Sign in to follow this  
Guest SoarPics

The U.N. and War on Terrorism

Recommended Posts

The BBC reported today the following:"United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan says the war against international terrorism can be legitimate only if approved by the Security Council. Mr Annan told the BBC that "when one is trying to deal with a broader threat to international peace and security, there is no alternative but to go through the [uN] Council". The article went on to say:"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter gave individual countries the right to self-defence. "But, to contain the terrorists, I submit that you need that essential international co-operation to make it effective," Mr Annan said in the BBC interview."With REASONED and MATURE discussion, what is your opinion of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Seems to me that Mr. Annan is simply stating the obvious. The important issue is whether or not the Bush Administration is paying attention. In late 1991 the first Bush Administration worked hard to build a world consensus for action against Saddam. I can't shake the feeling that the current administration is taking such an international consensus for granted. This clearly would be a mistake.On the flip side, it has become increasingly difficult to take the United Nations seriously. The organization has repeatedly shown itself to be lacking in drive and fortitude to act in the best interests of the international community. They do well to help underdeveloped nations in times of national emergency, whether natural or man-made, but beyond that the body lacks any real punitive powers or mettle that can make a difference.At any rate, tomorrow will be a bench mark day for the Bush Administration. Mr. Annan's announcement today seems to throw down a challenge to President Bush... as if the Secretary General is reminding him that the U.N Security Council should not be ignored. Which might be a wise political path for the President to follow.It is always better to have too many friends rather than too few.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Tom,Each and every country has an inherant right to self-defence, and to appropriately act to prevent tragedies.With that, I wholeheartedly disagree that we as a nation, (The UNited States of America), has to seek the permission of anyone to defend our country.So kofi syas we are illegitimate if we go on our own.I would like to know his definition of coalition.We already have the following on board with regards to Iraq, and that seems to be coalition enough for me.United States of AmericaUnited KingdomItalySpainQatarBahrainNorwayAnd I'm sure there are more, and there will be more tomorrow. The best definition of what is wrong with the UN is Syria and Lybia having the roles they have today.One other thing, The UN has already endorsed numerous resolutions for the United States to act without any further resolutions. SO if we get them great, if not, so be it.With....Against.... Like Santa Claus, we'll just keep making the list and checking it twice.Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Here I go again. Becoming a controversial figure in the AVSIM Forum.The UN is out of control. Since when does our constitution say that the UN decides when to send me to combat. If it were up to the UN, I would be handing out food in the balkins because Europe is to militarily week to do it themselves. I work for the President of the United States, The Congress of the United States, and the People of the United States. I do not work for some bogus world government. Obviously the UN is too stupid to learn from history. This is exacty why terrorist don't respect us. They think we are week. We constantly show them that we are not willing to fight. Today seemed like a day when we all wanted to find closure. Every one today was sad. I am sad too. But I am more angry than sad. Today reaffirmed my desire to avenge my countrymen. Today made me angry. I will always be angry. This country didn't free the world from tyrany in WWII because we felt sorry for our selves. We did it because we were angry. Today refocused me on my mission. Myself and every other American soldier will not rest, until the people of this country feel safe. UN or not. Captain DaveP.S. I love watching Europe bash us as they eat at McDonald's and drink Coke.

Share this post


Link to post

"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter gave individual countries the right to self-defence."And I say we should exercise that right. It is not a matter of if, but when we and others will be attacked again by this fanatical group.Paulhttp://www.advdigitalmedia.com/sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

