What to do about weak UN inspection team?

[River_eye]

Hear me out on this one, and if I'm totally wrong on this one please tell me. I will assume that President Bush is right this time.

It seems that the US doesn't really have hard proof for war, and if they go to war based on assumptions, the government will be shunned by other nations as well as half of its own population. They also being accused of going in there for oil.

Why the heck doesn't the US go out and get the proof it needs and knows is there?

The UN inspection team obviously is not turning up evidence and doesn't have to power or means to find any. There is no need to wait for the UN to come back and tell us "well, there might be some here, but we don't know for sure...... so we better inspect for another two months......." Plus, Iraq is not allowing U-2 surveillance planes to fly overhead. Fly them over there any way! If they get shot down, Bush has reason to go to war. If they don't get shot down and they find weapons, Bush has reasons for war.

I don't understand why the US can defy the UN and go to war, but they can't defy UN by sending it's own inspection team in.

In my opinion, the US should send it's own inspections team in, armed or not and conduct the inspection that needs to be done. If Iraq shoots first, then the US will be cleared of any wrongdoing. Make them show their guilt before a full out attack. This should not be hard.

Am I missing somthing here?

[bigfish1965]

Umm, Eric... Do you wanna be the American guy sent in to look for the stuff? Not a very good reception committee I'm thinkin. Send in a damm assassin to get him. Quicker and better than war. When in Rome, do like the Romans. Give some guy 25k to smoke Saddam...payback is a b*tch.

[fishhunter]

How about the US brings all are troops and all our weapons home and station them on the coasts and protect our own a## and to he** with everybody else

[MK]

I think you might misunderstand the mission of the inspections teams. Its not up to them to find all of the weapons. They are in Iraq to verify that the weapons have been destroyed according to the UN mandate. Iraq was basically found guilty years ago by the UN of having the weapons and as part of the surrender in the Gulf War, they, Iraq, were required to destroy these weapons. They either won't or can't prove that they were destroyed, most likely because the weapons still exist. Iraq is guilty and it is incumbent on them to prove their innocence.

Iraq has been in violation of a UN mandate for years but the UN is afraid or unwilling to confront Saddam. This is because some of our "Allies" like the "Axis of Weasels" France and Germany, not to mention Russia, have significant financial interests in maintaining the status quo.

The UN is on the verge of becomming a joke. Their commission on human rights is now headed by Lybia. Bush is putting the UN on the spot by making them enforce their Resolutions and a lot of people don't like it. They prefer the UN remain a paper tiger.


It appears that the US will lead a coalition and force Saddam to disarm even though the coalition will be smaller than the previous one.

[Fish_on]

Not sure where you got your numbers; I guarantee you half of the US population is not against an attack. I saw a poll on the noon news today that said 77% favor it, 21% oppose it. Those sign carriers are a small minority that get a lot of air time.

September 11 wasn't that long ago. Most of us really don't want that to happen again and we're willing to take preemtive action to ensure that it won't.

[morequestions]

61% say bush is heading the country in the right direction.
39% disagree. that is a new poll conducted today.

[JohnF]

Was I the only one that just heard the sound of a hammer perfectly striking a nail?

MK, excellent post.

It appears that UN resolutions are quickly becoming valuable for the same purpose as Charmin. Somebody has to confront the group and point this out to them. Unfortunately some of the world is focusing on the messenger rather than the problem.

This is not a new war. This is the same war. We (the UN), declared the war over stipulated by Iraq’s compliance with certain terms. They have not complied and therefore have nullified the idea that the last war was over. This is just the action described in the “or else…” section.

International image and acceptance is very important to any nation. The U.S. has much at stake in taking any stance and our administration is aware of this. I assure you though that every other nation has an equal stake in whatever stance they take.

The power in a decree comes from the willingness of the author to take action. The UN is starting to look a little toothless.

It seems to me that a 12-year time-out is enough to get the team back into the game.

(Sorry for the blunt analogy of war as a game. I am aware that people’s lives are involved. My comment was on purpose, and my message is that peoples lives are at risk already; that being my opinion.)

As to why don’t we (U.S.) put our own inspectors in: We have. To believe otherwise would be to underestimate us. Don’t expect us to announce it though. In war, negotiation, politics, and poker you do not give up your hand. Fly the U2s you say? We’ve done that too. (or something even better ;))

Eric, you’re coming around man!

John Flaherty

[Half?]

81% back Bush in the recent spate of polls about his performance. And it IS NOT all about the oil. If 9-11 had been commited on the Eifel Tower or the Lueve (sp) or on the biggest building in Berlin, I'll bet the opinions of those countries would be different. And, what more proof does anyone need? Even the UN called husseain in TOTAL non compliance with this, the 17TH resolution to disarm. Do we give Saddam 40 chances or what? And what if the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud? Or Mustard gas released in Paris, Jeruselem, Berlin, Los Angeles etc... what would the world outfcry be if we do nothing now? resolution time is over, it is time to act. And before you say it, I would pick up a gun myself and go if they'd ask me!

