This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[MarkG]

thanks for the argumentative response Michael

it's always a pleasure to get such an answer when it comes to US policies instead of the typical.... i wont characterize it

[Gatekeeper]

MtG:

Now if only Ritter could be as concise as you and shelve the theatrics (did you see him on CNN's Talkback Live Tuesday?). Anyway, I'm trying to like the man — hell, he's a Marine veteran and that's gotta count for something — but he gets riled easy. Heh. Maybe that's what happens after having to deal with Iraqi intrasgience and spies w/i the ranks of your inspectors.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

MarkG, Do you know, or does anyone know, whether Clinton got authorization from Congress to militarily attack Yugoslavia? I remember some debate on this issue, but I don't remember what happened. Kissinger was particularly adamant that we had no business invading Yugoslavia.

[Ming]

Just bumping this up from the middle of the page to the top of page in HOPES THAT SOME PEOPLE will see and not start YET another thread on this subject

[Alexander's Horse]

The United States wants to attack Iraq for Security Council resolution violations?

And also for trying to develop weapons of mass destruction right?

But wait a minute - Israel already has weapons of mass destruction including over 200 nuclear weapons and is in violation of countless Security Council resolutions

Here is a list of Security Council resolutions on Israel since 1948, most of which Israel is in violation of:

Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.
Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.
Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Res 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Res 250 (Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Res 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.
Res 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.
Res 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Res 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.
Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.
Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.
Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.
Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.
Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.
Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Res 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.
Res 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.
Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.
Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.
Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.
Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.
Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.
Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.
Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.
Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.
Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.
Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.
Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.
Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.
Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.
Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.
Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.
Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.
Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'
Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for their immediate return.

So, when is the United States going to attack Israel?

[SlowwHand]

Here's a question for the masses.

People (odd people) are turning from having their pets stuffed, to having them freeze-dried.

Would it be possible/practical to freeze-dry Hussein?

[Roland]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
...is not as critical as the hawks would have everyone believe... There is no strategic urgency to act in days or weeks.... Is he enough of an immediate threat to necessitate war, let alone a unilateral US action? No way.... The US is just not prepared to go nationbuilding in the middle east.... The whole "he might sell stuff to terrorists if he manages to develop it" line is a bunch of crap...

Agree with all that, but wonder: IYO, why are the "hawks" so hellbent on having this war, and having it soon ?

[Velociryx]

Roland....I'll take a shot at answering that question, and will do so with a single word.

Elections.

Of course, the answer makes even MORE sense if given in "Engrish" where the word becomes 'erections' - face it, these guys get off on the prospect of blowing Sadam away. They're itching to keep an enemy of America "in the public eye" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the slowdown of the economy on the homefront.

Further, by keeping an enemy in the public eye, they can point to the necessity of curtailing civil liberties (national security, you know).

-=Vel=-

[Roland]

Well I've also assumed that this is a Rovian war, but I'm sceptical towards simple explanations....

[Velociryx]

Not a fan of Occam's Razor, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Lincoln]

Iraq was picked because it is an easy target. Why didn't we attack China for all of their human rights abuses? Why not the Soviet Union when they were in their heyday? Why not Israel of Pakistan? The answer is simple: They have nuclear weapons. But does anyone believe seriously that Sadam can join the world community as a civilized member if he developes a nuclear weapon and the capacity to deliver it?

The plain fact is that even the United States is afraid of any nation that has nuclear weapons because of the threat to the entire world. Iraq is not the worst offender but she is presently a tempting target. I agree however that this "war" on terrorism is a convenient excuse for all kinds of things including making political gain. Bush is obviously using the UN for his own agenda. Despite his motives however Sadam cannot be expected to roll over and be mister nice guy. His nation is under sanctions and the people are suffering. It will not be a bad thing when he is gone and the sanctions are lifted.

[SlowwHand]

A seldom required for Lincoln.

[Roland]

"...because of the threat to the entire world..."

Pretty unlikely - MAD. What would make sense is that a nuclear power in the region dramatically limits the US' military options in that region. And Washington wants to have all options when it comes to the, dare I say it, oil.

[Velociryx]

At least till we can come up with an alternative fuel source, yes....at which time, the ME becomes utterly useless. Just a bunch of rocks and hot sand, tho it *might* be a good place to put a glass factory.



-=Vel=-

[Lincoln]

Do you really think Roland that it would be a good thing for Sadam to have nuclear weapons?