U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

[yoMAMA]

guess what? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_weapons&cid=542&ncid=716)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040916/capt.bag14609161915.iraq_oil_bag146.jpg

don't you just love the smell of freedom?

[Yeahman]

If the report is released publicly before the Nov. 2 election, Democrats are likely to seize on the document as another opportunity to criticize the Bush administration's leading argument for war in Iraq and the deteriorating security situation there.
I think this new report is more of a win for the Republicans.

In a 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons...

As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.

[hooligan]

duh, look at the wording.

you find what you think you'll find...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/30/iraq.wmd.duelfer/

New inspector won't rule out finding Iraqi WMD
Duelfer: Captured regime leaders not cooperating

From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 Posted: 8:50 PM EST (0150 GMT)

vert.duelfer.jpg
Duelfer: Captured Iraqis "can hold their tongues."

Story Tools
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

RELATED
• Administration: WMD or no WMD, war worthwhile
• Bush's Iraq commission won't investigate key WMD issue
• Powell and Rice defend U.S. basis for war
• Tenet defends CIA on Iraq intelligence
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Iraq
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Saddam Hussein
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In prepared testimony, the CIA's new chief Iraq weapons inspector said he does not rule out finding weapons of mass destruction, adding "we regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about concealed caches" of weapons.

Charles Duelfer said, however, that former Iraqi senior officials -- now prisoners of U.S. forces -- are not talking.

"Over the past 10 months, we have learned that [deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's] most senior and trusted officials can hold their tongues," Duelfer said.

"We know from high-level briefings that Saddam conveyed his most sensitive messages to particular individuals orally," he said. "Moreover, there were explicit instructions not to repeat such conversations."

Saddam's government collapsed April 9, 2003, when U.S. troops entered Baghdad. U.S. forces captured the fugitive leader in December near his ancestral homeland of Tikrit.

U.S.-led forces had invaded Iraq a month earlier after the Bush administration argued that Iraq was concealing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons program and long-range missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions.

No stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found despite an intensive search.

Critics have accused the administration of overstating the threat Iraq posed in order to go to war.

Duelfer is testifying Tuesday behind closed doors before the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. His comments contrast with those of his predecessor, David Kay, who has said he does not expect that any weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

In prepared testimony, Duelfer said fear of retribution is still a significant stumbling block as the Iraq Survey Group he heads seeks information from Iraqi managers, scientists and engineers.

"Many perceive a grave risk in speaking with us. On one hand, there is a fear of prosecution or arrest. On the other, there is a fear [that] former regime supporters will exact retribution. This is, in part, why we do not yet fully understand the central issue of regime intentions," Duelfer said.

Duelfer, who is a special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet, said he is providing only a status report -- not a preliminary assessment of findings, which will come later.

Like Kay, Duelfer said that the regime was in "clear" violation of several U.N. resolutions banning WMD programs in Iraq, including the ban on certain biological research and the ban on deploying missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles with a range of more than 93 miles (150 kilometers).

i think, the question will come down to, was it right for us to invade iraq at this time?

[truMp]

Administration should have worded their intentions of attacking Iraq as a pre-emptive strike before weapons of mass destruction could be produced. If they waited for Saddam to stockpile tons of WMDs in order for it to be used as evidence, it may have endangered the lives of the soldiers who were fighting on the battlefield. Therefore, the war can be seen as being justified if they could show the people concrete evidence that Iraq was importing banned materials needed to create their WMDs.

[Yeahman]

In my eyes, the Bush Administration failed no matter what. You can't justify the war, after the fact.
Before the war, they should have presented us with hard evidence that Iraq had or was actively developing WMDs. They could not. Even if we find the WMDs now, it makes no difference on the justification for war. If police illegally search an apartment and find evidence of a crime, that evidence is not admissable in court. Likewise, we know now for a fact that the Administration did not have enough evidence to go to war over making the war an unjust war not nothing, not even WMDs, can change that.

