The coward , dumb Bush

News just came in: Bush and his puddle still dreaming of being a world power Blair and their little puppy who just wants to be in the news Aznar have just declared not to bring in the 2nd resolution.

so after announcing last week that he would definitely bring in the new resolution to vote to see how everybody will vote , now he says he wont.

Now he is blaming france for their veto threat.
He damn well knows that he would have never had a majority in the Security council anyways.
and Russia and china both said they would veto an ultimatum.
so this is all perfect for Bush. He has his scapegoat( france). He avoided the embarrasement of not getting the 9 votes needed and he can start the war with Iraq as soon as possible.

PS: The USA will start bombing Iraq on the DUSK of sunday 23 of March 2003.
what better way to start the spring!!!!

[CrashTester]

You are boring. Lets get this war ON.

personally i think 1am tomorrow is a good time
(thats when BBc 24 said there would be a press release)
which is around 8pm us time(when bush is during a press release)

which oddly enough falls at dawn in iraq
just the perfect time for an attack

so all in all we should be ****ed by tea time tomorrow

[Ste]

I have to say that France are being very stupid.
By saying "We will Veto anything" they give Bush a reason to not go to the UN.
In Bush's words "They showed their cards too early"

In no way does it justify a war now though.

[Amoruso]

C'moan the goldfish !

[Amoruso]

BRING IT ON

[Judge]

Resolution 1441 states that "Serious consequences will result if Iraq fails to comply"

A previous resolution (886? possiby) states that "Any and all means will be employed to dissarm Iraq, should it fail to comply"

At the end of the last war, Iraq agreed as part of the ceasefire agreement to disarm.

As Iraq is in material breach of both the above resolutions, and has failed to disarm in the 12 years since the last conflict, The US and UK and others are fully and legally entitled to take appropriate action.

France, Germany, and Russia, have taken it upon themselves to remove the UN from the negotiating table. France in particular by taking the position that it will use the martini veto has made sure the UN cannot even discuss the situation to produce a viable alternative.

This is not a failure of the US and UK, it is a failure of the UN to back up it's own resolutions with credible action.

Had France et al, taken a more reasonable position, and been prepared to discuss a timetable, whilst at the same time having a credible course for action to be taken, the US/UK alliance would have had to listen, whilst ever it says NON, there is no point in even talking about the situation let alone putting forward a resolution that will fail.

If the US and UK had proceeded to a vote on a new resolution and been defeated, what message would that send to Saddam Hussien about the UN?

[Zword]

BUSH = n00b

man he is such a sucker. Only wants to start what his little freaking father couldn't finsish >

[Sub]

I really don't understand how he isn't complying. He's been giving reports on Anthrax and VX gas.

He's even been destroying those missiles that were like 5km over the allowed range.

Yeah, he sure isn't disarming.

[Starbucks]

oh great

im gonna email my MP and ask him to call for a vote of no confidence over Tony Blair

This stupid, no second resolution, not even a TENTH of the british conflict want war without that

/me thinks of countries to move to

Finland and canada seem

[Ste]

originally posted by judge

However isn't there something in the original UN charter that says that any use of force must be specifically endorsed by the UN security council?

Like I said, France ruined any chance of postponing the war but that does not mean the war is justified.

And why should the US choose which UN resolutions to carry through and which ones to ignore?

[Judge]

Originally posted by Sub
I really don't understand how he isn't complying. He's been giving reports on Anthrax and VX gas.

He's even been destroying those missiles that were like 5km over the allowed range.

Yeah, he sure isn't disarming.

He is not complying, as he has not given a complete and accurate account of all of his wmd's, chemical, and biological agents that he is known to have.

1 example:-
10,000 Kilo's of Anthrax are unaccounted for

[Amoruso]

Originally posted by Judge
He is not complying, as he has not given a complete and accurate account of all of his wmd's, chemical, and biological agents that he is known to have.

1 example:-
10,000 Kilo's of Anthrax are unaccounted for

Surely not, Surely the token destructions of al-samoud missiles and accounting for a fraction of the anthrax and various wmd's he has should be enough.

[Sub]

The inspectors need months to sort all of this out. How do you expect them to cram months of work into a fortnight or whatever period Bush says they have?

