Please, keep your political views off this board. I am pretty sure CNN and all the other news sites have forums where many people would love to debate our actions in Iraq. People come here to discuss their passion, mountainbiking. We all have plenty of exposure to bad news including the war, so please find somewhere else to start sh1t about the war. |
| clearly labeled, easy to ignore. (oldie but goodie inside) | dr hoo
Mar 22, 2003 5:21 AM | | |
| re: Anti-war protesters should know better | Different Point of View
Mar 22, 2003 5:20 AM | | You're right, they should know better! Polls show you're in the minority. The only purpose anti-war demonstrations would have right now would be to aide the enemy and erode the morale of our troops in the field. Thank God not everyone feels like you. God bless America, God bless our brave men and women fighting for our security! |
| re: Anti-war protesters should know better | pimpbot
Mar 22, 2003 1:05 PM | | Well the civil rights movement in the 60's was a minority opinion, do you think they were there to erode morale? C'mon, even if they are in they are in the minority, they have not only the right, but the obligation to stand up for what they believe in. That's America, pal. We are a nation built on civil disobedience. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Remember MLK and his folks blocking the Federal Building and shutting it down in Alabama (IIRC)?
This is true even if the issue is civil rights, the KKK, enviromnent or whatever. If you feel strongly about something and want to do something, dangit, DO IT!
This world has enough apathy already. I support the protesters as much as I support the troops. I don't favor their methods of shutting down Downtown San Francisco (which is why I'm not there myself), but I whole heartedly support their right to do so. |
| re: Anti-war protesters should know better | SFG5
Mar 22, 2003 3:24 PM | | Well, I guess we just don't agree do we? As one who's served my country in battle, I really don't need lectures from you on what it is to be an American. I feel the protesters aide the enemy (my right). Battle lines are being drawn, you can't be on both sides of the fence.
Steve
DI OPRESSO LIBER |
| Steve, I have your 6. (nm) | Bartok
Mar 22, 2003 4:12 PM | | |
| Anti-war protesters brought the troops back from Vietnam... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 4:58 PM | | As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called "Ansar al-Islam".
In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of "Ansar al-Islam", Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to Iraq.
"They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim.
"British intelligence has concluded there is no evidence to support the theory that al Qaeda and Iraq are working together."
Ansar al-Islam are Kurds who have been fighting Iraqis, Iranians and Turks (and now Americans) for many years in order to secure a homeland. The whole insinuation does not make sense.
If that was Powell's only evidence that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden, American troops should return home, since Americans are not fighting to remove terrorism (of which Iraq is not involved), Americans are fighting to incite it.
War protesters should influence the return of servicemen from this illegal and immoral war.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ansar030205_krekar.html |
| Isn't America GREAT! ... | dlowell
Mar 22, 2003 10:07 PM | | A sanctuary in which you have a RIGHT to be a PINHEAD! A sanctuary in which fellow citizens have and will continue to lay down their lives for your right to be a PINHEAD! YOU my PINHEADED friend do not even own a bike. So take your POLITICAL VOMIT somewhere else -- and make room for the wonderful, uplifting posts from cyclists, that show up "where your posts do not" on this board. I have no more time for you PINHEAD. Saddam is a sadistic, murderous motherf**cker and in the words of my pal Dennis Miller "... it is time to cull the flock". |
| are you as UGLY as you sound?... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 10:21 PM | | Have you been involved in any lynchings lately?
I'll bet your heart warmed when the FBI and ATF shot dead a load of people and sent in tanks because it didn't agree with their religeous beliefs. |
| Face it, Clary... | AM
Mar 23, 2003 5:00 AM | | The guy's right! You're just so full of hate for Amreicans you're blinded. What have the Americans done to you? Have you ever been here? Tell me, Clary, if your country were attacked, who would your government call on for help? |
| wow, I really should lookup ips more often... | Kitchenware
Mar 23, 2003 7:42 AM | | If I knew that was Clary, I would have gave a sh|t less, earlier than I did. |
| are You as stupid as you sound? | Truth.
Mar 22, 2003 8:46 PM | | There is no god |
| Thank God for your BIG brain... | Brad Trent
Mar 22, 2003 7:18 AM | | Oh thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Where have you been with your well thought out, deep, insightful and perfectly balanced opinions?!! If only President Bush had spoken to you earlier then maybe we could have avoided all of this nastiness! I think we shold replace Condi Rice with you since you obviously have it all figured out...what'dya say...you up to the challenge Sport?!!
Now get back to your civics class ya Scamp!
BeeT's |
| I'd take ya up on that challenge, BT... | Schwinng
Mar 22, 2003 3:49 PM | | I'd love to substitute for Condi, but not for her current position. She really doesn't do much, but spread propaganda for the Administration. Listening to her is like seeing a bubble above her head filled with the text "&$%^*@#" because the only reason to listen to her is to read between the lines to gauge where next the Administration is headed with all of this insanity.
However, instead I'd like to substitute for her in her previous post, as a professor. Accordingly, here's everybody's first reading assignment:
http://www.thenation.com
http://www.thenewrepublic.com
http://www.motherjones.com
This is a lesson not in leftist thinking, but rather critical thinking.
Herb |
| by the way re: The New Republic rag | Schwinng
Mar 22, 2003 4:22 PM | | The New Republic is a right-of-center rag/online rag that I sometimes read to better understand divergent political views. I tried to include this explanation in my previous post, but jr. was yelling out to me to fix a PC problem downstairs so I had to run.
The only drag about TNR.com is that they require you to be a paying subscriber to read some of their articles. Otherwise, it's just one source for right-of-center ideas/debate.
Herb |
| Protesting democracy | tlg
Mar 22, 2003 11:12 AM | | I'm all for protesting. It's our given rights. But if you're gonna protest, have a point. Just a bit ago on the news some ding-bat woman protesting in New York made the comment that the U.S. is no different than Iraq and there is no democracy in the U.S. Well if she took her head out of her rear end, she would know that the Senate recently voted 99-0 in favor of the war. Isn't that democracy? Maybe she's to blame for voting for the wrong senator. All these people protesting now, should have been protesting when Bush was running for president. |
| Who is the majority? | tlg
Mar 22, 2003 11:15 AM | | Newsweek poll:
1. Do you approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?
Yes 53%
No 37%
2. Do you support the Bush Administration using military force against Iraq?
Yes 70%
No 24%
I'd say that the anti-war protesters are in the minority. |
| Who is the majority? | HeHeHe
Mar 22, 2003 11:49 AM | | Just seeing how the community would respond.