[Martino]

In my eyes, the Bush Administration failed no matter what. You can't justify the war, after the fact.
Before the war, they should have presented us with hard evidence that Iraq had or was actively developing WMDs. They could not. Even if we find the WMDs now, it makes no difference on the justification for war. If police illegally search an apartment and find evidence of a crime, that evidence is not admissable in court. Likewise, we know now for a fact that the Administration did not have enough evidence to go to war over making the war an unjust war not nothing, not even WMDs, can change that.

Worse, they said they had hard evidence but they lied.

Kofi Annan has finally said that the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. The US has said the invasion was legal ... but since it is the job of the UN to police the world, isn't that rather like a criminal arguing points of law with the cop who has caught him?

i think, the question will come down to, was it right for us to invade iraq at this time?

No, the question has to be why invade? The US's motive?

Do you see the US invading other countries currently perpetuating mass genocide, or condemning other Saddam-like states in the region? It now looks like South Korea had a more advanced weapons programme than Iraq ... Israel has an illegal stockpile of WMD ... the US itself wants to find a way around the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop next gen battlefield nukes.

The invasion was not about WMD or the removal of a dictator.

[Mr.Lum]

DUH.

but since it is the job of the UN to police the world, isn't that rather like a criminal arguing points of law with the cop who has caught him?


Silly rabbit, thats America's job. Where have you been the past 100+ years?

[yoMAMA]

In my eyes, the Bush Administration failed no matter what. You can't justify the war, after the fact.
Before the war, they should have presented us with hard evidence that Iraq had or was actively developing WMDs. They could not. Even if we find the WMDs now, it makes no difference on the justification for war. If police illegally search an apartment and find evidence of a crime, that evidence is not admissable in court. Likewise, we know now for a fact that the Administration did not have enough evidence to go to war over making the war an unjust war not nothing, not even WMDs, can change that.

So true, so true.

[SunWuKong]

DUH.



Silly rabbit, thats America's job. Where have you been the past 100+ years?

less than that. i'd say for the past 50 years. it wasn't until WW2 that the US decided to be expansionistic, and before WW2, the UK was more powerful than the US.

[yoMAMA]

distraught mother of GI killed in Iraq shouts at a bush rally.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/laura_bush_protester

bush have blood on his hands.....

[hooligan]

distraught mother of GI killed in Iraq shouts at a bush rally.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/laura_bush_protester

bush have blood on his hands.....
lol. he's got a lot more than that.

[yoMAMA]

lol. he's got a lot more than that.

1,000 us soliders,

at least 50,000 iraqi civilians....

others getting blown up every day.....

all in all, god is clearly in favor of bush.

[Mr.Lum]

less than that. i'd say for the past 50 years. it wasn't until WW2 that the US decided to be expansionistic, and before WW2, the UK was more powerful than the US.
Nonsense. The US was medeling in Latin American affairs even before the turn on the century. Not only that, but was taking over lands in the South Pacific and South East Asia. It has been a little bit more than 100 years that America has been blatant about being a police man. However, if you include Manifest Destiny it's been the whole of American history. I don't tho. The US decided to be expansionist in the late 1800's.

The UK may have been more powerful, but the US was certainly imperial. The UK was more powerful than many nations, including France, Spain etc but that didn't mean that they were not expansionist or imperial.

[hooligan]

Nonsense. The US was medeling in Latin American affairs even before the turn on the century. Not only that, but was taking over lands in the South Pacific and South East Asia. It has been a little bit more than 100 years that America has been blatant about being a police man. However, if you include Manifest Destiny it's been the whole of American history. I don't tho. The US decided to be expansionist in the late 1800's.

The UK may have been more powerful, but the US was certainly imperial. The UK was more powerful than many nations, including France, Spain etc but that didn't mean that they were not expansionist or imperial.
they stole mexifornia from the mexicans!

[yoMAMA]

they stole mexifornia from the mexicans!

And they are now coming back....

"illegally".

:wink:

[truMp]

they stole mexifornia from the mexicans!

I think he was referring to countries such as Cuba and the Phillipines; Mexico had already been taken out earlier.

