With the passage of UN Security Council Resolution
1441, the US has removed another obstacle in its
path to an escalated war against Iraq.

Those countries who had been holdouts in the
Security Council claim that they went along because
their fears were allayed. Syria's UN ambassador said that they were assured that
'this resolution would not be used as a pretext to strike Iraq'. The Russian
ambassador said 'this resolution deflects the direct threat of war [it] does not contain
any provision about the automatic use of force.' France's ambassador showed less
interest in the resolution's war-preventing properties: 'The rules of the game set by
the Security Council are clear and demanding. If Iraq wishes to avoid confrontation, it
must understand that the opportunity it has been given is the last.'

The resolution itself is full of timelines and deadlines for Iraq:

-Iraq has until November 15 to pledge that it will comply; -Iraq has until December 8
to declare all aspects of its weapons programs to the security council; -Inspectors
have until December 23 to resume their work, with an advance team in Iraq by
November 18 -Inspectors are to report to the security council no later than 60 days
after their work-either January 17 or February 21.

This means that the last two hurdles in the US's path are 1) that inspectors have to
actually find something, even if that something is just Iraqi 'interference',
'obstruction', 'false statements', or 'omissions' and 2) a second meeting of the
security council after the inspectors report.

These hurdles will not be difficult to clear. It's unlikely that Iraq has any weapons of
mass destruction, but it is highly likely that inspectors could find evidence of
'interference' or 'omission' from the Iraqi regime, if they were looking for such
evidence. And the resolution's 'early test' is designed to produce exactly such
evidence: 'United Nations weapons inspectors plan to force an early test of Saddam
Hussein's intentions by demanding a comprehensive list of weapons sites and
checking whether it matches a list of more than 100 priority sites derived from the
findings of previous weapons inspections and the latest intelligence culled from
defectors and other sources by American and other intelligence experts.' (NYT, Nov
10, 2002). As for the outcome the US is looking for, that, too, is no secret: 'Many
administration officials say they would far prefer a bold rebuff by Mr. Hussein, rather
than have him seem to cooperate but actually try to run out the clock with evasions
and confusing tactics in the hope that support for war will subside.'

It has been clear from the moment the focus of attention in the War on Terror shifted
from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein that inspections for weapons of mass
destruction, in this context and at this time, had only one purpose: to provide a
pretext for the US to attack Iraq. The idea of inspecting countries for weapons of
mass destruction and disarming them is of course a good one, and no one could
oppose such inspections on principle. But the timing of these inspections, the fact
that the US would 'far prefer a bold rebuff by Mr. Hussein' to cooperation, shows
what the inspections are really about. Serious approaches to disarmament of
countries with weapons of mass destruction would have to include many more
countries than just Iraq, and should probably start with the country most heavily
armed with such weapons: the United States. Such an approach is nowhere near
the US, or the UN, agenda. The purpose of these inspections is to find a reason to
attack Iraq.


The activities of the US military, meanwhile, suggest that the US interprets
resolution 1441 as a green light to go to war.

The US is proceeding to build up its attack forces in the most deliberate and
methodical way. There are the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan; 16,000 on carriers in
the Gulf area; 11,000 in Kuwait; 5,000 in Saudi Arabia; 4,500 in Bahrain; 4,000 in
Qatar; 2,500 in Uzbekistan, and smaller numbers elsewhere. 63,000 troops at last
count, and building. These troops, meanwhile, pose a 'dilemma' for the US:

"On the one hand, they must avoid rushing too many invasion forces to the Persian
Gulf region, where troops could end up sitting and waiting while inspections play out,
risking losses in efficiency and morale and straining relations with Arab host
countries. On the other hand, they must ensure that enough forces are in place to
keep the pressure on the Iraqi government and to respond rapidly should inspections
fail or should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provoke a conflict." (Washington Post,
November 9, 2002).

In other words, the US is worried that its soldiers might get bored sitting around
waiting for the green light to destroy a helpless country. But, a senior Army officer
sees a silver lining to the resolution: "This delay might help to get some equipment
in place".

