Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: UN wants press banned from inspections

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ... Just like they didn t in 1950 and 1990. --Kevin And you can put it in the ground Stir it all around Dig it with a hoe It ll make your flowers grow
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 2 3:13 PM
      >
      >The UN does not want war. That should be clear.
      >
      >Jim Bronke
      >www.USACritic.com

      Just like they didn't in 1950 and 1990.

      --Kevin

      And you can put it in the ground
      Stir it all around
      Dig it with a hoe
      It'll make your flowers grow
    • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
      ... The government of the USA is certainly the MAJOR villain here, but the United Nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council, are
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 3 12:01 AM
        >
        >It seems that the real villain here is the US. It doesn't appear that anyone
        >in the US diplomatic staff was willing to give Iraq a break in 90. If Kuwait
        >had been stealing our oil you can bet we would have gone after it. The US is
        >disingenuously behind the scenes keeping everyone including Americans in the
        >dark and paying off other countries. It is no doubt us that made a stink
        >about the chlorine and kept it from them through the UN. I'm surprised we
        >let them have oxygen. That has to be used in the development of nuclear
        >weapons as well.
        >
        >
        >Jim Bronke
        >www.USACritic.com

        The government of the USA is certainly the MAJOR villain here, but the
        United Nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security
        Council, are in complicity with this, and if, as in 1990, they can be
        cajoled or coerced into sanctioning any kind of hostile action against
        Iraq (as they are already doing with the murderous sanctions that continue
        to kill Iraqi citizens by malnutrition and preventable disease, mostly
        young children), then they are equally guilty in whatever the Bush
        administration does.

        During the Cold War, when the USSR and China had an objectively anti-
        imperialist foreign policy (even if subjectively this was motivated
        by imperial ambitions of some people in their governments), the United
        Nations had some role as a neutral arbitrator in world events. Now that
        the USA is the world's only superpower, and almost every other nation
        on earth has an Uncle Tom government to that superpower (with the
        exceptions of Iraq, Iran, and People's Korea, the so-called "axis of
        evil"), the United Nations is objectively incapable of being anything
        BUT a puppet of imperialism. It would, at best, be extreme naivete
        to believe that the UN is some kind of neutral moderator in this day
        and age.

        The game the Bush Administration and the Security Council are playing
        with Iraq is quite an old one, and I'm surprised you don't recognize
        it. It's called "good cop/bad cop". It goes more or less like this:

        Bad Cop (Bush): Iraq, your government needs to be overthrown,
        and if you don't surrender voluntarilly, we'll
        bomb you and invade you.

        Good Cop (UN): My partner has a terrible temper, and tends to
        go overboard. I don't want to invade you, but
        if you don't let our spies in to trample your
        sovereignty and pass on information to the
        United States like they did in 1998, I'll have
        to turn you over to him.

        In the end they are both cops and have the goal of smashing the rights
        of Iraq, People's Korea, and any other country that defies imperialism,
        and both need to be resisted. Death to the United Nations, the most
        perfidious criminal enterprise in history! They alone are the reason
        New York City deserves to be our American Hiroshima.

        --Kevin Walsh
      • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
        ... Really makes no difference whether the UN goes along willingly or not. If it can t resist imperialist pressure, it s no good. ... Even if the Security
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 3 7:26 PM
          >I like your analogy, but, if the UN is being the good cop it is because of
          >us and we bully them in to it, I believe.

          Really makes no difference whether the UN goes along willingly or not.
          If it can't resist imperialist pressure, it's no good.

          >Van der Heusen of the Nation magazine said that the UN resolution was as
          >much about controlling the US as it was about dealing with Iraq. Many UN
          >nations said there was no hidden trigger and that the US had to go back to
          >the UN first. We'l see, as Bush is wacko and itchy to murder someone.
          >
          >It does appear that the UN is not compromising intelligence, though, this
          >time. Of course we can't see in the buildings but we sure can get a fix on
          >them without the UN.
          >
          >With Bush at the helm we will see more terrorism, no doubt.
          >
          >Jim Bronke
          >www.USACritic.com

          Even if the Security Council somehow develops a backbone and says "no",
          there's no way to stop Bush from going ahead anyway, and insofar as the
          UN will have provided the excuse (if not the consent), that organisation
          will have played a role as an enabler to imperialist aggression.

          --Kevin
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.