[Mr.Lum]

I think he was referring to countries such as Cuba and the Phillipines; Mexico had already been taken out earlier.

Yes. That was also a case of American expansionism as well tho. The theiving of Texas especially.

[Yeahman]

Kofi Annan has finally said that the decision to take action in Iraq contravened the UN charter and should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. The US has said the invasion was legal ... but since it is the job of the UN to police the world, isn't that rather like a criminal arguing points of law with the cop who has caught him?
I strongly disagree with this. The UN is not a superior authority! The UN is a collection of autonomous nations attempting to agree to resolutions, doing nothing about them, then sending humanitarian aid in the aftermath.

Do you see the US invading other countries currently perpetuating mass genocide, or condemning other Saddam-like states in the region?
Yes, Bush condemned Iran even though it was much less Saddamesque.

The invasion was not about WMD or the removal of a dictator.
Then?
Personally I think it was the neo-con's spirit of ideological imerialism that led us to war.

[Martino]

I strongly disagree with this. The UN is not a superior authority! The UN is a collection of autonomous nations attempting to agree to resolutions, doing nothing about them, then sending humanitarian aid in the aftermath.

The UN is the sum of its parts. It would work fine if members of the Security Council didn't keep blocking Resolutions to protect client states. And, yes, the whole point of the UN is that it is a superior authority. To a large extent, the various UN agencies do a bloody good job at alleviating world suffering.

Yes, Bush condemned Iran even though it was much less Saddamesque.

Condemned for ... ? The blood fued between Iran and the US is verging on the comic. America is still trying to punish Iran at every possible juncture for over-throwing its previous 'Saddam', the Shah.

I wonder how the US would feel if an alien country told it that it can't build nuclear power stations, at a point when the world is on the verge of a fossil fuel energy crisis.


Personally I think it was the neo-con's spirit of ideological imerialism that led us to war.

I have no idea what that means.

[Yeahman]

The UN is the sum of its parts. It would work fine if members of the Security Council didn't keep blocking Resolutions to protect client states. And, yes, the whole point of the UN is that it is a superior authority. To a large extent, the various UN agencies do a bloody good job at alleviating world suffering.
That is NOT the point of the UN!
The UN is no more of a superior authority than Oympic Commitee. Member nations do not delegate any authority or sacrifice any autonomy to the UN. This is not a right-wing position. This is the fact aknowledged by all.

Condemned for ... ? The blood fued between Iran and the US is verging on the comic. America is still trying to punish Iran at every possible juncture for over-throwing its previous 'Saddam', the Shah.
Condemned for oppression which they should rightly be condemned for.

I wonder how the US would feel if an alien country told it that it can't build nuclear power stations, at a point when the world is on the verge of a fossil fuel energy crisis.
Did the US ever agree under the terms of a cease-fire to cease development of nuclear weapons? No.

I have no idea what that means.
It was the deeper issue in pre-Iraq-war politics. Don't worry. Most people don't understand these underlying issues. They just stick with the easier "blood for oil" arguement.

[Martino]

That is NOT the point of the UN!
The UN is no more of a superior authority than Oympic Commitee. Member nations do not delegate any authority or sacrifice any autonomy to the UN. This is not a right-wing position. This is the fact aknowledged by all.

Check out the UN Charter sometime ...

Condemned for oppression which they should rightly be condemned for.

Uh-huh. And Iran is a lot less oppressive than some of the US's recent allies ... Iraq committed its worse offences of genocide whilst a friend of the US, and was not condemned until much later after the fact - when no longer politically useful.

Did the US ever agree under the terms of a cease-fire to cease development of nuclear weapons? No.

The US is bound by several treaties to that affect. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, SALT II, START II, and so on. Until Bush 2, there was an international diplomatic understanding that nuclear weapons needed to be phased out, not be made easier to use.


Originally Posted by ye110man
Personally I think it was the neo-con's spirit of ideological imerialism that led us to war.

It was the deeper issue in pre-Iraq-war politics. Don't worry. Most people don't understand these underlying issues. They just stick with the easier "blood for oil" arguement.

