Date: 4/30/2003 11:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 13283
The United Nations did not work . The United States justified its need to bend a few rules . Saddam is a madman and he needed to be eliminated immediately . I heard they found canisters/barrels of mustard gas . This justified what the Prez did . Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ! Razzy aka  |
Date: 4/30/2003 12:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Enki here is something to think about. Sure we broke UN sanctions and went into Iraq without their approval. Yet you forgot to mention the reasons why the UN told us no. It couldn't be that they are scum of the earth and have been selling weapons and chemicals to a man that lines his own people up and kills them in mass amounts could it? So now what I would like to see out of you is ALL of the things that other leaders are bound by and have sworn to uphold in front of their people, and all of their violations pointed out. If there is one thing that can be said for the United States, at least we didn't hide it. We told them to their face, to heck with ya we are going in anyway. We didn't sneak attack and surprise it on everyone. Seems the other countries felt that their blatant violations of UN policy rendered a bit of secrecy. Let's not start with calling the kettle black here. Everyone else is up to their highballs in FAR WORSE legal activity breaking those sanctions.  |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
that was supposed to say eyeballs not high balls..LMBO! |
Date: 4/30/2003 12:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
The UN just re-elected Cuba to it's Human rights council. I wouldn't brag about following the UN rules.  |
Date: 4/30/2003 12:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Royal, all instances of findings of suspected WMD so far have come back negative after further testing. That isnt the issue here. The real issue is Bush breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution and the reasons why other nations didnt rush off to war against Iraq. The United Nations didnt fail, it has clauses and means to settle disputes between signatory nations who are members. Bush didnt get his way so he chose to put the United States in violation of the UN Charter and he broke his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States by pursuing the reckless course he has set the US upon. Enki  |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Also, countries like France, Russia and China were more concerned about oil contracts and money Iraq owed them. They didn't give a fig about Iraq or it's people. What is the point in making excuses at this point, even after the war is all but over as to whatever the reason Canada did not participate. At this point I have to ask..Who cares???. Turns out the US, Britian and Australia can get things done alone. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Az, just a reminder, it was the US who put Saddam in power, it was the US who supplied him with the equipment to build his armies, it was the US who helped him build his WMD as well as a couple other nations. Also if these allegations of Saddam lining up his people and killing them in MASSIVE ammounts were true You can be sure that the US would have located the mass graves and used that to try to justify thier actions. Last I saw there are over 56 United States companies who are in violation of breaking sanctions by selling stuff to Iraq that they shouldnt have. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Oh good Kelly, glad to hear it. Maybe they will do somehting about the 600 plus POW's being held in Guantanimo Bay. I understand that one of those prisoners is only 13 years old. Goodness its been a year and a half now they have been holding them, surely the interoggations are over by now and they got the information they wanted. Does the US plan on holding them for the rest of thier lives? |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
I'm sure this has nothing to do with WHY Canada didn't fight: The Western oil company with the closest ties to the late Saddam is France's TotalFinaElf. That's not the curious fact, that's just business as usual in the Fifth Republic. This is the curious fact: "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter." Let's see if I've got this straight: TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chrétien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board. For months, the anti-war crowd has insisted that "it's all about oil," that the only reason the Iraqi people were being "liberated" was so that the second biggest oil reserves in the world could be annexed in perpetuity by Dick Cheney and Halliburton and the rest of Bush's Texas oilpatch gang. Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian Prime Minister -- that's to say, his daughter, France Chrétien, and his grandchildren. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Kelly, fo course Russia, France and China were concerned about thier oil contracts being honoured after UN sanctions are lifted. Thier economies are dependant on those contracts being honoured. As for thier concern for the people of Iraq they were letting the United Nations take care of that situation that is why the countries of the world formed the United Nations in the first place. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Enki they DID find Mass graves in northern Iraq. Just an FYI |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
You mean, just as the UN took care of the situation for the past 12 years? By letting Saddam and gang line there pockets with money from the food for oil program that was suppose to help the Iraqi people?? Lord, if I'm ever in trouble, Please don't call the UN. I'd hate "help" like that |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
