UN refuses to protect its own mission in Baghdad

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 4:18 am

Somebody didn't take their medication, and also forgot to take off their blinders.

Yes, I agree, the WMD reason was not valid in hindsight, exactly how the "WMD bandwagoners" are presenting it.

If all you people were so sure there were no WMD, maybe you should go work for the US Intelligence agencies, since you obviously have much better sources than Russia and Britain.

Facts:

1. Information was provided by several foriegn countries on Iraq's WMD that did influence President Bush's decision to invade.
2. Saddam's snubbing of the UN Resolutions requiring accounting for WMD that he was known to have, and had used in the past.
3. Saddam's connection's with France and the UN allowed him to ignore other UN resolutions, which surely lined the pockets of several people in positions of authority, not to mention his own.

Talk about arrogance. How dare Saddam make a mockery of the UN? Oh, wait... he knew the UN was weak willed.

Edit: Other reference... see Sirtons posts.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 13, 2004, 5:03 am

You bitch about Iraq failing to proove the nonexistence of WMD while you invaded a country and killed thousands of people with no proof they existed.

Its sad we still argue about this. Only an idiot would still believe the lies about WMD being the reason for this invasion. WMD was just a means to scare people into supporting the war.

While they were using the scare tactic we heard over and over, day after day about the threat of WMD and Iraq. Iraq had not proven non-existance of WMD.

Today we have North Korea. A country we know has (most likely) or is very close to having WMD. A country we know sells military technology.

How often do we hear about WMD and North Korea and the threat it poses to us? Which is\was the greater threat, North Korea or Iraq? Even to this day when I hear WMD (much less these days thankfully as it was getting old) it is almost always in reference to Iraq.

What possible reason can you think of for this apparent illogical disparity? Why the need to rush ahead and invade when you had inspecors on the ground? Why basically ignore the threat from North Korea? I'm not proposing an invasion here either but a no result meeting every 6 months is a drastic change from the approach taken with Iraq. We couldn't wait months or even weeks while weapons inspectors were searching through Iraqi fascilities but we can wait 6 months totally in the dark between meetings with North Korea.

If you fall for the free the people and bring democracy to Iraq bullshit as the reason for the invasion (while they support just as brutal dictators in other countries) you are a bigger fool than you were when you accepted the WMD line with no proof.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 13, 2004, 5:15 am

WMDs...how about ask Iran and the kurds, since he used WMDs on em (dead bodys killed by WMDs thats not proof enough he had them at one time?) ...doesnt matter if was in 80s...he had WMDs not accounted for. Also proof in him having em read my list of intelligence organizations and countries saying otherwise.

Now why couldnt Saddam account for what happened to the rest of em after using them and we had UN resolutions after the Gulf war.....

Maybe they were destroyed in building ect....but why couldnt he show or try to show proof for 12+ years of UN no backbone BS running around like chickens with there heads cut off....

There was too much un-accounted for....its all about accountability...not if he had WMDs or not...Its about getting it tracked down(so terrorist organizations wont get ahold of it) and he was finally called out on it after 12+ years.

My logic goes more along Kerrys, GWB and Clintons logic than most of you..You people are blinded by Bush hatred---(from propaganda nazi styled minds or blinders for hating Bush)...Clinton is the one that changed US policy to oust his Regime. Kerry still says hed vote for the War.

You want to know the reason...Because GWB and John Kerry do love America and really know the problem we are facing they know more than 1000 times any of us do and cant disclose much of it...They know WMDs are unaccounted for and they may have to do operations for WMDs in other countries next term and they dont want to make it political suicide to do what they must for national security.....Hmmm how did terrorist almost kill 40k people in jordan in that terrorist plot that was spoiled.

Bottom line I dont give a rats ass if he had WMDs or not....I do care he never accounted for his known stockpiles after Gulf War I. Then I can list about 20more reasons Im glad hes gone and all worthwhile reasons to topple him for me personally.

With all the intelligence that the President saw.....It was his duty to the Constitution of the United States to protect our national security...Exspecially after 9/11...I do not understand how reasonable people can not see that point!!!!

You can yell at intelligence I can understand that, but seriously Bush had to do what he had to with the intelligence he was given throughout the world.....Id understand the situation no matter who was president whether it was Carter, Kerry, Bill Clinton, Reagan or a fat monkey.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 13, 2004, 6:01 am

On Korea bro,

Its easy they have Nukes...DING!!! Thats what happens when a country become nuclear capable..We cant do much of shit but be black mailed or ignore them or try and have multinational talks..which will lead to them getting there black mail.