Oh the politics I understand. No, I meant your sentence I don't understand. It's pure gobbledegook*.

(EDIT: gosh, that's my first use of strong language on the board)

[Yeahman]

Check out the UN Charter sometime ...
You didn't read it, did you? Please do.

Uh-huh. And Iran is a lot less oppressive than some of the US's recent allies ... Iraq committed its worse offences of genocide whilst a friend of the US, and was not condemned until much later after the fact - when no longer politically useful.
Yes this excuses Iran.

[SunWuKong]

well let's face it, the UN will never, in reality, be a higher authority because it doesn't independently have any troops. and any authority it's supposed to have is further lessened by the unilateral actions of the US and the fact that the US holds its soldiers somehow above international courts. i don't really care whether or not the UN is supposed to be a higher authority, either way it's bullshit the way the US does things internationally. it's no longer being a world police when most of the world doesn't want it to do what it does. it's just being a bully at this point.

and the irony of the US going over the UN to go into Iraq is that it used the violation of UN resolutions as an excuse to go in. i haven't actually read those resolutions myself, but does it specify that military force is needed if they were violated?

[Martino]

You didn't read it, did you? Please do.

And how would you describe the Security Council, if not the ultimate authority?

The preample of the Charter explicitly states the intention of the UN: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom ... and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples ...'.

It has a high purpose and, when not blocked by certain countries, meets that purpose. The Articles of the Charter give it powers that its predesessor never had. Article IV and V summarise the power, and the limitations, of this higher authority as a whole.

Yes this excuses Iran.

Uh, you missed my point. Excuse Iran of what? Self-determination? Being a sovereign state? Condemning a country on the floors of the UN, and seeking a legitimate UN response is one thing - America is just intent on making life as rough for Iran as possible, by any means because the country once gave it a bloody nose. To do that, it allows its client states in the region to act illegally without condemnation.

That is the greatest failing of the UN - or, rather, of the Security Council, and the greatest shame of the United States of America.

As far as the UN is concerned, Israel is the worst rogue state when it comes to ignoring UN resolutions on far graver matters than those that the US used to attack Iraq - Resolution 425 for example. I literally lost count at 60 resolutions whilst picking over the UN website (not the easiest website to interrogate!) of resolutions against Israel alone that the US blocked. There are others: East Timor is the usual one I trot out.

[Martino]

well let's face it, the UN will never, in reality, be a higher authority because it doesn't independently have any troops. and any authority it's supposed to have is further lessened by the unilateral actions of the US and the fact that the US holds its soldiers somehow above international courts. i don't really care whether or not the UN is supposed to be a higher authority, either way it's bullshit the way the US does things internationally. it's no longer being a world police when most of the world doesn't want it to do what it does. it's just being a bully at this point.

Correct on all points, but the problem isn't the UN not having a free standing army of its own - the problem is the nuclear powers and their misuse of veto on the US Security Council. That is perhaps the only obstacle to a UN with true global impact ...

[yoMAMA]

So, the Iraq war is illegal invasion of a soverign country.

It's official, now.

[Yeahman]

And how would you describe the Security Council, if not the ultimate authority?
They're the ultimate authority within the UN. The UN is just an organization that promotes peace. Whatever its positions are, it does not in any way take away from the sovereignty of member nations. If the US decides to go to war, then there is war. The UN can do nothing but watch. If the US decides not to go to war after the UN passes a resolution to use military action, then the US will not go to war. The US can do whatever it wants just like any other nation.

The preample of the Charter explicitly states the intention of the UN: 'We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom ... and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples ...'.

It has a high purpose and, when not blocked by certain countries, meets that purpose. The Articles of the Charter give it powers that its predesessor never had. Article IV and V summarise the power, and the limitations, of this higher authority as a whole.
Of course it has a high purpose so does Greenpeace. But what does that have to do with their authority?
Article IV has nothing to do with this discussion.
The relevant (at first glance) portion of Article V:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
But this is also just an outline like Article IV, of the division of authority WITHIN the UN. The Security Council has the primary authority within the UN.
What I want you do show me is where it says that all member nations are bound by the decisions of the UN and that all member nations must consult with the UN before taking military action.

