Following Iraq's bioweapons trail

[Hunter368]

Thanks Erich about the Martial Arts link. Martial Arts has been a huge interest of mine for years.




But again I will say this Erich. A world ruled or policed by UK/USA is a world that I think alot of people around the world would not agree with. I am sure even as a American you can understand that (meaning no disrespect).

There has to be "some" international group as the "watch dog"......but the hard part is getting one that is effective, if you can ever get it effective.

[Erich]

I fully well know what you are saying .......... one of the reasons I would like the USA out of everyones affairs even as far back as the 1970's. Sometimes it is always best to have countries work things out even if they destroy one another in the process.............yes that sounds lame but

[mkloby]

mkloby,

I like your post first off. I do have a question for you, we both agree UN as it stands sucks. But do we (world) not need some organization to try and keep peace? Without it, it would lead to "might = right".

Then respectfully I am sure you could understand most of the worlds unhappyness with USA ruling the roast without anyone to answer to.

Even I who am a Canadian and who likes the USA would be not thrilled about that idea. Should there not always be "some" check stops in place vs aggressive nations or nations who hold vastly more power than others.

This organization you speak of is manipulated by member states to support national agendas. That's not exactly multi-national. The only time it acts as a true mutli-national organization is when many member states all have convergent interests.

The USA is the most powerful nation, yet we are not omnipotent. The same constraints that have always affected int'l relations still affect the US, and still would with or without the UN. Many of the nation-states that oppose the US through the channels of the UN are playing a new version of an OLD, OLD record - BALANCE OF POWER. If the US is bent on a course of action that it perceives to be in her interest, if the forces arrayed (not necessarily military forces) against the US are compelling enough to make US leaders believe that pursuit of that policy will no longer be in their best interests, the US will change their policy. This holds true with or w/o the UN.

This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?

The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive. Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests. Please explain to me how this is different from how the world has functioned for thousands of years?

[Hunter368]

This organization you speak of is manipulated by member states to support national agendas. That's not exactly multi-national. The only time it acts as a true mutli-national organization is when many member states all have convergent interests.

The USA is the most powerful nation, yet we are not omnipotent. The same constraints that have always affected int'l relations still affect the US, and still would with or without the UN. Many of the nation-states that oppose the US through the channels of the UN are playing a new version of an OLD, OLD record - BALANCE OF POWER. If the US is bent on a course of action that it perceives to be in her interest, if the forces arrayed (not necessarily military forces) against the US are compelling enough to make US leaders believe that pursuit of that policy will no longer be in their best interests, the US will change their policy. This holds true with or w/o the UN.

This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?

The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive. Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests. Please explain to me how this is different from how the world has functioned for thousands of years?

Perhaps we small nations just feel alittle better with even a "token paper tiger" in our corner if push came to shove.

Yes I am playing, like I said before, devils advocate to a degree. But "what if" USA decided to "take over" Canada (just b/c I am Canadian), Canada could not stop her.

Even if we wanted to all we could do is sniper, traps, etc etc the USA. Perhaps I am just pissing in the wind but it would feel alittle better if I knew "UN" was backing us and telling USA to get out.

I know I know UN still could not do much vs USA but still......paper tiger is better then nothing.

Understand my point (as useless as it might be, its still a point)

[Erich]

yes but Hunter here is the issue of concern, do you feel safer with the UN in it's present form ? Will or can it even get any better with a strong and level headed leadership base ? ......... I know that is what you are asking .......

I'm so stinking tainted with my former past with these folk that nothing of good comes to my mind

[Hunter368]

yes but Hunter here is the issue of concern, do you feel safer with the UN in it's present form ? Will or can it even get any better with a strong and level headed leadership base ? ......... I know that is what you are asking .......

I'm so stinking tainted with my former past with these folk that nothing of good comes to my mind

I do feel safer to a degree with UN in place. Will it ever get better? who knows....I doubt it but we can dream.

I love my country, like you love yours, without check stops in place what is stopping one country from steam rolling us?

If USA invaded us, I know a "big if", we would be dead in the water. Would UN stop USA? No she can't but it still makes us feel safer. It might be hard for someone living in the most powerful naton on the planet to understand but thats how I feel.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will play devils advocate before Kris does. Why is it not on their agenda to report the truth?