Besides, the burden of proof should lay on Bush, not Saddam. Unless he's willing to accept that Pearl Harbour was not a cowardly act and was a valid strategic move.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Judge

1 example:-
10,000 Kilo's of Anthrax are unaccounted for

And where did that come from?

surely if the inspections are working, albeit slowly, they should be allowed to carry on?
Why is there such a rush to war?
It's obvious that Bush doesn't see war as a last resort as there are so so many other ways to try first.
I liked France's original idea of having troops backing up the weapon inspectors. That could've worked.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Ste
However isn't there something in the original UN charter that says that any use of force must be specifically endorsed by the UN security council?

Like I said, France ruined any chance of postponing the war but that does not mean the war is justified.

And why should the US choose which UN resolutions to carry through and which ones to ignore?

Yes the UN charter specifically states that war has to be endorsed, yet prior resolutions have endorsed war, it is just that they were not acted upon for political reasons. (They may now be invalid?)

I agree, justification is very hard at this stage, but I have no doubt at all, that once the US/UK do go in, they will uncover a vast array of illegally held weaponry, and the means of manufacture. Hopefully there will be credible witnesses available to this? Otherwise people (France etc...) may claim it was planted evidence.

The US, does not need to chose which resolution to follow, it can do as it pleases in regard to taking action against what it considers a viable threat.

The UN route was pursued by the UK government in the vain hope that it would gain support from other European allies.

[Aryn]

Originally posted by Starbucks
Finland and canada seem

rawr :P
except that apparently canada may be targetted during the war... antarctica sounds fairly safe..

Originally posted by Judge
Resolution 1441 states that "Serious consequences will result if Iraq fails to comply"

A previous resolution (886? possiby) states that "Any and all means will be employed to dissarm Iraq, should it fail to comply"

At the end of the last war, Iraq agreed as part of the ceasefire agreement to disarm.

As Iraq is in material breach of both the above resolutions, and has failed to disarm in the 12 years since the last conflict, The US and UK and others are fully and legally entitled to take appropriate action.

France, Germany, and Russia, have taken it upon themselves to remove the UN from the negotiating table. France in particular by taking the position that it will use the martini veto has made sure the UN cannot even discuss the situation to produce a viable alternative.

This is not a failure of the US and UK, it is a failure of the UN to back up it's own resolutions with credible action.

Had France et al, taken a more reasonable position, and been prepared to discuss a timetable, whilst at the same time having a credible course for action to be taken, the US/UK alliance would have had to listen, whilst ever it says NON, there is no point in even talking about the situation let alone putting forward a resolution that will fail.

If the US and UK had proceeded to a vote on a new resolution and been defeated, what message would that send to Saddam Hussien about the UN?

France , russia and germany were for a timetable.
what they demanded was that the inspectors should set that timetable and it should be the inspectors who would decide step by step what iraq would have to do and the inspectors should decide if iraq had complied with those demands.
They damn well knew that bush would say that iraq isnt complying no matter what saddam did.
Of course bush did not get on boat with that deal because it would have meant that he couldnt have the resolution he wanted to start the war.
It was the US that desperately demanding an ultimatum against Iraq. they did not have a majority for that resolution. Not even countries that are highly dependant from the US (mexico, chile) were oing to support such a resolution.
Blaming france for the UN fiasco is laughable.since russian and cina were going to veto too and
Its bush and his dogs (blair and aznar) who pushed for this and deliberately sabotaged the UN.

Originally posted by Judge
Yes the UN charter specifically states that war has to be endorsed, yet prior resolutions have endorsed war, it is just that they were not acted upon for political reasons. (They may now be invalid?)

I agree, justification is very hard at this stage, but I have no doubt at all, that once the US/UK do go in, they will uncover a vast array of illegally held weaponry, and the means of manufacture. Hopefully there will be credible witnesses available to this? Otherwise people (France etc...) may claim it was planted evidence.

The US, does not need to chose which resolution to follow, it can do as it pleases in regard to taking action against what it considers a viable threat.

The UN route was pursued by the UK government in the vain hope that it would gain support from other European allies.

Now wait a minute, the inspectors were in there for over 3 months had acces to everywhere and anywhere and couldnt find a damn thing.
why do you expect that the US will find something?????

