Iraqi Minister Scolds U.N. for Inaction Regarding Hussein

CRUM · Dec 16, 2003

Certainly points out how utterly useless the UN is. Wish they'd move to anywhere but here.

LordOpie · Dec 16, 2003

I'm impressed... the minister must have gotten his speech written by Bush's top writer :devil:

CRUM · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
I'm impressed... the minister must have gotten his speech written by Bush's top writer :devil:

No matter who wrote the speech, the man made some valid points. I am no fan of our initial involvement in Iraq. I feel that Bush was bound and determined to kick Saddam's butt. And any excuse was a good one in his eyes. That does not alter the facts of Saddam's brutal leadership over the years. It also does not alter the ineffectual handling of Iraq over the years by the UN.

On the other side of odd though is the fact that some of the very people who cozied up to Saddam during Iran/Contra period are once again deeply involved, but this time in his undoing. Just reinforces my reasons to not trust a one of them or their credibility. Bush and co. can paint this a black and white, straight up operation. But IMO, it is anything but. IMO, under the facade of liberating a country, the real reasons hang there just out of sight.

fluff · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
I'm impressed... the minister must have gotten his speech written by Bush's top writer :devil:

The same thought occurred to me. He's hardly likely to come out with anything other than exactly what the current US administration would like (tell?) him to say.

DRB · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
The same thought occurred to me. He's hardly likely to come out with anything other than exactly what the current US administration would like (tell?) him to say.

This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Here is an Iraqi minister who made a statement about the lack of action by the UN in regards to Iraq and the first thing you do is discount what he says as US propaganda. Could it not be that a number (probably pretty large) of Iraqis wonder where the UN was all that time when they were suffering? Are his points not valid to him?

So if this same Iraqi made a decision about who could and could not bid on reconstruction contracts, it is not a stretch to say that you would have said the exact samething.

Again the US, and now apparently every Iraqi official, until elections are held, is in a no win situation.

fourgivn1 · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
The same thought occurred to me. He's hardly likely to come out with anything other than exactly what the current US administration would like (tell?) him to say.

Ok, this is ridiculous. There's been a BUNCH of anti-US statements, and a bunch of neutral statements, made by those same people, and nothing....yet they're puppets when they make something that seems to be in line with what you think the current US administration would like him to say? Come on. Trust me....this ONE statement is probably one out of about 2343 statements that actually DOES concur somewhat with US views. I hardly think that makes them best bed buddies with the US.

ummbikes · Dec 17, 2003

You are one post away from the magical 666 post. When you have 666 you are allowed to sin without reprocussions. Just a heads up.

fourgivn1 · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by ummbikes
You are one post away from the magical 666 post. When you have 666 you are allowed to sin without reprocussions. Just a heads up.

Really?

Well, in that case, uhm.....*bang* you're dead.

This no retribution stuff is the bomb.

CRUM · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Really?

Well, in that case, uhm.....*bang* you're dead.

This no retribution stuff is the bomb.

This advantage of no retribution is only valid as long as you do not post message #667. Stop now and forever be without guilt. Open your mouth again and it's back in the sin pit with the rest of us.

ummbikes · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Really?

Well, in that case, uhm.....*bang* you're dead.

This no retribution stuff is the bomb.

Sheesh murder is so pedestraian; when I was at 666 me, J-Lo and Cathernine Zeta-Jones spent a month in Vegas gambling and buying hookers.

llkoolkeg · Dec 17, 2003

Never again, eh? That's what we heard after the holocaust, but whether it be Iraq or Bosnia or Liberia or wherethefvckever, the inaction of blustery bureaucrats and professional fence-sitters persists while people are being brutalized and stacked in shallow graves by the thousands. I frankly think it's disgusting that people here as everywhere STILL protest the deposing of Saddam as if anything other than an outright invasion would have succeeded. Hell, WITH an invasion, a huge bounty on his head and an occupation, it STILL proved enormously difficult to capture him. But God forbid we give Dubya an ounce of friggin' credit for taking decisive action. He's dumb! He's a Republican! I don't agree with his policy on _____! Ya know what- who gives a fvck? He DID something while all the Monday morning quarterbacks sat on there ass as more people died. "Well, let's give sanctions more time to work," cried the hippies and liberals. Easy for them to hide behind their lofty mantle of "I'm anti-war" when it wasn't their relatives being murdered for kicks. Grow the fvck up. Every war is political and largely based on money and power. That is no excuse for looking the other way. How pitiful that removing a genocidal tyrant from power can only be viewed as positive based on your particular political bent. Damned if I wouldn't have given Bill Clinton credit for dumping Saddam had he been interested in anything other than improving his approval ratings.

