Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Time For A Reality Check
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tieguy" data-source="post: 73778" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">Should we care about mass murders committed without weapons of mass destruction?</span></p><p></p><p>Mary Mostert</p><p>June 13, 2003</p><p></p><p></p><p>On C-Span Sunday night I watched Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair field one hostile question after another from the party out of power, the Conservatives, over accusations that intelligence documents on Iraq's weapons were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action.</p><p></p><p>We have the same accusations taking place in Washington, of course, by the party out of power, the Democrats. As Baltimore Sun writers Mark Matthews and Tom Bowman put it America's failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undercut the Bush administration's justification for war and dealt a blow to its policy of pre-emptive military action against global threats, according to former officials and analysts.</p><p></p><p>For the record, lets look back at President Bush's own words about his justification for war, not what Matthews and Bowman said it was. In January 2003, President Bush gave the following reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein:</p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement.<br /> <br /> Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N.<br /> <br /> The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">26,000 liters of anthrax enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulilum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents</li> </ul></li> </ul><p>Of course, those materials are STILL unaccounted for. Other issues involved in the Presidents decision to DO something included:</p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.<br /> <br /> The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities.<br /> <br /> Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors.<br /> Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.<br /> <br /> Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N.<br /> <br /> Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families.<br /> <br /> Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.</li> </ul><p>As for these last items on the list, Saddam Hussein is no longer ordering scientists and their families killed who cooperate with the UN, U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N. are no longer needed, thousands of Iraqi personnel are no longer hiding documents and materials (although they appear to have completed that work before American and British troops entered Iraq), Iraqi officials no longer accompany inspectors to intimidate witnesses, and American troops, with the help of Iraqi informants, have already located two of the mobile biological weapons labs, and thousands of bodies buried in mass graves of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein have been found.</p><p></p><p>Ann Clwyd, a British member of Parliament who has been traveling in Iraq lately, perhaps said it best, I find it exasperating when I stand at the edge of a mass grave containing 10,000 bodies and people say: Where are the weapons of mass destruction?</p><p></p><p>Four years ago, when Bill Clinton ordered 79 days of bombing in Kosovo and Serbia, it was not because he believed Slobodan Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. Although at the time we were told Milosevic had killed up to 100,000 Albanians, hundreds of forensic experts found fewer than 2000 bodies, many of whom were Serbs, not Albanians. Yet, Milosevic is in prison and on trial for his life at The Hague from an indictment involving the death of 563 Albanians, some of whom were probably terrorists.</p><p></p><p>Where are all the Conservatives in Britain and Democrats in the United States who were so eager to bomb the Serbs back to the Stone Age over real or imagined atrocities? The Serbs, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Hutus in Africa and Adolph Hitler in mid-20th century Europe never had weapons of mass destruction but managed to kill millions of people the old-fashioned way.</p><p></p><p>Why were they not concerned about documented atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein? And, after George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to take action, why are not even worth mentioning in their hysterical attacks on the government in power?</p><p></p><p>Could this be just plain old politics?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 73778, member: 1912"] [FONT=Arial]Should we care about mass murders committed without weapons of mass destruction?[/FONT] Mary Mostert June 13, 2003 On C-Span Sunday night I watched Britains Prime Minister Tony Blair field one hostile question after another from the party out of power, the Conservatives, over accusations that intelligence documents on Iraq's weapons were changed on the orders of Downing Street to strengthen the case for military action. We have the same accusations taking place in Washington, of course, by the party out of power, the Democrats. As Baltimore Sun writers Mark Matthews and Tom Bowman put it America's failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has undercut the Bush administration's justification for war and dealt a blow to its policy of pre-emptive military action against global threats, according to former officials and analysts. For the record, lets look back at President Bush's own words about his justification for war, not what Matthews and Bowman said it was. In January 2003, President Bush gave the following reasons for disarming Saddam Hussein: [LIST] [*]Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm all weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. Three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam his final chance to disarm. He has shown his utter contempt for the U.N. The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them: [LIST] [*]26,000 liters of anthrax enough to kill several million people 38,000 liters of botulilum toxin 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents [/LIST] [/LIST] Of course, those materials are STILL unaccounted for. Other issues involved in the Presidents decision to DO something included: [LIST] [*]From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on methods of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. He recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, according to the British Government. He has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons, according to our intelligence sources. Yet he has not credibly explained these activities. Thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors. Iraqi officials accompany all inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N. Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with the UN be killed, along with their families. Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaida members. He could provide hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. [/LIST] As for these last items on the list, Saddam Hussein is no longer ordering scientists and their families killed who cooperate with the UN, U-2 surveillance flights requested by the U.N. are no longer needed, thousands of Iraqi personnel are no longer hiding documents and materials (although they appear to have completed that work before American and British troops entered Iraq), Iraqi officials no longer accompany inspectors to intimidate witnesses, and American troops, with the help of Iraqi informants, have already located two of the mobile biological weapons labs, and thousands of bodies buried in mass graves of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein have been found. Ann Clwyd, a British member of Parliament who has been traveling in Iraq lately, perhaps said it best, I find it exasperating when I stand at the edge of a mass grave containing 10,000 bodies and people say: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Four years ago, when Bill Clinton ordered 79 days of bombing in Kosovo and Serbia, it was not because he believed Slobodan Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. Although at the time we were told Milosevic had killed up to 100,000 Albanians, hundreds of forensic experts found fewer than 2000 bodies, many of whom were Serbs, not Albanians. Yet, Milosevic is in prison and on trial for his life at The Hague from an indictment involving the death of 563 Albanians, some of whom were probably terrorists. Where are all the Conservatives in Britain and Democrats in the United States who were so eager to bomb the Serbs back to the Stone Age over real or imagined atrocities? The Serbs, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Hutus in Africa and Adolph Hitler in mid-20th century Europe never had weapons of mass destruction but managed to kill millions of people the old-fashioned way. Why were they not concerned about documented atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein? And, after George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to take action, why are not even worth mentioning in their hysterical attacks on the government in power? Could this be just plain old politics? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Time For A Reality Check
Top