Look at north koreas actions saying they will nuke other countries and us ect ect every time south korea addresses the UN north korea stands up and basically says dont mind the words of south korea they are a rogue colony....blah blah outright crazy shit.

North Korea is a prime example of why you should take military action on a (dictatorship, rogue state or state with possible ties to terrorist) before they become Nuclear capable or WMDs....Now if we do something its not worth the chance of loosing Tokyo, Soeul....Its the whole reason we spend money on the defense shield.

We have to have China be the major player here for any hope or for yet ANOTHER FKIN Dictator to die or loose power. North korea is a good example why Iraq invasion should of been done to oust Saddam and try to get WMDs accounted for with the intelligence we had. how'd the world be if Saddam had nuclear capabilities like he almost did before the gulf war till Israel bombed the french/German made nuclear plant. The guy had ambitions to acquire what he could.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 13, 2004, 6:15 am

Okay Sirton, assume I buy into your parroting of Bush's talking points for a minute. Why isn't the threat from North Korea a national emergency? This isn't a case of WMD not being accounted for. We know they have them, we have known for a long time. They don't deny they have them, they have threatened nuclear tests. We know they export military technology.

Isn't it Bush's duty to the constitution to protect your national security...Exspecially after 9/11? How has he been fullfilling this duty? I'm not even falting the basic approach to remedy it. I'm pointing out that rather than sitting down every day hammering and hammering until this threat is resolved we go 6 months at a time between any effort to resolve it. Iraq with no proof WMD was such a threat that it was neccessary to invade a country and kill thousands while North Korea with proof of WMD (nuclear to make matters worse) is a threat worthy of meetings every 6 months.

Give me a break. If I'm going to buy into your President the protector line, forced to act upon bad intelligence in Iraq due to the danger involved, then he should be freaking out about North Korea and working every single day to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue.

How many vacations has Bush taken since North Korea talked about performing nuclear tests?

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 13, 2004, 6:44 am

Well, we know that the US got WMDs, shouldnt you guys do something about your OWN stock of WMDs before invanding other countries because they MIGHT have some?

Oh wait, theyre to protect yourself, if you get attacked, right? Just like a lot of US people (including people on these boards) keep a loaded gun in the house to protect themselves against attackers.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 13, 2004, 7:00 am

Actually I agree that much more should be done about North Korea, but its still in the diplomatic process...China and North Korea will be the main players in getting it to move.

And it will more than likely stay in the diplomatic process longer and one big reason is because they are nuclear. Military option is very risky in this case unlike Iraq.

Iraq 12+ years of failed diplomatic process...was end of the rope on it. Korea still more time.

Missle Defense Shield for one is a major way Bush in particular is trying to protect our national securty with N. Korea. I do wish more was being done with North Korea I see them a bigger threat, but Iraq was one we could still really do something about. Neither you or I know all or even 10% of what is being done about N. Korea.

Anyways Im not defending Bush on Iraq...Im defending the U.S. and the Executive brance on Iraq and if any fault it was a world wide breakdown of intelligence....I seriously believe even if Gore was in Bushs position at the time....Wed of gone into Iraq. And if he didnt he should be impeached or overthrown for not protecting our national security his main obligation as President...If world wide intelligence was correct what then? I actually believe much of the intelligence is still correct? I know for a fact there are WMDs still not accounted for there is no dispute in that statement?? Really only Dean or Nader or Kucinich or Sharpton would of not gone into Iraq

Btw I never read any Republican talking points..I am a Moderate Republican..Very War hawkish, so maybe I just have a different mind set or background than you...so we just see it and some other things differently.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 13, 2004, 7:08 am

Well, we know that the US got WMDs, shouldnt you guys do something about your OWN stock of WMDs before invanding other countries because they MIGHT have some?

Oh wait, theyre to protect yourself, if you get attacked, right? Just like a lot of US people (including people on these boards) keep a loaded gun in the house to protect themselves against attackers.

Hesten

Are you seriously making such a lame arguement..?? Um something called mad dictator with these capabilities...with really no safe gaps but his mood that day in using the devices in a unstable region with a unstable gov't that is a known and proven enemy of the UN and the US(Gulf War I). Do you think every country that wishes should have WMDs then why not every freakin company to protect there assets??? ..the UN even disagrees with your comment and belief???..We have our stockpile because umm read a history book dude..Soviet union and mutual destruction defense and WWII. Also I wish WMDs would of never existed, but reality is they DO...........There is no such thing as utopia.

We have been cutting down on our stockpiles btw.

