Skip to comments.Bush Won't Take Yes For An Answer
Posted on 10/11/2002 11:44:30 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile
If anyone doubted George Bush's intention to go to war with Iraq, that doubt should have been removed when the United States said it would "thwart" the return of the arms inspectors to Iraq until it got a new Security Council resolution.
Of course, the resolution the United States wants is just a rubber stamp to start the war. It is designed to force the Iraqis to reject it and thus provide the international cover that Bush wants for his invasion.
The meeting between the Iraqis and the arms inspectors in Vienna was quite successful. The Iraqis agreed to everything. They brought four years' worth of records and turned them over to the United Nations.
It's a shame that so many of the television commentators are so ignorant that they all, with only one exception that I saw, misreported the meeting in Vienna. They kept saying the Iraqis kept the presidential palaces "off-limits." That is factually incorrect.
Hans Blix, the head of the U.N. inspectors, has made it quite clear that his organization works for the Security Council, and since the only resolutions that exist are old ones, those are the ones he must be bound by. Among those is a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1998 by the secretary general and Saddam Hussein. It says simply that before the presidential palaces are inspected, Iraq must be given 24 hours' notice, and a diplomat must accompany the inspectors. That certainly doesn't mean that they are off-limits. They are all available for inspection under the conditions the United Nations agreed to.
So, as things stand now, the inspectors can go back, all the housekeeping details have been agreed to, and they can start their work by Oct. 15. The Iraqis, so far as we know, will honor their agreement in regard to unconditional access. If the president had been sincere about his concern for weapons of mass destruction, he'd presumably be happy. Instead, he intends, if he can, to wreck the present agreements and force through an insulting, war-provoking resolution. He wants war, not inspections, and destruction, not disarmament.
By the way, another point of ignorance on the part of TV smiley faces: A couple of them seemed to think that if the president is opposed to the agreement, then it is null and void. Hans Blix works for the Security Council, not for George Bush or Colin Powell. Unless the Security Council tells him differently, he's sending his inspectors to Iraq whether Mr. Bush likes it or not.
So what is the United States going to do? Send F-15s to shoot down the U.N. plane? Without a majority on the Security Council, the United States cannot stop the inspectors from returning to Iraq. Maybe it will get a resolution, and maybe it won't. I hope the United States doesn't.
For too long the United States has bullied the United Nations, using blackmail and threats in order to win votes from little countries. We have used the United Nations when it suited our purposes and ignored it when it didn't. I, too, hope the United Nations shows some backbone and tells Mr. Bush: "Either obey international law or take a hike. And by the way, pay your back dues on the way out."
It's a fact that there has been no evidence produced that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. The worst-case scenario for Iraq is if it's really true that it doesn't have any. You can't prove a negative. If Iraq has some, it can produce them; if it does not, Iraq is out of luck. Bush and his warmongers will never believe either the Iraqis or the inspectors. Bush wants his war, and he will have it, come what may.
That's why we have a nation using the Constitution to wipe John Ashcroft's butt and giving up our fundamental rights to liberty, and abrogating our only civic duty, that is, to keep the hell out of other people's business if they don't bug us.
Israel Is a Very Costly Ally
10 October 2001
First, it is embarrassing that the government of the world's so-called last remaining superpower plays the role of the tail that is wagged by Israel, a nation about the size of New Jersey.
I too hope that the United States shows some backbone and tells the UN to pick up their toys and take their anti-American roadshow somewhere else; that the New York City Board of Health has declared the UN Building uninhabitable and that it's scheduled for demolition on Halloween.
Don't let the gangplank hit you in the a$$ on your way out.
Speaking of pukes, I assume you are including yourself in that crowd, because obviously you've never served and been at risk to be put in Harms Way, since you seem to think that young mens lives are somehow less costly than the Bombs we build.
And further, Both you and Charly whom I normally agree with are overlooking the fact that Iraq is in VIOLATION OF THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT, NULLIFYING SAID AGREEMENT; and every instance of firing on Coalition Planes in the No Fly IS AN ACT OF WAR.
GO clear out the Bong Resin, or dry out, whatever, but before you insult the men and women of this country, and it's Armed Services you might want to try shedding some ignorance...
Iraq's terror support systems will be dismantled. It can go easy or it can go hard.
First off, the votes of little countries don't matter, only the permanent 5 when it comes to the Security Council.
Second, for way too long these 'little countries' have been voting against us every chance they get, while gladly accepting our money to prop up their failed socialist experiments.
Personally, I don't care what the UN does or feels. I hope we do leave, kick them out of New York. Pay them back dues ?!?!?!?! I want to extract from them every dime they every got from us.
If Charley Reese wants to protect his conservative credentials, he should explain why he suddenly in favor of subordinating our sovereignty to a collection of third world dictatorships.
As for the Iraqi inspections, the very caveats that Reese mentions are a problem. 24 hour notice for his palaces (the size of counties) is unaceptable. ...and why should we believe Hussein this time? Everytime he promises to give the inspectors unfettered access, they get there only to find out they are not allowed access to where they really need to go.
Reese has also completely side-stepped the probability that Iraq does have WMD. He is asking us to give Hussein, who for many years actively obstructed inspections and compliance verification, the same credibility or more than we give the President. He ignores the pile of, admittedly circumstancial, evidence that indicates Iraq is working feverishly to build a nuclear bomb and further his other WMD.
