posted on September 11, 2002 01:41:35 PM new
Thursday, the 12th of September, the president is scheduled to address the United Nations and
attempt to get permission to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein.
Since most of the world is siding with Saddam Hussein, he is unlikely to get
it. In addition to the United States and Great Britain, Russia, China and
France all have veto power at the Security Council. Britain's Tony Blair
continues to be rock-solid in his support for US action against Iraq,
even though most of his countrymen oppose it.
But the other three Permanent Members are not -- all three have promised
to veto any resolution authorizing an invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Not that a veto is likely to be necessary. Bush is unlikely to get
enough votes to require one. One reader from Australia told me to 'check my
facts' regarding those nations who have given their support to a US
attack on Iraq. I checked.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he is 'satisfied' that Saddam
has weapons of mass destruction. He also said he was 'satisfied' that
Saddam must be removed because he is a threat to the world. There is
little doubt that Australia will vote with the United States at the UN,
should it come to that.
Gotta hand it to them. The Australians don't owe us anything.
What about the rest of our 'allies'? The French, for example. What do
they owe America? Well, for one thing, they aren't speaking German.
When they needed America's support, they got it. Twice. Two generations
of Americans lie buried under little white crosses all over France, from
Flanders to Normandy.
There was a scene in the movie, "Saving Private Ryan" in which a dying
Captain Miller reaches out, draws Private Ryan close, and gasps, with
his last breath, "Earn this." The Europeans have before them an opportunity
to do just that. Only the British remember that there is anything to
earn.
Huge memorials rise out of the French countryside bearing slogans like
"Lest We Forget".
They forgot.
Germany started two world wars in the last century, claiming almost one
hundred million lives overall. Not to mention the tens of thousands of
young American lives that were lost fighting German aggression.
But when it was over, we rebuilt Germany. When the Russians tried to
starve West Berlin into submission, America launched the greatest
airlift of supplies in history.
It was an American president who declared solidarity with the Germans in
1962 when John Kennedy told them in German, "Ich bin ein Berliner".
(Which means either "I am one with the people of Berlin" or 'I am a jelly
doughnut'. The Germans had no problem figuring out Kennedy's intended
meaning.)
Only seventeen years earlier, that same Berlin was our mortal enemy,
dedicated to our destruction.
But when Germany needed us, America forgot all about that.
It was another American president who proclaimed, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear
down this wall." The Wall came down.
Germany evidently forgot.
America forgot forty years of Cold War with Russia and extended the
hand of friendship to Boris Yeltsin on that Christmas Day in 1991-- mere
hours after Yeltsin told the world, "The Soviet Union, as a geopolitical
reality, has ceased to exist."
There is not a nation in Europe who doesn't owe its freedom to America.
Twice, we redeemed European freedom with American blood.
During the 1980's, America redeemed Eastern Europe from Soviet bondage
with billions of American dollars, escalating the arms race until the
Soviets spent themselves out of existence, leaving America $5.5 trillion
in debt.
The United Nations owes its existence to the United States. America
refused to join the League of Nations following World War I. The League
of Nations does not exist.
If America were to pull out of the United Nations, the UN would cease to
exist as surely as did its predecessor. And we'd have a whopping big
office building in New York City, since it was paid for with American
money on land donated by Americans.
During the Persian Gulf War, Americans shed their blood to purchase
Kuwait's freedom from Iraqi occupation and to preserve Saudi Arabia from
sharing Kuwait's fate.
Assessment:
On September 11, 2001 America was attacked. For the first time since the
War of 1812, American blood was shed on the American continent by a
foreign enemy. Wounded, hurting, bloodied and alone, we turned to our
friends and allies.
They told us it was our own fault.
A U.S. Council of Foreign Relations study found recently that, "stereotypes
of the United States as arrogant, self-indulgent, hypocritical, inattentive
and unwilling or unable to engage in cross-cultural dialogue are pervasive
and deeply rooted."
Tomorrow, President Bush will ask the United Nations for permission to
attack an enemy who, given the chance, would visit September 11th on us
again.
Russia is opposed. China is opposed. France is opposed. The European
Union is opposed. The current president of the Security Council is Syria.
After all, Saddam is only a brutal dictator who kills for pleasure, whereas
America is "arrogant, self-indulgent and hypocritical."
Help me out here. When did America surrender its right of self-defense
to the United Nations?
posted on September 11, 2002 03:23:50 PM new
The problem that I see with this article is that it glosses over the fact that we are supposed to:
a)(1) be going after the Al-Queda organization; (2)it's leadership; (3)it's members; (4)countries that house them.
b) attack all countries that will not surrender their terrorists.
Are the American People so stupid that they have forgotten this in less than a year?
Yes, according to our politicans, esp. the Republicans who constanly shove that fact down every voter's mouth.
Where does Iraq and Sadaam Heusien fit into the declared scheme by Bush & Co. just a few seasons ago?
Q. Is Al-Queda in Iraq?
A. What? Compared to countries like Pakistan, The Sudan, and Saudi Arbia, Hell No!
Q. Is the Al-Queda leadership in Iraq?
A. Iraq is Sunni, non-Fundamentalist Islam. Al-Queda is vehemently Fundamentalist Sheite Islam and won't tolerate a governement that is Sunni. The answer is pretty obvious.