The plan is to go from 63,000 to 250,000 troops before the war starts. The New York
Times described the war plan in loving detail. "Under the plan, the air campaign
would be less than the 43 days of the first gulf war, and probably under a month,
military officials said. In the opening hours of the air campaign, Navy and Air Force
jets, including B-2 bombers carrying 16 one-ton satellite-guided bombs and B-1
bombers carrying 24 of the same weapons, would attack a range of targets from
military headquarters to air defenses." (NYT, Nov 9, 2002).

The NYT also assured its readers that any civilians killed in the war would be blamed
on Iraq, with the following amazing line: 'Mr. Bush hinted at another concern, that the
Iraqi government would purposefully sacrifice its population to stain an American
military victory with civilian blood.' The US is afraid of Iraqi 'volunteers [who] would
hope to slow the American-led offensive by acting as suicide bombers or fighting in
neighborhood defense squads, but their true strategic goal would be to generate
anti-American feelings in the region.'

Notice that it isn't the civilian blood itself that is of concern, but that it might be used
to 'stain an American military victory'. Notice too that there is no fear of Iraq's military
might, only fear that the US war might be such a massacre that it will lead to
'anti-American feelings in the region.'

Civilian blood is of no consequence to those who are planning this war and ruling this
world. The million Iraqis who have died so far in the Gulf War that started in 1990 and
never really ended are proof of their depravity. The unanimous vote for Resolution
1441 is proof of their power. The only hope for stopping the war resides in those for
whom civilian blood matters for reasons more than it being a 'stain on American
military victory'.

Resolution 1441 shows that the US has the diplomatic support it needs to go to war.
But diplomatic support from governments and elites will not be enough if there is
enough resistance and protest from ordinary people. In September 2002, George W
Bush threatened the United Nations with 'irrelevance' if it didn't support his war. The
reverse is true: the UN demonstrates its irrelevance when it takes decisions that the
people of the world are against. Whatever the UN Security Council does, the people
of the world are not irrelevant.

People who cannot be persuaded to trade human lives for oil concessions, who won't
accept a slaughter of civilians simply because the elites of the states who vote in the
United Nations were bribed and threatened into signing off on the war, can mobilize
to stop the war. If US war plans have been slowed at all, it has been because of
them-the tens of thousands mobilizing in the US, the hundreds of thousands
mobilizing in Europe and all over the world.

source: www.znet.or

Am I being boring?

At least I am aware of it...

gooeythehamster said:

You gotta be really bored if you always come back to my boring threads...

soulpower said:

Self knowledge is the way to wisdom.

If we were American we'd invent a seven step program.

So, there you have it; I stepped down to your level...

Can't you create a NORMAL Org thread, like WHY DOESN'T PRINCE FUCK ME, like Natasha?

And next time use the SPANKING emoticon, will ya? That suits me WAY better.

gooeythehamster said:

WRONG FORUM!

as soon as this intellectually challenged weirdo has started his war the yawning will be gone.

And to all of you who think this subject does not belong in prince.org: you may have not noticed that Prince made several statements during the ONA-european tour against this war. And he didnt include 'Money dont matter tonight' in most setlists just because its a nice song.

You prob know this one already, but still;

http://www.lemonbovril.co...ushspeech/
Almost as much fun as www.jesusdressup.com

...around the bush ?

gooeythehamster said:

lol. just made my own "we are going to chase those evil leaders" speech.

I agree with you that the subject of this thread is rather boring. UN-resolutions are not my nappy-lecture either.

How about starting a more compelling thread like e.g. If GW would get a decent blow job once in a while would he still be after Saddam.

Swallow for peace sake!

ajd said:

Thanks man! Finally somebody with brains!

ajd said:

Oh surely threads on UN-resolutions shoudl not be compared with the excitement a Henry Miller book can give.
But I considered it quite important nevertheless because when the war will start, many people here will say
"Its all righteous, cuz Saddam failed to accept the resolution."
This cry usually comes from the same people who have no idea what this resolution is about! So here it is!