Uh, you missed my point. Excuse Iran of what? Self-determination? Being a sovereign state? Condemning a country on the floors of the UN, and seeking a legitimate UN response is one thing - America is just intent on making life as rough for Iran as possible, by any means because the country once gave it a bloody nose. To do that, it allows its client states in the region to act illegally without condemnation.
YOU missed the point.
You asked if Bush condemned other Saddam-like nations in the region. Yes, he did. Now we can't even condemn the actions (suppression of freedoms) of other nations without asking the UN for permission? Geez. You think very highly of this UN. I envy your faith in this imaginary New World Order.

[Deadpool]

Correct on all points, but the problem isn't the UN not having a free standing army of its own - the problem is the nuclear powers and their misuse of veto on the US Security Council. That is perhaps the only obstacle to a UN with true global impact ...

I think it will help if they had a foreign legion like France. I don't understand why they don't; instead of begging other countries for troops. Well maybe it won't help at all considering all the red tape.

[Mr.Lum]

What I want you do show me is where it says that all member nations are bound by the decisions of the UN and that all member nations must consult with the UN before taking military action.


I don't think it does. However, it would be nice for a nation to join an organiztion and obey the rules. The US isn't. You're not supposed to wage wars of aggression or conquest. The US has basically decided that it is above the laws of the world and do however it pleases. It is unwise not to as well because maybe sometimes, the other countries that happen to exist, unfortunately, might know better than we do.

Now we can't even condemn the actions (suppression of freedoms) of other nations without asking the UN for permission?

We shouldn't be punishing other nations with out UN support. Wars like that are the most foolish. "You're not like us! Let's invade!" If they don't threaten you, do not attack them or threaten to. And other nations in the region behave worse than Iran; Oman, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan etc. We did not condemn them. We only get mad when they don't do what we want. IF they have the gaul to behave on their own contrary to our way of thinking/vision they are evil. This is what he is saying (at least I think).



I think it will help if they had a foreign legion like France. I don't understand why they don't; instead of begging other countries for troops. Well maybe it won't help at all considering all the red tape.


I would join that.

[Martino]

They're the ultimate authority within the UN. The UN is just an organization that promotes peace.

If you think the Security Council lacks authority, then you've lost the plot. A big desk with representatives of China, the USA, the Russian Federation, France etc isn't something to be reckoned with?

Whatever its positions are, it does not in any way take away from the sovereignty of member nations. If the US decides to go to war, then there is war. The UN can do nothing but watch. If the US decides not to go to war after the UN passes a resolution to use military action, then the US will not go to war. The US can do whatever it wants just like any other nation.

That is another issue entirely. US reticence to move swiftly unless its own interests are directly threatened.

The UN has had its share of disasters, and will forever be chronically undermanned. But not all countries posture like the USA. Other countries regularly committ troops and personnel to on-going UN relief efforts throughout the world. seeing disparate countries like Norway and Pakistan working together on is a pretty good thing.

Of course it has a high purpose so does Greenpeace. But what does that have to do with their authority? Article IV has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I want you do show me is where it says that all member nations are bound by the decisions of the UN and that all member nations must consult with the UN before taking military action.

Nothing easier.

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter

YOU missed the point. You asked if Bush condemned other Saddam-like nations in the region.

There are two other dictatorships in the region based very much on Saddam's model. These two countries are receiving American (and Western, but primarily American) aid, and one of the countries is the site of a massive American base. What kind of condemnation is that?

Now we can't even condemn the actions (suppression of freedoms) of other nations without asking the UN for permission? Geez. You think very highly of this UN. I envy your faith in this imaginary New World Order.

No, I'm talking about the USA using the UN as a tool to selectively punish its enemies. Iran gets threatened, South Korea doesn't.

[Yeahman]

If you think the Security Council lacks authority, then you've lost the plot. A big desk with representatives of China, the USA, the Russian Federation, France etc isn't something to be reckoned with?
No doubt they are powerful nations. But their collection decision at the UN lacks authority.

