Wmd??

Tonight wabc radio had john loftus on talking about documents released today by cns news.

On arriving home I did a search for them...here they are:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20041004a.html


Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

Quote:

---

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans....

---

How convenient for the election... But the one thing is, is that anybody can make up docs. Look what happened to Dan Ratter<however you spell his name>.

very true kurt_der_koenig which is why i put question marks in the title but this is going to be interesting for the next few days.

according to loftus some of these documents have been 'in house' for a while and hes been saying for about a month and a half now that there is going to be a big "release'" of information concerning wmd's in the beginning to mid october. as for timing, there is nothing wrong with holding back with a power punch until the optimum time... that is if it turns out to be true

I don't see how these would alter peoples election opinion. Most have moved past WMD and are basing their vote on:

1. Don't care about WMD, Sadam was a spring board
2. President lied and should not have gone to war
3. WMD were so obvious that the whole affair is nothing short of politics
4. President and Kerry had false intelligence.
5. Kerry supported Saddams removal until he realized he wouldn't get votes based on it
6. Under no circumstance did Bush and Congress have the right to deny a country of it's sovereignty
7. The removal of suddam was supported just not the way Bush went about it
8. WMD was a concern but non were found so the issue it restoring Iraq to a peacuful state.
9. Regardless of the fallout or WMD status, United Nations resolutions and it's very existence depend SOLELY on it's ability to enforce statutes. Otherwise disband the thing.
10. Same as nine but not in favor of disbandment.

11. Fascism is a front again, and any measure to deplete it's resources is supported
12. Iraq was a lovely dictatorship and should be restores since the people don't want freedom.
13. Stay the course
14. Tuck and run

Quote:

---

I don't see how these would alter peoples election opinion. Most have moved past WMD and are basing their vote on:...

---

Very true. But now Bushy can use that evidence how he always does: "Hey looky here!, I told you he had WMD and worked with the terr'ist!" Which would polish his tarished record in his eyes!

If Bush is as ruthless and stupid as the left says, why would he care about the way he sees his own justification? :)

lets look at this with a very large grain of salt until a more reputable and unbiased news source pickes it up. cnsnews is a step belpw news max and that is saying something..hell if drudge touched this I would at least pretend to pay attention and hes a partisan hack.

Am I the only one who's being confused by Rumsfeld?


October 3, Fox News

Quote:

---

On WMD
I believe they were there, and I’m surprised we have not found them yet.

---

October 4, Council on Foreign Relations:

Quote:

---

On the Iraq-Al-Qaeda link
I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of the year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong hard evidence that links the two.
...
On WMD
It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction. And why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say... I simply don't know.

---

And then only a couple of hours later:

Quote:

---

He has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden’s terror group and Iraq.
“This assessment was based upon points provided to me by then-CIA director Mr George Tenet to describe the CIA’s understanding of the relation between the Al-Qaida and Saddam’s regime,” he said. This included “solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al-Qaida members, including some that have been in Baghdad."

---

Pfew... and now there's "proof"?

i dont find it confusing at all. according to cns news, it appeared that nobody in the administration seemed to be aware of the documents but you can be sure they were made aware of them on october fourth when cns broke the story. it was the rush limbaugh gang that was screaming about them on the radio.

everyone appears to be very leary of the validity of these docs and therefore can not point to them directly as proof but rather they're depending upon them spreading on their own threw the media. as long as they dont directly use them they remain in the clear if they're found to be fictious but they still will indirectly add creadance to the statements they're making.

bush is schedueled to speak to the press this evening....wonder if this will be a part of it.

Umm again cns no credability, hopefuly for bush he dson't talk about it considering this http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1991reportsays

seems a real report is being presented in fornt of the house inteligence commite today, the findings of intensive US research in post war iraq, all of the WMD's where distroyed in 1991.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad

seems a real report is being presented in fornt of the house inteligence commite today, the findings of intensive US research in post war iraq, all of the WMD's where distroyed in 1991.

---

I heard about this on NPR this morning. I havent checked out the news yet, but it should be interesting to see what is in this report.

From what I saw, we knew in 91 that they distroyed virtualy all of the wmd's but the felling in the inteligance comunity was that thye woul rebuild the stock pile as soon as the sanctions where lifted. it also show that some of the ambiguaty as to where all the wmd's went was encuraged by the iraq's to try not to show weakness to the iranians.

too bad this issue wont come up friday.. (it shouldn't anyway)

It would be interesting to see the report outline on Yahoo. It's based on what the old Iraq regime says. They say the weapons were destroyed in 1991 in an effort to lift the sanctions. So either the United Nations is lying, or they are. Because the UN states on official record a different perspective.

