bluelight

-------------------------------------
Ok

So what then is this?The info is from the British government so you can not dismiss it.

Exactly how much have you found?


----------------------------------------


What has UNSCOM achieved?

Despite constant Iraqi deceit, concealment, harassment and obstruction, UNSCOM has succeeded in destroying:


38,000 chemical weapons
480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents
48 operational missiles
Six missile launchers
30 special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons
hundreds of items of CW production equipment. Iraq originally claimed much of it was for peaceful use but later admitted its real purpose.
Iraq claimed that the VX nerve gas project was a failure. UNSCOM has discovered Iraq had the capability to produce VX on an industrial scale, and produced four tonnes. Work was also going on into numerous other agents: sarin, tabun and mustard gas.
the Al Hakam BW factory (3 kms. by 6 kms.) which was able to produce 50,000 litres of anthrax and botulinum. Iraq claimed it was for animal feed . . .
UNSCOM has also discovered that Iraq produced 19,000 litres of botulinum, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin (produces liver cancer) and clostridium (gas gangrene). Iraq has admitted filling ballistic missile warheads and bombs with the first three of these agents. These weapons were subsequently destroyed. Iraq denied the existence of all these biological agents until August 1995.

Homepage of the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the UN
http://www.fco.gov.uk



Bluelight

bluelight

And...whatsmore......If.............the UN had NOT destroyed the above...and more...


Would that have made it ...easier..for you to get to Bagdad??

Whining about the Un is well and alright but denying reality is not.


Bluelight

JavaFox

It did NOT prevent the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans in 1994, despite the fact that they had troops in the area.

It did NOT recognize the ethnic cleansings in Kosovo, and did not back the bombing campaign to depose Milosevic -- NATO had to handle that.

It did NOT sucessfully partition Palestine/Israel, unlike the British, who sucessfully partitioned Pakistan and India.

It did NOT and could not handle the humanitarian nightmare in Somalia. After the US paid a third of the cost of this failed UN mission, we also had to send in 19,000 of our men to try to sort out the mess.

It did NOT bring peace to the Congo. UN peacekeepers engaged in combat, tragically lost over 200 men, squandered millions of dollars, and left the country. Millions of people still die there today.

---

Can you understand the American mistrust of the UN now? We pay for 30% of this organization to fail, and then have to spill our blood to fix the UN's mistakes. Is this fair? Someone said something that I definitely agree with. The UN can function as peacekeepers, but they cannot function --as so painfully illustrated by history-- as peacemakers. They don't have any business settling armed conflict.

bluelight

Ive asked other American this questions one hundred times before....never had an answer because there is none....


The question is:

Give me one single piece of documents where the US government ask s for action in Rwanda ...i9n the securoty council.

One single document of such a will from Usa.

YOu will not find such a document simply hgecause usa was totally uninterested to do anything whatsoever in Rwanda.


Bluelight

bluelight

Ive asked other American this questions one hundred times before....never had an answer because there is none....


The question is:

Give me one single piece of documents where the US government asks for action in Rwanda ...in the security council.

One single document of such a will from Usa.

You will not find such a document simply because Usa was totally uninterested to do anything whatsoever in Rwanda.



As when it comes to the other issues i could adress some of them too.None of them atre proof of that Un is useless.

The UN is what you make it.

Everybody has been using the UN to serve themselves including you and Soviet especially.

That...says nothiung about the potential the UN has if.....respected by its members.



Anyway.

You have pushed the UN aside and followingly since you are "the empire" the UN is no longer of much use at least not as intyended.



So...its up to your rightwing extremist government to show the world that they can handle the world better than anyone else....

And....they better be right.




Bluelight

merry

Palestina was also a Brittish colony, I think.

I know you'll hate me for this, but this phrase could easily have been taken from Brezhnev's announcement of the invasion of Afghanistan. "The war for peace" was a dear slogan to the Soviets, and most every commie-dictator posed as a "peacemaker". The West, on the other hand, was always described as "aggressive" and opposed to the peace the East was trying to achieve - by making war to the West, the "War for Peace".

This whole line of thinking - will make some war now, we'll have peace later, this doesn't make us warmongers, but peacemakers.

I've heard this type of propaganda for the first 24 years of my life, and to hear it again from the "other side" is ... surrealistic?

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

JavaFox

Indeed, the US did little to curb the killing in Rwanda until it was apparent that we had to.

