It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney slams North Korean leader

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


The Iraqi opposition, who had been encouraged to overthrow Hussein, was given no help at all, allowing Hussein to defeat them and stay in power.


This isn't true. Our fighters protected the Kurds for years. We kept Iraqi forces from acting against them.


I find it compeltely unbelievable that you continue to jsutify the ilegal, immoral and hypocritical actions of the rogue regime running the US

1, the bill (Darfar accountibility act) the senate depsite opposition from Bush only for him to kill the bill.

why is it that bush completely ignores the serious problems (far more urgent than the problem he has caused with iran or NK) in Darfar?

why is it rice has met with leaders from NATO and U.N. Security Council member countries 29 times, and they have mentioned Darfur publicly only once.

why did the CIA send an executive jet to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings. The head of Sudan's equivalent of the CIA, Major General Salah Abdallah Gosh, was Khartoum's liaison with Osama bin Laden? surely they can't be doing business with terrorists can they?

why did the Bush administration abstain on a vote at the United Nations, so that Sudan was freed from international sanctions imposed for its alleged role in efforts to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 1995

what is clear is that the US is the one supporting the genocide in Darfar but why is that? Of course it would have nothing to do with oil would it


So please could you provide the evidence that chirac is personally supporting genocide?


America has been pushing the UN to call the situation in the Sudan what it is, a genocide. We've been the ones pushing for sanctions and actions while the EU and China won't allow it.


no your not! where's the evidence of this?


There are a few hundred people being held in Cuba. They are only at risk of behavior like seeing women in skimpy clothing, or perhaps having an Israeli flag draped over them.


they are being TORTURED! I can't make that any clearer. How Bush can go around claiming he is promoting freedom around the world while at the same time denying his own people that right and ILLEGALLY imprisoning people who are being denied basic human rights such as trial by jury is pure HYPOCRISY. The evidence is mounting aginst bush and we are know what happened the last time things weren't going bush's way dont we! In any other democratic country hje would be in prison,

North Korea & Iran are obviously a problem but it is all of Bush's making. NK only started reprocessing Nuclear fuel as a direct result of bush's childish and incompetant attempts at foreign policty and then threatening them with nuclear weapons himself. You are obviously aware as your know international law so well that nuclear weapons violate humanitarian law, and therefore violate international law." it is illegal under international law to threaten to use or use nuclear weapons!

The July 8 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), at para.75 1 outlines the sources of international law as they relate to nuclear weapons. It is clear that nuclear weapons would generally breach all of the following:

Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868 because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no avoidance or minimising of incidental loss of civilian life;

Hague Convention, 1907 because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no guarantee of the inviolability of neutral nations

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 because long-lasting radioactive contamination would interfere with innocent people’s right to life and health;

Geneva Conventions, 1949 because protection of the wounded, sick, the infirm, expectant mothers, civilian hospitals and health workers would not be ensured;

The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 because there would be massive incidental losses of civilian lives and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.

The geneva convention was designed precisely for the reasons I said. To attack water treatments plants would only cause deaths and serious illnesses to the civilian population of Iraq as the leadership of the country would be virtually unaffected. The power plants provide power for the civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and by attacking power plant you are directly targeting the sick and weak of the civilain population. In addition the Us knew that the sanctions would prevent Iraq from obtaining the parts needed to repair the power stations and treatments plants so causing more unneccesary death and suffering to the people. The sanction prevented them from obtaining essentailly drugs. No antiobiotics meant minor infections killed babies. No stronger painkillers than aspirin meant that people suffered and operations could not be carried out so more babies died

YUour arguments are weak and there is a wealkth of evidence to discredit everythintg you have said . Why you stand up for the illegal actions of your government is beyond me. You may be murdering people from spme third world country today but your actions of today will create the your enemies of tomorrow.

I'm pretty convinced that you are obviously in the employment of your roguie regime to spread your propaganda on this website.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by arnold_vosloo]




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

1, the bill (Darfar accountibility act) the senate depsite opposition from Bush only for him to kill the bill


I've found nothing stating this bill was killed by Bush. Bush and America are just about the only nation to have called what's going on in Darfar genocide to begin with.

America is the reason sanctions have finally been put on the Sudan:


The UN Security Council has voted to apply sanctions on those who commit atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region.

The US-drafted resolution, which passed 12-0 with abstentions from Russia, China and Algeria, is also aimed at strengthening an arms embargo on Sudan.


news.bbc.co.uk...

America and the UK have been the only nations to step and take any action here.


why did the CIA send an executive jet to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings. The head of Sudan's equivalent of the CIA, Major General Salah Abdallah Gosh, was Khartoum's liaison with Osama bin Laden? surely they can't be doing business with terrorists can they?