In any circumstance they also state the plan was always to reinstate them (the WMD). Does anyone ever deny the fact that in 1991 Saddam dismantled a lot of weapons programs? Not at all.

/Edit
I've posted UN documentation here before but here is a little refresher of some UN events before Sadam tossed them all out. From the United Nations Archive on Iraq events.

Quote:

---

Sep 1997 Iraq provides fifth Full, Final and Complete Disclosure for its prohibited biological weapons programme. An international panel of experts is convened in New York to discuss Iraq’s declaration. The panel unanimously finds Iraq’s declaration to be incomplete, inadequate and technically flawed.

13 Sep 1997 One of UNSCOM's personnel is manhandled by an Iraqi officer on board one of the Commission's helicopters while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of the unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", that was designated for inspection. Two days later, Iraq again failed to freeze movement inside another "sensitive site" designated for inspection.

17 Sep 1997 The President of the Security Council makes a statement to the media, which, inter alia, deplores the incidents and urges Iraq to cooperate fully with UNSCOM.

17 Sep 1997 While seeking access to a site for inspection declared by Iraq to be "sensitive", UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape the movement of files, the burning of documents and dumping of ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river .

Sep/Oct 1997 UNSCOM inspection teams are prevented from inspecting three sites designated for inspection, on the basis that the sites are "presidential sites", which Iraq claims are out of bounds to UNSCOM's inspectors.

---

And one of many kickers leading up to 1998:

Quote:

---

Oct 1997 UNSCOM completes the destruction of additional, large quantities of chemical weapons related equipment and precursors chemicals. Iraq had previously denied that part of the equipment had been used for CW production. Only in May 1997, on the basis of UNSCOM's investigations, did Iraq admit that some of the equipment had indeed been used in the production of VX.

---

So the United Nations destroys friggin NERVE gas that didn't exist. Slick... and it's 1997 BEFORE inspectors are kicked out for almost 5 years until the war was initiated in 2002.

its really such a great pity that self interested partys in government are doing to our militarys ability to fight aggressors the same thing they did to our police forces ability to fight crime.

becase we dont have the kind or 'hard' evidence that would prove our intel as factual to a bunch of people that out to prove it wrong.... means saddam was telling the truth? what a crying, f@#$ing shame! If OBL is tried in this country he will be set free.

...fortunatly, the fat lady has yet to sing!

Here's a nice summary of the keypoints in the new report.

Thanks Negative, it's interesting to see someone say he was indeed interested in seeking Nuclear Weapons to oppose Iran and Isreal. I agree there was no direct threat to the US, and probably the EU but I don't agree that he wouldn't give them to the PLO or Hamas and their ilk. But that's a personal opinion. AND I still say, all he had to do was let inspectos in and open up his "palaces" for scrutinty. Hell the even the evil US military does/did it for INF inspections in Europe during the same time frame.

As a Euro, do you guys really want Iran and Iraq to have nukes? Especially those prone to rule in tyranny? I know I have asked that before along with the food for oil stuff. I know the answer already.... We support the removal, just not the way we went about it. :)

Tedob1: this report was generated by the cheif weapons inspector appointed by the president, its based on the research of a 1500 man staff a staff gathered by a bush appointy, if it was a partisan group at all it would be a conservative partisan group.

Its not that they faild to find hard evedence pointing towards wmd's its that they found a mountain of hard evedence showing that they didn't exist in iraq.

Look they interogated hussain and his former generals, they searched through the records, and they searched for weapon stokpiles....the wmd's haven't existed for over a decade, that is what they found...suck it up your boy lied to go to war.

And so did Kerry.

Then he changed his mind which is convenient when you are not the Commander.

So how does the Oil-for-Food program "allegations" factor into all of this?

IMHO If the, shall we call them cohorts in crime, that sat on the U.N. Security Council knew that Saddam did not have WMD's, would not these cohorts in crime have paraded the "proof of innocence" in fornt of the U.N., or convinced Saddam to allow inspections? It's real easy to throw out the "your boy lied to go to war" line, but you need to be prepared to call just about the entire world "Liars", because almost every nation on this planet was under the impression that Saddam did have WMDs.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6194795/

Quote:

---

NEW YORK - Vivid allegations of widespread corruption at the U.N. oil-for-food program by the top U.S. arms inspector have added credibility to accusations the United Nations looked the other way while Saddam Hussein’s government skimmed billions of dollars and offered kickbacks to European and Arab countries and officials.