But your argument holds little water. I thought you believed that the UN's role was to make the peace? According to you, the UN is supposed to fulfil a role that the US cannot. You have repeatedly shared the view that the US should not have handled war in Iraq. Then how can you sidestep the issue here? The issue is not whether or not the the US wanted peace in Rwanda. The issue is whether or not the UN is equipped to broker peace. Is it? Can you honestly say that the UN has ever successfully created peace? I am not arguing that the US said "Let's fix Rwanda!" and the UN screwed it up. I am saying that the UN said "Let's fix Rwanda!" --which, according to you and many like you, IS THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS, NOT THE UNITED STATES-- and screwed it up.

You fundamentally misunderstand my argument. Whether or not the United States wanted to do anything in Rwanda is irrelevant, because we are talking here about the UN. My thesis here is that the UN tried and failed in Rwanda. Do you disagree with that? Besides, isn't it your belief that the US needs to stay out of world affairs anyway? I thought the UN was the best way to solve international problems!

JavaFox

Yes, it was a British mandate/protectorate/whatever-euphemism-the-British-Empire-wanted-to-use. The point here is that we have two nations --Israel and India-- that were under British control. When it came time to relinquish control of them and partition them to avoid strife, one was handled by the British, the other was handled by the UN. In my mind, it is not a coincidence that the one handled by the United Nations is the one that is more problematic today.

Whether or not you agree with my belief that the UN cannot make --only keep-- peace, you must admit that sometimes battles have to be fought to create peace. In the 40s, for example, the world had to fight tooth and nail to secure peace. War is not always the answer, but it is sometimes the answer. I don't think you can disagree with that. That said, simply stating that my statement sounds like Communist propaganda is a very interesting observation --and I mean this sincerely-- but it does not negate my argument by its mere utterance. If you truly think that the UN can create peace then --by all means-- show me an instance in which they did.

bluelight

The UN CAN make peace...if you give it the power.Usa does notf want to GIVE that power to the UN for the simple reason that ir would take away power from Usa.


You say in your reply to me...We went to actuion in Rwanda after everyone else had been passive.

Exactly......What did YOU do in Rwanda??


AS far as i know the only international prescense in Rwanda was submitted by France and Canada...before the slaughter...and as far as i know...both of them sent signals...that something was happening.....

that was ignored by everyone...including Usa.


So...What did you do in Rwanda??



And...there is nothing contradictory in my posts above and what i think about the role of the UN.

I think it is the the Un that should have the role as both peace makers ..and peacekeepers.

In the case of Iraq...Usa has taken that role away from the UN by sidestepping the UN and actually by spitting on the agreements that Usa themselves had comitted themselves to by being oarty of the UN.


Finally.
'
There is no doubt whatsoever that the rightwing extremist government of Usa has no intention at all inletting the UN play a role in international politics.


So.....the burden is on their backs.It is up to them to PROOVE that they can do this better on their own then what could be done by an international coaliation.

And...first of all we want to see a free Palestine,a democratic Iraq,in general we also want to see all countries in the mideast as deomctaric nations including Saudi Arabiaq.
'
Thisd is what you initially have promised the world will happen if we follow the path laid out by Wolfwitz the chief ideolog.


So...WE are waiting........................



Very soon there will be a resolution from Usa about Iraq and lifting the sanctions against Iraq



The result of the voting in the security council about that resolutiuon will be the ultimate proof...of what the world thinks about being dominated by Usa.


Bluelight

JavaFox

Okay, well, I hate to admit it, but I think was confused when I replied. When I said that the US had to go in and "fix" what the UN had messed up, I was thinking about Somalia, not Rwanda. So, you have a point. The US did very little in regards to Rwanda. But the fact that few nations did anything to curb the widespread violence in Rwanda underscores exactly what is wrong with the UN. If you have a body of nations that is indifferent to genocide --and, yes, the US was also complicit in this-- then what is the point of the body as a peacekeeping organization? I have mentioned five dismal failures of the UN. Can you truly say the UN has ever been sucessful in creating lasting peace? Can you show me even one example? No, because the UN simply has no skills in creating peace, which was painfully evidence in Rwanda, Somalia, the Congo (Zaire), Palestine, and Kosovo.

I have brought up five examples in which the UN failed to create lasting peace. In fact, the members of the UN didn't even seem to care very much. The only thing you have done is say "Well, the US didn't do anything in Rwanda" and that may well be true. But we sure as Hell did something in Somalia. And we are at the forefront of trying to normalize Israeli-Palestinian relations.

If the UN's role is to create peace, where are the fruits of its labor? And why do you criticize the US for doing nothing when you are of the opinion that the UN, not the US, is charged with the responsibility of creating international peace? You can't have it both ways, bluelight. You either believe the UN should be working to create peace and, thus, condemn its failures in the past, or you believe that the US has a unilateral responsibility to fix international conflicts. You can't say you want the UN to be the peacemaking body, and then critisize the US for doing nothing; that is nonsensical.




