Laughing City :: View topic

Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> that rumsfeld

<< prev | goto page | next >>

View previous topic :: View next topic

Should Rumsfeld be fired?

yes

45%

[ 17 ]

54%

[ 20 ]

Total Votes : 37

Author

Message

ambientgecko
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:33 pm

here's the UN Resolution, the reason Saddam was overthrown, he didn't follow it:

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq

Friday December 20, 2002

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure tocomply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import anduse of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ZP3TO003v7YJ:www.guardian.co.uk/I raq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html+%22resolution+1441+%22&hl=en
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"

http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though

ali
since 1979

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:45 pm

gRegor wrote:

Then there is no way you can support this war, because it violated international law at a variety of levels. America violated the national sovereignty of a nation that neither attacked us nor threatened to attack us. And there certainly was no "imminent" attack. These are the only justified reasons for attacking another nation under the principle of national sovereignty.

i'm really glad you brought this up. ideologies aside, this is the main reason i opposed the war. how can we tell others to follow international law when we violate it? we have no ground to stand on. then we violate geneva conventions. hypocrisies abound.

but i know we're veering way off topic here. i'll say this about rumsfeld - where was the exit strategy? where was the contingency planning, just in case they didn't greet us with roses as liberators? if i draw parallels to professionals in the working world, i'd say this would be grounds for removal.
_________________
hello.

Joined: 23 Aug 2003 | Posts: 5978 | Location: Austin, Texas

ambientgecko
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:52 pm

ali wrote:

gRegor wrote:

we didn't violate international law, did you not read the UN Resolutions from the Gulf War? If you lose a war and then don't follow the signed resolutions, I'm pretty sure it's legal to take action, we waited and waited, he never proved he disarmed so we took action, and now we've found out even more, like ties to Osama and such. This whole lets make our own country look wrong thing is getting ridiculous.
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"

http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though

ali
since 1979

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:56 pm

ambientgecko wrote:

sure, but the un handles violations of its treaties - not just anyone who feels like it. these things are matters for debate, not so cut and dry that you can go off and act unilaterally.
_________________
hello.

Joined: 23 Aug 2003 | Posts: 5978 | Location: Austin, Texas

ambientgecko
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 3:59 pm

ali wrote:

ambientgecko wrote:

sure, but the un handles violations of its treaties - not just anyone who feels like it. these things are matters for debate, not so cut and dry that you can go off and act unilaterally.

We are part of the UN, we had a lot to do with that treaty, if the UN doesn't make countries follow their own rules because certain countries have money invested and exchanged that doesn't mean we have to just bow down to them, the UN is not God. I just disagree that what we did violated international law, that's my opinion and I'll hold to it. I could really go for some Dr. Pepper right now!
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"

http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though

ali
since 1979

Post subject:
Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 4:04 pm

ambientgecko wrote:

ali wrote:

ambientgecko wrote:

sure, but the un handles violations of its treaties - not just anyone who feels like it. these things are matters for debate, not so cut and dry that you can go off and act unilaterally.

i respect your opinion - like i said, it was a matter for debate. but don't think the u.s. doesn't ever make decisions in the u.n. based on money.. again, we're holding others to a different standard than ourselves.. that's what bothers me.
_________________
hello.

Joined: 23 Aug 2003 | Posts: 5978 | Location: Austin, Texas

gRegor
the gEek

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 11:29 am

manchilds wrote:

ahem......9/11.

now I know what you are going to say in response....but its getting harder and harder to say that saddam didn't support terrorists and there is no connection between Iraq and the attacks.

No, it's not hard at all, so I'll say it:

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Period.

"Perspective" is yet another way to dehumanize the thousands of deaths in Iraq so far. So more people died in WWII. So what?

ambientgecko wrote:

here's the UN Resolution, the reason Saddam was overthrown, he didn't follow it:

I've read UNSC Resolution 1441 before, a few times. I think I've read every resolution regarding Iraq. Nowhere does 1441 authorize member states to use force against Iraq. I'm glad you brought up that resolution, actually, because it solidifies my case, particularly:

"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"

National sovereignty. This resolution affirmed that Iraq was still in violation of some resolutions - yes - but it also affirmed that they are still a sovereign nation. And nowhere did it authorize member states to use all necessary means against Iraq. Like I said, the UNSC is very specific when it authorizes use of military force. They didn't in resolution 1441. Period.

ambientgecko wrote:

We most certainly did violate international law. You're "pretty sure" it's legal to take action? No. A ceasefire is a ceasefire. It's not like "if you don't abide by this fully, the war starts again."

