WMD Issue Still causing Trouble For Blair(And it keeps on just getting worse)

Intersting, Toltec. I notice youre constant references to the UN in your posts, basically suggesting foiling any US led plans there, or attempting to hide something. It is very interesting that you would suggest this, as this was a thought in the back of my head as well.

While i doibt and distrust US motives in this case and many, I dont trust the UN any more than the Bush admin. I have been wondering a few things myself.

Do you know something I dont Toltec? What do YOU think about it?

As I have stated Saphonia if we never find WMD in Iraq it will not be (in my opinion) because the adminstration lied they had to much invested in
finding those weapons to continue the campain.

The motivation to be absolutely right would over power any other decision otherwise they could not continue to do what they were doing (War on Terror). So it does not take an Einstein to realize that there was absolutly no motivation at all for lying if the weapons were not their.

Keep in mind we went into Bosnia because of Ethnic Cleansing, the French are currently in the Congo as a result of the application of terror tactics upon the people of that country eash of these issue's are the result of the violation of Humanitarian rights.

The only problem with going into Iraq due to the issue of mass graves, torture and human rights abuses is that in reality. The issues which were present in Iraq which compared to Bosnia and the Congo, was not being reported by the UN or any Humanitarian interests groups.

The funny part is that folk will excuse anything...the president is not allowed to lie about something as important as war no matter his reasons. but that's all perception you may think his lies are justified and in that case i will laugh at you...one of those deep belly oh my god i'm going to die kinda laughs.

Did you watch meet the press today?

www.miami.com...

If one regards common sense of value then one looks at motivations for committing an act and draws conclusions based upon those motivations.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf I think the UN conspired to commit a violation/abuse of human rights, they did so to keep military forces out of Iraq for a purpose which would have been made apparent once sanctions were removed. As a result of those effort 210,000 people are dead those governments/leaders who fought
tooth and nail against the war with Iraq may in fact be guilty of murder. The entirety of the Arab press as well failed to report what was going on puts them in
the mix not to mention the humanitarian rights organizations.

Not only are they guilty of murder but as well could have conspired to make certain the WMD Iraq was alleged to have may not be found.

My issues are not related to trust but rather the motivations the US government had. For making no error or conspiring to hide the idea there were
no weapons in Iraq. As well as what are the motivations for others interested in this conflict.

Specifically those who allowed so many people to die without intervention despite the fact they were imbedded.

Common sense in this situation was simply ignored with respect to what Saddam Hussein would have done to people in his country after GW1.

Inspectors whose function was to investigate human rights violations should have been in Iraq all along.

To me there is no excuse for this to have occured

GW1 was authorized by the UN as such the UN did have the final say as to when it ended and what happened to Iraq once it ended.

As far as kowing somthing you do not I really cannot say, as I do not know you

I know who I am though

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 9-6-2003 by Toltec]

Blair will get away with it. Even if we cannot find our own Laci Petersen, we'll have joining the euro, Beckham leaving Man U. or something else to fill the pages and the screens.

Well, Toltec, I wanted to know if you knew why the UN would try and stop such an effort. What is thier goal or motive? Do you know?

Lets say Saddam really did have these weapons of mass destruction. Why would the UN want to hide this? What specifically, do you think, would be the UN's end goal in preventing America from self defense, or from taking out this threat? And why did the UN pretty much do little about human rights violations?

Im asking if you know something about the Un that I am unaware of. Do you think there is a conspiracy within the UN against the US? Is the US not complying with some aim of the UN< or does the Un want the US removed as a superpower? Stuff like that.

You are right about the first Gulf war. When I was in the army, I had several comerades that were in that war. They told me everyone was wondering why the hell we didnt keep marching in. We had Saddam in our sights. He clearly was agressive. He had invaded another country. Everyone knew he was a nasty fool. We were also aware that we were his buddy before the conflict.

The question is, why did the UN halt this action?

I dont trust the UN for many reasons, I cant explain. But really, what is the motive and goal of the UN?

The United Nations is an organization whose membership makes up every country in the world.

It is interesting to note how many of those countries fall under the definition of being a "Third world nation." What is also interesting to note is the combined GNP of all these countries as well as the fact that as far as human rights violations, lets face it this is where the problem exist. None of these leaders can be called innocent when it comes to the way they treat there civilian population and many would prefer that such issues were not something they needed to be concerned about.

Taking everything into consideration the UN is an institution made up of representatives from every country in the world. I would submit that a country
which has the power to veto a decision was prepared to do so, not just because
of contracts it had established (France) but as well to represent itself as the
sloganeer for the third world nations (Its not billions but trillions we are addressing
here).

The crime committed by the UN is more than just apparent it is obvious, there was absolutely no reason to not commit UN INSPECTORS whose function was to identify human rights violations in Iraq after GW1. To have not done so goes beyond a simple mistake, they simply did not want to interfere with Saddam Hussein's retribution against people who would have revolted after GW1.