And that's what it's about, isn't it? "Nevermind that the sanctions caused economic hardship for the Iraqi people; we want to stick it to the US!" It is absolutely bewildering to me that France would oppose lifting the sanctions against Iraq, even though the regime those sanctions were levied against NO LONGER EXISTS. What is the reasoning behind opposing the lifting of sanctions? Is it really just to show the US how much you hate 'em? If so, isn't this kind of childishness something that doesn't belong in the UN?

bluelight

Somalia is the reason..you were not in Rwanda.To messy in Africa....and nothing worth risking lives for.

That is probably why you voted no to a resolution in the security council just recently that wanted UN troops sent to the Ivory coast..something that of course...blocked the whole operation....should we start a boycott against american products now...?? Start a hate campaign against Bush??






It is very very simple....For more than a year we have been listening to the rightwing people of your government and to rightwing people of your nation explianing that the UN is bullshit and that nobody else than Usa can handle the world.

I have personally been insulted ten million times for tyhe single reson of supporting a multilateral world by americans.




The Iraq issue ended with you sidestepping the UN.


So....quit whining....proove your point.

Show us the wmd`s...arrange the democracy and peace in the mideast you told us you would arrange if only we did as we were told by you.


It IS now...your responsibility now.No one elses.

You took the right to handle this YOUR way....


Do it.

And let history judge.

This is not...personal...but after these one and a half year of arguments that the one side with enough brains is ypour government and after them "stealing" the action......


I simply want them to proove their point...



This is probably the answer they will get to their resolution about Iraq too.

Proove your point.

Run this your way.

We dont care...since you didnt bother to care about how we llooked upon things.

Fair.Its not childish.

In that case your govcernment has benn three year old kids for over than a year.


Bluelight

bluelight

The reason for not lifting the sanctions is :

If the sanctions are lifted Usa will have complete and indefinite control over Iraq.


That is a very very good reasdon not to lift the sanctions.




Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

snipes in to reminds ......... the US started the united nations.....


they have all the power they need / use like the power to set on thier hands and do nothing like in iraq ...........


The un needs a new face again ... clearly some changes need to be made!

IT TO EASY FOR MEMBERS TO BEND IT TO THIER OWN AGENDA EVEN YOU SHOULD AGREE WITH THAT .....

__________________

The_Neon_Cowboy

UN LETS SEE WHY YOU WANT TO PUNSISH A COUNTRY FOR A REGIME THAT IS NO LONGER IN POWER? IT'S IN THE BEST INTREST OF THE IRAQY PEOPLE... YOU PEOPLE WERE MAD AT THE SANCTIONS WERE PUT IN PLACE NOW YOU MAD THIER BEING REMOVED ? CAN WE SAY 180 TURN IN STANCE ....
Evething has a hidden agenda to you dosent it?

__________________

JavaFox

I cannot believe you support this. The sanctions were imposed against Saddam's regime to get him to disarm. That regime no longer exists; it's time for the sanctions to end, too. How can you put Europe's pride over the economic and material well-being of an entire nation? Do you know WHY there was an Oil-For-Food program? To alleviate the suffering caused by sanctions.

It's time to end the sanctions. They were there for a reason, and that reason is gone.

bluelight

I will support it.....as will Russia and France up until a point where economic presure i too strong.

Personally i hope they will lay a veto against lifting the sanctions unless UN inspections are stareted againbut i dont believe they willl.

I want Usa to accept the UN weaponinspectors...then...when everyone agrees...all is clean...or..we see WMD´s that are verified by all then...sanctions are to be lifted.

If that does not happen and you present WMD´s....I will consider them planted there by you.




Bluelight

JavaFox

WMD or not, the point of the sanctions were to get Saddam Hussein to disarm. Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge of the country. So? You support punishing the people for the crimes of a man who doesn't control them any more?

bluelight

Yeah and the point in not lifting the sanctions is seeing to that you do not have 100 percent rule over Iraq.

To bad though that its not gonna happen.

Both Russia and France will accept your resolution after a bit of whining.

I dont think they should.

I think someone should veto your resolution.

I want the UN inspectors inside Iraq.

I want the UN administring the oil.

I want the UN administring the rebuilding of Iraq.


But...as i said...its not gonna happen for the simple reason that your power internationally is to big.


And no...this is not about punishing Iraq..it is about forcing Usa to let inspectors in....to bad its not gonna happen...

Bluelight