USA and most other countries continually exercise this right (always have and will). So what's exactly your point? Which fanatical group exactly? Will fanatical groups cease to exist? And if, how and why?Was USA attacked by another sovereign country like Iraq or Afghanistan on 11 Sep 01 or by a bunch of (admittedly dangerous) loonies? (BTW: OBL is(/was?) Saudi and not Iraqi). Where is the proof it was OBL? How does a country enter into war with a group of loonies? By decleration of war? And if, why are its prisoners not granted the POW-status according to the Geneva convention? Questions over questions and there are many more.GreetingsStephanalways glad to get world politics explained by indifferent fanatics>"The UN Secretary General acknowledged that the UN Charter >gave individual countries the right to self-defence." >>And I say we should exercise that right. >>It is not a matter of if, but when we and others will be >attacked again by this fanatical group. >>>>Paul >>http://www.advdigitalmedia.com/sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

On September 11, 2001 I adopted a motto, my own motto I believe. It stated "September 11, 2001...Victory In All We Do!" My wish was to state that we should seek victory in ALL our endevours. The liberation of Afghanistan was a tremendous victory for the US, and for the Afghanistan people. Our actions were just. There was no moral equivication. Note the few protests prior to the war, but once it started, and everyone saw just what horrors the Afghanistan people suffered at the hands of the despotic Tallisban, those protests quickly stopped. The end result was a huge, world-wide coalition which strongly supported and aided our actions in Afghanistan.Now we seek to liberate Iraq, but we do not carry that coalition. We have not made the effort to build that coalition. While our cause is equally as just, for the Iraqi's are every bit as oppressed as the Afghanistan people, it will fall on deaf ears if we do not build a strong concencous. In my opinion, instead of spending all this time in coordinated, orchistrated media leaks, hinting to unilateral action, our govt. would be well advised to spend that energy in building a strong case for the world community. Then, and only then can we take a moral stand against the evil that is truly Saddam.If we choose to attack Iraq alone I fear we are doomed to failure. We may win the war, but we will not win the battle. On the other hand, I fully appreciate the threat that Iraq is. To us, to the world. But as much as I would like to see Iraq's despotic maniac of a leader leave the planet, I will not accept vigilantism, no more than I would accept it against a murderer in my own town. I weep no tears for Saddam. He is evil incarnite. But law is law, and if we act out of vengance, not law...then we are no better than he is.Today I pray for the victims of September 11. For the people of this planet who suffer under the rule of tyrnany and despotism. For those who's only knowledge is fear. I pray the world may come together, united as one, in goodness and strength against an evil that has lived as long as time. We cannot defeat that kind of force by ourselves, this United States...but as the leader of the Free World, and as a symbol to all peoples of this planet, together, one peoples, one will, we can do anything.Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post

During the 1930s Churchill kept pointing to a gathering threat, but his was a lone voice and he was shouted down. But on May 10th, 1940--months after war had already been declared--the King sent for him, and he became Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain's approach was different to Mr. Churchill's though, and he proudly held up a piece of paper after getting off the plane that returned him from Germany. He was glad to offer what everyone then and today would doubtless prefer, "Peace in our time"....FDR had to face vocal opposition to American involvement in WWII, an opposition that Mr. Lindbergh championed.And Mr. Bush faced opposition and reservations from many in the Democratic Party when the Gulf War was being debated. After the fighting was over, I remember seeing a "Winners and Losers" segment in Time magazine; referring to the Democrats, the caption read "Yikes." Many of them having opposed the conflict, they were not in a very good situation politically when it was all over.Just tonight it was pointed out in a report by Fox News that there was considerable doubt in some quarters in America after September 2001 about the ability of the US to fight a war in Afghanistan.So opposition, and a general turning away to look in the other direction and avoid confronting reality, is to be expected, especially from the usual suspects. And I would certainly put the UN and many Euros in that category. Of course, when recalling the recent events in the Balkans--from concentration camps to mass killings, even with UN "peacekeepers" on hand--there's an enormous gap in credibility from these quarters. And that's a diplomatic way of putting it.I think the US needs to provide what specific information it can without compromising its intelligence-gathering ability. It should try to persuade the opposition, just as Mr. Bush will try to do at the UN later today, but it should in no way be swayed by their opposition. Resolve is not the hallmark of many politicians, though this administration is up to the task.For anyone who's interested, while it's not an exact parallel to the current threat posed by Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, there's a fine film about the Cuban Missile Crisis available now on DVD called "Thirteen Days" (referring to the length of the crisis in October 1962). I saw it last Saturday and was pretty impressed--then the next day on NBC's "Meet The Press" program the actual UN confrontation between the US and Soviet ambassadors in 1962 was shown during the Dick Cheney interview. I'd just seen the movie version the night before.The film was very interesting as it showed how the American officials weighed various options and grappled with all kinds of factors. One thing was clear: nukes 90 miles off Florida's coast were not to be allowed. I don't remember any serious discussion of international opposition to American actions though.