What they wanted was to present to the third world was an institution willing to overlook what was happening in Iraq so as to make them as an institution more attractive, to the nations which respond to descent with actions deemed inappropriate.

A coconspirator is the Arab press (in general) which failed to report any of the disappearances as valid. Furthermore all human rights institutions have failed to
report (until after the fact) that any of this (disappearances) was actually going on.

The United Nations as an institution is guilty of Murder in the first degree. Its very actions with respect to Bosnia and the Congo make clear beyond any shadow of doubt, that its intent with respect to Iraq failed beyond simple error.

You have touched up on a few things that have bugged me. You are right tho. The UN, if so concerned about human rights, has basically had a track record as bad as the US.

We know the Arabs dont give a squat about other Arabs plights, they simply use it as a banner or poster topic to justify this action or that, whatever suits thier needs. So, yes, the Arab press basically does nothing useful, but help stir up anti US sentiment.

The French are pretty shifty as well. It would seem they are looking to extend thier influence as well, through different avenues, tho.

UN.......the US is probably the only nation, both finacially and militarily, that could tell the UN to go to hell. Perhaps that is the reason why the UN opposed the action. I doubt the Un really cared if thier were or not, any WMD. Who knows?

Regardless, Iraq was a farce. Like I said, human rights or not, they werent worth our time as a threat, we need to focus on the real threats to our country, and let evil dicators choike on thier own refuse.

The issue of Iraq given what the president said just before the war started "we are going in to free the Iraqi people," could have been a means to an end.

The confrontation actually being with Europe (minus those who joined the Coalition). To me it is absurd to believe that no one actually knew about what was going on in Iraq (world leaders). And every day it happened, it presented to the third world the idea
that a new policy existed with respect to atrocities (with regards to the UN).


As well there are other issues such as policies and presidents with respect to the treatment of non-combatant civilians as combatants, simply because they pay taxes (in regard to the activities of terrorist who target civilians).

It�s important to consider the 227-year history of the United States of America with respect to the European Theater. While because of WWII England is a staunch ally (and Italy is forever grateful) the rest is a cesspool who quite frankly would sell the US out in a heartbeat.

Given all that has occurred (to date) the idea of an Arab civilization based upon moral dictates is a joke. Those who run the Arab world are about as moral as modern day sex offenders and serial killers in the United States.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf an analysis of what would happen if the US pulled out of the Eastern Hemisphere. Points to the issue of a radioactive cloud, which in time would end up affecting the Western Hemisphere over and over again (Another way of looking at it is that what the KKK wanted for the US is apparent is the Eastern Hemisphere).

Present an alternative (to all concerned) and I will consider it.

What are your thoughts?

Its no secret that the Eastern hemisphere has been a big fat mess long before. The question is, should we bury ourselves in a mess that was raging long before we were even a country?

No. I dont think so. There are so many forces and counter balances to the mess that a nuclear war is unlikely. Maybe not between India and Pakistan, that seems someday to be inevitable.

Our presence in Europe was necessary, after all, we were dragged into to nasty wars because Europe was incapable of policing itself. We had to sit on them to ensure they didnt end up starting world war 3, after world war 2 showed them incapable of handling thier own affairs. That was 50 years ago.

Now, they are basically demilitarized, the have the EU. They havent got themselves into too much trouble, and have handled things fine on thier own. I say we leave em to it. We need to keep our eye on the UN, and maybe, even the EU. But as far as iraq goes, its turning into vietnam for us. I dont want another memorial showing the names of the thousands of troops that died for very little.

We need to pay off our debts, so that no foreign powers hold that kind of stick over our heads. We need to be free of foreign control, through oil and money, and ideology.

I want a free America, and Iraq is not the direction we need to go to achieve this.

Such as what you have mentioned has been considered Ethanol could easily replace gasoline and alternative sources could make up the difference.

We could pull all of our Eastern Hemispheric contracts (business interest) and move everything to north, south and Central America (as well as the Caribbean).

Our Military could then surround the Western Hemisphere and every country in this hemisphere
would in time become a part of the US.

The first problem is what will happen with respect to the world food supply by looking at the Eastern Hemisphere it seem very apparent. That as a result of taking this choice the East will be crippled to an extent that the percentage of those starving to death will increase quantitatively. China cannot feed herself, Chernobyl occurred in Russia's farm belt, Europe is a concrete jungle and as far as Africa the forest are needed for air. As far as Ethanol two states which grow everything from Apples to zucchini would have to be converted to growing only corn.


The EU is not stable, its apparent that at present there is a power struggle occurring between countries with respect to which country will steer the course. What has occurred in Iraq with respect to atrocities is an example of this, also note that in the Congo the French will be pulling out in two months (literally the UN does not give a dam about human life).

This is one world and solutions to our present situation are available, the problem simply stated is overcoming the prejudices inherent in the Eastern Hemisphere.

When looking at the culture as a whole and considering the plans made by the KKK with respect to the US, one does see similarities when looking at the Eastern Hemisphere (today). The culture as a whole is divided by race, creed and color.