LordOpie · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Damned if I wouldn't have given Bill Clinton credit for dumping Saddam had he been interested in anything other than improving his approval ratings.

Let's not make this partisan cuz you know darn well that Bush invaded more for US approval than for the good of the Iraqi people.

However, the UN does need to get off their collective asses and be more proactive in the world instead of just being, what appears, a b:tch cirlcle.

llkoolkeg · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by LordOpie
Let's not make this partisan cuz you know darn well that Bush invaded more for US approval than for the good of the Iraqi people.

However, the UN does need to get off their collective asses and be more proactive in the world instead of just being, what appears, a b:tch cirlcle.

Opie, I'm not being partisan. I dislike politricks altogether. I just happen to believe that SOME things in this world should be more important than politics. Can't we at least agree that certain crimes are horrible enough to demand a suspension of partisanship and the uptake of immediate action? Is not genocide one of those crimes? Had the shoe been on the other foot, I'm sure a Democrat-sponsored invasion of Iraq would have yielded subversion from some Republicans eager to discredit the President for their own gain. No matter who is in power, the other guy is so eager to make him look bad that even the murder of thousands takes a back seat to political aspirations. Absolutely nauseating...

Silver · Dec 17, 2003

It is not the fact that we invaded that bothers me, but rather the way we did it. Bush seems to view diplomacy the same way I looked at doing math homework when I was a kid. If the answer wasn't right after 30 seconds of work, I'd close the book and go outside and play.

We could have built some consensus, gone in with a bunch of countries, and reconstructing Iraq would have been a lot easier. Instead, Bush pisses off just about everyone in the world, and invades by himself. The US is going to be there for the next 10 years, at least, without significant help from other countries.

You have to remember, Cheney and Rumsfeld spent the 80s and 90s cozying up to Saddam, I find it hard to believe that they suddenly care about human rights violations now....

golgiaparatus · Dec 17, 2003

Wheeeee!!!

Silver · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by N8
HUH???

Do you know how many countries support the US?

As of Mar 19, 2003, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

What handful of countries have we pissed off? France? Germany? Canada..???

All the major ones with the exception of Japan, I believe.

llkoolkeg · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by Silver
It is not the fact that we invaded that bothers me, but rather the way we did it. Bush seems to view diplomacy the same way I looked at doing math homework when I was a kid. If the answer wasn't right after 30 seconds of work, I'd close the book and go outside and play.

We could have built some consensus, gone in with a bunch of countries, and reconstructing Iraq would have been a lot easier. Instead, Bush pisses off just about everyone in the world, and invades by himself. The US is going to be there for the next 10 years, at least, without significant help from other countries.

You have to remember, Cheney and Rumsfeld spent the 80s and 90s cozying up to Saddam, I find it hard to believe that they suddenly care about human rights violations now....

If Cheney and Rumsfeld cozied-up while genocide was being committed, then they were at fault too. In your opinion, is there no crime against humanity egregious enough to demand immediate action? Does every single murderous rampage have to debate its way through 59 fvcking sub-committees before you will agree that something should be done? Thank God the police don't have to do the same when the stumble upon a rape in progress. I don't give a $hit what their motive or excuse was. Saddam should have been removed long, long ago.

I Are Baboon · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by N8
Iraqi Minister Scolds U.N. for Inaction Regarding Hussein
By WARREN HOGE
Published: December 16, 2003
READ MORE

Good link, N8.

Westy · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Wheeeee!!!

Although I think discussing matters such as this is important it truly is futile. There is so much political gamesmanship going on here that we may never know the motive behind what anyone has done or said.