If these are secret meetings, how exactly do you know about them?


why did the Bush administration abstain on a vote at the United Nations, so that Sudan was freed from international sanctions imposed for its alleged role in efforts to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 1995


This isn't even related to Darfar, and I'd love to see a source for all of your claims.


what is clear is that the US is the one supporting the genocide in Darfar but why is that? Of course it would have nothing to do with oil would it


America does not get oil from the Sudan. France, China and Russia do.


So please could you provide the evidence that chirac is personally supporting genocide?


France harbors Rwandans who took part in the genocide, and is accused of training the militia that carried out the genocide:
news.bbc.co.uk...

France is accused of allowing those who carried out the genocide to escape:
news.bbc.co.uk...

France opposes sanctions in the Sudan proposed by the US (note that it states France has significant oil interests in the Sudan):
news.bbc.co.uk...

You're right, though. It's all America's fault...


they are being TORTURED! I can't make that any clearer. How Bush can go around claiming he is promoting freedom around the world while at the same time denying his own people that right and ILLEGALLY imprisoning people who are being denied basic human rights such as trial by jury is pure HYPOCRISY. The evidence is mounting aginst bush and we are know what happened the last time things weren't going bush's way dont we! In any other democratic country hje would be in prison,


Yet none of those who have been released have any bruises or such. What exactly do you consider torture?

And once again, you can not prove that any torture that has taken place is anything but isolated.


North Korea & Iran are obviously a problem but it is all of Bush's making. NK only started reprocessing Nuclear fuel as a direct result of bush's childish and incompetant attempts at foreign policty and then threatening them with nuclear weapons himself. You are obviously aware as your know international law so well that nuclear weapons violate humanitarian law, and therefore violate international law." it is illegal under international law to threaten to use or use nuclear weapons!


America has never threatened anyone with nukes unless attacked first by nukes.

And Kim Jong has wanted nukes long before Bush. You do realize the same thing was going on under Clinton, right? Clinton agreed to give the Koreans a power plant if they gave up their pursuit of nuclear technology, and they broke the agreement.


The geneva convention was designed precisely for the reasons I said. To attack water treatments plants would only cause deaths and serious illnesses to the civilian population of Iraq as the leadership of the country would be virtually unaffected. The power plants provide power for the civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and by attacking power plant you are directly targeting the sick and weak of the civilain population. In addition the Us knew that the sanctions would prevent Iraq from obtaining the parts needed to repair the power stations and treatments plants so causing more unneccesary death and suffering to the people. The sanction prevented them from obtaining essentailly drugs. No antiobiotics meant minor infections killed babies. No stronger painkillers than aspirin meant that people suffered and operations could not be carried out so more babies died


The sanctions were passed by the UN, so obviously they don't violate international law, and if they did, everyone who fought Iraq would be as guilty as America.

We never bombed hospitals. Power plants and transportation is bombed because they are used by the enemies military. They are legitimate targets.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer



Really? From what I hear, many of those Saudis can't get enough of our lifestyle when they come here. They love their drugs, women and gambling.

Once again, why fund any extremists? What do they actually get out of it?


From Murdoch's paper:

June 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — More than 40 percent of the suicide bombers dispatched by terror leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi to attack Iraqis and U.S. troops hailed from Saudi Arabia, according to a new study.

An analysis of 107 bombers whose names and backgrounds Zarqawi's group published revealed that 45 of the dead extremists, or 42 percent, came from Saudi Arabia, said Rita Katz, SITE director.

"What we see here is there are a lot of people who appear to be quite well educated leaving universities, good jobs and families to go to Iraq to fight the jihad," Katz said.

"It means there is huge support for Zarqawi and al Qaeda among the younger generation — particularly in Saudi Arabia — who are going to Iraq not to liberate Iraq, but to engage in the battle between the mujahedeen and the crusaders. This is in Iraq now. But it could be somewhere else tomorrow."

Yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari was at the U.N. Security Council, demanding that Syria do more to stop foreign terrorists from crossing into Iraq. He charged Syria was a "main transit route" for the guerrillas.

One section of the Zarqawi group's list of bombers mentions 12 Saudis in their 20s who were among the first to travel to Iraq after the U.S. invasion and carried out mass murders in the Kurdish north.


www.nypost.com...

Once again it is rather transparent who is really behind the veil of this insurgency. We need to aim for the heart, not the legs.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by Vajrayana]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Um, none of that shows funding from the government of Saudi Arabia. I thought that was what was under discussion here.


quote: June 1, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — More than 40 percent of the suicide bombers dispatched by terror leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi to attack Iraqis and U.S. troops hailed from Saudi Arabia, according to a new study.


