Rumsfeld-Is this Guy Playing With A Full Deck?

[Willow]

Willow, you just said neither Mugabe or Gaddafi have great records. Deplorable in fact.Then why appoint one to such a position of power within the U.N? I'd like to hear a rational explanation on this one.

To be honest, a rational explanation will remain unanswered and forgotten. Its far easier to surround oneself in narrow opinion and dismiss anything else as being ill-informed. Conversely, its far more difficult to consider the ramifications of war and try and work out ways of averting conflict.

Needless to say, the world is full of loose cannons who call themselves leaders. The two examples given fit into that category... as does Saddam Hussain. But lets not think that ratbags are confined to tin-pot regimes. Indeed, George Bush Jnr represents a huge threat to world peace. Sure he doesnt wear funny hats like Gaddaffi does and he even speaks English - I guess that makes him more culturally appealing to us westerners... but it doesntmean Bush isnt a head-case like the others and it don't take much to identify him as one ofthe biggest rat bags ever.

You don't want Gaddaffi in the UN? Great.... I dont know the detail of the appointment but on the surface, Iagree with you.
But if George Bush can dictate terms to the world, then why cant some other ratbag score a job in the UN...?

You're comparinga desk jobappointment to someone who has his finger on the button.

Once again, I still don't know what Gaddaffi or Mugabe has to do with an invasion of Iraq. Perhaps its a way of saying that the UN are not credible.. if thats the case then its a long bow to draw.

Quite clearly, there are those who are looking for evidence that the UN are useless and inept. They argue that the USA should be allowed to take over and do what they like. Think about that.... sounds crazy to me.
Everytime theUN disagrees with the USA, theyare undermined by way of veto and other methods thanks toUS foreign policy.... has been that way for ages.
If the US spent less time on finding fault with the UN and more timeon diplomacy, we might be able to find a way through this mess.

The bottom line is that the weapons inspectors haven't found the evidence that the USA needs to launch this invasion, but they are going to do it anyway.

Heck, I even heard some story the other day that the US satelites were tracking a couple of oil tankers which the US believed were hiding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thats really clutching at straws. The story, like the truth, evaporated within 24 hours.

IMO, war is a cop-out.... its the easy roadfor those with all the weapons and money.
Call it what you like, but thats not democracy.

 

[legend]

And what if the U.S did find the evidence of the weapons?

Enough of the what if's but you speak of diplomacy again as if it is a one way street. Has diplomacy worked in the past with Saddam Hussein and has diplomacy saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and south of Iraq?

I mean, you have the evidence in front of you that dilpomacy does not work with someone like Saddam Hussein. He will continue his muderous regime regardles of the best diplomatic efforts of the U.S, U.N or any other envoy.

Willow, it's also naive to call Saddam's regime a "tinpot". We are talking about a guy who has billions of dollars worth of oil and IMO, has the weapons of mass destruction. Just because the people are poor doesn't mean the regime is.

As for the appointment of Gaddaffi, read what you want into that but what I was trying to say is that kind of appointment only serves to undermine the U.N and as a result, a severe loss of credibility. Again, it would be like the NSW police force appointing Chopper Read as the commissioner. It's ludicrous and his position gives regimes like Iraq a sympathetic ally in a strategic position. I thought that would have been fairly obvious.

 

[Willow]

"And what if the U.S did find the evidence of the weapons?"
Sorry, is that a trick question? After many months, the inspectors havent found anything. There is no realevidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is despite the inspectors being well and truly whipped into action.

"...has diplomacy saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the north and south of Iraq?"
Sorry for the history lesson but during theIranian andIraqiwar, the Kurds supported fundamentalist Iran and waged guerilla warfare against Iraq.
In those days, the US supported Iraq and sold them weapons technology. Iraq also bought quantities of chemicals from US pharmaceutical companies... this being one reason why the USwere so surethat they couldsuccessfully findsuch weapons in Iraq.
Its been reported repeatedly that these weapons were used on the Kurds during this war with Iran.

The USA is as much to blame as anyone for Kurd's being killed. At the time,it suited the USgovernmenttoconsider the Kurds as being terrorists and this regard the USAwere allies with Iraq.