Silver · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
If Cheney and Rumsfeld cozied-up while genocide was being committed, then they were at fault too. In your opinion, is there no crime against humanity egregious enough to demand immediate action? Does every single murderous rampage have to debate its way through 59 fvcking sub-committees before you will agree that something should be done? Thank God the police don't have to do the same when the stumble upon a rape in progress. I don't give a $hit what their motive or excuse was. Saddam should have been removed long, long ago.

No, I'm happy Saddam is gone, I just don't buy the human rights rationale. That was a PR move by the administration, nothing more.

ohio · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by N8
The #1 reason I've ever heard for the US to go into Iraq was for national security.

I'd buy moral reasons before I'd buy national security. The war was a success and many good things have come out of it (and hopefully many more will), but do you honestly feel safer as a result?

Sideways · Dec 18, 2003

I don't remember a single pre-war reason besides weapons of mass destruction.
What ever happend to that argument, anyhow?

Silver · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Sideways
I don't remember a single pre-war reason besides weapons of mass destruction.
What ever happend to that argument, anyhow?

Couldn't find any, besides a vial of botulism toxin that turned out to be Saddam's botox.

So now we "care" about the Iraqis.

valve bouncer · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by Silver
Couldn't find any, besides a vial of botulism toxin that turned out to be Saddam's botox.

So now we "care" about the Iraqis.

But man Iraq is free, what do you hate freedom???????? :rolleyes:

The USA and it's lapdogs (UK and Australia) would like to thank those bastions of freedom Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan for their unflinching support in the cause of freedom. Long live democracy

LordOpie · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Opie, I'm not being partisan.
...
Can't we at least agree that certain crimes are horrible enough to demand a suspension of partisanship and the uptake of immediate action?

Of course, there's lots of reasons to suspend partisanship... but don't appear to slam another politician to make a point cuz you sound partisan, just focus on the situation at hand.

Originally posted by N8
He did it for the security of the US first and foremost (which is the #1 reason for us to enguage our military) and then as a great by-product he toppled a murderous opressive government.

I didn't say he did it for approval more than for security reasons, I said he did it more "for US approval than for the good of the Iraqi people."

And he did it more for oil than approval. I'm just saying getting partisan, like you always do, is counter-productive and frankly, silly.

Originally posted by N8
Wouldn't be in the Dem's best interests if the body count of US troops increases between now and the election. Do you think that some Dem's a secretly hoping this would happen?

NO! But I do think that this Administration secretly helped fund and organize 9/11.

Oh, think my statement was stupid? Yeah, almost as dumb as yours.

LordOpie · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by N8
I don't know... I think it's quite possible the terrorists et al would be quite happy if Bush was voted out of office. They may perceive a Dem president as more Clinton-esque...

You really enjoy answer the question or replying to a comment that exists in your mind, huh? I reply about the politicians, you ignore it, and you go the route of the terrorists.

Do you really think that ANYONE in office even thinks in passing that it would be good for them that more soldiers got killed in Iraq?

Since you'll ignore that, I'll go ahead and reply to you... No, I don't think the terrorists think about which party is in office. If that was the case, then why provoke the US even more when a republican is in office? (like 9/11)

LordOpie · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by N8
Perhaps to attempt a regime change which could result in them achieving their goals... e.i. getting the US out of the Middle East letting it become an unstable hotbed for extreme anti-US and US Allies sentiments.

color me surprised that you continue to ignore subjects that you think you won't like the answer to.

However, your point is very valid. While I am a registered Dem. and more often vote independent, I would vote for Bush cuz I agree that a change in PotUS is a bad idea at the moment. I think you're right that any other PotUS, including another republican, might cause the region to become even more unstable.

But, you asked what do we think the terrorists think... I still think they don't think that much about such things. IF a Dem.PotUS came in and maintained the policies, I think things would remain the same. I don't think the terrorists would go, "Oh, Gore's in office, let's go bomb some more stuff!"

fluff · Dec 18, 2003

Originally posted by N8
The only two places I can recall recently where we invaded militarily in the name of human rights was Kosovo and Somilia. (sp?)

