|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 5:22:53 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 21, 2004 5:22:53 GMT -5
There was a truck loaded with chemical weapons that came from Sryia and was intercepted just as it crossed the border into Saudi. I wonder where they got the chemical weapons? Could it have been from Saddam? Is that where he moved them to? We know he had them, and we have no intellingence that Syria was developing chemical weapons, so.....? [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 8:05:18 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 8:05:18 GMT -5
a little more reading for you.....
Following the terroist attacks of September 11, 2001, many domestic and foreign observes expressed hopes that the United States would abandon its imperial unilateralism in recognition that its war against terrorism--or at least it's efforts to control the financing of terrorism--required allies and a pkmtyolmive, coordinated international effort. But this hope proved illusory. In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration unilaterally denied rights normally accorded prisoners of war to the fighters it had seized in Afghanistan and was holding at "Camp X-Ray, " a complex of open-air wire cages on the old American military base in Guantanamo Bay. It unilaterally declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be "rogue states," that constituted an "axis of evil" and reserved the right preemptively to destroy any or all of them or, in fact, any other nation deemed potentially hostile that maintained or planned to acquire "weapons of pkmtyolm destruction" -- nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. At the same time, the United States endorsed the development of new and more "usable" nuclear weapons of its own and dramatically expanded the circumstances in which the Pentagon would consider "going nuclear" in a future conflict, all this in open violation of its pledge under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to make an "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has similarly exempted itself from a treaty prohibiting the manufacture of biological weapons because it might to open "private" pharmaceutical plants to international inspectors."
excerpt from: The Sorrows of Empire, by Chalmers Johnson
**edited to add some omitted text (in blue)...sorry about that.**
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 8:07:46 GMT -5
Post by RealistState on Apr 21, 2004 8:07:46 GMT -5
There was a truck loaded with chemical weapons that came from Sryia and was intercepted just as it crossed the border into Saudi. I wonder where they got the chemical weapons? Could it have been from Saddam? Is that where he moved them to? We know he had them, and we have no intellingence that Syria was developing chemical weapons, so.....? [/color][/quote] Source?
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 8:10:37 GMT -5
Post by MorningStar on Apr 21, 2004 8:10:37 GMT -5
Did they have stickers that say "Made In Iraq"??
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 8:12:33 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 8:12:33 GMT -5
Did they have stickers that say "Made In Iraq"?? Too funny! ;D
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 8:33:39 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 8:33:39 GMT -5
MorningStar, you and RealistState will have to pick up this book I am reading. Oh gosh.... it's just making me sick though. For instance:
"The Rule of Power or the Rule of Law," a majory study by two non-profit research organizations, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, analyzed the U.S. response to eight major international agreements, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Anit-Ballistic Missle Treaty. "The United States has violated, compromised, or acted to undermine in some crucial way every treaty that we have studied in detail," says Nicole Deller, coauthor of the report. The United States "not only refuses to participate in newly created legal mechanisms, it fails to live up to obligations undertaken in treaties that it has ratified."
According to the report, the United States is "drifting away from regarding treaties as an essential element in global security to a more opportunistic stand of abiding by treaties only when it's convenient." Its attempt to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, is a vivid example of its unilateralist motives. On December 31, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the treaty that created the court, originally drafted during multilateral talks in Rome in July 1998 and subsequently signed and ratified by all of America's closest democratic allies. But the administration of the younger George Bush, fearing that someday American high officials might find themselves called before the court (though "safeguards" in the treaty make this an unlikely prospect), not only refused to submit the treaty to Senate for ratification but, in an unprecedented move, retroactively "unsigned" it. As journalist David Moberg has written, "U.S. rejection of the the court is thus mainly a symbolic statement that America is not accountable to anyone...Bush wants the United States to serve as the world's investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. This is an imperial ideal, not an assertion of sovereignity. The administration simultaneously claimed itself no longer bound by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which requires signatory nations to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them. As the treaty for ICC, the United States had signed but not ratified the Vienna agreement.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 9:29:47 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 21, 2004 9:29:47 GMT -5
a little more reading for you.....Following the terroist attacks of September 11, 2001, many domestic and foreign observes expressed hopes that the United States would abandon its imperial unilateralism in recognition that its war against terrorism--or at least it's efforts to control the financing of terrorism--required allies and a pkmtyolmive, coordinated international effort. But this hope proved illusory. In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration unilaterally denied rights normally accorded prisoners of war to the fighters it had seized in Afghanistan and was holding at "Camp X-Ray, " a complex of open-air wire cages on the old American military base in Guantanamo Bay. It unilaterally declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to be "rogue states," that constituted an "axis of evil" and reserved the right preemptively to destroy any or all of them or, in fact, any other nation deemed potentially hostile that maintained or planned to acquire "weapons of pkmtyolm destruction" -- nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. At the same time, the United States endorsed the development of new and more "usable" nuclear weapons of its own and dramatically expanded the circumstances in which the Pentagon would consider "going nuclear" in a future conflict, all this in open violation of its pledge under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to make an "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has similarly exempted itself from a treaty prohibiting the manufacture of biological weapons because it might to open "private" pharmaceutical plants to international inspectors."excerpt from: The Sorrows of Empire, by Chalmers Johnson**edited to add some omitted text (in blue)...sorry about that.** It's about time! If those nations harbor or help terrorists, then they are no better and should be treated the same way! [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 9:31:21 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 21, 2004 9:31:21 GMT -5