"Willow, it's also naive to call Saddam's regime a "tinpot"."
LOL... well, its pretty normal to follow up 'bleeding heart' with accusations of being 'naive'. Thanks for that...
Saddam Hussain and his backers control wealth. I don't recall ever saying otherwise. Its just that George Jnr and his backers want to take it away from him. Whether you like it or not, the essence of your statement supports the view that war is about occupying resources.

Should the US successfully occupy Iraq, who do you think the US will put in Saddam's place? A democratically elected liberator? Or another Dictator who overseers a puppet state? History shows that the USA favoursthe latter.
Through all this, there has been no mention of who is to form governmentif or whenthe US conquers Iraq.

"...it would be like the NSW police force appointing Chopper Read as the commissioner."
I reckon Chopper Read would make a great Police Commissioner... might be able to show them how its done.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that the Gaddaffi exampleshowswhy the UN shouldn't have any say in the impending invasion of Iraq. I still maintain that this long bow to draw... no, its a massively long bow to draw.

"...gives regimes like Iraq a sympathetic ally in a strategic position."
To call Libya 'a strategic position' ignores that fact that they are a sovereign state.

I'm still interested to hear opinion if at the end of the day, an invasion of Iraq is a democratic action?

 

[legend]

Willow, please read what I said again about Gaddafi. I did not mention Libya at any stage but you onlyassumed I did. I was talking about Gaddafi's position within the U.N as chairman for the commission on human rights and nothing to do with the sovereignty of Libya. Next you'll be telling me guys like Idi Amin are really peace loving individuals who are merely misunderstood.

"I'm still interested to hear opinion if at the end of the day, an invasion of Iraq is a democratic action?"

Sorry mate, no argument from me on that one. Anything Saddam has done is far from democratic so why should he expectit in return?

 

[Willow]

Its quite humourous that you have accused me of making assumptions when its the other the way around. It seems thatyou've stopped arguing points of history and geography and selected path of trying to frustrate the argument in order to win it.


For example, at no time have I advocated that any of these dictators are the good guys but you I still read this cynical comment from yourself:
Legend:"Ahh yes, that's right Saddam and Gaddafi are the good guys in all this. I forgot."
I <u>was</u> going to let that pass through to the keeper. Tell me, what does it mean? If I think George Bush is a maniac, does that mean I must support Saddam Hussain? I do recall going to great lengths to explain that I thought they are all ratbags.

Legend:"I did not mention Libya at any stage but you onlyassumed I did."
Isn't Gaddaffi the leader of Libya?
Read this:
Legend: "As for the appointment of Gaddaffi...
It's ludicrous and his position gives regimes like Iraq a sympathetic ally in a strategic position."
Tell me which country you were referring to then. If you never mentioned Libya then who is this sympathetic ally in the strategic position?

Legend: "Next you'll be telling me guys like Idi Amin are really peace loving individuals who are merely misunderstood."
Thats a bullshit argument and barely worthy of a response. According to yourself, If Idon't like US foreign policy, I must therefore support terrorists and tyrants. Not a particularly broad perspective.
I repeat again, that I do not support any of the regimes you have accused me of being sympathetic to. Its unfortunate that you persist in toting the 'you're either with or against us'line.

Look, I'm not trying to change your mind about this.. its up to the individual what they want to think and I'm sure you have your reasons for supporting a war that will bring continued misery for years to come. Furthermore, if Iraq is invaded and conquered, we will see terrorist cells popping up all over the place. I think it was saidthat war with Iraq will create 100 Osama bin Ladens. War breeds extremism.... on both sides. But once again if you think this is acceptable colateral then thats up to you.

I still maintain thatthis Oil Warwith Iraq (without UN backing) is undemocratic... not that this has stopped the USA before. If the US want to get rid of dodgy regimes then why are they picking out Iraq from the bunch?
It can't be because Saddam has doomsday weapons that threaten world peace - the inspectors after months of searching are still coming up empty handed.

Needless to say, the argument is going around in circles. On a side note, I see that this thread has qualified for the LWOSHOF.

 

[CanadianSteve]

From the news article linked in post #194:

The document also notes "that he [Saddam Hussein]could do what he did to the Kuwaiti oil fields and explode them, detonate, in a way that lost that important revenue for the Iraqi people," Rumsfeld said.

This article assumes that Saddam blew up the kuwaiti oil fields, which I had always heard at the time. But I thought, according to posters here, that it was really the US that blew up the Kuwait oil fields.

