http://www.nysun.com/article/5372
This is going to be fun to watch. Finally we are getting to the bottom of this.
This is going to be fun to watch. Finally we are getting to the bottom of this.
harleycharley said:well, the right will have to take it's glee where it can find it. wait till we get to teh bottom of Abu Graib, Halliburton, the Bin-laden/bush families link, the 100,000 dead, guantanamo the phony "democracy" and ultimatelyt the failed illegal war.....
might take a while, but Bush will go down as the most corrupt and stupid president the US ever had the ignorance to elect ..... .or not elect as the case may be.....
harleycharley said:no, i was just listing some of the likely crimes of the Bush administration....
i dont believe there should have been an occupation, regardless of who it was led by....
sarasota said:
I do agreeAsterix said:The plot thins. Can we agree to stop comparing Hitler to, whomever. This is getting a little tiring.
If the UN needs to be "overhauled", perhaps the US could pay its dues and join in.langeweile said:The point is:
if the UN would not be so pre-occupied making money on the oil for food program, maybe and just maybe they would have been more serious in enforcing their own resolutions.
People like to forget that those "no ABC weapons program resolutions" been in place since Bush senior.
For over ten years the UN was not able to get a final report. At one point Saddam had kicked out the inspectors.
I am not connecting the invasion to this, that is a seperate issue in my book.
The concern remains that the UN has becone corrupt. The UN after the end of the cold war needs to refocus and define it's purpose.Or it will become a heavy, bloated and corrupt institution.
Kofi Annan should hace the courage to resign and make room for a new start. He has lost his credibility on more than one level.
As for sarasota, thank you for illuminating to the fact, that some of the left deserves the term "wacko" as well.
Whose troops would they have "ordered in"? Would Saddam have allowed this? Would this have been seen as permitting a UN-sponsored invasion?papasmerf said:Langeweile,
I respectfully disagree about the connection to the "invasion".
If the UN was paying attention to the resolutions, the weapons inspection program would have been enforced. The first time the inspectors were blocked the UN should have ordered troops in to enforce the inspections. Instead it appears there was a decided interest in profits. As well as protecting family menbers who may not stand up to investigations.
Papa
Ranger68 said:Whose troops would they have "ordered in"? Would Saddam have allowed this? Would this have been seen as permitting a UN-sponsored invasion?
Nonsense. This was just Saddam being an ass again. He would have skirted any action the UN appeared to be taking. And the US would have found some other reason for invading - most likely, they would have cooked up more "intelligence" about terrorist concerns.
Again, as has been PROVEN, the Iraqis had no WMD programs. They'd been dismantled, following the first Gulf War. The US was roughly aware of this, and merely used this as a pretext to invade.
WMDs had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Terrorist had NOTHING to do with Iraq. The US administration lied.
First off, you're wrong. There WERE no WMD, and Saddam was just being the ass he always was and trying to make a name for himself by standing up to the international community. Your conclusion is clearly false. You've obviously TOTALLY bought in to the US WMD scam, even when they themselves are beginning to admit that they had false intelligence. Free your mind.papasmerf said:Were there no WMD, sadam would have been more willing to allow inspections. You fail to realize the ammount of time Sadam had to deconstruct weapons and move them from the region. Your implication the entire country has been checked is eronious and misleading. You also imply that sudam had none or did not have any moved them to a different nation.
As for whose troop would have been sent in, I thought the original resolution covered that.
As for the inteleegence as facts unfold I dare say any intel is only as up to date as the most recent reports from operatives.
What terrorism? What weapons?onthebottom said:Wow:
"As the oil-for-food scandal has unfolded, it has become clear that U.N. secrecy and lack of accountability evolved, in effect, into complicity with Saddam's scams and influence-buying. By now, between congressional and other investigations, there are allegations that Saddam, on Mr. Annan's watch, under U.N. sanctions and oil-for-food supervision, scammed and smuggled some $17.3 billion in oil money meant for relief, using some of that money to fund terrorism, import weapons, and buy influence with Security Council members France, Russia, and China."
Perhaps it's time we stop making our payments again until they open their books, that or reposes the NYC property and send them a property tax bill.
So Annan lectures the US about the invasion after allowing Saddam to buy votes on the UNSC?
OTB