These are UN resolutions, and as such UN enforces them. If they're negligent in enforcing them, then so be it - but that doesn't justify member states going into their own rogue enforcement of the resolutions.

There were no ties to Osama.

This isn't a matter of attempting to make our own country look wrong. First, government does a pretty good job of that in and of itself. Second, despite the nationalistic belief, sometimes America is wrong. And some of us don't treat the State as an infallible god. Don't confuse patriotism with nationalism. I am a patriot and love this country very much. Being a patriot means supporting the things this nation was founded on, upholding and defending the Constitution - not arbitrarily supporting every representative, politician, or bureaucrat and their decisions. I highly recommend this article on Nationalism vs. Patriotism for a good look into the differences.
_________________
"The revolution starts today, not tomorrow." :: got g-Love?

Joined: 02 Nov 2002 | Posts: 4224 | Location: Chicago, IL

gRegor
the gEek

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 11:32 am

"Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don't need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding." -- US Representative Ron Paul (R), House of Representatives April 29, 2003

Full speech: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul93.html
_________________
"The revolution starts today, not tomorrow." :: got g-Love?

Joined: 02 Nov 2002 | Posts: 4224 | Location: Chicago, IL

swiss army romance
Golly, Poster

Post subject: hmmm...
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 12:31 pm

gRegor knows his stuff and I agree with him on pretty much everything he's stated in this thread. So rather than spout the same things over that's he's already said, I'll just say that mine and his opinion are pretty much on the same page.

Concerning the original topic of this thread, I don't know if we should axe Rumsfeld yet. I think if he had something to do with what happened in the prison, then he should be fired; if he didn't, then I see no immediate reason to get rid of him. I certainly don't believe what happened in the prison was an act by just a few stupid soldiers. I definitely believe that there were higher-ups having them do the things they did. What really needs to be found out is how high up those "higher-ups" went, if that includes Rumsfeld, then he should be fired. If not...then he should probably be allowed to stay in the cabinet.

Edit: having gone back and read every page of this thread, I just have to throw in my two cents concerning a couple things.

A) Some said on the first page that the economy is doing better than it has in 25 years and more people are employed than ever, something of that nature. That is completely untrue. Like Florencia said, there may be more people working now than ever due to population growth, but in terms of the unemployment rate (how unemployment is actually measured), we aren't doing too well...nor too shabby at the moment, certainly not the best in the last 25 years though. And the economy is certainly not doing better now than it was towards the end of the Clinton administration which is pretty much where we peaked. We did though, however, have a quarter of pretty good-sized economic growth, I remember hearing that is was the best quarter of growth we've had in 20, but we are still far from where we peaked in terms of our economy in the late 1990's. So to say that the economy is doing better than it has in the last 25 years is putting a spin on a statistic that is definitely not true.

B) Saddam was a bad guy, but as far as number two to Hitler...I'd say Stalin takes that prize.
_________________
I think that it's brainless to assume that making changes to your window's view will give a new perspective.

Joined: 26 Jul 2003 | Posts: 754 | Location: Good ole' Goshen, Oh-hi-Oh

Florencia
Laughing Citizen

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 1:36 pm

ambientgecko wrote:

ali wrote:

gRegor wrote:

we didn't violate international law.

I have to disagree...just like Saddam according to what some people say violated UNs international law...the US attacked Iraq even when the permanent members of the security council didn't aprove. With everything gRegor said, and taking into account that the US went without UNs permision, there is no way you can attack Saddam for not following, if you are going to do exactly the same and disobey the supreme international diplomatic organization.
_________________
An apt and true reply was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride.
'What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."
Noam Chomsky

Joined: 01 Jan 2004 | Posts: 1738 | Location: in this fake plastic world

ambientgecko
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 4:13 pm

I'm not even going to bother on this one anymore, I was going to talk about the Geneva Code and how it doesn't apply to terrorists, but I'm sure that will be a mute point too.