As for polls....aren't they usually %5+-? What happened to the 10% in question #1 and 6% in #2? And taking poll from places is not the most effective. It's like taking polls based on listener call-ins on NPR. There is a whole lot of one sidedness in polls. You tell me any different and you'd better be sure. Polls aren't fair. They never were fair. Until you can get all of those 20-something couch potatoes to get out and voice their opinion, it never will be fair. But you do the best with what you have. |
| The 10% & 6% were undecided. | tlg
Mar 22, 2003 12:30 PM | | I'd say the polls are about as accurate as counting the protestors in the street. |
| | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 2:33 PM | | |
| One more item about polls | Random_Thought
Mar 23, 2003 1:20 PM | | Timing happens to be everything. Once war in inevitable, many people say that they support the action. I think (my opinion) part of it is that people want to be "right", and part that mentality of "if you can't beat 'em,; join 'em". I'm curious to how the polls would answer right now...two weeks ago...two months ago.
And the majority I was talking about happened to be the WORLD population...not just our little sector (relatively speaking). This is going to affect the entire world afterall. Yum..98% of the world's crude oil. |
| body bags arriving in the USA will change that... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 12:11 PM | |
remember
bluster
|
| You'd like nothing better... | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 12:29 PM | | Anti-American Bigot! |
| Yep...the AntiWar crowd is drooling over the recent deaths | Moe
Mar 24, 2003 12:12 AM | | I bet.
I can hear it already..."We told you so!"
F--ck that! We know what war is! We knew people were going to die. And more will die in the future. Its not like the pro-military action people didnt put any thought into their veiw points! American deaths are not going to change my opinion. It sucks. Iraqi deaths suck too. But Im still going to stand by my country. |
| Not likely | tlg
Mar 22, 2003 12:31 PM | | Maybe a couple nuclear bombs would do it though right? Or some chemical warfare?
BTW... what country are you from? |
| down 4% in just one day. nm | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 11:13 AM | | |
| Have you EVER posted a cycling related post? (nm) | Kitchenware
Mar 22, 2003 1:46 PM | | |
| I need two TVs and one monitor to follow all these different MARCH MADNESSes... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 2:04 PM | | Is March Madness really a sport?
The "Iraq-Halliburton Affair" will be investigated! |
| so now 4 lies by you by my count | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:05 PM | | the 3 were mentioned before in the earlier thread, the latest is that you claimed all evidence by colin powell was falsified. At least 2 of the 6 or 7 missles fired into Kuwait were Scuds, with the others possibly being scuds, banned weapons saddam claimed not to have, but we knew he had. So you are caught lying once again because evidently, to at least some extent, colin powell knew what he was talking about...imagine that...
anyway keep it up, its going to get easier from here for us. |
| every NATION has the right to self defence... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 5:25 PM | | A scud is not a weapon of mass destruction and is certainly not a threat to the USA except for the USA military who are illegally and immorally invading Iraq. WMD are wrong when used on other countries, but many countries have them (and the USA has the most) as deterrents. If the USA were intent on invading, and killing nationals from my country, I would not hesitate using them myself as self preservation against the aggressor. Of the non-WMD, I should think a flame thrower would be most effective against an enemy, like the way the Americans used it in Iwo Jima and Vietnam (nasty).
As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called "Ansar al-Islam".
In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of "Ansar al-Islam", Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to Iraq.
"They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim.
"British intelligence has concluded there is no evidence to support the theory that al Qaeda and Iraq are working together."
Ansar al-Islam are Kurds who have been fighting Iraqis, Iranians and Turks (and now Americans) for many years in order to secure a homeland. The whole insinuation does not make sense.
If that was Powell's only evidence that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden, American troops should return home, since Americans are not fighting to remove terrorism (of which Iraq is not involved), Americans are fighting to incite it.
War protesters should influence the return of servicemen from this illegal and immoral war.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/ansar030205_krekar.html |
| those weapons are banned under UN resolutions | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:30 PM | | remember the UN? I am sure you do, because you were proclaiming the importants of france and germanys vote in the UN and how they were critical as was the rest of the UN, in terms of "support". So this resolution that bans iraq from having long range weapons had those precious votes....so by what you've said, in terms of how important the UN is, then that violation right there is pretty important. Who knows what else he has eh? |
| no UN resolution sanctioned the invasion of IRAQ... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 5:35 PM | | the USA have been deviously using the UN to limit the weapons Iraq could use as defence knowing that it would invade Iraq eventually. (plans have been in place long before 9-11) |
| ahh, so you want it both ways, i see | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:39 PM | | so its ok for anyone to violate the un resolutions? or its not okay to uphold the resolutions? In any case, we've established that Iraq is in the wrong, in regards to the UN....thank you.
Oh, and no every nations does NOT have the right to defend themselves in any way they see fit, that is why certain nations are sanctioned by the UN to have certain weapons. |
| why don't you get the USA to invade Israel since they have been... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 5:47 PM | | ignoring UN resolutions for 35 years with full support and a hell of a lot of VETOing from the USA.
If you want UN resolution hypocrisy, the USA are masters of it.
Iraq were minding their own business for more than 10 years, then the USA invades, destroys infrastructure, kills their people, and plans to occupy them, then will have US companies set up shop to exploit the place. What the USA is doing is morally corrupt and illegal. |
| changing the subject again, classic | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:49 PM | | you are going down with a sinking ship my friend. We are not talking about Israel. |
| the subject is adherence to UN resolutions of which the US does not comply with or respect. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 5:53 PM | | |
| Trebeck: "I am sorry, the answer was, 'what is Iraq?' " | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:54 PM | | No, we were talking about Iraq, not Israel, the US, Mozambique, Canada, Uzbeckistan, Tansania, or Lajes.