[sib]

The UN is irrelevant and worthless!

Not only is a Lybian in charge of Human Rights, in May, Iraq and Iran will be the chair and vice chair respectively of the Commission on Disarmament.

We don't need these clowns.

[River_eye]

I just pulled that number out of the air, I don't think it was that vital to my point. 30 some odd % is still significant when it deals with somthing as important as war.

[River_eye]

I do know what Bush is saying about Iraq having to show how and when it disarmed, but international agreements are seldom this simple. Most people in most countries have heard this argument too, meaning, if the important countries and people in the world are built on logic (we have no reason to think otherwise), they should all aggree with Bush, but it isn't the case. This fact automatically makes it more complicated then we'd like to think it is.

The fact whether Iraq has disarmed or not, should be the main reason for War, but how courteous or efficient they were at doing it should not be the thing that tilts the scales in favour of war, even if it was in the agreement.

My beliefs are more along the lines of our own justice system. If you made people on trial for murders, there would be a lot more innocent people in jail. I think it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.

Now, I believe that the Iraqi leaders are sneaky and they are deceiving and they are all around bad characters, I don't think that's a reason for war.

There is a good chance that Iraq is a threat, but in war, I believe Bush should be working a bit harder to prove his case. He sounds more like a convincing car salesman then a person laying out the facts.

I make these points strictly for debating purposes.

[River_eye]

Somthing like that might work, but it would have to be more than $25K I think. I wonder what the chances are of him making it out of the country alive.

Only problem with that is that he's got two crooked sons to take his place, and countless others in high positions that are loyal to him.

[And what about this?]

From the smoking gun web site, strait from Amnesty International and the like.
Saddam Hussein's Regime's Methods of Terror

The following methods of torture have all been reported to international human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, by the victims of torture, or their families.

Eye Gouging
Amnesty International reported the case of a Kurdish businessman in Baghdad who was executed in 1997. When his family retrieved his body, the eyes had been gouged out and the empty eye sockets were stuffed with paper.

Piercing of Hands With Electric Drill
This is a common method of torture for political detainees. Amnesty International reported one victim who then had acid poured into his wounds.

Suspension from The Ceiling
Victims are blindfolded, stripped and suspended for hours from their wrists, often with their hands behind their backs. This causes dislocation of shoulders and tearing of muscles and ligaments.

Electric Shock
Another common method of torture. Shocks are applied to various locations of the body, including the genitals, ears, tongue and fingers.

Sexual Abuse
Victims, particularly female, are raped and sexually abused, including reports of broken bottles being forced into the torture victims anus.

"Falaqa"
Victims are forced to lie face down and then are beaten on the soles of the feet with a cable, often losing consciousness.

Other Physical Tortures
Extinguising cigarettes on various body parts, extraction of the victims fingernails and toenails and beatings with canes, whips, hoses and metal rods are common.

Mock Executions
Victims are told that they are to be executed by firing squad and a mock execution is staged. The victim is hooded and brought before a firing squad, who then fire blank ammunition.

Acid Baths
David Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes, reported that photographic evidence showed that Iraq had used acid baths during the invasion of Kuwait. The victims were hung by their wrists and gradually lowered into the acid.
-----------------------------------------------------

Now add what Amnesty international has documented, (not just what I posted here) to the mass extermination of the Kurds, the gassing of entire villages and the like, why are we not going after Saddam for this alone?

This barbarian is as bad as Hitler or trying very hard to be the modern day version of Hitler.

Should we have waited to get into WW2 as Hitler was not threat to us? Or Let his human rights violations slide? Didn't Clinton himself condem Slobidan Milosiveich (sp) and commit ti US actio to keep his atrocities from happening?

So why then are we gonna sit here and allow Hussien to continue to murder his own people? And do you realize, anyone of us could be put to death for posting here, if this was Iraq and we opposed the Dictator Madman at the helm?

And why are these crimes against humanity going un answered?

And why arent they even debated here?

[More on this]

I am posting this to aid creedence to the other posts, It is also important to note that in other documents AI urges the US to consider the inevitable humanitarian concerns military action will take. They are VERY critical that we as a Nation be ready to take care of the innocents that will be fleeing the war and be ready to take care of refugees. Especially better than we did in the last war with Iraq. (Technically we are still at war with Iraq from the last time as we are only enforcing a cease fire agreement) I had to point the above out to be fair

AI Index MDE 14/012/2001 - News Service Nr. 142
Iraq: Stop the torture


Amnesty International called on the Iraqi authorities to put an end to the systematic torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and to introduce legislative and practical steps to improve the human rights situation in the country.