Not all media outlets are leftwing.

Bad news is good news...

[Hunter368]

Bad news is good news...

Bad news = good news = $$$$$

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly, and unfortunatly lots of people dont take the media for what it is worth and with a grain of salt.

[lesofprimus]

- Iraq didn't have WMDs since the late 90s.

So I suppose the 2 SEALs and 3 Special Forces fellas that Ive known for the last 15 years, and have seen WMDs in 2003 and 2004, are liars huh???

[Civettone]

Sorry for the late reply. I hardly ever visit the off-topic forum and forgot about it.

I haven't read all the posts but what exactly are this WMDs which have been found? Didn't GWB himself say that they didn't find them?

As to the UN, it's very very clear. US signed the UN treaty stating that a country may only attack another country out of self defence and when the UNSC gives its consent. This didn't happen and as such the war is illegitemate/illegal.

You can expect the UN to follow the US in whatever it wants, that's against the principle of the UN. The UN which were a mainly American project. I'm sorry that it backfired but you cannot have it both ways. Either you follow the rules, or you drop out the UN so you can do whatever you please.

And Erich, please note that in the Islam discussion I have not used media sources to back up my claims although it would be easy to do. I'm playing by the rules some of you set up.
Kris

[Civettone]

Ok, I read the rest.

This same theory will still be employed if the UN closed up shop tomorrow. Consider this - what type of ability would the UN have to conduct any operations if the US withdrew, and also withdrew all funding?

As the US is behind in paying its bills for the amount of a billion and a half US dollars, and as the EU is paying more than the US, I don't think the UN will manage economically without the US.

The UN is a good forum for facilitating int'l diplomacy. However, the idea that it is the source of legitimacy in resolving int'l conflicts that reach a diplomatic impasse is naive.

Are you saying that the UN hasn't resolved int'l conflicts?

Member states generally line up on the side that supports their own national interests.

Of course. Just like the US...


I've also taken a look at those WMDs. It's mainly about that 155mm shell with degraded sarin. I also find it strange that I have to look at Fox media reports to read about this while I'm not allowed to use any media...
So here's some official stuff:
On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
Now this is an AMERICAN report from a Survey Group organized by the CIA and the Pentagon... So if even THEY don't believe what you guys are saying, why should I?
Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Kris

[mkloby]

As the US is behind in paying its bills for the amount of a billion and a half US dollars, and as the EU is paying more than the US, I don't think the UN will manage economically without the US.

The US had accounted for about 20 percent of the UN budget. There is debate whether the US should pay dues to the UN. Believe it or not - there's a good chance the US will become hostile towards the US. Look at how impotent the organization is now, and then imagine it without the US. As hunter said - paper tiger.

Are you saying that the UN hasn't resolved int'l conflicts?

You really need to read my posts better. I said int'l conflicts that reach impasse - it's powerless to take any course of action. Take the pathetic UN stance on the Iranian issue.

Of course. Just like the US...

All nations follow their own self-interests. Case closed.

I've also taken a look at those WMDs. It's mainly about that 155mm shell with degraded sarin. I also find it strange that I have to look at Fox media reports to read about this while I'm not allowed to use any media...
So here's some official stuff:
On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded that "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
Now this is an AMERICAN report from a Survey Group organized by the CIA and the Pentagon... So if even THEY don't believe what you guys are saying, why should I?
Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Kris

You don't have to believe what we are saying. These guys are not relying up MEDIA, or a report whether from a gov't agency or other. I will say again, NOT ALL INFORMATION IS RLEASED TO THE PUBLIC. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I'm sure you think that this is a convenient method to avoid showing proof of NBC.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I guess the Mustard Gas that we found is not a WMD in Civettones book.

Civettone do you really think that the Press knows and finds out everything. Again there is so much more happening and going on that you have no clue about...

[FLYBOYJ]

I haven't read all the posts but what exactly are this WMDs which have been found? Didn't GWB himself say that they didn't find them?

He did say that because the WMDs found were not to the quantity advertised...

BTW - Skud missiles were on the list - the first day of the war Iraq launched 3 or 4 of them.