This study is in no way scientific or absolute. It's useless.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Question: Tell us, Mr. Secretary, the state of the insurgency in Iraq. The New York Post has an interesting piece today about how the estimates are about 42 percent of the homicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. What are we doing with our relationship with Saudi Arabia on that 42 percent figure? It's pretty startling.

Rumsfeld: Well, as we all know, al-Qaida kind of began and was sustained in that country. About the government itself, the fact is that the Saudi government has been attacked by the al-Qaida. They have organized anti-terrorist and counter-terrorist activities and been increasingly aggressive in going after terrorists. But the fact remains that there are people from that country as well as most of the neighboring countries who have over time been a part of the al-Qaida operation.

Question: My problem with what we hear from Saudi Arabia, though, it's a lot of words and sometimes not a lot of actions. I know they have launched their own investigations, Mr. Secretary, but in your mind, and you know this, are they doing everything they can?

Rumsfeld: Well my impression is that ever since they were attacked some months back that they have been exceedingly aggressive and determined to not have their government weakened or destabilized by al-Qaida, and they have been aggressively going after the terrorists, and I think it's admirable.


bold added
italics added

www.defenselink.mil...

See, the problem is that Cheney went after every possible,though fictitious, Mohammed Atta-Iraqi Agent meeting in Prague link to connect Saddam to 9/11, yet with 15 Saudi hijacking scumbags, mainly from Riyadh, the House of Saud is instantly granted exoneration. There is clearly a double-standard being intentionally applied to the Saudis by the top of this administration, not to mention an enjoyable journalistic immunity from our press and it smells rotten indeed.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

1, the bill (Darfar accountibility act) the senate depsite opposition from Bush only for him to kill the bill


I've found nothing stating this bill was killed by Bush. Bush and America are just about the only nation to have called what's going on in Darfar genocide to begin with.

America is the reason sanctions have finally been put on the Sudan:


The UN Security Council has voted to apply sanctions on those who commit atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region.

The US-drafted resolution, which passed 12-0 with abstentions from Russia, China and Algeria, is also aimed at strengthening an arms embargo on Sudan.


news.bbc.co.uk...

America and the UK have been the only nations to step and take any action here.


why did the CIA send an executive jet to ferry the chief of Sudan's intelligence agency to Washington for secret meetings. The head of Sudan's equivalent of the CIA, Major General Salah Abdallah Gosh, was Khartoum's liaison with Osama bin Laden? surely they can't be doing business with terrorists can they?


If these are secret meetings, how exactly do you know about them?


why did the Bush administration abstain on a vote at the United Nations, so that Sudan was freed from international sanctions imposed for its alleged role in efforts to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in 1995


This isn't even related to Darfar, and I'd love to see a source for all of your claims.


what is clear is that the US is the one supporting the genocide in Darfar but why is that? Of course it would have nothing to do with oil would it


America does not get oil from the Sudan. France, China and Russia do.


So please could you provide the evidence that chirac is personally supporting genocide?


France harbors Rwandans who took part in the genocide, and is accused of training the militia that carried out the genocide:
news.bbc.co.uk...

France is accused of allowing those who carried out the genocide to escape:
news.bbc.co.uk...

France opposes sanctions in the Sudan proposed by the US (note that it states France has significant oil interests in the Sudan):
news.bbc.co.uk...

You're right, though. It's all America's fault...


they are being TORTURED! I can't make that any clearer. How Bush can go around claiming he is promoting freedom around the world while at the same time denying his own people that right and ILLEGALLY imprisoning people who are being denied basic human rights such as trial by jury is pure HYPOCRISY. The evidence is mounting aginst bush and we are know what happened the last time things weren't going bush's way dont we! In any other democratic country hje would be in prison,


Yet none of those who have been released have any bruises or such. What exactly do you consider torture?

And once again, you can not prove that any torture that has taken place is anything but isolated.


North Korea & Iran are obviously a problem but it is all of Bush's making. NK only started reprocessing Nuclear fuel as a direct result of bush's childish and incompetant attempts at foreign policty and then threatening them with nuclear weapons himself. You are obviously aware as your know international law so well that nuclear weapons violate humanitarian law, and therefore violate international law." it is illegal under international law to threaten to use or use nuclear weapons!


America has never threatened anyone with nukes unless attacked first by nukes.

And Kim Jong has wanted nukes long before Bush. You do realize the same thing was going on under Clinton, right? Clinton agreed to give the Koreans a power plant if they gave up their pursuit of nuclear technology, and they broke the agreement.