 

[Willow]

Both sides were blowing things up Steve. Rumsfeld isnt telling the whole story.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Willow, but I recall about a year ago, on the Plane Crashes into WTC thread I believe, that you said the US blew up the oil fields and blamed Hussein for it. Are you now saying Hussein did blow up some oil fields too?

BTW, I assume you were fully behind the Gulf War at the time, since with UN approval it was a "democratic" action?

 

[Willow]

LOL.. Steve are you serious? About a year ago? Try 2001.
I'd love to remember everything you've said.
But to answer your question, the US did blow up some oil fields and then blame it on Iraq.

They also blew up some chemical installations thereby contaminating troops on both sides. The French troops had some warning of this attack and withdrew their troops. Scant information of this has been released but a number of returned soldiers blame Gulf War Syndrome onthis action. It's hard to say but its clear that some information is being witheld. But hey, this is war... we expect lies and cover ups.

My statement is right that Rumsfeld is not telling the full story. I'd like to take him to task on the comment: [Saddam Hussein]could do what he did to the Kuwaiti oil fields and explode them, detonate, in a way that lost that important revenue for the Iraqi people,"
Once again, he has conveniently neglected to mention the US led sanctions on Iraq which has had devastating effects on the Iraqi people. The cynical oil for food program that the US approves of is testimony to where the US priorities are.

" assume you were fully behind the Gulf War at the time"
LOL... now you want me to dredge up thoughts I had a decade ago.. okay mate, I'll do my best.
I dont think I can ever befully behind any war, Steve. But I understood why the UN thought it to be right liberate Kuwait. But there is no such justification this time round.

 

[imported_JoeD]

Haven't really been keeping up with this thread but I'll throw my 2 cents in. This is the most simple way I can put it.
So far The US' best excuse for invading Iraq is that they haven't met their obligations to the UN re disarming. The US doesn't meet their obligations to the UN eitherbut noone is invading them.In fact the US does lots of things that the rest of the world doesn't like that will probably have greater long term effects on the planet than anything Hussein can do would. The Kyoto protocol being the main one. Hypocrasy in economics is another big one. The US is the champion of Free Trade and globalization when it suits them, but when domestic markets start to bleat (steel and the one that effected NZ, lamb) they slap import tarrifs on those goods going into the US.

 

[imported_midas]

Been sifting through a mountain of material to try and make some sense of all this.
the only valid reason I can find for the Oil Conspiracy theory ids that Saudi Arabia is what they call a "swing producer"i.e able to increase or decrease their production levels at the drop of a hat,thereby exerting control over world oil prices.
if the US was to gain control of Iraqi oil,it would completely negate saudis influence.
This at least makes some sense to me.
The other thing which hasn,t been questioned is the Frogs and Russkis motives.
From all accounts they have been the major suppliers of black market equipment to the Iraqis.
If we can question the yanks motives we should look at others ,too.
Am I in favour of military action-still dunno.
With all the furore over Warney worldwide ,it struck me that we may have found the answer to the problem.If we can get Saddam to test positive to a diuretic,the world will condemn him ,Dick Pound will crucify him and we can piss him off.If he tests negative we will have to test Dubya-now there,s a guy who can mount a "naive and stupid"defence.

 

[ORANGEYE]

<span>MAN OF WAR BACKS PEACE</span>
<span></span>
<span>27feb03</span> <span>NOBEL Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta has endorsed a war against Saddam Hussein as a "necessary price" to liberate the Iraqi people.
The East Timor nation's co-founder warned anti-war supporters that they could be playing into Saddam's hands and ensuring his people stayed trapped in a life of misery. If their actions allowed Saddam's brutal regime to retain power, they must explain to tens of thousands of Iraqis why they should suffer more persecution. "If the anti-war movement dissuades the US and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead," he said. "Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. "Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions. "Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. "He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. "So why, in all of these demonstrattions did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? "If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? "To neglect this reality, in favour of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace." Dr Ramos-Horta said he accepted the 10 million people, including 500,000 Australians, who marched for peace recently were motivated by noble reasons. But he feared any world backdown from the threat of force would be dangerous. "Abandoning such a threat would be perilous," he said in an article for The New York Times. "Yes, the anti-war movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. "But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims. History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation." Remembering his nine brothers and sisters who were killed during East Timor's long struggle for independence from Indonesia or died from lack of medical care, Dr Ramos-Horta said he "still acutely remembered the suffering and misery brought about by war". "It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary," Dr Ramos-Horta, now East Timor's Foreign Minister, said. "Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary." Dr Ramos-Horta said he was also "unimpressed" by the "grandstanding of certain European leaders". "Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force," he said. "Critics of the US give no credit to the Bush administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is co-operating a bit more, if it indeed is at all." Dr Ramos-Horta said, however, the Bush administration should give the UN Weapons Inspectors led by Hans Blix "more time". "The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies," he said. Click here to send us your feedback Click here </span>