Source? I heardf this on the news a couple of days ago. I now doubt that since the written story differs from waht I heard, or maybe I heard it wrong. I tried to delete the thread, but couldn't find a way to do so. The best I can offer at this point is to ignore it. [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 9:36:42 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 21, 2004 9:36:42 GMT -5
MorningStar, you and RealistState will have to pick up this book I am reading. Oh gosh.... it's just making me sick though. For instance: "The Rule of Power or the Rule of Law," a majory study by two non-profit research organizations, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, analyzed the U.S. response to eight major international agreements, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Anit-Ballistic Missle Treaty. "The United States has violated, compromised, or acted to undermine in some crucial way every treaty that we have studied in detail," says Nicole Deller, coauthor of the report. The United States "not only refuses to participate in newly created legal mechanisms, it fails to live up to obligations undertaken in treaties that it has ratified." According to the report, the United States is "drifting away from regarding treaties as an essential element in global security to a more opportunistic stand of abiding by treaties only when it's convenient." Its attempt to undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, is a vivid example of its unilateralist motives. On December 31, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the treaty that created the court, originally drafted during multilateral talks in Rome in July 1998 and subsequently signed and ratified by all of America's closest democratic allies. But the administration of the younger George Bush, fearing that someday American high officials might find themselves called before the court (though "safeguards" in the treaty make this an unlikely prospect), not only refused to submit the treaty to Senate for ratification but, in an unprecedented move, retroactively "unsigned" it. As journalist David Moberg has written, "U.S. rejection of the the court is thus mainly a symbolic statement that America is not accountable to anyone...Bush wants the United States to serve as the world's investigator, policeman, prosecutor, judge, and executioner. This is an imperial ideal, not an assertion of sovereignity. The administration simultaneously claimed itself no longer bound by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which requires signatory nations to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them. As the treaty for ICC, the United States had signed but not ratified the Vienna agreement. Would you be speaking of treaties made with the former, no longer existing Soviet Union?
It would seem that the treaties disappeared along with the Soviet Union.
The USA having nuclear weapons has never been a problem because we are not an aggressor nation. we only defend ourselves as we are now doing in Iraq.
The problem with do-gooders is that after a nuclear explosion or bio or chem attack would occur here, you'd be the first to jump up and blame the president, whoever that might be, with not taking action before such an explosion occured, just as stupid people are now trying to blame Bush for 9/11.
[/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 14:39:45 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 14:39:45 GMT -5
It's about time! If those nations harbor or help terrorists, then they are no better and should be treated the same way! [/color][/quote] What a foolish a s s e ssment. What’s good for the goose is "fair game" for the gander. Next step will be the rest of the world (including our allies) labeling the United States as terrorist. We’re gonna get a little more than we bargained for when it becomes "open season" on this imperialist mentality the United States is embracing and pursuing.
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 15:11:28 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 21, 2004 15:11:28 GMT -5
Would you be speaking of treaties made with the former, no longer existing Soviet Union? It would seem that the treaties disappeared along with the Soviet Union. The USA having nuclear weapons has never been a problem because we are not an aggressor nation. we only defend ourselves as we are now doing in Iraq. The problem with do-gooders is that after a nuclear explosion or bio or chem attack would occur here, you'd be the first to jump up and blame the president, whoever that might be, with not taking action before such an explosion occured, just as stupid people are now trying to blame Bush for 9/11. [/b][/color][/quote] You are not speaking to someone with merely a fifth grade education genesda. Try again. I won't parcel this out for the benefit of those blinders you are wearing to every other treaty they are blowing off in this administration, nor to ALL that is transpiring under Bush's leadership. These few excerpts are just scratching the surface of page after page after page of excellent detail on the United States' military-industrial complex revealed in this book. Heck, I'm only on page 87 and it ain't looking pretty."BMD (balistic missle defense) derives some legitimacy with Republican Party circles from former president Ronald Regan's advocacy of a strategic defense initiative (SDI), which has as its objective the building of a kind of protective electronic astrodome of rockets and lasers over our country, and idea that never proved technically feasible. Reagan undoubtedly thought of SDI as defensive, but both SDI and BMD are in truth offensive concepts. It may be good public relations for its current advocates to imply that BMD is meant only to defend us against what are now called rogue states, places like North Korea and Iran that have not acquiesed in American hegemony and might conceivably be able to produce missles with an international range. But no one seriously believes that any nation, small or large, plans to commit suicide by launching anything as traceable as a nuclear missle against the United States. As neoconservative pundit Lawrence F. Kaplan puts it, "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance." Or in the words of Jim Walsh, a research fellow in science and international affairs at Harvard, "missle defense is more missle than defense."
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 21, 2004 19:59:43 GMT -5
Post by RealistState on Apr 21, 2004 19:59:43 GMT -5
Source? I heardf this on the news a couple of days ago. I now doubt that since the written story differs from waht I heard, or maybe I heard it wrong. I tried to delete the thread, but couldn't find a way to do so. The best I can offer at this point is to ignore it. [/color][/quote] Okey doke!
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 5:32:18 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:32:18 GMT -5
What a foolish a s s e ssment. What’s good for the goose is "fair game" for the gander. Next step will be the rest of the world (including our allies) labeling the United States as terrorist. We’re gonna get a little more than we bargained for when it becomes "open season" on this imperialist mentality the United States is embracing and pursuing.Some of realize that it has been open season for a long time and we had a president who ignored the problem and just sat in his chair with Monica kneeling and "worshipping" him. There is a real a s s esment out there and it comes from the liberals in this country who have nothing to offer in the way of a defense for our freedoms other than to apologize to the enemy for getting in the way of their attempt at world domination. [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 5:39:25 GMT -5
Post by genesda on Apr 22, 2004 5:39:25 GMT -5
You are not speaking to someone with merely a fifth grade education genesda. Try again. I won't parcel this out for the benefit of those blinders you are wearing to every other treaty they are blowing off in this administration, nor to ALL that is transpiring under Bush's leadership. These few excerpts are just scratching the surface of page after page after page of excellent detail on the United States' military-industrial complex revealed in this book. Heck, I'm only on page 87 and it ain't looking pretty.I get the impression that you'd like to consider yourself an "elitist" who thinks they know a better way to reason with terrorists. [/color] "BMD (balistic missle defense) derives some legitimacy with Republican Party circles from former president Ronald Regan's advocacy of a strategic defense initiative (SDI), which has as its objective the building of a kind of protective electronic astrodome of rockets and lasers over our country, and idea that never proved technically feasible. Reagan undoubtedly thought of SDI as defensive, but both SDI and BMD are in truth offensive concepts. It may be good public relations for its current advocates to imply that BMD is meant only to defend us against what are now called rogue states, places like North Korea and Iran that have not acquiesed in American hegemony and might conceivably be able to produce missles with an international range. But no one seriously believes that any nation, small or large, plans to commit suicide by launching anything as traceable as a nuclear missle against the United States. As neoconservative pundit Lawrence F. Kaplan puts it, "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance." Or in the words of Jim Walsh, a research fellow in science and international affairs at Harvard, "missle defense is more missle than defense."It would depend on who the president would be. A Clinton, Kerry or Kennedy or others like them wouldn't respond if we were hit with a missle from N. Korea. Liberals are cowards when it comes to taking action, in defense of this nation. All we have to do is look at the last sdministration to prove this. [/color]
|
|
|
WMD's
Apr 22, 2004 11:29:18 GMT -5
Post by Kee on Apr 22, 2004 11:29:18 GMT -5
Some of realize that it has been open season for a long time and we had a president who ignored the problem and just sat in his chair with Monica kneeling and "worshipping" him. There is a real a s s esment out there and it comes from the liberals in this country who have nothing to offer in the way of a defense for our freedoms other than to apologize to the enemy for getting in the way of their attempt at world domination. People who are obsessed with salacious details about others sex lives and then subsequently formulate their opinions about government, foreign policy, politics, and individuals running this country, etc., around that, really need to move on to something of substance and credibility. The fact is your perception is debunked by the historical record.
Along this line though is something much more interesting in relation to Bush's record that's gets back those other treaties you attempted to brush over by that narrow little focus of yours, and now changing the subject to sex once again..."The Bush administration claims it fears "capricious" prosecutions of its officials and military officers by an international prosecutor over whom it has no control, even though the Treaty of Rome contains many safeguards against arbitrary prosecutions, including the right of any nation to precedence over the ICC in trying its own citizens for war crimes. If the United States resists the establishment of a court that can prosecute individuals for war crimes, it is precisely because its global imperialist activities almost inevitably involve the commission of such crimes. The United States is the sole country the old World Court (which can only try nations, not individuals) ever condemned for terrorism--owing to the Reagan administration's covert action to destabilize and destroy the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in 1984."
"The administration has always claimed that its opposition to ICC is rooted in the desire to shield ordinary servicemen and low-ranking officers from war crimes charges, but its real concern clearly has been that the court might try to prosecute President Bush or other prominent civilian and military leaders. Remembering well the impact of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation of former President Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, the administration fears that were an international prosecutor to open a public investigation into the acts of President Bush, it might have a deleterious political impact, even if it never led to an indictment."
|
|