The inspector’s report implicates the top U.N. official overseeing the $60 billion program, accusing him of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales, and details Iraqi manipulation to illegally enrich Saddam’s government and influence Security Council members.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit, according to the report issued Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

He said the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including parts for missile systems.

---

The next chapter. Now this article is definately a "Point out the Bush Administration's screw ups!" article. But this actually gives ammo to Bush here, because you have the IAEA saying that Iraq did have nuclear equipment and materials, that were under watch by the IAEA while inspections were still allowed. This should end up deflating Kerry's claim that we had no reason to go into Iraq. Other views?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=158379

Quote:

---

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If U.N. nuclear inspectors want to return to Iraq to check for missing equipment and materials, they are welcome, a government minister said on Tuesday.

Science and Technology Minister Rashad Omar was responding to concerns raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency at the "apparent systematic dismantlement" of the physical remnants of Saddam Hussein's once-vigorous nuclear program.

The IAEA reported on Monday that neither Baghdad nor Washington appeared to have noticed the disappearance of nuclear equipment and materials once closely monitored by the agency.

"The locations that belong to the Science and Technology ministry are secure and under our control," Omar told Reuters.

He said nothing had gone missing since a looting spree after last year's U.S.-led invasion, which the United States and Britain said was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Both countries now admit Saddam had no banned weapons.

Omar said Tuwaitha, a vast compound south of Baghdad that included Iraq's main nuclear facility, was being turned into a science park. "The IAEA came back one month ago, they inspected the plant and others and didn't say anything.

"We are transparent. We are happy for the IAEA or any other organization to come and inspect," he said, adding that he had not seen the agency's report to the Security Council.

The IAEA report, released three weeks ahead of the U.S. presidential election, could fuel criticism of the Iraq policies of the Bush administration, already under fire for its handling of an insurgency that has so far proved impossible to crush.

---

Hi,

OverdueSpy --> many countries in the world have Nuclear Research Facilities......(many have Nuclear reactors)......... thats not a new thing.............nuclear technology is also being used for peaceful purposes...............Canada has Nuclear reactors too ;)

Iraq was purcuing to develop a Nuclear reactor ....................they had the Osirak reactor in Bhadhad built by the French........and due to break down of talks with France for the rebuilding of the Osirak reactor after Isreail bombed it...........they build a research facility on top of it to develp a Indegenious reactor( hopefully :rolleyes: ).

IAEA is talkig about that Facility being looted by Local people and health risk to them ...........IMHO there is nothing in it for Bush to cheer about ..........it's all well know in advance..............this site was suspected from the very begnning and was under the watchful eye of IAEA ...........the first place anybody will look for evedence ..:o

Iraq was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and that Baghdad reactor complied with all IAEA guidelines.

Rather than arguying whether Bush or Kerry profits from this the thing of utmost importance is to let IAEA into Iraq and access( because only it has details of amount of Nuclear materials stored there ) and retrive all the material which is a serious Health risk to the people...

--Good Luck--

hEY Sword. I agree with what you are saying about the Reactor and the French situation. However can you post a link verifying the perception of the missing physical remnants of Saddam's Nuclear program as being a "serious health risk," as opposed to them being viewed as nuclear equipment and materials of Saddam Hussein's once-vigorous nuclear program? As stated by Rashad Omar, the IAEA Science and Technology Minister

Not trying to be difficult here I just need a little confirmation.

Hi,

OverDueSpy --> Possasing Uranium is not a difulict task ..............and as you know by reading the new artcles Huge stock piles of Uranium have been found scattered around these nuclear sites................does that mean nuclear threat? ..........uhm to me NO.....possessing nuclear material and having a know how to develop a substancial nuclear device are two things.

Quote:

---

However can you post a link verifying the perception of the missing physical remnants of Saddam's Nuclear program as being a "serious health risk,"

---

As many as you like .......................but first thing to remember is USA has and probably will keep on denying that it posseses a health risk.................because they don't want a third party poking their nosees into Iraq

BBC Article : 'Looting' at Iraq nuclear sites

Lets see what it says

Quote:

---

Mohamed ElBaradei - head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - wrote to Washington last Wednesday to request that an investigative team be allowed into Iraq, but has not yet received a response, according to a spokeswoman.