Share this post


Link to post

I am afraid that we already have the UN's approval to do whatever we want to in Iraq. It is clearly spelled out that Iraq must comply with the UN inspectors and Iraq also agreed to this at the end of the war. Braun was correct the law is the law and we already have the law on our side by the UN'S and Iraq's own admission. Too many seem to forget recent history and the facts and are driven by public opinion which is driven by the media all too often. I wonder what would have happened if a lone country would have stood up to a really bad dude before he became "all powerful"? I am not saying that Sadam is a really bad dude but there are some parallels, for example a really bad dude openly said that he was building up his military to take over Europe and more, Sadam has said that he is trying to build his arsenal and has shown his agression toward his neighbors and enemies. a really bad dude tested weapons on his own people, so does Sadam, and the list goes on. Can you imagine what might have happened if a really bad dude had a nuke, or what about Sadam? It has been proven time and again that the right decision may not be the popular decision, for example I think that only 30 percent of Americans thought that we should declare out independence and kick the British out. How many would now say that decision was a bad one? I am afraid that sometimes we must procede with what is right whether or not everyone agrees. I think that you would be hard pressed to find many who do not think that Sadam is a threat, why then is it hard to find people that want to remove that threat? Finally I do not understand why we, the most free country in the world must bow to an organization that is full of the puppets of dictators and oppresive governments when they have already given consent to enforce the resolutions stating that Iraq must comply with inspections. What is this a game of "Mother May I"?Philip Olson

Share this post


Link to post

This is such a hot topic around the world at the moment, I just have to pass comment.Last night I watched the documentary "911", a film which was mean`t to be about the life of a rookie fire fighter in one of New Yorks oldest fire houses. Of course it ended up being a documentary about the WTC attacks as seen through the eyes of two French film makers, I still can not comprehend the magnitude of what actually happened - just surreal, sickening, horrific - words can not describe how I feel.Personally I believe the UN is a waste of time, the UN is weak and too left wing for my liking - it needs change.I strongly believe Saddam "needs" to be taken out, he is nothing short of evil. Does or does he not sponsor Palistinian families whose son or daughter commit suicide bombings in Israel ?, I believe US$10,000.00 is paid to each family for every sondaughter who succeeds in suicide bombing.It is well known he is trying to aquire nuclear capabilities - but what for ?, to protect himself ?, I think if you believe that then you will believe Bin Laden is actually quite a nice guy who just needs a little counseling to come right.For those opposed to an invasion and you get your way, keep your head firmly in the sand - and when you finally pull it out, don`t start crying when you see the end result of your short sightedness.I`m not an American, just someone who enjoys my freedom - and If it were`nt for America I`d be slaving in rice patty fields for the Japanese down here in the South Pacific.Just my opinion of course.AndyCentre right