Atleast Forthe brings up good arguements like why not dealing with North Korea before Iraq? Your point is completey Huh?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2004, 11:49 am

France does not deserve a Veto they are just a tiny little minor country in the World..

haha I'd be all for France giving up their veto the day the US does as well. Both use the veto for their own good and nothing else.

Name other wars and similar situations were a new gov't was made so fast...with such a large percent of the population supporting it.

What percentage might that be? And it isn't hard to set up a puppet government. Quite easy in fact.

Sirton gets all his info straight from the White House, how can we even think about arguing against the world he sees? The world where everything Bush does is right, illegal invasions without world support is fine, and where everyone who doesn't support Bush without question is against him?

The President Bush bashers get infuriated when other justification besides WMD focus is shown for the events in Iraq.

WMDs was the reason given pre-war. When that came back to bite him in the ass he changed his tone. And you all call Kerry a waffler? You're quite amusing with the way Bush can do nothing wrong in your eyes.

If all you people were so sure there were no WMD, maybe you should go work for the US Intelligence agencies, since you obviously have much better sources than Russia and Britain.

Most of the world said there would be no WMDs found. Most of the world laughed at Powell's presentation. Most of the world refused to support your little invasion. The intelligence you had proving WMDs was ridiculous and the fact that it came from the same organizations trying to protect us is in fact quite scary.

On the whole accoutnability part.. might want to look into former Soviet Union, they can't account for a LOT of their WMDs. If you want to play that card (with the threat of terrorists getting hold of it) you might want to look away from Iraq (even though he had to get the man who tried to kill his daddy!) and to other parts of the world.

Here is a hint: A lot of people around the world consider the USA to be a larger threat to world stability and safety than terrorists. Now why is that I wonder?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 2:07 pm

Kelshara wrote:Here is a hint: A lot of people around the world consider the USA to be a larger threat to world stability and safety than terrorists. Now why is that I wonder?

I love it when people make blanket statements by using they, we, us, them etc...

Specifics please.

Quote me one official source from any government that considers the United States to be a threat to world stability.

The United States contributes more to improving world stability than any other country does.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 13, 2004, 2:12 pm

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Here is a hint: A lot of people around the world consider the USA to be a larger threat to world stability and safety than terrorists. Now why is that I wonder?
I love it when people make blanket statements by using they, we, us, them etc...

Specifics please.

Quote me one official source from any government that considers the United States to be a threat to world stability.

The United States contributes more to improving world stability than any other country does.

I support Kel's statement, as do a lot of other people. And he never said governments say that, although they probably don't have the balls to piss the US off, I'm pretty sure they feel the same way I do.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2004, 2:16 pm

I'm talking about people in general, not necesarily governments (although I have seen politicians quoted as saying they are worried about pre-emptive strikes on shaky intelligence being a huge risk in the future).

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » August 13, 2004, 5:19 pm

OMG Kelsh I think we may agree on something: Im for the US and France and Britain and Russia and China to give up the VETO power in the UN.......

That Veto power makes the UN totally useless if different interest are at stake among perm. security council countries if they didnt have opposing interest the UN would of went into Iraq and prob. Israel situation would be more stable than it is today the middle east would be more stable in general. Im no expert on the UN, but I bet some sorta percentage thing would be much better for the UN being stronger......and any country that opposes something that passes doesnt have to send money or troops to help with it.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 6:11 pm

Lynks wrote:
Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Here is a hint: A lot of people around the world consider the USA to be a larger threat to world stability and safety than terrorists. Now why is that I wonder?
I love it when people make blanket statements by using they, we, us, them etc...

Specifics please.

Quote me one official source from any government that considers the United States to be a threat to world stability.

The United States contributes more to improving world stability than any other country does.
I support Kel's statement, as do a lot of other people. And he never said governments say that, although they probably don't have the balls to piss the US off, I'm pretty sure they feel the same way I do.

Yep... rhetoric...

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » August 13, 2004, 6:18 pm

Sirton wrote:OMG Kelsh I think we may agree on something: Im for the US and France and Britain and Russia and China to give up the VETO power in the UN.......

That Veto power makes the UN totally useless if different interest are at stake among perm. security council countries if they didnt have opposing interest the UN would of went into Iraq and prob. Israel situation would be more stable than it is today the middle east would be more stable in general. Im no expert on the UN, but I bet some sorta percentage thing would be much better for the UN being stronger......and any country that opposes something that passes doesnt have to send money or troops to help with it.

Head about to explode. I agree.

Though I doubt we would have invaded Iraq. It would have been cheaper to send thousands of inspectors into Iraq for years. The bottom line would have ruled out invasion\occupation I believe unless Saddam began blocking inspectors again or we found WMD and he refused to give it up.