[Judge]

Originally posted by Ste
And where did that come from?

surely if the inspections are working, albeit slowly, they should be allowed to carry on?
Why is there such a rush to war?
It's obvious that Bush doesn't see war as a last resort as there are so so many other ways to try first.
I liked France's original idea of having troops backing up the weapon inspectors. That could've worked.

It came from Toni Blair last night during the Press Conferance in the Azores.

France's idea was that action would never be taken.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Judge
Yes the UN charter specifically states that war has to be endorsed, yet prior resolutions have endorsed war, it is just that they were not acted upon for political reasons. (They may now be invalid?)

I don't think they specifically endorsed war, just said serious consequences.

I agree, justification is very hard at this stage, but I have no doubt at all, that once the US/UK do go in, they will uncover a vast array of illegally held weaponry, and the means of manufacture. Hopefully there will be credible witnesses available to this? Otherwise people (France etc...) may claim it was planted evidence.

uncover... I have said before and I'll say it again - I would not put it past them to plant evidence to make themselves look like hero's. In fact I hope they will have credible witnesses too as if those fears come to light then who's to say who will be next.

The US, does not need to chose which resolution to follow, it can do as it pleases in regard to taking action against what it considers a viable threat.

Iraq... a threat??? that is a complete insult to everyone's intelligence. I do not believe that either the US or the UK actually think that Iraq is a threat. Of course there is the whole terrorist link that is unproven, but I still don't think that is any risk for the near future. Inspections can help avoid it.

The UN route was pursued by the UK government in the vain hope that it would gain support from other European allies.

But as Bush has always made it clear that he couldn't care less about the UN, it kinds of makes everyone a bit unnerved by his actual motives.

Why is it that very few countries actually think this war is a good idea? and don't insult people's intelligence by just saying 'They're stupid'.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Judge
It came from Toni Blair last night during the Press Conferance in the Azores.

France's idea was that action would never be taken.

I meant where did the anthrax come from. and was a rhetorical question because everyone already knows the answer.
And I'm talking about France, Germany and Russia's original plan.
Not the one since Pres. Chirac realised he has the highest popularity he's ever had since opposing America. Yes, I question his motives too.

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Now wait a minute, the inspectors were in there for over 3 months had acces to everywhere and anywhere and couldnt find a damn thing.
why do you expect that the US will find something?????

That is the whole problem, they did not have access to everywhere and everything.

Iraq failed at the first stage of the inspection with it's original declaration. It failed to give a full account of all it's weapons, it failed to give account of it's stockpile of nerve agents, it failed to give account of it's biological stockpile.

It would not be possible for the inspectors to have access to everywhere and everything considering that not everything was declared in the first place.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Ste
Iraq... a threat??? that is a complete insult to everyone's intelligence.

I said it is what the US percieve as a threat, not that I agree with it, nor find the answer they give credible.

Originally posted by Ste

Why is it that very few countries actually think this war is a good idea? and don't insult people's intelligence by just saying 'They're stupid'.

I have no idea why so few countries endorse a War, perhaps if they were a bit more forthcoming with solutions rather than opposing for the sake of it, we would all be enlightened?

I am saddend by this whole sorry episode in world politics.

The Politicians have failed us all, but most of all they have failed the people of Iraq.

[Phang]

Well, Bush has had a masterstroke on redividing Europe. With the USE now so unlikely, it seems that the US won't have any credible economic rivals for the next hundred years or so.

Bush

[Danae]

Originally posted by Starbucks

/me thinks of countries to move to

France.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Danae
France.

'lmao'

[Zither]

china was probably going to abstain, russia was likely to veto and france said they would veto anything. The french position made the 6 wavering counties have second thoughts about supporting a second resolution, basically what would be the point of supporting a resolution which would be vetod.

May i remind people that the only reason any inspections are going on is because of the threat of war. The longer the inspection chrade goes on for then the more confident saddam is he can get away with it. Usa and Uk troops move out of the region, so soon after does any form of credible inspections.

France stands to lose too much business if iraq falls, russia's economy will collapse if oil prices fall beyond a certain price. (which they are very likely to in the case of a quick war and iraq occupied).