In general this may be the real problem one which will be difficult to overcome, if ignored as you have suggested my impression is the situation will become much worst. The most appropriate thing to do is address the problem as we are doing at present otherwise the Eastern Hemisphere will collapse to an extent that what will have to be done to resolve the effect will result in the death of billions.

What are your thoughts?

Toltec:

The EU is not a mess. USA only caused disturbance on purpose as that only benefits USA interests. But we EU are moving along.

The UN main backer, and main puppeter, is USA. When UN does what USA says, no one can oppose. When UN is against USA interests, no one can oppose USA position.

USA *can* do police labours in the whole world, even judge work. In turn, no country is able to judge an USA citizen. It's called *inmunity*.

...maybe Arab press raised an anti-USA sentiment, but in turn, USA press raised an anti-French sentiment.

...and you are going to another hostility race against just another OPEC state (Iran, but I concede is a better target than Iraq) accusing them of posessing the same weapons you have (WMDs) without providing proof Iraq had any and without catching Saddam.

I will repeat again: with all the attrocities Iraq commited, those were irrelevant if you just compare those with the attrocities commited in all neighbour countries *including* a NATO member. If you compare Saddam dictatorship with the Arab, Iranian,... regimes, Saddam was like everyone lovely grandma.

[Edited on 2003-6-14 by MakodFilu]

And all this from one who thinks Spain is innocent, you will find your ships (members of the Spanish armada) just off the coast of El Moro. Feel free to take them back but we will charge for the time you spend within 12 miles of our territory.

Your response makes very little sense, perhaps if I was about 3 years old I would think otherwise. But as I am not, might I suggest you either improve your English or speak in complete sentences (in your own language),

Originally posted by Toltec
And all this from one who thinks Spain is innocent, you will find your ships (members of the Spanish armada) just off the coast of El Moro. Feel free to take them back but we will charge for the time you spend within 12 miles of our territory.

Not true, nor I nor 90% of the Spanish population think our government did the right thing. Instead, we see Spanish government seek to please USA only to be rewarded for it.

...I suggest you either improve your English or speak in complete sentences (in your own language),

Noted... and discarded. If you can't make the effort to traduce my not-native-tongue-written-English, then feel free to translate this:

El que no hable un ingl�s fluido no impide que pueda expresar mis ideas, pese a quien pese.

[Edited on 2003-6-14 by MakodFilu]

Just Kidding Makidoflu all that stuff is water under the bridge, had started to wonder what had happened to
you.

Nice to see you back

For the record don't take that to mean we will always
agree but you expected that didn't you

Interesting, Toltec. And you are right about certain things. The EU for one, it is getting less stable, as the fear of federation will stomp all over native countries rights, soverignty, ect. Especially the UK, who certainly holds no love for Europe, past or present, and sure as hell wont take orders from any of them.

The UN, it seems, some claim the US runs it, sone think its against the US.

Youre right. For both political and evironmental reasons, i am all for new sources of energy that are clean, cheap renweable, and easy for the US to produce so we can end the strangle hold of mid east interferance, and tell OPEC once and for all to kill our star spanlged asses. It also will help clear up much pollution, while making no more need for us to destroy wildlife to drill for more of that black tar heroin our country is addicted to. To finally be able to give the world what they keep bitching they want: America out. Thats exactly what I wish to give them, and let them figure out thier own messes, since they seem to know everything and we know nothing.

What do u think?

The homepage of this site currently presents NASA's intent to construct nuclear powered spacecraft's, with that technology in place the real problem this planet faces can be resolved.

As the example of Ethanol presents the issue of oil is the least of our worries, the real problem is with respect to all the other recourses.

By the time our grandchildren are old enough to have jobs they will be sitting on desks made of plastic, the cars they drive will also be made of plastic and have ceramic engines. Even hinges on doors and bicycles will not be available made of metal.

Did you know that the reason Mars is red is because the surface is mostly iron ore, that the asteroid belt is what is left of an entire planet (planets have cores made of iron which are about a 1/4 the size of the moon).

In a way its very simple build spacecraft capable of retrieving the material on a scale of billions of tons at a time and return it to earth. Where it can be converted into whatever we want (cars, homes ect... all made of steel) and that is just an example (we are not discussing the platinum, gold, silver and other precious metals we could find.

Jobs would be abundant and since pollution control devices are based upon alloys, with a nearly inexhaustible mineral wealth developing the technology would not be a problem.

All of this within our technological capacity but there is one problem, if just one of these vessels got into the hands of the equivalent of the modern day terrorist. Our descendants could end up loosing several thousand miles of land occupied by hard working civilians.

You asked me recently about what I knew, I know that the technology needed to make this idea come true already exists. What is mandated at present is a means to guarantee that this technology will not result in the death of millions.

Literally we can industrialize the entire planet without polluting our atmosphere, everyone would have a job and all of this can be done in less than 100 years.

As a result the recourse that is of the greatest value today is not oil and neither is it minerals, it is the human being and his ability to do work and for the record not as slaves but rather at union scale.

What are yout thoughts?