No Az, the reason we didnt go is because Canada is a civilised nation and a signatory to the UN Charter and we were honoring our pledge to the UN. By the way we did have soldiers in Iraq fighting alongside the US troops. Not very many admittedly but there were some. As for Chretien having a family member in the oil business, big deal. Everyone thought that the US was going in to locate WMD not to shred existing oil contracts. I dont think that Chretien sat down and said, WHOA, the US is going into Iraq and they are going to tear up the oil contracts, on the contrary. I think Chretien sat down and said hey we have pledged the nation to honour the UN Charter and if the UN Security Council does not give approval for action against Iraq then we will not go. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
"Big Deal"?? LOL. Enki, I thought you LOVED a good conspiracy?? Or is it only when the United States is involved?? |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:42:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Kelly, the money obtained in the oil for food program was held in escrow by the UN. 5.6 Billion dollars was spent on food, medicine and medical equipment and approved for delivery to Iraq. It was the United States who held up shipment in Kuwait and would not permit it to be delivered to Iraq. None of that money made it into the pockets of Saddam or any of Govt. people. |
Date: 4/30/2003 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
What about the matter of the previous UN sanctions and mandates requireing Iraq to not only disarm but to Prove that it had disarmed. The option to use force was also included in the original cease fire agreement with Iraq after the first Gulf war. Iraq was and has been in violation of UN disarmament mandates for over a decade. One take on this situation would be that the US and Britan were the only nations to to enforce the previously agreed upon sanctions and mandates against Iraq. That would put non participating countries in violation of their UN agreements would it not?  |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Az, its no surprise that they have found mass graves in Northern Iraq. Afterall the Iraqis fought an 8 year war with Iran followed by Gulf War1 followed by Turkish battles with the Kurds followed by the present invasion. Chances are there will find some mass graves since a few million have died there in those wars, it doesnt mean they were lined up and executed. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Thank You Bcar that was my next comment...LOL. and I believe that it was Kelly that pointed out Canada's stake for staying out of this war, Enki, not I. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Show me the proof that we held up shipments. Where can I find this article or documents?? |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:52:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Nope not at all Bcar. Sanctions were put in place pending Iraqs disarming. They disarmed and prepared a full accounting to the UN in a 12,000 page report. That report was seized by the US who promptly removed 8,000 pages and submitted the rest to the UN. 8 Years of UN inspections proved that Iraq had complied. Now the US is in there again and still no WMD have been found. I suppose they will plant some though, maybe not though. They got the oil fields and that is what it was all about in the first place. By the way, since 1998 using Depleted Uranium munitions is against the UN charter as is the use of cluster bombs both of which were used by the States in this present invasion and Bush still broke his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 12:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Kelly, I dont know if I can find that article again, I read that over a month ago and dont remember which news service mentioned it. I also dont know if it would still be posted on the website where I read it. I'll take a quick look later when I have time but cant make any promises. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
The very fact that none of the sanctions were lifted (and are STILL not lifted), and none of the mandates recognized as satisfied by the UN would indicate to me that Iraq was considered in violation. And last fall were UN inspectors allowed back into Iraq after being thrown out 4 years ago. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Enki the sanctions are not only to disarm WMD. They were firing missles that they were told they could not have and we found chemical weapons DRUMS of them, that again they were not supposed to have. Furthermore there is reputable evidence from conversations infiltrated that there is more that we haven't found that were definately moved so the inspectors wouldn't find them. One of his son's right hand men is sitting in the U.S and working with intelligence agents on the capabilities and mind sets of these individuals and has testified to the attrocities he has witnessed. There have been others who have worked in his regime that know and helped to transport these weapons that we have caught. It's not a matter of IF he has them, we KNOW he has them, it's a matter of where he hid them and what country is covering for him. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Yes BCar they were allowed back in and left again on thier own accord just prior to the commencement of yet more US bombings. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Part of the oath of office also states that the President shall not only defend and obey the constitution of the United States but to protect it's citizens. Treaties made with organizations that have become corrupt and dominated by governments hostile to the U.S. and it's people are not in it's best interest. The UN itself has violated it's own charter by selectively condeming and enforcing human rights violations and acts of agression without consistancy. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
The very fact that some Nations did not paticipate or offer support for the action in Iraq stands on it's own. Attempting to take some belated high moral ground of not violating their UN charter is just a smoke screen for the fact that they chose not to paticipate for their own political, economic, and national self interest. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Az, the missles they fires were initially reported to be scuds and that was poudly announced in US media. As it turned out they were not scuds but a different type of missle with a range below the 120 KM range which was acceptrable under the sanctions. The barrels which were found with mysterious substances in upon later testing indicates that it wasnt WMD afterall. There have been no WMD discovered yet despite new reports every few days that they might have found some. Tests and follow up tests every single time have resulted in negative results. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:16:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