Q. Does the Iraqi government have anything to do with Al-Queda?
A. Sparce reports that some training may have taken place there. This data is years old.
Q. Does Sadaam's government house and support terrorists?
A. Yes, those aimed at Isreal (and by association, America).
Now, let's turn this around into perspective:
1) Bush let the Al-Queda Leadership to leave the country in seperate settlements. The leaders betrayed their followers and we enjoyed slaughtering them. Fun!!
2) The Al-Queda Leadership is now in Pakistan and Al-Queda Main Base #2, the Sudan. NOT ONE WORD about folowing them there militarily and removing them!
So, before we decide to believe Bush's con job tomorrow with his speech, remember that the muslims would rather support a bloody, dangerous Overlord like Sadaam then to support Western Powers attacking a Muslim Leader and muslim country!
World War III? Sit back and enjoy it - it's just getting started!
posted on September 11, 2002 04:18:15 PM new
Iraq gave at least $5 million to al Qaeda. Should Iraq develop a nuke, the US can not make large deployments to the Persian Gulf. One nuke would cripple a sea task force or large ground contingent.
I heard the WWIII stuff with the last war with Iraq, as well as the cries that thousands of US servicemen would come back in body bags. It didn't happen then, it won't happen this time.
If the US needs permission from the UN to defend its interests, then we have no interests to defend.
Being a leader also means that many times you have to go alone.
Just watch after Sadam falls, France, Germany, and Russia will all be spouting off at what needs to be done with Iraq. They will all volunteer troops to police Iraq. I hope we tell them to pound sand.
posted on September 11, 2002 04:48:00 PM newJust watch after Sadam falls, France, Germany, and Russia will all be spouting off at what needs to be done with Iraq. They will all volunteer troops to police Iraq. I hope we tell them to pound sand
Unfortuntatly, the U.S. won't tell them that, but I wish we would.
posted on September 11, 2002 06:48:59 PM new
>Iraq gave at least $5 million to al Qaeda.
As compared to Saudi Arabia? The Suadis gave many millions of dollars more than Iraq has to Al-Queda. How come we don't have the interests there?
Oh! The "Nuke" thing, huh? Good thing that back during the Cold War, the Soviet Union didn't have any Nukes, otherwise we'd NEVER have been able to leave port!
Could Al-Queda/Hamas/Iraq slip their Nuke onto a sampan and do a USS Cole on a capital ship? Not likely, as Capital Ship and most Nuke Ships aren't allowed to enter hostile ports or hostile waters unless enguaging the enemy.
Sorry, you just can't make a convincing arguement FOR making an unprovoked attack on Iraq while the hypocrisy of the acts of this administration continue to shame and horrify our people.
posted on September 11, 2002 08:23:24 PM new
The problem with the US is that every 2 bit thug thinks "Uncle Sam" is "Uncle Jerk". They know they can commit virtually any atrocity and we'll do nothing. Years ago diplomacy was simpler: you were either a friend or not. It should be that way again. The French & Germans would sell their souls because they have no oil. We must impart to the nations of the world a new definition of friendship.
We KNOW who the enemy is, where he is, where he goes. Our pursuit should be ruthless. Right now, foreign governments do nothing against these animals because they are afraid of undermining their own governments. They should fear us more. The Saudi's et al, should be told, not asked, what is required. And above all we should back up our threats.
posted on September 11, 2002 08:24:29 PM new
I'm not going to copy all my replies & opinions here. If you wish to read my futher replies & rebukes, please see the same named thread under the ebay listings.
posted on September 11, 2002 08:29:00 PM new
I'm not going to copy all my replies & opinions here. If you wish to read my futher replies & rebukes, please see the same named thread under the ebay listings.
posted on September 11, 2002 08:38:30 PM new
There not unprovoked. We want (and have wanted) INSPECTIONS
All we do is go there and say 'Lets see what you got' .... when he refuses, then we FORCE our way into finding out.. if you want to call that war, then fine.
Thats all I'm saying about that. I'll just go back up to EO now.
posted on September 11, 2002 09:56:22 PM new
NearTheSea, isn't that sorta like someone coming down the street, telling you to pull your panties down in broad daylight, and if you refuse, you get shot in the face?
posted on September 11, 2002 10:10:14 PM new
From Gallup
"The recent surveys have all stressed that military action in Iraq would be taken in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but each has worded the question in a somewhat different way, which in turn has an effect on the exact pattern of responses. Nevertheless, all of the surveys show support at or above the 50% majority level:
* A Gallup Poll conducted in late August showed 53% support for "sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
* A poll just released by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows 64% of Americans favor "taking military action in Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule."
* An ABC News poll conducted in late August found 56% support for "having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power."
* A CNN/Time poll released this past weekend had 51% support for "military action involving ground troops to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."
* A Los Angeles Times poll conducted in late August showed 59% support when respondents were asked, "Do you think the United States should take military action in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, or not?"
* A Newsweek poll conducted last week found 62% of Americans in favor when asked the following question: "In the fight against terrorism, the Bush Administration has talked about using military force against Saddam Hussein and his military in Iraq. Would you support using military force against Iraq, or not?"
These support levels are at or above those for military action against Iraq in the fall of 1990"
posted on September 11, 2002 10:29:53 PM new
Ahem, NearTheSea
Please allow me to address Borillar's response.
Borillar
I will put it in another perspective for you, ok.
It's like the DEA telling you to stop your drug dealing and when you refuse they just go get a warrant and kick in your door and force you to stop and then they cart your arse off to jail. What's wrong with that?
Bush speaking at the UN is just going to get his warrant before he proceeds.