As I said, you are going down with a sinking ship and digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Winners quit while they are ahead...err I wouldn't say you are ahead, but nevertheless, it spirals down from here....
|
| I have covered why the Terrorists hate the USA and why... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 6:21 PM | | this war is wrong and immoral and the best you could come up with was that the reason for that hate was jealousy and the justification of invasion and murder was a UN resolution technicality which is minor compared to the travesty the USA is committing. As you sow, so shall you reap. Terrorism will not diminish from this invasion, it will increase. What you are doing is counterproductive. |
| Now you threaten terrorism? | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:02 PM | | are you looking to find allah's brothel in the sky? |
| you still have not soul searched. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:20 PM | | |
| Ahhh...an anti-Semite also! | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 7:54 PM | | Bigot! Hell, you're so far to the left..you're right. There's not a whole lot of difference between the Nazis, the KKK and you! |
| not a lot of loving in your life is there? nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:23 PM | | |
| LOL! | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:53 PM | | you crack me up! So, who are you? Clary? Le Enfants du Pardis? 8 and a half? Where are you from? Canada? France? Holland? |
| re: LOL! | SMULTRONSTÄLLET
Mar 22, 2003 9:39 PM | | Det skall du ge helvete i! |
| well whatdayaknow, ya'll got the same IP address | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 9:43 PM | | not like its suprising, anyway its to be expected of someone that is irrationally desperate.
209.105.218.182 |
| Re: IP addresses | Supernet-er
Mar 23, 2003 11:08 AM | | Wow. View Page Source. Impressive. |
| Ok...Ok.. | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 9:54 PM | | Te apesta la boca a mierda...What can I say? I'm from California. |
| re: Ok...Ok.. | SMULTRONSTÄLLET
Mar 22, 2003 10:06 PM | | Det var satans dumt sagt! Det var jävla dumt sagt! |
| here's some language for you | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 10:10 PM | | geht zum holle und halt diem ficken mund
(sp? its been a while) |
| Dein Kopf ist in alle Sprachen durcheinandergebracht. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 10:31 PM | | |
| ooh!!! gut fur sich! sie kann sprect.... | Jm
Mar 23, 2003 9:22 AM | | yipdeefrickindoo |
| if you wouldn't proliferate armament around the world, there would be more peace in the world... | 8½
Mar 23, 2003 9:38 AM | |
The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet
by Jeremy Scahill
"Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out."
Donald Rumsfeld
Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result."
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination."
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."
Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."
Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld's aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:
"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."
In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Departmentin the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."
In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."
In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.
Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to "provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.
Washington now speaks of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very moment when Iraq's alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence. |
| we are wiping out the corrupt regime as we speak | Jm
Mar 23, 2003 9:46 AM | | |
| you also funded and trained Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan... | 8½
Mar 23, 2003 10:05 AM | |
That backfired also. Looks like your own foreign policy and the CIA are your worst enemies.
United States Once Supported bin Laden
March 19, 2003
As America fought wars around the globe in the 20th century, one principle guided U.S. alliances: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
In the war against Hitler, the United States found common cause with Stalin. In the war against Japan, America aided Vietnamese rebel Ho Chi Minh. In Third World struggles, America helped Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.
And as Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the During the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan. In 1988, with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (The Base); a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across 26 or so countries.
Bin Laden emerged quickly after the September 11th attack on America as the prime suspect, directing a global network of terrorists from camps in Afghanistan.
His apparent role in the attacks and the possibility of retaliation generated acute interest in Omaha, home to about 300 former Afghan refugees and the nation's only Center for Afghanistan Studies.
Before most of the world knew who bin Laden was, Thomas Gouttierre, director of the Afghan program at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO), spent several months studying him for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan in 1996 and '97.
Gouttierre, who has 39 years experience dealing with Afghanistan, used his sources to confirm for then U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali that bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan after leaving Sudan.
In his office, Gouttierre still has his bin Laden file, including maps showing the locations of his training camps in the mountainous Central Asian nation.
The UNO scholar never met bin Laden but saw his compound in the city of Kandahar and once saw his motorcade pass as the terrorist leader traveled protected by security vehicles.
Gouttierre also spent part of his U.N. duty meeting and studying the Taliban, radical Muslim clerics who were and still are fighting for control of Afghanistan. The Taliban reportedly controlled about 95 percent of the country.
Even before the September 11th attack, the United States and the United Nations had called for the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to face trial for previous terrorist bombings.
Such a demand was unrealistic, Gouttierre said.
"The Talibs were not as powerful as Osama bin Laden", he said. "It's more likely that he could have thrown them out".
When Gouttierre was in Kandahar in 1999, he said, Afghans told him that most advisers to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban's top leader, were Pakistanis. Since then, he said, Arabs tied to bin Laden have gained influence with Omar.
Thomas Gouttierre of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at UNO, compiled a file on Osama bin Laden.
The rural clerics of the Taliban had little education or sophistication, he said, and relied heavily on the outsiders in their fledgling efforts to govern.
"The Taliban have kind of become almost a junior partner in the strategic plans of Osama bin Laden and the Pakistani extremist elements", Gouttierre said.
Abdul Raheem Yaseer, an Afghan native who is campus coordinator of UNO's Center for Afghanistan Studies, described the situation bluntly: "Osama bin Laden is the master. How could a servant hand in his master?"
Western outrage toward Afghanistan has taken on new meaning in the wake of the September 11th attack, but Americans were outraged at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 22 years ago. The United States boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics. President Jimmy Carter embargoed exports to the Soviet Union. And the CIA funneled arms and other support to the mujahedeen, Afghanistan's "freedom fighters".
Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, saw Afghanistan as a potential Vietnam for the Soviets' "Evil Empire".
Thousands of Muslim radicals joined the CIA and mujahedeen, including bin Laden, the wealthy son of a Saudi road builder. Though he didn't actually take up arms, he helped build roads and arms depots, using his own funds and CIA money.
"We funded him, we and the Saudis", said Glynn Wood, professor of international policy at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. "He was not seen as any kind of threat until Desert Storm".
Pakistani investigative journalist Ahmed Rashid reported recently that the CIA funded an underground arms depot, training facility and medical center that bin Laden helped build in 1986 near the Pakistan border. There bin Laden set up his first training camp.
Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., likened the situation to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, where the United States aided a future adversary, Hussein. American policies contributed to the environment that exists today, he said, "but it was an inadvertent action".