So what are You saying Bcar, Has Bush pulled the United States out of the United Nations? Did he pull the States out before he began the bombing? If so then what business is it of the US in enforcing a UN resolution if the States is no longer a member of the UN. Im sure that at the time the bombing began once again that the States had not issued a formal declaration of giving up its seat at the UN which means that they are still in violation of the charter and that Bush broke his oath to uphold the Constitution. Im peach him now! |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Nonsense Bcar. Nations did not participate because they are civilised and were pursuing the matter within guidelines agreed upon by many nations of the world. Everything was going fine. Saddam had destroyed his WMD, inspections had resumed once again, Iraq was being very cooperative, Saddam even emptied his jails in a general amnesty, and no WMD had been found nor any new fascilities to create those WMD. Bush and Blair however produced some forged documents as thier proof and justification to go into Iraq but they were just forgeries. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:23:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Bcar, refusing to take part in a criminal action and violate oaths taken is nothing to be ashamed of, rather it shows integrity and honour to say no to participating in a crime that results in countless deaths of civilians and the theft of another nations natural resources which is what this whole invasion was really about. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
What is more to the point is that the UN itself has become corrupt and irrelevant and has not taken steps to enforce it's own mandates. There was no security council resolution condeming or forbidding the actions by the United States. The UN is not crying out that the US has violated it's charter. The first step in an impeachment proceeding is evidence, and lacking ANY type of UN submission that the US is in violation there is no cause and no evidence to warrant impeachment. |
Date: 4/30/2003 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 59163
i hope the US pulls out of the UN. its a waste of time anyways. what has the UN ever done for us? or the rest of the world for that matter  |
Date: 4/30/2003 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
The UN is a joke and everyone knows it except you Enki...Just like Cuba being given a spot on the UN's Human Rights Committee, LOL. "Allowing Cuba to stay on the Human Rights Commission is like honoring Saddam Hussein with the Nobel Peace Prize," said Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley. Yea, the UN is a joke...
 |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
Until you can convince the UN to declare the US in violation of it's charter I'd say your call for impeachment is the nonsense here Enki. |
Date: 4/30/2003 1:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 50435
Here's a little history lesson: The US didn't join WWI until 1917. What year did that war end in? The US stayed out of WWII until it was well underway. They made fat cash sending goods to Britain. The US has ALWAYS looked out for itself first, which is understandable. That's the idea with running a country, granted. But don't EVER start moaning about how other countries aren't supporting your war effort when you've proven in the past that you wouldn't have helped them out had it not been in your best interest to do so. Have you ever heard Saddam or Bin Laden say that they hate Canadians?...  |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Bcar why bother after all we Americans weren't civalised enough to stay on our side of the fence like some other countries. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Ahh, but they did take action. They imposed sanctions, they put inspectors on the ground in Iraq and spent years searching for those WMD. There was also no resolution permitting the US to once again go into Iraq. The Un has nothing to do with any impeachemnt process within the US. That is an internal matter for the US to pursue but I doubt they will. There are however a couple investigations going on within the us looking into that possibility. One was requested by Jay Rockefeller himself. There are also a couple investigations going on in Brussels to consider war crime charges against Bush and Blair. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:34:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Dagon, the UN was set up as an alternative for all Nations who wish to participate in the pursuit of settling of international squabbles in a more civilised manner than world wars. The US loved the idea and promoted it. The US has been a member for 58 years, if it was so terrible they should have pulled out long ago. That they didnt says that they thought membership worthwhile that is until Bush Jr. came along. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
GallyTuck makes a proper point and I'm not bemoaning anyones lack of participation. Only if that lack of participation is based on the reluctance to violate their UN Charter as this post suggests. National leaders bend to the will of their constituents and national self interest. Just stand up and say so. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
The UN doesnt have to declare the US in Violation Bcar, its very plain to see just by reading the various articles and sections listed in the story above. Im sure we havent heard the last from the UN in this matter, give it time. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:44:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