Should we wait on Hussein's word, as Reese suggests, until we see a mushroom cloud in the saudi oil fields? This is not some schoolyard game where we can redo the play indefinitely because of a some cry-baby faking an injury. We have run out of cheeks to turn; he is on his 14th strike; we have bent over until we are about to kiss our own butt; this is it...no more stalling, we're going in.
Those resolutions have not worked. Why? Because they have no enforcement mechanism. A new resolution with a self-contained enforcement clause is essential because otherwise, the Iraqis will continue the whipsaw pattern of the last decade.
...and you are calling us cowardly.
It is a computer - I am not going to reach through and grab you!
I am in Texas.
From what I have heard, the servers for this board are in Kalifornia.
You are...someplace else, safely anonymous, whether you use your normal handle or create a throw-away handle to post this.
Bug us? You ignorant POS, where have you been for the last year other than face down in Noam Chomksy's lap? No wonder leftists like you have to spout this crap where you can remain nearly anonymous - in public you'd probably run into the butt kicking you really need or something like this (at least around here):
Wildey .475 Mag Pin Gun
It is really cool to set up worse case straw dogs, then tear them down with glib Constitutional and pseudo Conservative arguments.
If all of this noise is bothering the little Globalist minds such as the author and, I guess, yourself, can you imagine it's effect on Iraq and others?
The author is delusional. The U.S. has, in fact, been on the receiving end of bullying from the "small nations" in the UN - recall the recent brouhaha over the Human Rights committee - and has done little in retaliation but decline to pay its dues for a time. The UN has no backbone, basically, or it wouldn't have allowed Saddam to flout its demands for inspection (16 at last count), and certainly telling the U.S. both to leave and to pay back dues would be not an act of chutzpah, it would be an act of high comedy.
In Iraq the U.S. is doing the UN's dirtywork for it and will absorb the criticism that might better be directed that way. This isn't, of course, altruistic, inasmuch as the U.S. will be the principal target of whatever Saddam gains as a result of the failure of the UN to back up its resolutions.
Personally, I'm getting a little impatient with the attitudes the author articulates here. I wouldn't cry if Bush told them to pound sand, told Saddam he could do whatever he liked to any of his neighbors or to the EU, but face nuclear annihilation if he is even suspected of falling afoul of U.S., not world, interests, and let it all go. If the globally self-righteous don't wish to deal with that "evil madman" Bush let them have their preference and deal with the real thing.
P7M13 - thanks for the ping.......
Getting a majority on the Security Council isn't the big deal Reese thinks it is.
These votes are for sale. Russia wants support for its war against the Chechens, and repayment of Iraq's debt, and a share of the oil concessions. They have said this explicitly. France wants a share of the oil concessions. China wants our previous support for the Chinese Turks withdrawn. And so on. UN approval does not represent moral authority.
Quite the opposite. Not going to the UN means not having to bribe the Security Council, meaning that unilateral action is inherently, potentially, more moral. To get UN approval we have to mortgage Iraq's future income to the hyenas. If we go in alone, Iraq is free to make its own deals and starts with a clean slate.
But don't worry, we'll go with the UN, and everyone will get their cut.
And by the way, pay your back dues on the way out
If we pay our back dues, and then bill the UN for the cost of executing UN mandates (a decade sitting on Iraq, 7 years occupying Bosnia) I think the UN owes us money. Hey, if we get UN authorization, we can even bill the UN for the cost of overthrowing Saddam. Sweet.
A lot of people here seem to be hearing impaired and oblivious to the events of the past few weeks. The above words are straight from the president's mouth. Bush is not going half-cocked into battle. The president has appealed to the UN and there has been a debate in Congress. The Iraq issue has been thrashed out in every mainstream and non-mainstream media outlet in this country. This whine that there has been no debate or no inclusion of our allies is a pure fallacy.
There is absolutely no evidence for any of the above assertions, and they are ludicrous. In any event, nothing is stopping Iraq and the UN for doing their inspection thing while Bush ramps up for war, and if Saddam really gives the inspectors a free rein to go anywhere, any time unannounced, well no one would be more pleased than Bush, and the war won't happen. Of course the chances that that will happen are slim to none. If Saddam had nothing to hide, he would have shown off his new cleansed kitchen long ago. And Reese knows that. But Reese is a shrill and dishonest shill for the dark side. Some day he will cross the River Styx never to return.
"It says simply that before the presidential palaces are inspected, Iraq must be given 24 hours' notice, and a diplomat must accompany the inspectors. That certainly doesn't mean that they are off-limits."
No, the original title was apparently "Bush CAN'T take no for an answer" rather than "won't".
I clicked through the link supplied at the top of the article and the original title matches the one posted at the top of this thread. I prefer to do my own research on such simple matters -- took all of about five seconds.
Apparently Cyber Liberty didn't bother to check the title of the original article and chose to inject a slight-of-words deception (see his 2 post). Thus becoming blind and waiting for another blind person to follow. You know the cliché: the blind leading the blind.
I don't really see how this matters in terms of meaning but I guess if you are going to post garbage you had better be accurate.
My opinion on the article's merits is irrelevant and that's why I didn't offer one. That said, so is your opinion irrelevant to the issue of title accuracy. The point of my question to Admin Moderator was whether the person that posted the article changed the title. He didn't. He posted accurate.
The Admin Moderator in post 4 told the person that posted the article to use the original title. The Admin Moderator should have directed that at Cyber Liberty because it was Cyber Liberty that implied -- by slight-of-word deception -- that the person whom posted the article should post something other than the original title.