The war on terror has never been about Bin Laden. What amazes me is no one remembers the interview with Bin Laden in which he say he did not do the 9/11 thing. After the one time I never saw it again, and it was never referenced in any news media.

The 9/11 incident was a green light for greedy politicians to take advantage of an opportunity to control the oil, because that's the only thing backing the US. dollar and the new European currency. Look at who's pushing for this war, Blair and Bush. Britian can no longer control the world by armies and colonialism. Next, mark my word, they will try to control the fuckin sun and solar power. Exploitation is the name of their game. Control the resource that people really need or want and you control the people. Like when they put a tax on salt for the people of India during their occupation. What kind of fucking sense does that make, taxing salt. And Bush foolish enough to go alone with this scam cause he's an idiot and doen't realize this is a free country and one day the people are going to wake up and get fed up with crooked, greedy politicians.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 13 6:31:39 PST 2002 by SweeTea]

soulpower said:

It is. And Im thankful you did. This way I didnt have to look for it. But the big bunch of free-newspaper-readers, commercial-radio-listeners and Henry-Miller-book-readers (sorry couldnt help myself...) normally reacts like: UN-Reso..oh what the hack and turn to page 3.

BUT: Id done the same if you wouldnt. Cause this resolution has direct impacts to each and every1 in here. And I mean direct. Just like I lost my job and a lot of money cause some towers somewhere far away from where I live have been destroyed. Its a small world after all.

SweeTea said:

The oil issue is the last salvation really. America is broke. Most people dont realize how broke that country really is. From the economically most successful country in the world to the greatest failure. The national debt is in trillions (!) of Dollars, which is more money than any human will be able to visualize.
And now the western world is going through the largest recession since 1929. The impact is even felt in the very stable Germany.
So now they are trying to save the situation by lowering the interest rates at the stock exchanges. That usually results in the increase of the Dow Jones. They have lowered the interest 4 times this year already... but nobody is buying stocks... Its a catastrophe...
If they get their hands on all of the arabian oil they know they can postpone the total crash of wold economy for another ten years. At the most

soulpower said:

True words.

And isnt it a rather absurd coincidence that the guy they put up to sell all this to the masses went bancrupt with his own little oil company.

ajd said:

Just like his daddy.

The "war" on Iraq has been in the pipeline for quite some time. No matter what happens, and Iraq just agreed to let inspectors in today, which beats the Friday deadline. It doesn't matter...Iraq will be attacked by the world police. U.S./U.N. And I like how the U.N. played the world for awhile trippin' on the U.S. for wanting to attack Sadam...surprise...surprise...a 5-0 U.N. Security Council vote! (I know it does not expressly declare military action...but that will be next)

Of course there are other countries who fit the description for the "Axis of 'Evil'"...but how many of them have the richest oil reserves in the world. (And I know most of those fields are owned by non-Iraqi's) I suppose China is a model global citizen......they provide more labor for U.S. corporations...than...the U.S.!

I know there are some who are conspiracy theorists, and those who think it is the most far-fetched thing in all of the world...but...if U do not buy into any of the conspiracy theories going around...explain to me why those with mass quanities of wealth have always been part of an "old boys network". (Example: the prevelance of Eastern Establishment people, i.e. Yale, in the U.S. Government, as well as abroad. Or, how about European royalty marrying each other...regardless of their conutry of origin?) Let's see...the Rockefellars started Standard Oil, the AMA...and was it Chase/Manhatten bank? That's a pretty diverse portfolio...better than my retirement that has been beat up this past year. Enough ranting...If, and I do mean, If, we the U.S. does not attack Iraq...I will be shocked. Just my :2cents: Live4Love

We need 2 come 2gether, come 2gether as one

Too many lame comments in this thread to address them all. Some skeptic here actually continues to question whether Bin Laden played a part in the planning of the attacks from Sept 11th. Is this crap even worth responding to?