Close, Somalia.

However a cynic might say that there were other factors at work with Somalia (US business interests & oil) and Kosovo (giving NATO a role in the post cold-war world).

I'm not sure that the Somalis are any better off now than they were prior to US involvement and whilst the Kosovan ethnic Albanians are, the Serbs were 'bombed back into the stone age*' in Belgrade (a long way away from Kosovo).

It is also true that no 'ethnic cleansing' or clear-cut abuse of human rights took place in Kosovo until _after_ the NATO bombings began.

The biggest problem with believing that the US is acting for oppressed peoples is the lack of consistency of action against oppressive regimes and the abundance of alternative motives when they do act. Doesn't make either angle true but gives the doubters plenty of reason to remain suspicious.

BTW - I do think the Iraqi's are well rid of Saddam. Even if not the primary motive it is a good thing.

*quote from some senior NATO official who I cannot remember and lack time to find reference to.

DRB · Dec 19, 2003

Originally posted by fluff
Close, Somalia.

However a cynic might say that there were other factors at work with Somalia (US business interests & oil) and Kosovo (giving NATO a role in the post cold-war world).

I'm not sure that the Somalis are any better off now than they were prior to US involvement and whilst the Kosovan ethnic Albanians are, the Serbs were 'bombed back into the stone age*' in Belgrade (a long way away from Kosovo).

It is also true that no 'ethnic cleansing' or clear-cut abuse of human rights took place in Kosovo until _after_ the NATO bombings began.

The biggest problem with believing that the US is acting for oppressed peoples is the lack of consistency of action against oppressive regimes and the abundance of alternative motives when they do act. Doesn't make either angle true but gives the doubters plenty of reason to remain suspicious.

BTW - I do think the Iraqi's are well rid of Saddam. Even if not the primary motive it is a good thing.

*quote from some senior NATO official who I cannot remember and lack time to find reference to.

Somalia. God forbid anyone restore peace in that country and gets its industries going and start to provide some hope and relief for that country. That would be absolutely horrible. Having spent time in that forsaken sh!t hole of a country, they needed help and still need help it today. The presence of oil simply doesn't change that fact.

While oil MAY be there (no real estimate as ever been developed) it may also be all the geologic signs with no oil (which happens a lot). Plus all the potential oil reserves would be centered in the Northern part of the country. Mogadishu is not in the Northern part of the country.

Not even close on Kosovo. The first recorded incidents occurred in early 1998 many are suspected of happening prior to that. NATO bombing did not occur until March of 1999. While the Serbs might have increased their efforts in slaughtering folks in Kosovo during that time it wasn't like it was a new thing to them and its not like they weren't going to do it anyway. Once the airstrikes ended, NATO and UN peacekeepers almost immediately moved into the areas in question after the air strikes were halted. As for bombing Belgrade while the action was in Kosovo. Its called bringing the pain home. If they had focused on bombing Kosovo, the Serbs wouldn't have cared.

As for your point about lack of consistency. Other than East Timor, where in the world has there been any non-US lead effort to aggressively stop human rights violations. So while I agree that US certainly doesn't act with consistency in these matters, at least they act. Tyrants are not typically talked out of doing their bad deeds, normally it takes a swift kick to the a$$ to get them to see the error of their ways.

It has been said by me, you and many before, it doesn't really matter what the US does folks are going to condemn its actions. Even in this very thread the Iraqi foreign minister has simply been dismissed as a puppet, when in another thread you said that the US should allow the Iraqis to choose the companies contracted to rebuild.

Iraqi Minister Scolds U.N. for Inaction Regarding Hussein

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

MOTHER HEN

Monkey

Monkey Turbo

unemployed bum

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Monkey

Monkey

Don't mess with the Santas

Ranger LL

MOTHER HEN

Ranger LL

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

find me a tampon

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Out of my element

find me a tampon

Ranger LL

The Full Dopey

the teste

find me a tampon

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

The Fresno Kid

Monkey

find me a tampon

Master Dildoist

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

MOTHER HEN

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

MOTHER HEN

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

MOTHER HEN

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey Turbo

unemployed bum