Share this post


Link to post

I just studied the text of the speech President Bush made to the U.N. He clearly followed the right path. He presented a decade of evidence against the Iraqi regime, and he made it quite clear that the worlds' civilized nations cannot continue to ignore the threat.Now the real work begins.For the U.S. to move unilaterally against the corrupt Iraqi regime at this point in time would be a mistake, even if they do have the support of prior U.N. resolutions. The Bush administration should now focus on generating a strong consensus of action. The coalition of 1991 fell prey to the belief that a negotiated settlement with the Iraqi regime was the best option. Clearly, this mistake won't happen again. Next time the world moves to end the tyranny, Saddam and his followers will be picking sand out of their teeth and butts. So be it. But without a strong coalition, for the U.S. to take unilateral action now will only present America as a bully. And there are enough people in the world who believe that already. No sense taking action that would perpetuate such thoughts.If the effort is made to solidify a strong coalition, then the world can kick Saddam's butt harder and farther, which is the least we can do for him. The time will come, but we must first make every effort to move the world's civilized peoples to a common ground against the Iraqi tyranny. Failing this (which would surprise few), then the U.S. can and should act to remove the threat.The art of the hunt has its foundation in the science of patience and planning.

Share this post


Link to post

Tony Blair made a speech to the Trades Unions Congress on Tuesday, September 10. The text of that speech is available on the BBC web site if you do a bit of digging. One of the Boston NPR stations provides BBC World Service broadcasts at several points during its broadcast day and I was able to hear a portion of this speech. One of the most important quotes from that speech says:"The challenge to all in the UN is this: the UN must be the way to resolve the threat from Saddam not avoid it."'Nuf said. If Mr. Annan wishes the UN to be taken seriously, then it is time for the UN to enforce its collective will.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with most posters that something must be done about Iraq, if not now, certainly in the not too distant future. Like many Americans, I am not really concerned with the opinions of the rest of the world. While the US has made its mistake in foreign policies, history shows the Pax Americana has generally been in the interests of what is right and good for the civilized world.Now, the question that must be answered is, what happens after Saddam is gone? My concern with present policy is that there seems to be no plan for the end game. Like chess, power politics requires such a plan for success. If the administration has a viable plan, we need some evidence of its existance. But, if there is chaos in the wake of Saddam, the world may be in no safer situation. Should Iraq disintegrate, what does that do to Iran, perhaps strengthen its hand, in the region? Like Iraq, Iran is part of the Axis of Evil.There is one other problem in the region that must be addressed, and that is Saudi Arabia. This is a country ruled by religious zealots, though as Wm Safire's NYT column today points out, there is hope that a moderate wing of the al Saud family may be in a position to tip the scales toward ideological and religious moderation. But, for now, let us not forget that Saudi Arabia is a country that allows no open practises of its two sister monotheistic faiths, still treats women as subjects, not equals, is home to 15 of the 19 9-11 killers and has refused to fully cooperate with the United States, even where American interests hve been threatened and Americans killed. The day will come when we are as a world, no longer so dependent on oil, Arab or otherwise. I think the West will be much better off then, for environmental as well as political reasons. Sherman KaplanHighland Park IL

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Sherman,I agree with most of what you have written.Nice post. The part about what policy and what end game will result is always a difficult one. I don't believe we have ever entered an action where the result is predictable.The events that occur will decide the outcome of leadership. I also believe that we have people on the ground in Iraq, with political intentions in mind.It is difficult, but when someone says, What's the exit strategy. I ask, name one war where there was an exit strategy. Even the Gulf War strategy was a surpise for most after it was over.There was no real plan for Afghanistan, but with time, the leaders came up with a leader that most in the region could live with, including Russia, Pakistan and Iran. Just my thoughts,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I was seeking words to offer this thread Braun, but you took every one of 'em from me. I don't think I could improve on anything you said...-John