Will we (the US) attack Iraq? - I don't know. This situation seems to change hour to hour after the UNANIMAOUS passage of the UN Security Council Resolution. Wow, now even the usually divided United Nations Security Council is in on the conspiracy to get that rascal Saddam for purely political or oil gains. One things seems certain however, the frank talk about ripping Iraq a new asshole if they don't disarm has appparently had an effect. It's the only language that nutcases like Saddam understand.

I wonder, after the Iraqi "parliament" rejected the terms of the resolution, if this means the task of the inspectors will be made difficult. Saddam was allowed to show his "leadership" by accepting the terms of the resolution, although not without a lot of anti-American sentiment. Could this mean that Saddam may interfere with the inspectors? Well, of course. Might we then follow through with our threat to attack Iraq? Yes, I suppose so. Do these "insights" make me as prescient as Soulpower? Probably. It's all a bunch of speculation based upon trying to predict the actions of at least one megalomaniac - in this case Saddam.

Look, believe that you are "in the know" if it turns out that we attack Iraq to achieve our stated objectives. But I'll never take you seriously if you maintain that most of this conflict is related to a desire to control Iraq's oil reserves. You may enjoy blaming America for many of the world's current problems. But once again, it all depends how far back in time you want to go. Would we have even a fraction of our current middle east problems were it not for the genocidal atrocities perpetrated by the German army in WWII. Would there even be an Israel? Would there be a North Korea? Hell, would we have had the Vietnam War!? Would there have been a "cold war" at all? Would nuclear weapons ever have been invented?

Speak out about policy - cool. But the conspiracy drivel is a non-starter for me. Some folks committed to such nonsense just come off sounding crazy.

TheMax said:

Oh yeah. I think I got carried away. How stupid of me to believe that the US may have no other reasons to intervene in the Iraq than the oil. Stupidstupidstupid. Thats why they are so busy interening against all other dictators whos countries dont have oil. Im sure they will clean up those right after Iraq. So I better keep my mouth shut then.

Oh maybe just one thing. I used to work in the Iraq before the first gulf war started. I had a lot of contacts with employees of other international companies being there. Most of them American and French oil companies. One high ranker from Exxon told me after a few beers: We dont care who is in power here as long as the access to the oil is secured. They will never get rid of us. And although he was drunk he was bloody serious.

Dont be dumber than your pres.

TheMax said:

TheMax said:

Old people are full of wisdom, and I have learned alot from talking to and listening to them. So when they coined the phrase "You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink", I assume it was out of dealing with stubborn, hardheaded individuals.

You may think the comments made on this thread are lame, but at least they are our own thoughts and comments, not the warmed over leftover comments of another. Check the American history. They ALWAYS use a scapegoat to coverup their tracks. They feed the American public bullshit and most American's can quote the media on a given subject verbatim because they haven't taken the time to ask questions. How can you learn anything without asking questions? That's why the rest of the world view American citizens as a bunch of idiots, to be herded -- we fall for anything and refuse to think for ourselves, and anyone who does think for themselves are conspiracy theorists (or back in the day - communists).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Hussein is not a threat, but a threat to who? If you were sitting on a wealth of oil and you knew everybody and they momma wanted to get at it, wouldn't you be a tad bit protective of your resources? Think about it? Put yourself in his position, Hell afterall, it was the Americans who put him in power and when he didn't play alone with the gameplan, the rules changed.

And don't tell me the US is concerned with the welfare of the Iraqie citizen, cause they don't even give a shit about us. In the past greedy Europeans depleted Africa of all it's many riches, from diamonds to ivory and when there was nothing else to exploit, they dropped it like a dirty dishrag.