King, Im very surprised that You would say something like that. The UN was set up with noble purpose and the US was a huge promoter of the idea. She has been a member for 58 years. If it was such a joke then the US should have pulled out long ago. The UN has done many wonderful things over the years and prevented much blooshed and wars. If You think that is a joke then perhaps You should go take a look at some of the things the UN has done like humanitarian relief, disease prevention, education for children of impoverished nations, food for the hungry. Do You really think that all those things are a joke? |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Gallytuck, Refresh my memory, who paid to rebuild Europe? Not the United States, who didn't start the war, was it? And if I remember right, we didn't require the Brits to repay everything they owed for the equipment we supplied to them in the years proceeding our involvment in the war. Go ahead and justify Canada's stand any way you want if it makes you feel better, but don't rewrite history. |
Date: 4/30/2003 1:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 53836
thanks for taking the time to pass on this info... I always felt that Bush just wanted to get into office to start war...this sounds about right!  |
Date: 4/30/2003 1:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
If we entered into a treaty that hampers the Commander in Chief's ability to protect and defend the Constitution, then it was probably unconstitutional to have entered into the contract in the first place.  |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
The only thing the UN is good as is starving children instead of deposing dictators, Enki. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Well said Gallytuck. I suppose the US, Britain and Australia wanted all nations to participate in this invasion not because they needed any militairy help but rather because they didnt want to stand there ashamed and dishonoured all alone. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:55:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Gee Slappy I thought UNICEF was set up to feed kids and had been collecting money since the 1960's for that purpose. |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 1:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
The bottom line in this discussion is that the US is still a member of the UN and is clearly in violation of that chrater. This results in Bush being in violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. I dont care to discuss this any further cause I have better things to do than to reply to stupid comments like the UN starves children. Bye for now. Enki |
|
Date: 4/30/2003 2:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 61928
How many people starved during Oil for Food? UNICEF's a nice thought, but doesn't have any real control over the food, Enki. Nice try though. |
Date: 4/30/2003 2:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 15228
Actually, I was partly wrong. I knew we gave military equipment under a program, just couldn't remember the name of the program until I did a google search. It was called lend-lease..A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease. The money went to 38 different countries with Britain receiving over $31 billion. Over the next few years the British government repaid $650 million of this sum...So the Brits did pay part of what they owed
|
|
Date: 4/30/2003 3:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
What?? Enki took his ball and went home?? Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force and the UN passed it....everyone knew it meant "FORCE" even if they wont admit it... |
Date: 4/30/2003 4:12:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Hi Kelly, I found that story that mentions the billions of dollars in food held up by the US. The story is titled Searching for a Christian response to War; Iraq;A call to repentance and resistance by Theodore McDowell the link is http://www.counterpunch.org/mcdowell02122003.html
It is a very long article so I will paste a couple of the key paragraphs here for You.,,,,,,Even government officials of Britain and the US have criticized the destructiveness of the program. In 1999, 70 members of Congress signed a letter to President Clinton calling for and end to sanctions and "infanticide masquerading as policy." In 2000, the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development issued a report which sharply criticized Britain's sanctions policies in Iraq.
Despite the intense pressure against the broad economic sanctions, Britain and the US have refused to consider any lifting of the sanctions. The effectiveness of the oil-for-food program has been undercut by the British and US intentional policy of placing holds on goods and blocking contracts. As of July 19, 2002, at least $5.4 billion in contracts were on hold.
While the US has actively sustained the sanctions program through its power and veto on the Security Council, public statements by US and British officials have ranged from denial to callous political calculations. Brian Wilson, Minister of State at the British Foreign Office, told the BBC on February 26, 2001: "There is no evidence that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people." In 1996, during an interview on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright, then US Ambassador to the UN, was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died is the price worth it." Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it."
|
|
Date: 4/30/2003 7:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 58681
Thanks for this interesting post full of well researched facts. |
|
Date: 5/1/2003 6:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 59163
the US runs the UN. we practically are the UN. without the US backing up what the UN says it is nothing. look at the other nations in the UN. weak african nations that cant feed their own people, and europeans and asian nations that cant agree with each other in their own regions let alone the rest of the world. the UN is a figurehead which the US works through. we made the decision not to work through the UN this time, but as a powerful and soverign nation. the UN is a waste of my tax dollars and always has been. |
|
Date: 6/8/2004 12:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 11528
Yeah dagon, then why is the US sucking up to the UN to come and bail them out the mess they created in Iraq now huh? |