 

[Willow]

War Reasoning

Iraqis harbouring terrorists
- discredited by the CIA and the FBI. Osama bin Laden and Al Quaedaview Saddam Husseinas not being a fundamentalist muslim. As hard as they tried, the US could not find any connection between Iraq and the terrorist WTC attack on September 11.

Iraq are bombing Kurds
- discredited by US intelligence. Iraq have been unable to take action against Kurdish rebels as they inhabit the 'US no fly zone'.

Iraq is a threat to world peace
Iraq is not threatening any of its neighbours. There is no evidence whatsover to say that the Iraqi government plans to destabilise world peace.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
Many months of occupation by investigators have not beeen able to show evidence of any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq are not co-operating with UN inspectors
There was some evidence based on documents that showed the US has sold chemicals to Iraq in their war with Iran so its possible that a hiddenarsenal of weapons containing chemicals may exist.

Note: If any chemical weapons exist, its highly unlikely that they would be used in times of peace. But should the US invade, its quitelikely that Saddam Hussein willuse whatever means at his disposal to defend Iraq... including 'these weapons' that have US-made chemicals.

US has the support of the people
President Bush was elected with a minority vote. The proposed war against Iraq does not have the backing of a number ofcongressmen from his own Republican party. There have been massive protests across America and the UK from those opposed to the war. The USA hasnt gained the support of the UN.

Iraq are refusing to disarm
This is the latest reason for war.
When all else has failed, George Bush has indicated that Saddam Hussein's 'refusal to disarm' is reason enough to invade.

Its begs the question: If you were surrounded by a hostile force and had nowhere to run, would you drop your gun?

<hr>
In the event of war:
<ul> [*]Oil prices will shoot through the roof. [*]There is no guarantee that Saddam Hussein will be replaced by a 'friendly'. [*]If the US conquer Iraq, they will have to defend it for years to come. [*]The 'War on Terrorism' will be forgotten. [*]The cost of the war willheavily taxthe US economy (and Australia's) with social sevices being the first areas to be suffer. [*]With 250,000 troops mobilised on the Iraqi borders, we are set for a bloody war. The civilian casualty rate will be high. [*]Inthe last Gulf war, 280 US soldiers died. But on the Iraqi side, it was a bloodbath... between 100,000 - 250,000 Iraqi soldiers died. Approximately 50,000 Iraqi civilians died.[/list] <hr>

 

[IRAQ i]

Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy in New York and Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer
The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq. The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia. The memo is directed at senior NSA officials and advises them that the agency is 'mounting a surge' aimed at gleaning information not only on how delegations on the Security Council will vote on any second resolution on Iraq, but also 'policies', 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' - the 'whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals or to head off surprises'. Dated 31 January 2003, the memo was circulated four days after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix produced his interim report on Iraqi compliance with UN resolution 1441. It was sent by Frank Koza, chief of staff in the 'Regional Targets' section of the NSA, which spies on countries that are viewed as strategically important for United States interests. Koza specifies that the information will be used for the US's 'QRC' - Quick Response Capability - 'against' the key delegations. Suggesting the levels of surveillance of both the office and home phones of UN delegation members, Koza also asks regional managers to make sure that their staff also 'pay attention to existing non-UN Security Council Member UN-related and domestic comms [office and home telephones] for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations'. Koza also addresses himself to the foreign agency, saying: 'We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar more indirect access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines [ie, intelligence sources].' Koza makes clear it is an informal request at this juncture, but adds: 'I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels.' Disclosure of the US operation comes in the week that Blix will make what many expect to be his final report to the Security Council. It also comes amid increasingly threatening noises from the US towards undecided countries on the Security Council who have been warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US. Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery. The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations. The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation. The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up. While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope