Sep 2, 4:57 PM (ET)

By MIKE COHEN

(AP) JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) - Nelson Mandela said Monday that he is "appalled" by U.S. threats to attack Iraq and warned that Washington is "introducing chaos in international affairs." He said he had spoken with President Bush's father and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

As several world leaders at a summit here urged restraint by the United States, South Africa's revered former president issued a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration.

"We are really appalled by any country, whether a superpower or a small country, that goes outside the U.N. and attacks independent countries," Mandela said before going into a meeting with French President Jacques Chirac. "No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands."

The United States has made toppling Saddam Hussein a priority, accusing the Iraqi leader of developing weapons of mass destruction despite U.N. resolutions that prohibit him from doing so. Vice President Cheney has argued in favor of pre-emptive military action to remove Saddam from power.


"What they are saying is introducing chaos in international affairs, and we condemn that in the strongest terms," Mandela said.

The 1993 Nobel Peace Prize winner said he tried to call Bush to discuss the matter but that the president was not available. Mandela said he instead spoke with Powell and former President George Bush. He also planned to speak by telephone with Condoleezza Rice, Bush's assistant for national security.

A number of top figures from the previous Bush administration have spoken out recently against unilateral military action - raising speculation that the elder Bush shares some of their doubts. The former president, however, has kept silent on his son's Iraq policy.

Chirac, who is in South Africa to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development, said he shared "a common position on the assessment and approach of these issues" with Mandela.

South Africa's current president, Thabo Mbeki, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also urged America to exercise restraint.

The two leaders met on the fringes of the summit and "agreed they were not comfortable with any military action being taken against Iraq," said Essop Pahad, a Cabinet minister in Mbeki's office.

In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister said the return of international weapons inspectors was key to resolving the crisis over Iraq and warned that military action by the United States could touch off further troubles in the volatile Middle East.

"Any forceful solution regarding Iraq would not only complicate regulation of (the crisis surrounding) Iraq still further, but would also undermine the situation in the Persian Gulf and Middle East," Igor Ivanov said after talks with his Iraqi counterpart, Naji Sabri.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify the country's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs have been dismantled, along with the long-range missiles to deliver them.

Inspectors left Baghdad ahead of American and British airstrikes in December 1998 to punish Iraq for not cooperating with inspections. Iraq has barred them from returning.

Saddam said Monday that the United States insists on overthrowing him because it seeks to control all the oil in the Middle East.

"America thinks if it controls the oil of the Middle East then it will control the world," the Iraqi leader told an envoy from Belarus, according to the official Iraqi News Agency.

"By destroying Iraq, America thinks it could control the oil of the Middle East and force the prices it wants on clients like France, China, Japan and other countries of the world," Saddam said.

Saddam said the U.N. sanctions on Iraq were aimed in part to "prevent former Soviet Union countries from cooperating economically with Iraq."

In a speech at the Johannesburg summit, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz railed against U.S. threats and demanded a lifting of the U.N. embargo that has crippled Iraq's economy.

"The U.S. is threatening to launch another large-scale aggression against Iraq that would bring about more devastation and subsequently lead to further catastrophes on the environment," he said.

In Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi officials took journalists on a tour of a site suspected to have been part of Iraq's nuclear program, but which the government says produced agriculture fertilizers.

Meanwhile, Iraq's longtime rival Iran warned that it would not stand by if its neighbor is attacked. Only the Iraqi people - not a world power - should determine the country's future, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in Teheran.

"Iran will not stand idle before such instability, because if a country decides to overthrow another country's government, this will create a norm," he said.

And a group of 37 Protestant and other church leaders from North America and Britain sent letters to their respective governments Friday expressing concern about "the likely human costs of war with Iraq, particularly for civilians," the World Council of Churches said Monday. They warned an attack would strengthen those promoting extremism and terrorism.

We don't care what nobody thinks.We are the U.S of fucking A. and we do the thinking for the world.We know what is best for everybody.On a serious note i still think we will attack iraq although i'm praying that we don't unless we have SOLID evidence.

theC said:

So you'd rather leave Saddam alone, and let him attack us in a few years.

Niiice.

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

theC
The key phrase is SOLID evidence If we have solid evidence the world will agree.Everybody wants saddam out.It's like the bad kid on the street.You can't discipline
him until he has at least done SOMETHING wrong(and no you can't penalize him for something you already penalized him for 1994)If you have solid evidence...SMOKE HIM!!!

theC said:

Someone can go around and kick the neighborhood kid's ass.

Fuck the world agreeing. The world won't agree with us no matter what!

India: "We thought Pakistan was gonna attack us... they have weapons of mass destruction."
Pakistan: "We thought India was gonna attack us... they have weapons of mass destruction."
South Korea: "We thought North Korea..."
North Korea: "We thought South Korea..."
and the list of countries can go on and on.