I guess it'd be easier for me to just be like everyone else and blame Bush for everything, and say how bad our country is, we're just as bad as everyone else. This war is terrible, it's not worth it. George Bush is the reason for everything bad. John Kerry will solve everything.

That's what I'm getting out of all this, I feel as if I'm wasting my time reading and responding. This debate could go on forever, me and Gregor can keep pulling out source after source backing up our opinions and nothing will be solved because none of us are going to admit if we're wrong. I disagree, I'll leave it at that and I feel I have plenty of support and evidence in my favor and I'm sure you guys feel the same way about your positions.
_________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WWW.MODICOMUSIC.COM
www.myspace.com/modico

"even on the drearest day
a loving hand won't turn away
God's greatest gift to man
how sweet is love"

http://www.myspace.com/ambientgecko

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joined: 24 Dec 2003 | Posts: 1334 | Location: Fort Worth is my home... I'm at OU now though

NoSexForNeal
Sea Post King

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 4:20 pm

thats a lot of writing Sad

_________________

http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=nosexforneal

Joined: 10 May 2004 | Posts: 86 | Location: Plano/Austin, TX

manchilds
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 5:53 pm

the problem I have is the UN's unwillingness to do anything about the matter....even though Iraq continualy violated the resolutions. you say that the US has violated international law.....yet thats somewhat difficult when there is no law being upheld. " if the UN wants to regulate how all countries obtain their own protection, then then UN must hold terrorist, tyrants, and states accountable when they violate the resolutions. the UN cannot continue to create resolution after resolution and ignore the countries when they break them. If the UN continues down this road, the organization will only lose more and more credibilty as they already have in the past." http://theelectronictimes.org/un/

Some of the offenses and regulations against Iraq include:

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

      Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.

Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.

States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious   consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to   replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and   facilities.

Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN   inspectors want to interview.

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://theelectronictimes.org/data/iraqunresolved.htm
_________________
If you wanna go on a picnic, I'll bring the watermelon.

Joined: 21 Aug 2003 | Posts: 1029 | Location: Austin, TX

manchilds
Lost at Forum

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

gRegor wrote:

manchilds wrote:

No, it's not hard at all, so I'll say it:

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Period.
.

then why are terrorists doing most of the fighting in iraq? it is now being said that the man who beheaded nick berg is part of al-qaeda. is this mere coincidence? saddam had terrorst ties with bin laden. seems like a good connection to me.
_________________
If you wanna go on a picnic, I'll bring the watermelon.

Joined: 21 Aug 2003 | Posts: 1029 | Location: Austin, TX

gRegor
the gEek

Post subject:
Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 9:05 pm

ambientgecko wrote:

The Geneva Convention deals with human beings. We can't just redefine 'human beings' in attempt to whitewash over our mistakes - to excuse them.

I haven't gone back to look over everything I have written in this thread, but I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned Bush OR Kerry. I don't believe I have "blamed Bush for everything", either. It seems you're being a tad overdramatic.

Sure, I do hold Bush accountable for a lot of things since he is the one who ultimately took us there. I also hold Congress responsible for falling asleep at the wheel and authorizing military force into the hands of President Bush when only Congress itself can declare war. And ALL war is terrible.

I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong. Despite what you may think, I didn't start out with some anti-war stance and seek out facts to back it up. I initially supported the war in Afghanistan, and was unsure about Iraq. So I looked into it. A lot. I looked into the claims, the UN resolutions, what the Constitution says ("Congress declares war"), and it just didn't add up. You might be surprised that all growing up I was a "good Republican" - and honestly 5 years ago I would have taken umbrage just like you have at the thought that Bush (or any other Republican) could possible be wrong about anything.

That being said, there haven't been a lot of sources for me to review, have there? All I can remember off the top of my head is UN resolution 1441, which I thought I responded to well. Do you disagree with what I said? How does it authorize force? Better yet, how does it authorize force while still reaffirming the national sovereignty of Iraq?
_________________
"The revolution starts today, not tomorrow." :: got g-Love?

Joined: 02 Nov 2002 | Posts: 4224 | Location: Chicago, IL

Laughing City Forum Index -> General -> that rumsfeld
Page 7 of 11

<< prev | goto page | next >>

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

All times are GMT - 12 Hours