Share this post


Link to post

Something certainly needs to be done, however it needs to be done properly and the way the "build-up" is going it looks like it may well not be. It is not for the US, the UK or any other country to decide to decide to invade Iraq. That is what the UN should be for - there is no point in a body that does not enforce their own resolutions.If the we are so concerned about countries "flouting" resolutions then perhaps an invasion of Israel should be on the cards first - since they are also "flouting" the resolution requiring them to withdrawl to their "pre-war" borders. If the rules apply to your enemies then they have to apply to you and your friends as well - although all to often politicians seem to forget this. The other Arab states will see that for the double standard it truly is. Don't get me wrong, I despise everything that the regime in Iraq stands for - but then again how many other regimes in the region seem (at best) strange to Westerners.Before I get slated for being a pacifist (which I don't think I am) Afghanistan was completely justified - the Taliban and Al Queda were hand in hand, and 911 was an act of war. That really can't be said of the current situation in Iraq.As a suggestion for Iraq I think that the UNSC should give a deadline for the inspections to take place, if that is passed then the use of force should be authorised in order for the UN inspectors to do their work. That should be the goal - unless the UNSC is prepared to change their resolution to regime change (which I think we would all agree that certain members would never agree with). Anything that happens then is directly brought on by Saddam - if they deny Inspectors access then force is used to let them do their job, which would pretty much amount to an invasion anyway.It is ironic that both Saddam & OBL are (or hopefully were in the latter case) beasts of our own making (at least as far as the west is concerned) we were happy to see them prosper when they were fighting the "enemies of the west".. .. ..Just my two pence worth - slightly idealistic but .. .. ..

Share this post


Link to post

WWII had an exit strategy...beat the axis and set up a democratic government. it worked for west germany, and we all know the story of the east. We could hash that one over forever, I think. As for Japan, the victory was clear and unqualified. MacArthur, who may have had his faults, was able to help set up an occupation that led to the democracy which thrives today. So, it can be done with the proper leadershop, will and political determination. I don't see anyone of WWII caliber today who could bring Iraq out of chaos and into any sort of workable member of the community of nations. Again, I repeat that something needs to be done. But, let's bake the whole cake this time.Sherman KaplanHighland Park Il

Share this post


Link to post

snip snip. >>If the we are so concerned about countries "flouting" >resolutions then perhaps an invasion of Israel should be on >the cards first - since they are also "flouting" the >resolution requiring them to withdrawl to their "pre-war" >borders. ...snipFirst of all, Israel is not "flouting" any resolutions and has agreed to all that guarantee secure and peacful borders. So far, nothing of the sort has come from the Palestinians. The problem is that they have no leader like Anwar Sadat, a man who fought Israel tooth and nail, but had the courage and foresight to go to Jerusalem and make a true peace of the brave, not the hypocracy which Arafat spouts. Maybe if the Palestinians actually show they are willing to live in peace, stop the terrorism and suicide bombings, something might happen. Incidentally, where did the Palestinians come from as a people? They are Arabs, and if one follows the original UN plan, "Palestine" would be a part of Jordan. Incidentally, under Jordanian rule before 1967, Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem were desecrated, and cemetary head stones were used to line latrines. And as far as The PLO is concerned, their Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. There is only one good friend to the US and the West in the entire Middle East. It is the smallest, most reviled country there. Guess it's name!Sherman KaplanHighland Park Il

Share this post


Link to post

I think that may be one of the items brought up in the Congress.The problem is that daschle is threataning not to bring up the debate and vote prior to the October Recess.Even Tony Blair has recalled Parliament, so why The House of Representatives will have this done, the Senate may sit on it due to Political games, Sad indeed.I would like to see something along the lines of what happened in AFghanistan. The countries in the region having at least a voice on who they would support to replace in an interim government. I would also like the United States to be a small part of the rebuild, people wise. Let the region provide the manpower, while we provide the resources and most likely the cash.If we go it alone, I support it, as the President made his comparison to The League of Nations. If the United Nations does not enforce these, they are setting a pretty bad precedant.And I think the UN Resolutions should be enforced upon Israel as well. They should pull back to the agreed upon borders. We have been trying in that region, and noone can say we have not. The difference is Israel will not use their Nuclear Weapons unless Attacked. Iraq, I believe would use those weapons first. North Korea, I don't believe will use theirs, and as long as Pakistan has a stable Government, they will not use theirs. But Iraq...... anyone that heard that speech today should understand that this guy has already broken every single resolution ever applied to him. Ever. I'm sorry, but for the future peace of the world, he needs to go.Regards,Joehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I liked your words Braun,One thing that confuses me, Is how Is America going to set the moral high ground when VP Cheney's energy services conglomerate Halliburton INC sold oil company equipment to Sadam Husain and Iraq? After the war ended? Even when the UN decided that medical supplys were off limits because of their possable "dual use"?