[Dante Hicks]

m.a.r.d : You hardly raise the intellectual standards by constantly referring to Bush as "dumb". He's not dumb. Woo, he's said a few stupid things on camera. If I had to give a speech that I knew would be seen by a billion+ people I'd personally **** my pants. But that's another story. Many things can be said about George W. Bush, but constantly going on about how "dumb" he is misses the point.

Judge : Are you for the war or against it?

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Woo, he's said a few stupid things on camera.

If I had a Euro for every dumb thing Bush has said in public, I'd be pretty damn rich. Bush is in fact, rather dumb.

However, that is completely irrelevant to the US policy, as it isn't devised by Bush, but by the large political system working behind him. He is merely the public figure-head guy.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Judge : Are you for the war or against it?

Given the current stalemate at the UN, I see no "sensible" alternative.

What I am is pro_get_rid_of_Saddam, if that means the only way to do it is war?

Then I would have to consider I am for it, to say otherwise would be foolish.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Phang
snip/* With the USE now so unlikely *\snip

Who said it was a seroius consideration or on the agenda?

A USE would be a complete non starter with the UK, not even the Pro Europe camp would swing behind that idea with any great conviction.

[oldtown]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Now wait a minute, the inspectors were in there for over 3 months had acces to everywhere and anywhere and couldnt find a damn thing.
why do you expect that the US will find something?????

Inspectors were there after the first gulf war, it took almost 5 years until the first weapons were found and that was only after Saddams son (or son-in-law) defected and gave intel on where saddam was hiding it all......

There is no way to find all his weapons or disarm him if he wont cooperate.....South Africa wanted to disarm so we know what it looks like when there is cooperation.

Originally posted by Leshy
If I had a Euro for every dumb thing Bush has said in public, I'd be pretty damn rich. Bush is in fact, rather dumb.

However, that is completely irrelevant to the US policy, as it isn't devised by Bush, but by the large political system working behind him. He is merely the public figure-head guy.

NO and NO
that is very much relevant to US politics.
We have a dumb president who is influenced by very dangerous right wing extremist politicians like Paul wolfowitz, Donald rumsfeld and Richard Perle(also known as the lord of darkness: a name which he is proud of). These men are pulling the strings and setting the agenda and have a very stupid men that follows their advise . The situation is very very dangerous.

Every time I think about this situation, I have to think about the exellent movie about the cuba crisis(thirteen days). I remmeber in many scenes, that many advisors to kennedy pushed for an attack on cuba well knowing that it would probably cause WW3 and exterminate mankind. Thankfully kennedy resisted ther advise and found a peacefull solution.
I hate to imagine what would have happened if George W. Bush were president at that time.
I guess we all wouldnt be alive by now!!

[Reck]

Originally posted by Judge
10,000 Kilo's of Anthrax are unaccounted for

lhuh?

Originally posted by oldtown
Inspectors were there after the first gulf war, it took almost 5 years until the first weapons were found and that was only after Saddams son (or son-in-law) defected and gave intel on where saddam was hiding it all......

yu are talking about kasam hussein.
And I have to tell you that you have fallen for another
horrible propaganda .
Kasam Hussein was interviewed by un inspectors in jordan. He told them that Iraq had destroyed almost all of their biological and chemical capabilities.
This story you are telling is nothing but a fabricated lie spread by the US government. It has as much truth to it as the allegded pursuit of uranium from South Africa which turned out to be nothing but a lie fabricated by the british intelligence.
The inspectors did destroy alot of bio and chemical weapons in 91 and 92.

Originally posted by Judge
That is the whole problem, they did not have access to everywhere and everything.

Blix reported 4 or 5 times to the Un and everytime he said: we had prompt and immediate acces to all the sites we wanted to visit!!

Originally posted by Judge

Iraq failed at the first stage of the inspection with it's original declaration. It failed to give a full account of all it's weapons, it failed to give account of it's stockpile of nerve agents, it failed to give account of it's biological stockpile.

It would not be possible for the inspectors to have access to everywhere and everything considering that not everything was declared in the first place.

How do you know that???
they turned over a 13000 page long declaration.

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Blix reported 4 or 5 times to the Un and everytime he said: we had prompt and immediate acces to all the sites we wanted to visit!!


How do you know that???
they turned over a 13000 page long declaration.