Nothing easier.

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are willing and able to carry out these obligations.

The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

Article 4, Chapter 2, United Nations Charter
This does not answer my question at all.

There are two other dictatorships in the region based very much on Saddam's model. These two countries are receiving American (and Western, but primarily American) aid, and one of the countries is the site of a massive American base. What kind of condemnation is that?
Selective condemnation but condemnation nonetheless. Which country in the region is the site of a massive American base?

No, I'm talking about the USA using the UN as a tool to selectively punish its enemies. Iran gets threatened, South Korea doesn't.
Why would South Korea get threatened?

I don't think it does. However, it would be nice for a nation to join an organiztion and obey the rules. The US isn't. You're not supposed to wage wars of aggression or conquest. The US has basically decided that it is above the laws of the world and do however it pleases. It is unwise not to as well because maybe sometimes, the other countries that happen to exist, unfortunately, might know better than we do.
Yes, it would be nice.

[Martino]

No doubt they are powerful nations. But their collection decision at the UN lacks authority.

That is illogical, Captain.


This does not answer my question at all.

Signatories to the UN Charter are expected to comply.


Selective condemnation but condemnation nonetheless.

Condemnation without value, if the Iranians and the world know it is being given simply because they are the Iranians. Let's not forget the US armed and trained Iraq with the explicit intent to wage war on Iran. What value selective condemnation then?


Which country in the region is the site of a massive American base?

How can you not know? You're paying for it, not me.

Why would South Korea get threatened?

For being caught breaking the rules Iran is only suspected of breaking? Or is nuclear proliferation allowed if you are a friend of the USA?

[Yeahman]

That is illogical, Captain.
That is reality. Nations can disregard the UN with impunity. It is up to the individual nations to do something about it if they wish. The UN cannot order nations to enforce its resolutions. UN resolutions give official backing of the member nations and the organization. The UN has no authority except that which the member nations wish to give it if they so choose.

Signatories to the UN Charter are expected to comply.
Comply with a general dedication to peace.
My question was "What I want you do show me is where it says that all member nations are bound by the decisions of the UN and that all member nations must consult with the UN before taking military action."

Condemnation without value, if the Iranians and the world know it is being given simply because they are the Iranians. Let's not forget the US armed and trained Iraq with the explicit intent to wage war on Iran. What value selective condemnation then?
I will accept any condemnation of wrong-doing. A hypocrit is still right half of the time.

How can you not know? You're paying for it, not me.
Qutar? Iraq? What? Please enlighten me.

For being caught breaking the rules Iran is only suspected of breaking? Or is nuclear proliferation allowed if you are a friend of the USA?
No. For suppressing liberty.
But IF they are developing nuclear weapons, it should be condemned also. Same goes for South Korea.

[Martino]

That is reality. Nations can disregard the UN with impunity. It is up to the individual nations to do something about it if they wish. The UN cannot order nations to enforce its resolutions. UN resolutions give official backing of the member nations and the organization. The UN has no authority except that which the member nations wish to give it if they so choose.

Nations can disregard ... at their own cost.

Most people here seem to think the UN is a purely military organisation. It isn't. The UN doesn't advocate the use of war to get things done. Nor is it just a talking shop. The UN's agencies do work around the world that no single country or trading bloc is interested in doing. It plays an advocacy role through the General Assembly, a peace-brokering role played very often by the Secretary-General, and an enforcement role played by the Security Council. When the Council is in agreement, then troops are sent in as a last resort but only on specific instruction.

Iraq was not at the last resort, and the US tried and failed to get specific permission to invade.

The UN doesn't order countries to enforce its resolutions, it asks. And the list of countries that respond is long. The only real obstacle to faster reaction to crisis is, as I said, the use or threat of veto on direct intervention - as in China during the recent resolution on Sudan. Again, Iraq was not at crisis point. It had been at crisis a decade prior, the last time it was seen to committ atrocities against its own peoples.

Comply with a general dedication to peace. My question was "What I want you do show me is where it says that all member nations are bound by the decisions of the UN and that all member nations must consult with the UN before taking military action."