Don't think this war is about getting rid of Hussien or weapons inspections, these are just excuses to get their hands on the pot of gold that lays benefit Iraq. I would feel better if they'd just admit to their true intentions. I'm not against the U.S. in it's quest for the much needed oil. That is not the issue, the issue is the way they are going about it. Fooling the American people into believe Hussein is the target when in reality its the oil that is the target. There are better ways of obtaining one's goals besides the underhanded, embarassing tactics used by the U.S.



But you are entitled to your own opinions, if they are truly yours.



.

Right On, sis!

This is almost embarassing...

Washington Post

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for
American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between
Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world
petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi
opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to
focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil
companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge
proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the
world outside Saudi Arabia.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey,
who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power.
"France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be
told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government,
we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American
companies work closely with them."

But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult
to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with
them."

2funkE said:

Embarrassing is ONE word! I'm sure that the topic of OIL has never come up in any of the administrations DIScussions. What business are (please note present tense) Bush and Cheney in? "Duh...I'm just a dumbdowned citizen of these here United States." Puhleeeze! I do agree that Saddam is, and has been a ruthless dictator. But he is not the first, nor the last this globe will see in our lifetime. Besides...who helped him to power? This global game is getting tired and dangerous, not 2 mention the effect in the U.S. for us citizens in terms of civil liberties. All in the name of "security".

Terrorism CANNOT be stopped. Just like guerilla warfare cannot be stopped (see U.S. agression in Vietnam) and with each "crisis"...more and more power will be usurped by the government in the name of "protection". I'm sure at some point that postings such as this on the org...may even add some red flags to my "file". Whatever...I hope I am wrong..but intuition tells me I am not.

We need 2 come 2gether, come 2gether as ONE

True dat.

KFUNK said:

Everyone of us got some red flags in our files, but they will never be able to stop my mind from asking questions and expressing my opinion. That's what they want us to do -- don't say NOTHING, just be still and let me fuck you up the ass!


(not you KFunk )

ajd said:

Hey, now there's a reliable source for US foreign policy - a "high ranker" from Exxon. I'll forgive that this inside "scoop" is more than 10 years old, but help me to understand how the oil lust of an oil executive is relevant to the current UN resolution.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a scandal that the US, Russia, France and a host of other oil-dependent nations want a piece of the Iraqi oil market (read: they want to BUY Iraqi oil) when Saddam is "excused" from office. Besides, the full reentry of Iraq into the world oil marketplace will be needed to rebuild the post-Saddam Iraq economy. Sounds like a good thing to me.

A year ago, we were savagely attacked. Bottom line: some of us are pissed. It seems a few Islamic extremists picked a fight with the wrong country. It's a bad time to find yourself in charge of a regime that poses a threat to our national security, our allies (those that have the balls to remain), and yes, our interests, including oil. And that's what it's all about.

soulpower said:

We'll need two years to rid ourselves of Bush. I'll do my best. In the meantime, I'd advise our enemies to behave. Here's something that you may actually agree with: If we (the US) fails economically...well, think house of cards. And if we are pulled into a fullscale, worldwide, unilateral military engagement: think very long winter.



How can you possibly deny that the events of 60 years ago are directly linked to the most insoluble problem in the Middle East region today: Israel vs, the Arab world. Remember, Soulpower, you are the one who enjoys resurrecting your list of US military campaigns dating back at least this far. Aren't you the one who likes to use the fact that we used nuclear weapons 60 years ago to end WWII as evidence that we're the most likely to use them again? Which is it: "old shit" or relevant shit?

TheMax said:

No doubt that the Americans have a right to be pissed. But be pissed on the right ones. I have not seen ANY proof yet about an involvment of Saddam with the Al Qaeda.

In contrary. For Al Qaeda Iraq is an unholy nation cause women dont have to cover, alcohol is widely available, music, dancing you name it. Saddam is not really interested in the Al Qaeda stuff... Maybe you remember why he thought the war against Iran. To keep his country clean of Ayatollahs.

Where did most of the attackers come from? Saudia Arabia right. Has Bush threatened Saudi Arabia? No.

Give me just one reason, just one, why he shall attack Iraq if not for business...