How would it be possible to visit every site stated in a document that you infer they have not had time to evaluate?

Originally posted by Judge
How would it be possible to visit every site stated in a document that you infer they have not had time to evaluate?

they already had many sites on their list before the declaration from previous inspection regimes

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
they already had many sites on their list before the declaration from previous inspection regimes

Which is the point I am making, Iraq failed to deliver a comprehensive list of their banned weapons, or evidence that they had been destroyed.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
yu are talking about kasam hussein.
And I have to tell you that you have fallen for another
horrible propaganda .
Kasam Hussein was interviewed by un inspectors in jordan. He told them that Iraq had destroyed almost all of their biological and chemical capabilities.
This story you are telling is nothing but a fabricated lie spread by the US government. It has as much truth to it as the allegded pursuit of uranium from South Africa which turned out to be nothing but a lie fabricated by the british intelligence.
The inspectors did destroy alot of bio and chemical weapons in 91 and 92.

Originally posted by m.ar.d
Blix reported 4 or 5 times to the Un and everytime he said: we had prompt and immediate acces to all the sites we wanted to visit!!

You get your information from Al Queda Newsletters, don't you? my god, Blix has said repeatedly that Iraq is NOT fully cooperating. He has simply said that there is no conclusive evidence (ie smoking gun) located by the inspectors that they DO have WoMD. However, the fact that the inspectors have in at least FOUR seperate instances, located illegal weaponry, 3 of which were Chem-capable, seems to not be noticed by anyone and Blix made damn sure the last one was buried in his report while he accidently forgot to mention it in the initial brief to the UN.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Judge
Given the current stalemate at the UN, I see no "sensible" alternative.

[...]

Originally posted by Judge
I DO NOT WANT A WAR EITHER. NOT IN MY NAME EVER, ANY KIND OF WAR.

I hope that is clear.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
I hate to imagine what would have happened if George W. Bush were president at that time.

He'd probably have escalated criminal involvement in Vietnam and increased funding to dubious policies all across Latin America.

...oh.

Originally posted by Sandsnake
You get your information from Al Queda Newsletters, don't you? my god, Blix has said repeatedly that Iraq is NOT fully cooperating. He has simply said that there is no conclusive evidence (ie smoking gun) located by the inspectors that they DO have WoMD. However, the fact that the inspectors have in at least FOUR seperate instances, located illegal weaponry, 3 of which were Chem-capable, seems to not be noticed by anyone and Blix made damn sure the last one was buried in his report while he accidently forgot to mention it in the initial brief to the UN.

I did not get my information from alqaeda.
I watched the live report on cnn.
and i said immediate and prompt acces and not full compliance.
Im sorry to see that you have already indoctrinated bush`s dogma: either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

PS: I think al-qaeda is very happy to see the US attack iraq. now they have much more than they wanted. America is now seen as even more villain and is more hated than ever in the arab world .
the secular infidel saddam hussein will be removed from office. and there will be thousands of iraqee casualties which make support for alqaeda greater than ever.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
He'd probably have escalated criminal involvement in Vietnam and increased funding to dubious policies all across Latin America.

...oh.

yeah kennedy was no angel either.
But bush would have attacked cuba and doomed us all!!
Having a dumb president of the USA is very dangerous to all the people in the world

[Judge]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
[...]

Indeed, it is true to say I have been persuaded by the argument.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
He damn well knows that he would have never had a majority in the Security council anyways.

Only because when it became clear that France would veto the resolution under any circumstances, it became stupid for the wavering countries to stick their necks out by making the unpopular (but perhaps correct- the public is not always right) decision to go to war when the resolution would fail anyway.

[Geert]

I was anti-American... I have become even more so now, and I live in Belgium. Would give a penny to know what goes through the minds of the millions of Arabs atm...

[Judge]

Originally posted by Geert
I was anti-American... I have become even more so now, and I live in Belgium. Would give a penny to know what goes through the minds of the millions of Arabs atm...

Well, I bet the Americans are absolutely crapping their pants!

How dare you, how dare you declare your Anti-American, a country that shed blood to free yours from the Nazis? A country that saved yours from years of dictatorship under the rule of Hitler.

Or do you forget that, when it suits you?

[Sub]

World War 2 didn't happen. It's just a theory.