The United States provided many of the arms used by all the forces in Afghanistan.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he's received reports that bin Laden or sympathizers might have shoulder-fired Stinger missiles the U.S. supplied to resistance fighters.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said blaming U.S. policy for today's troubles is too simplistic. The region is incredibly complex politically and socially, the Nebraska Republican said, as were the Cold War calculations that drove foreign policy.
"It's always easy to look back at a policy 20 years ago and say we made a mistake", Hagel said.
"I suppose you could make a case we made an error to support the mujahedeen to drive out communism in Afghanistan", he said. But allowing communism to control the country also would have been bad, considering its proximity to Pakistan and Iran.
"The reality in those days", Hagel said, "was anything that hurt the Soviets we did". |
| You don't free people by killing them. You tried that in Vietnam... | 8½
Mar 23, 2003 10:11 AM | | and the World was disgusted by it. And who is next on your list? Libya? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Cuba? Syria?
When will it end? Will America be safer? Right now Americans are being cautioned around the world to leave many countries. Is that the way the Americans want to live? |
| You're an idiot, Clary. (nm) | Zonic Man
Mar 23, 2003 10:15 AM | | |
| an illiterate cannot debate, address the facts, he can only insult... | 8½
Mar 23, 2003 10:18 AM | | You look the way you speak.
|
| Have you checked <b>your</b> spelling lately, clary? | Zonic Man
Mar 23, 2003 10:38 AM | | Psuedo-anonymous coward. |
| Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid ppl! | Wanda
Mar 23, 2003 10:59 AM | | I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQ's. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?!!
(8½: Apes don't read philosophy.)
Yes they do 8½, they just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Bhuddism is not "every man for himself." The London Underground is not a political movement. And you don't have a phucking clue. These are all mistakes 8½, I looked them up.
.
.
.
Jezus Effing Christ, Clary, you're STILL whacking off on this thread? Everyone who has been using this opportunity to vent some stress will NOT miss you if you logoff, climb out of your basement, crawl outside, and get some fresh air and sunshine for a change. |
| I know how to pronounce..but not spell: | Random_German_Thought
Mar 23, 2003 10:47 AM | | Ic habbe muter faustgafickt. |
| you also don't know the language | Jm
Mar 23, 2003 12:02 PM | | what you said doesn't make sense, if its supposed to be offensive that is, lol you basically said you have a mother ****** So you can't spell, you can't put coherrent sentances together, um, that doesn't leave you with much.... |
| On second thought... | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 9:56 PM | | Did you ever use the name "Playa" in the chatroom? |
| good point! | pimpbot
Mar 23, 2003 12:48 PM | | |
| true | pimpbot
Mar 23, 2003 12:45 PM | | in the '91 peace agreement, Sadam is not allowed to have a missile with a range more than 90 miles or something like that. SCUD clearly violates that. |
| As well as being an Anti-American Bigot.. | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 7:43 PM | | you're a Saddam apologist too!!?? |
| I have the highest regards for all peaceful Americans. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:37 PM | | |
| you mean for Americans who share you opinion? | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:49 PM | | . |
| please enumerate the lies, all I have here are USA atrocities.. | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 6:31 PM | | USA did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons killing over 200,000 people.
USA did bomb Vietnamese villages killing countless civilians.
USA did use Agent Orange on villages in Vietnam causing countless deaths and suffering.
USA did shoot down the Iranian Airbus killing 290 people.
All the "EVIDENCE" supplied by Powell at the UN Security Counsel was falsified.
USA invades Iraq unjustly.
Where are my lies? |
| We Todd Head | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 7:11 PM | | those are not facts, those are opinions. |
| What can be said to somebody who thinks he has MORALITY on his side? nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 7:21 PM | | |
| You seem to corner the market on morality (nm) | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 7:46 PM | | . |
| From your past hate messages, you are as amoral as Hitler... | clary.
Mar 22, 2003 8:05 PM | | Ace Mulligan Mar-20-03, 04:28 PM
"I've got news for you..."
Those people hate us anyway! They want to kill us, so we will kill them! Quit your politically correct, leftist whining and cover up because I do believe they want to kill you too!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Mulligan Mar-20-03, 05:22 PM
"You missed my point!"
If you're not Muslum, you're an infidel or a Jew, therefore, hated! Figure it out, genius, this is a religous war! The world of Islam is nothing more than a 7th century death cult. A "good Muslum" will practice Jihad and cut your head off faster than you can scratch your butt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would probably support building concentration camps and gassing all 8½ million Muslim Americans, then probably turning your attention to the 1½ Billion Muslims around the world. Adolph Hitler's evil would be considered insignificant to the mass exterminations that you aspire to perpetrate. |
| Oh..excuuuse me! | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:45 PM | | Your friends aren't calling for a jihad? The Mullahs in Iran? UBL? Even your buddy Saddam? Maybe,'jihad' means warm fuzzies to you, but to me it means something differnt. "Good Muslums" will try to kill me the same way a "Good Nazi" tried to kill the Jews. |
| preemptive strikes à la numbskull! nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:54 PM | | |
| Oh please! | pimpbot
Mar 23, 2003 12:56 PM | | For every death threat in the Koran, I'll give you one out of the bible. |
| Ok..Pimp..Show Me.. | Ace Mulligan
Mar 23, 2003 5:16 PM | | I know alot of killing goes on in the Bible, but I don't recall where it says for Christians to go out and kill Jews and Muslums. In the Koran it's made pretty clear that all Infidels should go. If you follow the teachings of Mohammad and you're a good Muslum, you're going to go on a Jihad and rid the world of the Infidels. Islam has nothing to do with peace and love. I'll stand by my statement that Islam nothing more than a 7th Century Death Cult. Their actions around the world pretty much prove that. Listen to some of UBL's rhetoric and he's the Robin Hood of the Islamic world. Now, I'm not advocating concentration camps for them as my friend, Clary implies, but I will protect myself if need be and I will be wary of them. |
| The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were opinions? | Lobo
Mar 22, 2003 8:23 PM | | nm |
| figure it out. | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 8:39 PM | | The fact that we saved millions of Japanese lives that were preparing for total war, school-children, men, and women, by bombing nagasaki and hiroshima, and calling it an ATROCITY is an opinion. I think most people will agree that it was the best way to end the war in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of lives lost. Not an atrocity.