The geneva convention was designed precisely for the reasons I said. To attack water treatments plants would only cause deaths and serious illnesses to the civilian population of Iraq as the leadership of the country would be virtually unaffected. The power plants provide power for the civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and by attacking power plant you are directly targeting the sick and weak of the civilain population. In addition the Us knew that the sanctions would prevent Iraq from obtaining the parts needed to repair the power stations and treatments plants so causing more unneccesary death and suffering to the people. The sanction prevented them from obtaining essentailly drugs. No antiobiotics meant minor infections killed babies. No stronger painkillers than aspirin meant that people suffered and operations could not be carried out so more babies died


The sanctions were passed by the UN, so obviously they don't violate international law, and if they did, everyone who fought Iraq would be as guilty as America.

We never bombed hospitals. Power plants and transportation is bombed because they are used by the enemies military. They are legitimate targets.


this could go on forever
I accept that I have been wrong on some of that mainly over sudan as you are right that the US has been pushing for action for a long time. I agree that the UK must do more and people over here have been pushing Blair to do something for a long time but as usual he doesn't listen. I wasn't aware of what france had been accused of and I must admit I'm not the greatest fan of the french myself.

I dont agree that power plants and water tratment plants are legitimate targets as it is the people tat suffer and the regime never do! There are reports of bombing of hospitals maybe not deliberate targeting but they were bombed all the same.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I think we will just have to agree that we are not going to see things the same way and I feel I must stress I'm not anti-american just anti american foreign policy, I feel sad that the US used to stand for so much good in the world. I have visited much of the US and I have always found you to be genuinely friendly people.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

news.bbc.co.uk...


This was not an intentional attack on the hospital.


See, the problem is that Cheney went after every possible,though fictitious, Mohammed Atta-Iraqi Agent meeting in Prague link to connect Saddam to 9/11, yet with 15 Saudi hijacking scumbags, mainly from Riyadh, the House of Saud is instantly granted exoneration. There is clearly a double-standard being intentionally applied to the Saudis by the top of this administration, not to mention an enjoyable journalistic immunity from our press and it smells rotten indeed.


Your source in no way backed up anything you're saying. I fail to see why you provided it.

The Saudis hardly have any immunity from the press. If you followed the New York Times, for instance, you would have seen a huge number of people linking the Saudis to 9/11, and asking why we weren't going after them instead of Iraq.

That's usually the case when people claim our media is ignoring an issue...

There are a number of reasons to target Saddam over the Saudi government, not least of which was that there has been no proven connection between the Saudi government and Al Qeada.

It is well known that since the early 90's, Saddam had been turning more and more to radical Islam in order to secure his power. This has also meant opening up to groups like Al Qeada. There is evidence he gave funding to their operation in Syria.

Several members of Al Qeada were given sanctuary in Iraq. Terrorist camps have been found in Iraq. It is known that Iraqis may have in fact trained Al Qeada in chemical warfare.

And there was a huge amount of evidence that Saddam had WMD's. This wasn't just America that thought so, but pretty much everyone. The UN had found him in violation of sanctions. Russian intelligence had warned us just after 9/11 that members of Saddam's regime were interested in attacking America.

Plus, Saddam is the poster boy of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. In spite of what many like to believe, America isn't about to take out the entire region and put in puppet governments. We could only attack so many. Attacking Saddam was probably more about sending a message to everyone in the region more than anything.

The plan to change the Middle East isn't an instant fix. It's to gradually force change in nations, and to inspire the people of the Middle East that things can change.

We've been able to force progress in places like Saudi Arabia. Why would we attack them?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Yes Fred Flintstone! That's the ticket!

Fred is grappling an emotional issue. On his left side appears Fred as "the devil," saying in a gruff voice "go out to the lodge bowling tournament tonight, who cares if it is your anniversary." Meanwhile Fred as an "Angel," goes "now Fred Wilma is going to be heartbroken you didn't show up at the celebration."

To get to the center of things, and while this analogy may be weak; it does make the Manichean point where people believe themselves to be exclusively good and others bad. There is no question that the North Korean leader has brought a cult of personality with swooning followers eclipsing Beatle mania locally on steroids, and all at the point of a gun and torture. There is no question that he is in his own reality, and isolating his people from the rest of the world. So do the Amish, but at least they are much more moral at a quantum level better, perhaps even to the general population of the United States.

Now setting the tone of things where are the differences in words and deeds here? Tzu said "rectify the language!" It appears here that the illusion of a Manichean world is smoke and mirrors. The only difference is the degree of universal swooning of a country's population. There Kim is champ.

In my thoughts however Fred Flintstone would be preferable to almost every leader on the world stage. At least his lines of demarcation morally involve free will devoid of rationalization and illusion. His decision making process is very clear, even when he is wrong.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by SkipShipman]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join