The agency is concerned that radioactive material known to be stored at several Iraqi sites could pose health and environmental risks, and there are also fears they could be used to create a so-called "dirty bomb".

---

Now at the end it say could be used to create a dirty bomb................now you have to keep into consideration that it is possible for a country with the know-how to extract wepon grade plutonium form it and thas's not a easy task at all..............at the end it itself says

Quote:

---

"All of this uranium would require significant processing in order to be suitable for enrichment for weapons use."

---

and that significant processing is indeed significant............it's very easy to acure uranium.........the thing is to extract wepon grade out of it

****************
Source

Quote:

---

The US and Britain were accused yesterday of "callous disregard" for the
health of Iraqis and the fate of radioactive substances near a looted
nuclear site south of Baghdad.

Iraqis living near the Tuwaitha facility are reported to have suffered
nosebleeds, rashes and other symptoms of radiation poisoning.

Looters stole uranium storage barrels which local people later used as
drinking water containers after Iraqi troops guarding the site fled at the
start of the war.

---

I read this on the GreenPeace web site can't find the actual link at this time....

*****************

Lets look at another one ..........:)

Hmmmm

Quote:

---

Today again, people are claiming that American negligence—allowing barrels that once stored uranium to be stolen from Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear storage site—has lead to the poisoning of hundreds of Iraqi civilians. This time, though, the danger may be real

America must act quickly to confront this possibility, evaluating the extent of the public health risk, treating those affected, and making its assessments and actions well known to the world. The alternative, even if there is no loss of human life, will be a terrible and unnecessary loss of American credibility.

---

The Fear .......the security fear

Quote:

---

inspections now under way at Tuwaitha, focusing strictly on finding out what nuclear materials have been stolen, are missing the mark. Though the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency inspections have been spurred by fears of nuclear proliferation, the nuclear weapons threat from Tuwaitha's looting is small. Media reports noting that stolen uranium could be processed and used to make nuclear weapons are, strictly speaking, correct. But they grossly exaggerate the extent of the danger.

---

How true is it ............or should i say how easy it is for the urinaum to be used

Quote:

---

The enrichment process needed to convert this uranium to a form suitable for nuclear weapons is by far the most challenging step in building a nuclear bomb. While uranium thefts should never be taken lightly, we should rest easier in knowing that any rogue, even having obtained Tuwaitha's uranium, would have much higher hurdles still to clear.

The threat of a dirty bomb is not so easily dismissed, but it is still not as great as many have assumed. The uranium once stored at Tuwaitha—and now comprising the majority of the looted material—would be extremely ineffective in a dirty bomb because of its very low radioactivity.

---

******************
Ok now lets see what the Rashad Omar, the IAEA Science and Technology Minister said "

Quote:

---

In a report to the UN security council yesterday, the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said the agency "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear programme and sites previously subject to ongoing monitoring and verification by the agency".

Before the war, the buildings had been monitored and tagged with IAEA seals to keep tabs on their function and content. But US authorities barred IAEA inspectors from returning to Iraq after the war began in March 2003, instead deploying US teams in an unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Mr ElBaradei has therefore relied largely on satellite imagery in the latest report. IAEA teams were allowed into Iraq in June 2003 to investigate reports of widespread looting of storage rooms at the main nuclear complex, at Tuwaitha, and in August to take inventory of "several tonnes" of natural uranium in storage nearby.

---

I think i don't see or couldn't interpret it the way you are doing.................the way i see it before USA took over the site IAEA had complete minitoring over the site..........with cameras and tagging and all....(remember NTPC trety and IAEA looking after this site) .....but after USA took over IAEA have lost it .....they can't monitor it any more ............they don't know who is ripping the site......who is taking the equpiment and where...............there is nothing in it that points towards Iraq Wepons program......

**************

Iraq's Nuke Poisoning Worries

Quote:

---

Iraq has about 1,000 sites where radioactive materials are used in industry or medicine.

---

Quote:

---

iraq has about 1,000 sites where radioactive materials are used in industry or medicine. But Tuwaitha, where Iraqis worked on the final design of a nuclear bomb before the 1991 Gulf War, has drawn the most concern since the recent Iraq war ended.

The Iraqis had been using the dormant plant to store declared nuclear materials that were prohibited and sealed by the U.N. nuclear agency in 1991. During the short-lived inspection regime that ran from November to the start of the war in March, IAEA inspectors visited the site 19 times.

Iraqi nuclear experts blame Americans for failing to guard the site quickly enough and prevent the looting.