In a report published today -- Iraq: Systematic torture of political prisoners -- the organization paints a grim picture of routine torture, whereby horrendous physical and psychological suffering is inflicted upon political prisoners and detainees.

"Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks," said Amnesty International, based on interviews with hundreds of torture victims in Iraq over the years. "Some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."

Other methods of torture include extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus. In addition to physical torture, detainees have been threatened with rape and subjected to mock executions.

Over the years many victims of torture have been Shia Muslims from Baghdad or from Southern Iraq. The fate of al-Shaikh Nazzar Kadhim al-Bahadli, a 29-year-old theology student from Saddam City, a district of Baghdad, is typical. He was arrested in 1999 and was tortured for long periods in the building of Saddam City Security Directorate. His wife, father and mother were reportedly brought to the building in August 1999 and were tortured in front of him to force him to confess to being one of those responsible for the April 1999 disturbances in Saddam City. He was said to have confessed in order to spare his relatives any further torture. They were released following his confession but he was sentenced to death later and executed at the beginning of 2001.

Torture is used against other political opponents and army and security officers suspected of dissidence or involvement in coup attempts. Amnesty International's report also documents torture, ill-treatment and extra-judicial executions of women.

A 25-year-old woman known as "Um Haydar" was beheaded in the street without charge or trial at the end of December 2000 after her husband, who was suspected by the authorities of involvement in Islamist armed activities, fled the country. Um Haydar was taken from her house in al-Karrada district, in front of her children and mother-in-law, by men belonging to Fedaiyye Saddam. Two men held her by the arms and a third pulled her head from behind and beheaded her in front of the residents. The beheading was also witnessed by members of the ruling Ba'ath Party in the area. The security men took the body and the head in a plastic bag and took away the children and mother-in-law. Their fate remains unknown.

The report stresses that torture in Iraq is also practised through various judicial punishments, which were introduced in the mid-1990s ostensibly to stem the increase in the crime rate that the Government attributed to the impact of economic sanctions imposed on the country since 1990. These 'judicial punishments,' including amputation of hand and foot, branding of forehead and cutting off of the ears, used to be publicized by the Iraqi media. Such publicity became rarer since the end of 1996, following international condemnation of these punishments.

Amnesty International's recommendations to the Iraqi authorities include renewed calls to ratify and implement fully in domestic law and practice the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; repeal all decrees imposing punishments amounting to torture; set up an independent body to undertake impartial investigations into all allegations of torture and bring to justice anyone responsible for serious violations; and put an end to all extra-judicial executions.

"The systematic torture and climate of fear that have prevailed in Iraq for so many years must be brought to an end," Amnesty International said. "The continuing scale and severity of human suffering must not be allowed to continue."

[MK]

If you want to compare the Iraq situation with the UN to the Canada/US system of justice, think of it this way: Iraq has been convicted and put on a strict probation, the terms to which it agreed. Terms of this probation include destroying the weapons. For the past several years, Sadaam has told his probation officers to screw themselves and refuses to adhere to the terms of his probation.

Question: Now what? How long do you let him go without taking action and how long until the criminals of the world all thumb their noses at the system?

The reason Bush is having trouble getting some "Allies" on board is because they have circumvented the sanctions put in place on Iraq and they now have significant financial interests at risk in the event of war. I wouldn't be suprised to find that the terms of some of the agreements between France/Germany/Russia and Iraq include these "Allies" obstructing the enforcement of the UN Resolutions whenever possible. Obviously not on paper but with a wink and a nod.

Also, I think you're naive if you believe that logic has much to do with political decisions or international treaties. Look at some of the laws passed in the US and in Canada and tell me that logic ruled all of these decisions. Logic and good intentions may have initiated some of these laws but then the politicians got their hands on them.

[River_eye]

That's what I'm saying about the logic thing. It may seem logical that everybody should support a war against Iraq because they have not proved that they disarmed, but it's not the case.

[MK]

Logic would dictate the "Allies" would be in favor or at least feel obligated as part of their alliance with the UN, of disarming Sadaam. Since they're against the idea, there has to be other reasons, some of which we know and others that we will never know.

I believe that when the time comes, they will back the US, however reluctantly, mostly because they will want a say in the post-Sadaam era. Also, they have to be considering the future. If they don't back the US in this particular UN situation, someday they may need the US's help and if they're a "no-show" here, we may be a "no-show" later.

I'm not in favor of this action but I believe it's necessary. I hope and pray for the safety of our service men and women and those of our allies. This won't be without casualities.

[Lund_Dude]

Especially those Canadians. We don't need to keep defending those that won't support us!