Veitnam was rampant with Veit Cong taking up arms against the US forces, they looked like little more than farmers with machine guns much of the time, so saying that we just simply bombed civilians is miss-leading, and an opinion. I am not saying that a large number of civilians were not killed in the conflict, this is common knowledge, but its also commom knowledge that there were a lot of deaths of veit cong and others that took up arms against the US forces, and simply called "civilians" because they were not wearing a uniform, yet they were killing our troops as well. I am making no judgement on the conflict, but this is a fact.
Etc.... |
| Glory Today; Hell Tomorrow | Wasatch Walt
Mar 22, 2003 1:22 PM | | rolling against the NON-ARMY of Iraq; is all Glory Today, that's not a war, that's shooting helpless people in handcuffs. don't misunderestimate me; Saddam has to go; but in a few months, when the US gets to play the part of Israel w/ suicide bombers, tell me how great this move was. Then, WHAT IF WMD's are not found in any significant quantity; then what; that's the whole premise for this war, right? Or is it really that Bush is a Terrorist, and a Colonialist? You tell me, because the proof for the invasion was about as pisspoor as a Trillion Dollar defense budget couldn't buy. And I read Pollack's book et. al.
But Bush is a piece of bullSh!!t. You better move your house payments to fixed rate baby; because his little 725 Billion dollar tax cut is going to result in >12% interest rates and the utter deevaluation of the dollar when we can no longer support the trade deficit. Of course, these thoughts are too complex for people these days; but these economic trends move with the same mechanistic inevitability that the US Army does, when you have an idiot as President. |
| and if your predictions | Minor
Mar 22, 2003 3:28 PM | | don't come to pass will you be man enough to admit you were wrong? I doubt it. Talk about an incapacity for complex thought. You have all the the makings of kneejerk of the year. We'll see what happens....... |
| could be worse, we could have Gore | Jm
Mar 22, 2003 5:07 PM | | who failed out of two schools, in one got 5 Fs out of 7 classes(close number, + or - 1) and was on academic probation frequently.
Talk about idiots. |
| sounds like me :) | pimpbot
Mar 23, 2003 1:03 PM | | Dang, I had poor grades in school, but I'm doing pretty well these days. In fact, so is Al Gore.
poor grades does not make you an idiot, it makes you bad in school.
Geez! Albert Einstein failed math for chrissakes! He totally rewrote Newtonian physics in his spare time while working in a patent office!
At least he didn't get into Yale ONLY because of his family, unlike somebody who runs the country... |
| Which is worse... | Random_Thought
Mar 23, 2003 11:27 PM | | Failing out of two schools...or haveing an oil company go bankrupt. Because the second one was done by our current president. I didn't think it was possible...but good ol' Dubbuhyuh proved me wrong.
RT |
| apples and papayas | Jm
Mar 24, 2003 8:01 AM | | comparing two totally different situations. GW may or may not have had any say/power to keep that company from failing. Just because he was "with" it doesn't mean he has total power over it, thats why there are boards of supervisors, stock-holders, etc, maybe if he was the "dictator" of the oil firm, however I doubt that was the case.
Good attempt, but that doesn't translate into anything near when you are in school and have control over your own destiny? How do I know? Well I am a junior with mostly As, and it's not that hard. I didn't get perfect grades in high school and I was no model student back then. The only reasons people don't get As and Bs is that they don't care, or they are stupid, it is that simple. The odd bad grade can be attributed to some other factor usually, but Gore has shown that he is consistant in failing out of school and getting bad grades. Maybe he didn't care back then? Maybe he still doesn't? impossible to know. |
| it has already started... | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 6:50 PM | | two or three grenades into a couple of tents and some shots fired with 13 injured, 6 severely. What will happen in Baghdad, or even Basra? Didn't they say the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets? They don't even want to enter Basra, which is supposed to be against Saddam. It will be guerrilla warfare the whole time of the occupation. The USA will have to shoot everybody in sight since they will not know who will attack them next. Massive civilian casualties, roadblocks, checkpoints, restrictions, searches, the Israel-Palestine scenario on a much larger scale. |
| looks like fratricide...text still valid. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:31 PM | | |
| Well...you know... | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:56 PM | | he was a Muslum... |
| Your a fool | Minor
Mar 23, 2003 12:50 AM | | That was a fragging incident.....a sergent came unhinged. Once again I ask if your predictions don't materialize will you be man enough to admit you were wrong? Not likely...you're such a wimp you can't even bring yourself to admit your nationality. |
| another illiterate who can't equate fratricide with fragging... | 8½
Mar 23, 2003 7:40 AM | | It's the other way around. It's your government who is leading you on a garden path telling you how "Shock and Awe" is going to lead to a cakewalk. Will your government admit that they have no valid reasons under international law for invading Iraq and that they are leading the USA armed forces into a deadly quagmire. |
| `Real-time' TV coverage a real headache for Bush... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 6:16 AM | | `Real-time' TV coverage a real headache for Bush
U.S. spin doctors can't control media message Morale-destroying images weren't part of the plan.
LINDA DIEBEL
STAFF REPORTER
WASHINGTONIt's the first "real-time" TV war, and it wasn't supposed to go like this.
On the weekend, these weren't supposed to be the television images of Operation Iraqi Freedom: frightened U.S. prisoners-of-war being held in Iraq; a grainy still of slain American soldiers lying on a floor; reporters explaining friendly fire incidents like the downing of a British warplane; and the stark image of a 101st Airborne soldier on the ground, taken prisoner by his own troops after grenades were tossed into officers' tents in Kuwait with deadly results.
These grim, morale-destroying images weren't supposed to be there because the Bush administration thought it could control media war coverage.
They spent enough time on it, going as far back as the first days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks to create a new-style communications team.
Preparations for "spin control" were the job of the president's most trusted advisers. A White House-based team runs a 24/7 global operation to massage and torque what the public sees, reads and hears.
There were big decisions, including the Pentagon call to "embed" 529 media personnel with advancing U.S. and British troops and put tough restrictions on their reporting.
President George W. Bush signed off the communications war plan two weeks ago in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. He blessed the team's efforts and, reportedly, told them to get out the news "in a co-ordinated way that reflects our efforts."
It's clear that, in the frenzy of war, news simply cannot be controlled, especially in this age of "real-time" coverage.