"They knew that there were nuclear materials in this site, and they were supposed to protect it," Mohammed al-Hamadani, a researcher at Tuwaitha, said in an interview Wednesday.

---

People are looting the site ........they have thrown the Uranium stored in the drums and taken those drums home for storing food grains and water and other day to day work :eek:................something must be done and quick.

Overdue i am not saying the uranium can't be used but the thing is you should get your priorities right.............to create a substancial Nuclear device out of it would require at leat 2 to 10 years depending upon who gets it ...............but the people need help right now.


--Good Luck---

So you are saying there is nuclear fallout all over Iraq and we are not containing it? Uranium just laying around? One would think that would be a priority for the International Nuclear Agencies.

hi ,

Quote:

---

One would think that would be a priority for the International Nuclear Agencies.

---

Exactly.................... let them in someone pleaseeeeeeee :(

Quote:

---

So you are saying there is nuclear fallout all over Iraq and we are not containing it?

---

We make our presecption by seeing things through the eyes of the media.........well most of us can't be everywhere.................and yes that's my preseption from what i have seen so far...............and i never said all over Iraq.......Iraq is a big place............the areas adjoining those sites the Scattalite picture shows increased Radio-activety around these places............and the area affacted is increasing.

Quote:

---

Uranium just laying around?

---

emm not exacty ............the contaners that stored that radioactive stuff now is being used by some to stores water and eatables and that's scary.............well to them thay are free drums

--Good Luck--

And where is the mighty United Nations? That's more of a rhetoric than me wanting an answer, they are in High Towers in New York enjoying steaks and prostitutes.

Hi RoadClosed ,

United Nations never Authorised this war ..........so why should they intervine now?...............and would US let them into Iraq ?..

And now queastion will arise where was UN when Saddam Hussan Killed millions of people................I could raise the same question about US where were they when he was using Chemical wepons against Iran ...............US were on his side.

I am a firm beliver in Democracy United Nations works somewhat on democratic Principals ...............and the scary part is it inherits all the flaws in it..............everything in democracy moves on it's own pace..............well what can you say you ask 10 people 3 would say YES ......2 would say NO and rest would cay don't know not sure :p...................now you have to woo those who are stillnot sure towards your camp and when you have majority you take a decision which is a majority decision...............it works that way can't do anything about it ...................UN has always been accused of being slow to make decisions but what can it do..................it's not a one person.............and more often than not democrasy serves it's purpose .........it's good for everyone i mean the majority.

A dictatroship decision on the other is I have the stick and i will beat him you don't agree with me you too will get the stick so lay off..........so it's virtually very easy to take decisions this way

UN has represantation of the whole world ( well almost ) so everybody looks at thiing with their own prespective and then vote for things ...............what's right for you might be wrong for someone else.............i still am a firm beliver in letting United Nations handle thngs.

oo and these are my personal views

--Good Luck--

The US wants them in Iraq, they won't go... they don't feel safe yet they are the "PeaceKeepers" ;) I was thinking since this is such a huge issue they could go around cleaning and stabilizing these nuclear things, while we keep the warlords in check as much as possible.

The united Nations has intervened. They "were" there to Help the Iraqi people and these terr... I mean "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" or "militia" or "militants" blew the United Nations headquarters to pieces. Many of them weren't even Americans. It baffles me. But they could help, just like they could help in other war torn places currently on the global face of our mother. But they won't. Too busy I guess. Or too pissed of to take on their responsibilities.

Would you rather the US took Iran's side? Fascism against EXTREME fascism or a blind eye like the Swiss? ;) The United Nations was passing resolutions and not acting. As usual. The UN IS the definition of "Red Tape"

Roadclosed
I think your phrase should be -- The US(Bush) wants them in now. Dont forget that the UN mission that was bombed was an administrative or civil mission and didnt even have secuirity troops. The UN was told clearly that no UN peacekeeping presence was acceptable to the US authorities after the liberation of Iraq. Of course that was before things went to hell and Iraq was still a good political move for Bush.
To be totaly honest any country that wanted to be part of the operation in Iraq already has troops in place. The only countries that could supply neutal peacekeepers to the UN are countries that wanted nothing to do with the war in the first place.
It is one of the age old truths the army pays in blood for the politicians mistakes.

I am not aware that the UN peacekeeping forces were not alowed in. I would need clarification on that issue. I am under the impression that since we did not have "permission" they would not help since they do not believe in it's cause.