"That man on the bus kept looking at me weird so I popped him one."

"That bitch on the train kept giving me the eye so I cut her."

Uh huh. Set the precedent.
[This message was edited Mon Sep 2 18:29:07 PDT 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

NuPwrSoul said:

Well said.

The US needs to actually LISTEN to other countries perspectives on this. The more we try to act outside the UN, the more long term problems we're creating for ourselves.

Lets put the immediate bloodthirsty vendetta on hold, and consider a long-term solution.

Isn't it Saddam Hussein who is ignoring a UN resolution calling for on-site weapons inspections as part of their surrender/retreat deal following the Kuwait invasion?

Why isn't the rest of the UN willing to enforce existing resolutions when it comes to Iraq? I detect a double standard on the part of our "allies."

For the record, I'm not interested in another war. I am in favor of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

TheMax said:

Well it was America that recalled the weapons inspectors (by giving them a heads up) before attacking Baghdad in response to the alleged "assassination plot" against elder Bush.

Further, America has already indicated that weapons inspection is not what it wants. It wants "regime change." Knowing that why should Iraq allow weapons inspectors back in? It's not going to satisfy America. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

THANKS GOD FOR PEOPLE LIKE NELSON MANDELA!!

garganta said:

Shonuff. Nelson Mandela has been a man of principle all throughout. Consistent ever since his fight against apartheid... a fight America was not always supportive of. So he knows first hand how fickle American morality is when it comes to foreign policy.

Drop the need for Oil and you'll see some crazy shit happening.

bkw said:

NPS nails another one! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ugh fuck off Bush! Stop trying to finish something your daddy started and couldn't finish.

And to the people outside of the U.S., PLEASE do not believe all Americans are like Bush. A lot of us are NOT supporting him with this bullshit.

CarrieLee said:

It's OK Carrie. A lot of us realise this. We don't tar all Americans with the same brush. Peace.

KeithyT

And not all Americans think that Saddam Hussein is a great defender of freedom and peace who has been unfairly targeted by the US.

There are a few of us who are still very angry after September 11, and this anger has absolutely nothing to do with supporting George Bush. Some of us believe that those attacks were so outrageous, that a military offensive directed against those responsible is morally justified - hence Afghanistan.

So here's where I stand. Any nation or leader, including Iraq and Saddam Hussein, that defends or supports the attack of my country in the manner of September 11, had better prepare to defend itself. My guess is that if central Paris or Berlin had been targeted in similar attacks, we'd support our allies in Europe in responding to the crisis.

I'm saddened by the loss of support from those who we have defended in their time of need. If it were not for the sanctions imposed by other nations against apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela might not have the ability to criticize our policies toward a regime more dangerous than the one that imprisoned him.

TheMax said:

The Max,

I think your frustation and anger is valid..I think we all are upset. However, some of us feel that going after Iraq, we could end up making matters worse in the long run. And the fact of the matter is, there is *no* concrete evidence linking Iraq with what happened on Sept. 11th. And, until Saddam actually does something new, we have no grounds going in...

it will only stir up more anger in a very unstable part of the word...a

NuPwrSoul said:

NuPwrSoul has said it quite plainly and eloquently.

Well said, my friend.

SkletonKee said:

Well said kee!! And The Max I feel for you too. This is a kind of situation where your're damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is much more out there than any of us know. *I* would just feel better is there was concrete evidence so we had other countries supporting us. There is too much doubt right now.

NuPwrSoul said:

We thought Al Qaeda wasn't going to attack us...

CarrieLee said:

I completely agree. There is tremendous doubt about whether or not Saddam Hussein poses an immediate threat to others, as well as doubt about whether he directly supported the attacks on September 11. I feel that it is the job of our leaders, in cooperation with world intelligence organizations, to clearly state the reasons that Iraq's regime poses a threat to others.

From where I stand, we've got a couple of problems in this regard. The first is that our president seems mentally retarded, incapable of clear and independent thought, and prone to ludicrous hyperbole about "good" vs. "evil."

The second is that the UN's ability to monitor military activity in Iraq, as outlined in resolutions passed after the Kuwait conflict, has been derailed by Saddam Hussein's defiance. Despite the previous UN agreement that Saddam's government should not be allowed to develop "weapons of mass destruction," now it seems that the UN is afraid to enforce its own resolutions. Sometimes enforcement involves the use of force, and that's what I favor. It should not require a war, but it may require the use of our military, preferably in cooperation with a UN led coalition, to prevent the further rebuilding of Saddam's arsenal.

TheMax said:

Actually we had sufficient reason to believe they were as early as '99 after they bombed the embassy in Kenya. Bill Clinton's admin took *some* action against them.