Share this post


Link to post

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's speech to the United Nations on Thursday 12 -09-2002,released by the United Nations: Mr. President, distinguished heads of state and government, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday's anniversary and on the criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001.The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response.Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it. Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. It requires patience and persistence.And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions.I stand before you today as a multilateralist by precedent, by principle, by charter and by duty.I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. And all states have a clear interest, as well as clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learned that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.They recognized that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities like land, oil or gold which one state can acquire at another's expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one state has, the more its neighbors are likely to have.And they recognized that by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalization?On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all.Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease.Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming, from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism.Individual states may defend themselves by striking back at terrorist groups and at the countries that harbor or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all states, with constant systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying the terrorists their opportunities.On all these matters, for any one state large or small, choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.When countries work together in multilateral institutions developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law, they also develop mutual trust and more effective cooperation on other issues.The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values, the more others will trust and respect it and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.And among multilateral institutions, this universal organization has a special place.Any state, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.Member states attach importance, great importance in fact, to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, twelve years ago that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it.The existence of an effective international security system depends on the Council's authority and therefore on the Council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council's agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.Mr. President, let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed.First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Recently, many of us have been struggling to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs.But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensive solution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, and indeed to the whole region.The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known. It was defined long ago in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and its Israeli-Palestinian components were spelled out even more clearly in Resolution 1397: land for peace; end to terror and to occupation; two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts. The so-called ''sequential'' approach has failed.As we agreed at the Quartet meeting in Washington last May, an international peace conference is needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps: steps to strengthen Israel's security, steps to strengthen Palestinian economic and political institutions and steps to settle the details of the final peace agreement. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified. The need is urgent.Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions.Efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the Council's resolutions must continue. I appeal to all those who have influence with Iraq's leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and let me stress towards the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people.I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq's defiance continues the Security Council must face its responsibilities.Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan.I know I speak for all in welcoming President Karzai to this Assembly, and congratulating him on his escape from last week's vicious assassination attempt -- a graphic reminder of how hard it is to uproot the remnants of terrorism in any country where it has taken root. It was the international community's shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed the country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for al Qaeda.Today, Afghanistan urgently needs help in two areas.The government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country. Without this, all else may fail. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. Otherwise the Afghan people will lose hope and desperation, we know, breeds violence.And finally, in South Asia the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two countries with nuclear capability. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous. The underlying cause must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, the international community might have a role to play. Though I gladly acknowledge and indeed, strongly welcome the efforts made by well-placed Member States to help the two leaders find a solution.Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago, at the Millennium summit, ''to make the United Nations a more effective instrument'' in the service of the people of the world.Today I ask all of you to honor that pledge.Let us all recognize, from now on in each capital, in every nation, large and small that the global interest is our national interest.Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post