Maybe they should have listened to their own Pentagon chiefs, who apparently opposed allowing the cameras to get so close from the beginning.
Here's what Americans, and viewers in other nations, watched during the first weekend of the war against Iraq:
CBS's Face the Nation yesterday showed a brief excerpt of American dead and prisoners-of-war, during an interview with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The videotape, shot by Iraqi state television, was aired by the Arabic TV network Al-Jazeera.
Rumsfeld furiously warned it would be "unfortunate" for other U.S. networks to air the footage. CNN showed a still photograph of the dead Americans, with faces obscured, while other networks said they were still debating what to show.
At every opportunity, Rumsfeld urged Americans not to believe what they see with their own eyes.
"The images on television tend to leave the impression that we're bombing Baghdad," said Rumsfeld, clearly addressing international humanitarian concerns about rising casualties in the bombed-out city.
"The coalition forces are not bombing Baghdad," he said, insisting these are surgical strikes of military targets.
A U.S. soldier sat on the ground after being detained in connection with the grenade attacks early yesterday. A command tent at the 101st Airborne Division camp in Kuwait came under attack, with one soldier killed, and 15 wounded, according to military officials.
British reporters explained that a U.S. Patriot missile shot down a Tornado GR4, a Royal Air Force fighter in a friendly fire accident near the Iraqi border with Kuwait. "We can confirm the (two-man crew was) killed in action," said a British defence ministry spokesperson.
Reporters hit Gen. Tommy Franks, Operation Iraqi Freedom commander, as well as other military briefers, with tough questions in Qatar. The Pentagon specifically sought out a wide sampling of reporters from Al-Jazeera and international networks, to Rolling Stone and New York Magazine.
"What do you say (when) the people most likely to be awed and awestruck by `shock and awe' are the Iraqi civilians you claim to be liberating?" asked one unidentified reporter.
And, finally and perhaps most importantly, there seems to be growing evidence the war is not going over as expected with the viewing public.
"I feel very uncomfortable watching this, and I have a nephew fighting over there," said Washington hotel worker, Madeleine Dorth yesterday.
"You know how Christmas is getting a little too commercial and it's losing it's meaning? Well, that's how this war is to me. It's like a ratings game or something, and I find it's very wrong."
It seems surreal to be watching, for example, announcers in the United States waiting for a bomb to drop on an enemy target near Umm Qasr, and getting excited about it.
"Ohhhh," said one announcer, catching her breath. "I'm feeling tense, and I'm here in Atlanta, Georgia."
No, it's clearly not going well, at least so far, for the Bush administration. And it's not as if the Pentagon has been taken by surprise. Top Pentagon officials, wary of war's unpredictability, strongly advised the Bush administration against allowing around-the-clock media access to the troops, sources say.
The American public is seeing something that "is somewhat historic," said Rumsfeld. "We're having a conflict at a time in our history when we have 24-hours-a-day television, radio, media and Internet and more people in the world have access to what is taking place."
That's why they spent so much time on it, unveiling the first war communications plan under Bush adviser Karen Hughes during the 2001 bombing campaign against Al Qaeda terrorist targets in Afghanistan after 9/11.
The new team Office of Global Communications continues to work with Hughes, as well as key people in the White House, Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council. They work around-the-clock, stuffing each 24-hour news cycle, at home and abroad, with a message of the day, designed to fill every information void and ensure the people stay on that message.
"The idea is to present their view of what is happening, and make it the only view," says William Lutz, a Rutgers University English professor and expert on "doublespeak."
"They cloak it with authority ... It is the Pope speaking ...
"People think, `Hey, the government has more information than I do, their view must be more informed than mine.'"
Hughes, a longtime Bush confidante, has been brought back to Washington to advise Bush. But her $15,000 monthly fee is actually paid by the Republican National Committee.
"This is a grey area," Charles Lewis, executive director of the Centre for Public Integrity, told the Washington Post.
Tucker Eskew, global communications team head, stressed they are not selling propaganda or disinformation.
"That is kind of knee-jerk, an easy way to dismiss truthful communications," he recently told the Dallas Morning News. "There's disinformation in the world, and we are here to help knock it down."
Additional articles by Linda Diebel |
| Red Cross Voices Concern About Situation in Basra... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 6:42 AM | | Published on Sunday, March 23, 2003 by the Agence France Presse
Red Cross Voices Concern About Situation in Basra
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said it was very concerned about the situation in the southern Iraqi city of Basra following US-led airstrikes on the strategic city.
An Iraqi man carries a child reportedly injured near the southern Iraqi city of Basra as allied forces inched closer to the city, Saturday, March 22, 2003. (AP Photo/Nabil) 
"We are very concerned about the situation in Basra," ICRC spokeswoman Nada Doumani told reporters at ICRC headquarters in Geneva.
"Visibly the bombing during the night was quite violent. We have also heard there are many victims but we cannot confirm a figure," Doumani said.
Most of the relief agency's staff in Basra are engineers dealing with water supply and the agency, which works with the local Red Crescent, said it did not have expatriate medical personnel there to check on conditions at local hospitals.
"We do not have access. Our employees appear to have trouble moving around Basra itself. That is not a good sign," Doumani added.
ICRC engineers have restored some of the city's water supply, which had been cut off, by pumping and treating salt water from the Shatt al Arab waterway, she said, adding that the main water station was just outside the port city.
ICRC staff in Baghdad were checking on casualties in hospitals there following overnight US and British bombardment of the Iraqi capital.
Doumani said contacts were still underway with US and British forces about an unspecified number of Iraqi prisoners of war captured in the south of the country. |
| US using weapons of mass destruction on Iraqis... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:01 AM | | We know, for example, that the Americans are again using depleted uranium (DU) munitions in Iraq, just as they did in 1991. Before the war began, they stated that they intended to use these warheads, which are manufactured from the waste of the nuclear industry to pierce armor and which are believed by thousands of Gulf War Syndrome sufferers, along with Iraqi doctors, to be responsible for a plague of cancers. Yesterday, the BBC told us that the US Marines had called up A-10 strike aircraft to deal with "pockets of resistance " a bit more military-speak from the BBC but failed to mention that the A-10 uses DU rounds. So for the first time since 1991, we the West are today spraying these uranium aerosols in battlefield explosions in southern Iraq; and we're not being told. Why not? |
| Basra: 77 civilians butchered... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:08 AM | | 15:06 2003-03-23
Basra: 77 civilians butchered
Western news agencies have quoted Iraqi sources, claiming that the result of the sustained bombardment on Iraq's second city, Basra, is 77 civilians.