The question was never about the cause. Everyone believed that Saddam needed to be remove. The question was on the how and when.
The UN can not ask countries to supply troops for a peace keeping mission that would only be allowed by the BUsh administration if it comes under US control. The result would effectivly be the same as asking countries to support the US led "liberation" of Iraq. Haveing said that I will change my statement sligthly from :
“The UN was told clearly that no UN peacekeeping presence was acceptable to the US authorities after the liberation of Iraq

to:
“no UN peacekeeping presence independant of the US militarywas acceptiable to the US….”

Hi,

Quote:

---

I am not aware that the UN peacekeeping forces were not alowed in

---

UN passes a resolution and asks member countries to form a peackeeping force............and that force is under UN command .

In this case the resolution failed ............still US asked for member countries to send forces under US command............yes US asked for peacekeeping force but under US command.

Many neutral countries which rejected it and put down as the condition for that as until it's a UN peacekeeping force headed by UN they will not join.

The thing that seemed most ironical to me were the statements like " You are with us (or US) or with them"............not aggreeing about the method dosen't mean you are with the terrorists.

So saying UN didn't send Peackeeping Force is not entirly Correct

--Good Luck--

Ah, so the United States could have let the UN come in and take control by letting United Nations Commanders control the operation. I see. And that would have been better?

Hi,

Quote:

---

Ah, so the United States could have let the UN come in and take control by letting United Nations Commanders control the operation. I see. And that would have been better?

---

No UN can't just come and control Stull you have to pass the resolution for that ...............and it has already failed twice................I was just replying to the post where you said they don't want to come because they don't believe in the cause you are making it sound like it's some one person ;)....................everybody has a say in UN…..i mean every country...…...... you present your resolution there ..........get it passed by member countries……….and act……..and everybody is happy to contribute they like it or not they have to comply.

That’s what happened in Afghanistan ...............there too the whole command and control structure was under US control..........UN doesn’t have it’s army or commanders. ………Just the approval.

Decision to invade in Iraq should have been made by the UN Security Council, not unilaterally…………what if everyone who has a big stick starts to take such decisions unilaterally.? ..........i am sure the world would be a mess :(

Saddam needed to be removed no body denies that .........just the manner US acted ..............and now what ..........a Radical Extremist Islamic Government in place of Secular socialist Military Dictatorship ?...............thats where i see it heading

--Good Luck--

I look at it as a situation in which the controlling body is failing to accomplish it's established job through both corruption and cohersion. Every one tends to agree that they support the removal of Saddam just not the way the US went about it. Well... the US never would have got permission so that common stance does not make sense to me.

The bigest problem the UN has on accomplishing anything is confilicting national interests. France and Germany were willing to send troops to Iraq if the US had waited for another short while. The problem was Bu**sh**,(sorry that just occured to me and i couldnt resist putting it in here) ,wanted and needed to liberate Iraq when he did for his own reasons. It is similar to the fact that the UN is totatly hamstrung when it comes to passing resloutions on Israel.

Quote:

---

France and Germany were willing to send troops to Iraq if the US had waited for another short while.

---

Just how much extra time would have been enough ?

Quote:

---

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French
one behind me."
--- General George S. Patton

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion."
--Norman Schwartzkopf

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
--- Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
---Jacques Chirac, President of France

"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
---Rush Limbaugh,

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army
is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
---Regis Philbin

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any
better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit
outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is
more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of
whiskey I don't know."
--- P. J O'Rourke (1989)

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of
the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't
have the face for it."
---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because
he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is
French, people."
--Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get
Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the
Germans out of France!"
---Jay Leno

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching
into Paris under a German flag."
--David Letterman

---

The French never want to help their supposed Allies when it comes to conflict.
Why ?
Because they're selling ordinance to the enemy. [Falklands war - French Exocet missiles sold just before hostilities: Iraq - After the Soviets, France was the biggest supplier of 'stuff' up to and including nuke tech [allegedly] ]

The French look after the French, first, second, last.

As for the Germans : They would have invaded Iraq ... But only if it was to the EAST :)
Or you renamed Baghdad to Paris :D

And here I was blindly thinking the Evil United Empire of States was the only one running around manipulating world politics and selling arms to smaller countries. :rolleyes: <Sarcasm :D

if we waited any longer there would be allot more than 400 tons of explosives missing. as it is now, in the four months we waited for these beloved countries...who knows whats gone missing?

here is one good reason not to have waited. Oil for food. or isn't anyone following that