It is implicitly stated throughout the Charter. Posting quotations doesn't seem to help you understand. If there wasn't this obligation, the UN would have ceased to exist long ago.

I will accept any condemnation of wrong-doing. A hypocrit is still right half of the time.

Funny, when I hear the Irish Loyalists condemning the IRA for their acts of violence, I don't think to myself hmmm, they're half right.

Qutar? Iraq? What? Please enlighten me.

Just as an aside, I find the best source of this kind of news isn't as you might suspect subversive anti-government literature, but the pink pages - The London Financial Times and the like. Over the last twenty years I saw more column inches about East Timor and the hidden Mid East than in most other news journals - including, sometimes, The Economist. Strange but true.

There are four countries of concern, but the two I'm watching closest are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which I sincerely hope you are already aware of. Have you heard of The Great Game? The latest round has shifted to them.

[Mr.Lum]

There are four countries of concern, but the two I'm watching closest are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which I sincerely hope you are already aware of. Have you heard of The Great Game? The latest round has shifted to them.

How about Uzbekistan?

[Martino]

That is one of the four. I cited Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in particular because they're currently being courted by US industrial/military complex and attracting more low profile high investment.

In actual fact, these two countries are engaging in that most dangerous of games, trying to play the Americans, Russians and Chinese off of each other for bigger returns. Africa tried that in the 1960's and 70's, and look at the result of that. Somalia, anyone?

They are also the two countries which have greater reserves of fossil fuels, are on the route of a major Chinese oil pipeline, and of course border both China and Russia. Very important to all parties. Very likely to be a future battleground for the war on terror.

Uzbekistan has accepted massive contributions to its coffers, courtesy of the US taxpayer, but is a lot more coy about how long in intends to let the Americans use bases in Uzbek territory. Though strategically less important, Uzbekistan is a small country with big ambitions, and may have military designs of its own in the region. there are unresolved border disputes which may quickly become resolved when Russia and the US start offering it more arms for co-operation deals.

All three countries torture and oppress their people, and are currently sponsored by the US of A!

[Yeahman]

Most people here seem to think the UN is a purely military organisation. It isn't. The UN doesn't advocate the use of war to get things done. Nor is it just a talking shop. The UN's agencies do work around the world that no single country or trading bloc is interested in doing. It plays an advocacy role through the General Assembly, a peace-brokering role played very often by the Secretary-General, and an enforcement role played by the Security Council. When the Council is in agreement, then troops are sent in as a last resort but only on specific instruction.
Or troops are never sent.
The UN plays a very important non-military role. It lacks the authority to play a miliary role.

The UN doesn't order countries to enforce its resolutions, it asks. And the list of countries that respond is long.
Like in the case of Rwanda?

Funny, when I hear the Irish Loyalists condemning the IRA for their acts of violence, I don't think to myself hmmm, they're half right.
But they are.

There are four countries of concern, but the two I'm watching closest are Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which I sincerely hope you are already aware of. Have you heard of The Great Game? The latest round has shifted to them.
I thought we were talking about the middle east. "There are two other dictatorships in the region based very much on Saddam's model."

[Martino]

Or troops are never sent. The UN plays a very important non-military role. It lacks the authority to play a miliary role.

You are missing a subtle distinction here. The UN isn't a country with an army of its own, but there have been many, many instances where the UN has had to move using military force, and where that force was much needed. One example would be Sierra Leone. The UN didn't conjure up these forces out of thin air.

Like in the case of Rwanda?

American reticence. Lack of troops and personnel on the ground. A poorly equipped force that had to deal with 800,000 militiamen. As I recall, procrastination on the part of the USA to committ armour was the single greatest failing, but just one of a list of failures. An example of my point about the Security Council being hobbled by its own members. It was a great failing by all involved, the UN included.

But they are.

Murderers accusing murderers of being murderers. Big deal.

I thought we were talking about the middle east. "There are two other dictatorships in the region based very much on Saddam's model."

Right up to that point this was a really intelligent argument. Shame ...