>I preface this note by saying I don't know what the heck I'm talking about--but no one else does, else this problem wouldn't be here today..... Also, this is way Off Topic from Tom's thread. I am not attacking anyone who has added to this thread, and my thoughts are so wild, that I put them out there for people to ponder--not to believe as truth. So here I go.....IMHO, the whole Israel/Palestinian issue is central to any strategy we have in the Middle East and w/Iraq. Neither side is without sin, and any current U.S. strategy seems a lose/lose situation, as it's driven by people looking for "what's initforme".Without going into 100+ years of Palestine's history--let's just look at "today".On one side, you have the Palestinians talking about how Israel kills their children, all the while they do the same thing, deliberately. Hardly moral standouts. I'd like to see every last one of those who championed 9/11 to their cause be cursed for all eternity. And for the others who say nothing, or subtly link 9/11 to US's support of Israel, the same curse should apply. And perhaps the families applauding their suicide bomber sons and daughters should be sitting in the next cafe, bus or disco targeted.On the other side, you have Israel, which not only occupied the only land (and practically the worst in terms of resources) the Palestinians can claim today, but they are settling it in the same manner our settlers in the U.S. occupied the land of the Native American. You have extremists in Israel with their own hate sites, and with their own misinformation campaign against the Palestinians. Whatever two thousand years of history holds, the generation that was born there has a right to live there. God didn't promise today's Israel to the Jews....blatant zionism did. My only reflection on history--the land in dispute was flooded with Jewish settlers and refugees from outside of its borders that overwhelmed the local population, just as the U.S. settlers overwhelmed the native population.On the "can't win" side is the U.S., which devotes itself to Israel for no practical reason other than a religious and military one (we'd be buddying up to Egypt if it had the strongest military, I bet). At the same time, we seek to keep favor with our Middle Eastern supporters (most of whom were not chosen by their own people) so we can satisfy our diet of oil. The U.S. to its credit risked its soldiers lives supporting Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo (two countries with almost no value in terms of resources, but with a high moral cause). In spite of such U.S. support of Muslims, it is still championed as a society against Islam by much of the Islamic press. Something I see practiced a lot by Islamic media--"selective" amnesia. They argue that we moved too slowly in Yugoslavia. Saddam has the potential for nuking or gassing half of the Middle East, with a penchant for picking Muslims as his test targets, and yet the Islamic world wants us to give him one more chance. Too slowly?Where does that leave us? You have a generation in the Middle East that knows only Israel or the occupied territories as their home. Both generations, by birth alone, have a right to grow up in peace. But you also have an older generation in Israel that got carried away with greed--the greed to occupy land that wasn't theirs. And you have an older generation in Palestine that is ,for lack of a better word, stupid. They have no concept of how to gain a moral high ground in this fight, and the solution is so close--do nothing and let Israel make a fool of itself on the world stage. I've been alive during most of this conflict, and to me it seems the Palestinian leaders "negotiate" with one hand, while trying to accomplish slow genocide with another, using the younger generation to do their dirty work for them. Wake up young Palestinians! Rarely have I heard of a 70 year old suicide bomber! Your leaders want Israel to hate you! The Palestinians have often been called pawns, and that is highly accurate I think. Yet a five year old who sees his home bulldozed in Gaza doesn't know what a pawn is. He only grows up to hate bulldozers and those who drive them. A Jewish mom watching her baby blown from her hands by a suicide bomber's blast only cares about hiring a bulldozer, and wiping every trace of the suicide bomber's life and family off of the earth.This battle can't be won, until both sides just say "stop".... And that is a fantasy, given the gravity of this conflict. But once both sides see that the United States is simply and truly neutral, perhaps then they'll quit playing their killing games for Uncle Sam, and get down to serious talk. And I think the talk should begin among the young--those who have the most to gain, being that Palestine is their only home, whether Muslim, Christian or Jew.

Share this post


Link to post

Full Text: 10:39 A.M. EDTTHE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.[President George W. Bush addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on the issues concerning Iraq Thursday, September 12. White House photo by Paul Morse.] Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.Thank you very much. (Applause.)END 11:04 A.M. EDTRegards,Joe.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 1) 78 Pics in Frames with 1mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection Recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics1/FrameSet.htm.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 2) 106 Pics in Frames with 1.5mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics2/FrameSet.htm.Picture Gallery of My Flight in a 1945 SNJ-6 on June 1st, 2002Joliet, Illinoishttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/FrameSet.htm.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this