»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Bush okays sale of arms to bolster Iraq
| The Alley |
|
Bush okays sale of arms to bolster Iraq |
|
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space 
|
One of the 9/11 commission's recommendations was that government seriously consider it's foreign policy and especially the consequences of these policies. The very same day President Bush okays the sale of arms and materials to Iraq. The cycle continues. Provided that it ever becomes stabilized or that we haven't descended into an all out world war by then...see you in ten years Iraq. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
The logic part of my brain says, "hmmm..that's a bit weird." The other part of my brain that did ten yrs in the military and still works for the uncle..says, "Are you surprised?" "cast me gently into the morning, for the night has been unkind" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
In a post 9/11 world, Bush has had the opportunity to rethink and avoid policies that have caused problems in the past. Rather than use knowledge and foresight, he's settled into the same patterns. I spoke of this in another thread and was labeled Anti-American for it. But it's this kind of thinking and government that is Anti-American. It mocks the values and exploits the patriotism, honour and courage of it's people. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I know far too little to defend the incident, Raph, (and suspect I wouldn't if I did know more) but the policy is so ingrained as to almost need no defense. Had the French not followed similar patterns in 1776 there might well not be an America today, and had America not done much the same in 1941 the shape of Europe would certainly be much different. The alternative to military aid is separatism, and that has never worked real well either. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Agreed, but there are certain areas that have proved volatile. The creation of Saddam was largely due to Reagan taking Iraq of the off the terrorist threat list and then arming them in the 80's. Why tempt fate in such a hostile region? And why is Bush pushing this now with Iraq unstable, when insurgent and terrorist activity is still lively? |
||
|
inkedgoddess Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-19
Posts 7392Ohio |
can i send jason to you up north, when they come to recruit for this inane war? he eats like a bird.........yea right |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Aenimal think out side the box. Iraq probly needs weopons to defend them selves with. As long as the weopons are ok with regulations its fine with me, because Iraq is now a better government. They probably need the weopons real bad, with terrorist coming in from other contries. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
I hope this adds something to this thread... The sanctions against Iraq have been lifted as of May 22, 2003...Bush and his allies pushed for this quickly and got most of what they wanted out of this resolution. Of course the sanctions did nothing but torture the civilians of Iraq in the first place,and should have been lifted years ago but that is a different story. The prize in this resolution is the freedom to rearm Iraq, something the U.S. has done several times already with disastrous results, as history shows...But the bushies must not let down their guard, the U.N. still has the right to inspect for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction...Is it possible that a U.N. inspector might someday walk up to one of our tanks that use weapons of mass destruction in its projectiles, and flag it as illegal, which it most certainly is and can be classified as such, if the Geneva convention rules are followed? ( I am speaking of D.U. weapons and components) anyway Here is the part of the resolution that I believe pertains to this thread... U.N. Security council- resolution 1483 adopted May 22, 2003 article 11 Reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations, encourages the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to keep the Council informed of their activities in this regard, and underlines the intention of the Council to revisit the mandates of the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency as set forth in resolutions 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002; U.N. security council resolution 1483 can be read in full at- (http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/368/53/PDF/N0336853.pdf?OpenElement) The official announcement by the U.S. department of state of this resolution makes no mention or reference to the language of item 11. Could this be an attempt to hide rushing it through in order to supply arms to the new regime.I suppose that item 11 does say in a vague way that the U.S. and its two allies must let them know what they propose to give the new Iraq in the way of arms...but white house lawyers will certainly find loopholes in that language to justify any kind of weaponry that we decide to give to the Iraqi army or police. But note..it seems to say that the UNSC still retains the right to monitor and verify what is being supplied....I wonder what the administration thought about that? I bet they didn't like it... The official state department announcement of resolution 1483 can be found at- http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/20911.htm Peace -------ice ><> |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