In other attacks, 4 civilians are reported by Iraqi sources to have been murdered in Tikrit overnight. These reports are as yet unconfirmed. There are further claims that a children's fun park was totally destroyed by a terrorist attack last night by US military aircraft on the left bank of the River Tigris. The images of what looked like a tangled mass of metal were shown by western TV stations on Saturday night. It is not yet clear whether the fun park was full of children at the time it was attacked. These reports have yet to be confirmed by western military sources.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iraqi civilians being liberated from their lives. |
| US missile 'kills five Syrians'... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:19 AM | | US missile 'kills five Syrians'
Syria says at least 10 people were injured in the attack
The official Syrian news agency says five Syrian civilians have been killed by an American missile on the Iraqi side of the border.
Syria has delivered an official protest to the US and Britain over the attack which it has condemned as a "terrible aggression".
US and British diplomats were summoned to the Syrian foreign ministry on Monday.
Syria "reserves the right to claim damages and warned against the danger of targeting innocent civilians," the Sana news agency reported.
'Fleeing fighting'
The Syrians were said to be fleeing the fighting in Iraq when a missile hit their bus at Rutba, western Iraq.
Damascus says bus killings are a "terrible aggression"
At least 10 people were injured.
One of the wounded, Marwan al-Shayesh, told Syrian Television the bus had stopped for a break when the missile struck.
"Passengers were coming down from the bus when there was a huge explosion. We ran away and looked back to the bus and saw more than 10 wounded inside," he said.
Syrian officials say the missile strike violates the 1949 Geneva Convention to protect civilians during times of war.
Syria strongly opposes the US-led war on Iraq and has called for a peaceful solution to get Saddam Hussein to disarm. |
| UN to examine the legality of the US-led war with Iraq... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:23 AM | | Russia seeks UN ruling on Iraq
Russia says the war with Iraq is illegal
Russia has called for a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to examine the legality of the US-led war with Iraq.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said Russia and other countries would ask the UN's legal department for a ruling on the conflict.
He said the US-led coalition had acted "in violation of the norms of international law" by failing to secure a fresh UN resolution sanctioning war.
Russia, together with fellow Security Council members France and Germany, led the opposition to American attempts earlier this month to persuade the 15-member group to back the use of force against Iraq.
Humanitarian consequences
Mr Fedotov said Russia wanted the council to "give all necessary political and legal assessments of the current situation and take a relevant decision corresponding to its powers".
The United States and Britain argued that existing UN resolutions on Iraq provided a legal basis for the use of force if Saddam Hussein did not peacefully relinquish his alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But they had nonetheless sought a further resolution specifically sanctioning the use of force - a move which Russia, France and China - all permanent members of the Security Council - threatened to block.
Mr Fedotov said the US also had to take responsibility for the humanitarian consequences of their actions.
He said the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva was considering holding a special session on the situation in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2881013.stm |
| Iraqi citizens in Jordan decide to return back home to fight... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:32 AM | | Iraqi citizens in Jordan decide to return back home to fight
Iraq-Jordan, Politics, 3/24/2003
The Iraqi citizens in Jordan have decided to return back home and take part in defending it against the American- British aggression.
News reports said that the Iraqi worker Fayez Kazem, living in Jordan since four years, said " I can not stay watching the TV, seeing Baghdad burning."
Upon asking Fayez and construction workers about his decision to return back while the American missiles are falling on his country, he said " I want to be the first to return back to my country," adding I will come back to fight the Americans saying "The Iraqi is born from the womb of his mother carrying weapons."
Fayez is one of the workers who lived in Jordan, who stopped looking for rent cars and buses for a driver that would accept the risk of a dangerous trip to Iraq.
Sitar Muhammad, who moved from the southern Iraqi of al-Basra to Jordan one and a half years ago and works as a butcher in Amman said he does not fear death.
Sitar who left back home in al-Basra a wife and three children regrets the question on the reason behind his return back saying "who will defend our families and honor. Should I stay in Amman watching the TV while the American kills my family and harass my wife and sister?"
A bus driver Abu Rami who went to Baghdad to transport Iraqis said that "no body flees from Iraq. I did not see anyone packing his luggage or even coming out of his house." He said he was obliged to return back to Amman without transporting any passenger.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030324/2003032412.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
| Mass deaths forecast... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 7:42 AM | | Mass deaths forecast
It's still too early to tell how many casualties the war will create, but one international organization has published gloomy forecasts. In November, the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War issued a report with estimates of the short-, mid- and longterm consequences of a war against Iraq. In a war lasting only three months, the study predicted, between 48,700 and 261,000 deaths should be expected. But the estimates did not include deaths that would result from the side-effects of war. The organization said that the breakdown of Iraq's infrastructure alone could lead to the deaths of as many as 200,000 through infections and other illnesses.
The United Nations has also painted a grim portrait of conditions for Iraqis. In a war scenario, up to three million people could be at risk of famine -- among them two million children and five and a million women who are either pregnant or breast-feeding infants. War will exacerbate an already serious situation: The international aid organization World Vision says that a quarter of all Iraqi suffer from malnutrition, and the death rate of children under five is more than twice as high today as it was in 1990.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. estimated that up to 110,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 300,000 wounded. The number of Iraqi civilians killed was estimated at between 3,000 and 40,000. On the allied side, 343 soldiers were killed, 148 in battle. But the majority were killed in accidents, by land mines or through friendly fire from allied troops.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_815825_1_A,00.html |
| 87.5 percent of all statistics... | Paul B
Mar 22, 2003 3:28 PM | | ...are bullshit. I read that somewhere, so it must be true.
p. |
| what a farking joke | Zaphod
Mar 22, 2003 1:45 PM | | Everyone (myself excluded of course) seems to be tense and extremely opinionated. You're shouting at each other vs. having anything remotely resembling intelligent discourse. Everyone thinks that they're right. This is not a discussion, it's a joke.