Plus their operatives in flight schools in America were being tracked prior to 9/11. Remember Moussaoui (the only Al Qaeda operative in custody for 9/11 crimes) was arrested a few months BEFORE 9/11.
[This message was edited Tue Sep 3 12:17:33 PDT 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

TheMax said:

My friend, your voice of reason is turning me on. Yes, Mister Mandela, how about Iraq taking the law into it's own hands when it violates the UN Resolution!!! Hello!!!

NuPwrSoul said:

Okay, I'll go with that. So given how much evidence we apparently had of Al Qaeda's plans, how much UN support would we have had prior to September 11, 2001, if we decided to launch a military offensive directed at the capture and prosecution of Bin Laden?

In this line of evidence based strategic planning, we have witnessed a prior invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, the gassing of Kurds in northern Iraq, the launching of scud missiles into Israel (they were not involved in our military engagement at that time), and Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions allowing site inspections for weapons development. So, like Al Qaeda, some would say we've been put on sufficient notice that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the region and our interests.

NuPwrSoul said:

The difference is we've already been attacked from a terrorist element, and certain countries have ties to and support from terrorist elements. We've already been caught with our pants down, oh sorry, I mean Clinton, yeah, he was too busy to worry about terrorism effecting the U.S. (which Dick Morris points out readily) and all the smaller previous attacks (embassy bombings, Cole bombing, etc); not to mention he was offered Bin Laden 3 times which he refused.

The bottom line is the Bush administration needs (and will) bring out the evidence concerning Iraq's involvement in 9/11, and/or it's development of w.m.d. It's my understanding the admin will make the case in the next few days/weeks. We're going in Sept-Nov most probably, with tons of smart weapons and a huge psychological warfare campaign against Saddam's armies. More updates on planning, check www.GlobalSecurity.org

TheMax said:

Well we actually did bomb Afghanistan. But we didn't launch a full fledge attack in self-defense. That's the point. We had evidence that people were on our soil doing some crazy shit, planning some crazy shit... we didn't have the exact details but we took NO action to hault it or to remove Al Qaeda. In fact, we cut a deal with the Taliban to "curb" the heroin trade in Afghanistan, and UNOCAL Texas-based oil company executives were surmising to Congress in 1999 that the Taliban could in fact be the stabilizing force needed in Afghanistan to cut a deal to lay pipeline. So the argument that we attack people who pose a threat does not hold. That is not the logic that we have used in the past, so I am unconvinced that is the logic we are using in this case.



And he informed the U.S. ambassador to Kuwait PRIOR to his invasion and she conveyed tacit approval



And he gassed Iranians too, all of which took place while he was our anti-Khomeini friend. Is America complicit in that act? Are we trying to hide our hands in that deal now that he's no longer doing our bidding?



and no one said anything when Israel flew over to Iraq and bombed a nuclear energy plant. A plant that had no evidence of producing nuclear bombs, but they still did it with little or no protest from the American government. This was well before the Gulf War, well before ANY military engagement.



And this is a job for the UN to resolve. If America goes it alone it only perpetuates its image as an arrogant world bully. Get the backing of the world through legitimate diplomatic consultation and then move out.

bonojr said:

There is no doubt that America can do this alone and do it well. America's military might is unquestioned and unchallenged throughout the world. But all wars are not fought on the battlefield, and MIGHT does not make RIGHT. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "If there is a Just God..."

NuPwrSoul said:

History is replete with governments cooperating when their mutual interests are preserved, only then to enter a hostile relationship when new threats arise. Did we accept the Taliban in opposition to Russia during our "cold war" - apparently yes. Different times. Different problems. Same with the observation that we once favored Saddam in his war with Iran (you already indicate that you remember Ayatollah Khomeni) - it's completely irrelevant, in my opinion, to our position today.




That's revisionist history at best. Our failure to believe that the threat was genuine (as did all neighboring Arab nations) does not mean that we "approved" of the invasion.



So you're saying that I can't pick my conflicts according to my country's interests? In an ideal world, we'd intervene in any conflict that a world court of opinion deemed to be wrong. But there would still be debates like this one where "idealists" would feel that we're not entitled to be involved. If I can't have it both ways, it seems neither can you.



Please see my last statement.



It seems we agree after all!

TheMax said:

No you more certainly can *as long* as you indicate that your motivated by *your country's interests* and you are *honest* about what those interests are.

Don't talk smack about protecting democracy, they hate our freedom, threat to the world, blah blah blah. Those are not the reasons. Be a man/woman about it... you have the most powerful military in the world, so just be bold and don't hide behind some false sense of morality.

You want OIL. You want a regime you can control in the region so you can leverage more of your influence in the Arab world. Plain and simple.