It's an important topic but this crowd can only handle the topic of ss vs geared bike... even then ;^)
-Zaphod |
| Support our troups: bring them home | Martino
Mar 22, 2003 3:45 PM | | All the "patriots" who claim to be supporting our troups are just supporting them to die in the deserts and cities of far away countries. |
| Support our troups by | Bartok
Mar 22, 2003 4:20 PM | | shaking their hands and saying "good job, welcome home"; after they have completed the mission. |
| Does you idiocy have no end? | Zonic Man
Mar 22, 2003 5:19 PM | | First "shocks" discussion, now here? |
| Please, illiterates should not debate. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 7:26 PM | | |
| Nor should bigots blinded by hate! (nm) | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 7:36 PM | | . |
| it's pick on Zonic Man night, dummy! | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:12 PM | | http://forums13.consumerreview.com/crforum?viewall@@.ef9e7d7 |
| I've got no beef with him..numbnutz | Ace Mulligan
Mar 22, 2003 8:31 PM | | . |
| nobody does...it's just a joke started by his friends. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:34 PM | | |
| being illiterate, you obviously cannot link the link with the text. nm | 8½
Mar 22, 2003 8:25 PM | | |
| LOL. You don't get it, do you clary? | Zonic Man
Mar 22, 2003 8:37 PM | | How long HAVE you been stuck in that igloo of yours? |
| re: Anti-war protesters should know better | BadHabit
Mar 24, 2003 9:17 AM | | This really does expose the fallacies in war arguments, as well as the duplicity of the rightwingers whose agenda this war is in support of (the agenda of using preeminent American power to reshape the world according to their ideology). As I am sure you know, Perle, Feith, Cheney et al have wanted this conflict for years. These arguments also expose the American public's tendency to rally 'round the flag.
I have an outstanding concern regarding Iraq that causes me to see the need to neutralize Saddam (I do not say unilaterally attack). It has to do with Soviet-era tactical nuclear weapons (1-5 megaton range; similar to Hiroshima bomb), many of which are widely believed to be unaccounted for or under the control of disaffected and/or impoverished Russian military elements. We take it on faith that the Russians have control of these weapons even in the context of Chechnya terrorism. Among other publications, The New Yorker has presented a compelling scenario in which Saddam succeeds in his announced goal of acquiring such a weapon. The acquisition is presented as just a matter of time due to Iraq's money and determination to outfit Saddam to become the New Saladin or the New Stalin (Saddam's heroes). Once a nuclear weapon were in Iraqi hands, there is little doubt they would turn it to their advantage, in this way: Having demonstrated their possession of a nuclear weapon, they would state that it had been placed in a city of their choosing (American, Israeli, Kuwaiti, you name it) and proceed to behave with impunity, knowing that the United States cannot threaten Iraq with the American nuclear aresenal. (Public opinion would prevent the United States from dropping a nuclear weapon on Baghdad even if it were first attacked.) Knowing the Bath Party ethic as we do, and the venality of human nature as well as the determination of political terrorism, it is difficult to dispute the possibility of this incredibly dangerous scenario. In my opinion, it is in fact likely. Sooner or later, a nuclear weapon will be used in this way. The world is in for a lot of pain on this issue. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is pioneering the development of new, even smaller nuclear weapons.
As I see it, this is the only legitimate reason to confront Iraq.
The confrontation should have been intelligently initiated by diplomatic efforts outside and inside the United Nations (somehow bypassing France and Russia, which have not and never will countenance any military enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq--their own words and deeds demonstrate this: Russia for monetary reasons and France because they see their nation as a "counterweight to American hegemony," in other words, a foe). The effort would certainly have not involved the foolish, intemperate language and behavior of our inept, radically ideological administration. It would not have been an effort focused only on neutralizing Saddam, but would also have involved convincing demonstrations of American intent to establish Palestine and rein in Israeli hardliners. It would have involved U.S. engagement around the world in a positive way rather than the negative "thumb-in-your-eye" approach of this minority American government. It would have involved the U.S. taking the moral high ground in its international relations. With the government in the right hands, as foolish as this might sound, such an approach is in fact possible. Possible is the right word, since the French and Russians have announced their intention to veto any enforcement of resolutions.
Other nations have closed the door to UN involvement in an Iraq solution; the U.S. needed to find a way to outmaneuver its "allies" but did not have a position of strength due to Bush's stupidity. The conduct of France is no less, or more, deplorable than Bush's conduct.
I kept waiting for someone to suggest a realistic alternative. Sanctions? Inspectors? Ha. But perhaps there was something that could have been done; it would have been worth the wait, if only to prove we were not eager for this war.
Overall, I think people all over the world do not think this situation through on either side of the issue. There can be no complacency in either pro-war or antiwar positions. U.S. security has been disastrously weakened by the Bush administration, but things were pretty scary before he took over.
What a time to have Jaweh people killing each other. What a time to have a fool in the White House.
Best fortune to the American military in all things, and may those who are innocent survive. |
| Gloomy faces in Washington... | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 12:35 PM | | It's not quite going to plan. The Iraqi people are not welcoming the Americans with open arms and dancing in the streets. The CIA spent decades trying to incite unrest with the Shiites and Kurds (just like they did in Cuba before abandoning them). Since the first Gulf War, the American administration has been saying all along that the Iraqi people will be tired of Saddam and will want to overthrow him. They were banking that this present invasion would finally do it. They obviously believed their propaganda more than the Iraqi people.
Right now, the Americans are trying to explain off the reason why there is so much resistance by claiming that elements of the Republican Guards are holding the regular troops together. Could it be that it's the Iraqi people who are resisting?
So if the Iraqi people do not want to be liberated, and since the Iraqi people are not involved in 9-11, and since Iraq WAS being disarmed, albeit slowly by the UN weapons inspectors, and since Iraq's neighbours found Iraq to be no threat to them, and since Iraq poses no threat to the USA, why are the Americans invading Iraq?
The American invasion of Iraq is unlawful, so all American prisoners are unlawful combatants.
Why are the American people sending their sons and daughters into harms way when Washington is misleading the American puplic on all aspects of this unlawful and moraly wrong invasion of Iraq? |
| <strike>puplic</strike> <b>public</b> (sp) | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 1:11 PM | | |
| | 8½
Mar 24, 2003 1:17 PM | | |
| |
