Why did Ireland votes yes on UN Resolution 1441?

by The Pooka Tue Jan 14, 2003 04:19

Right-o, folks, here's a list of things that could be done instead of just bombing the bejaziz out of Iraq...

1. Allow the weapons inspectors to do their job, which includes sharing intelligence with Hans Blix, pointing out where the smoking guns are being hidden by Saddam...if, in fact there are any.

2. Keep the weapons sanctions in place but immediately lift the economic embargo -- an 11-year-old failed policy that has only further entrenched Saddam while killing a half-million Iraqi children under the age of 5 in a country that prior to the Gulf War was a nation whose biggest pediatric problem was childhood obesity.

3. Pledge to rebuild the civilian infrastructure U.S. bombs destroyed in Iraq during the 1991 war, which is what has been fueling Iraq's incredible infant morality rate. Damaged and destroyed water-treatment facilities, plus the use of depleted uranium weapons, has led to a humanitarian crisis in which little children are dying of preventable water-borne diseases and related birth defects.

4. Have the Bush administration sign on to the International Criminal Court and pursue an indictment of Saddam for crimes against humanity, which would gain the support of the international community for a multi-national coalition force to apprehend Saddam, if necessary.

5. Investigate potential punitive action against the U.S. corporations that sold and profited from the sale of nuclear, chemical and biological materials as well as missile technology to Iraq during the period when Saddam was committing the atrocities that made him infamous and is the historical "proof" upon which the Bush administration justifies its "preventive" war doctrine ("We know he's got WMDs, we have the receipts!").

6. Fully and fairly implement U.N. Resolution 661, which calls not only for the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction but stipulates that the Middle East be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. That means, of course, insisting that Israel rid itself of its nukes.

And finally, apply international pressure on the Israeli government to dismantle all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, establish a viable Palestinian state and deploy an international peace-keeping force to separate the two sides.

by J Sun Dec 15, 2002 13:19

Includes some pictures of the massacres of Nablus and Jenin in Palestine.Not easy to look at.My heart goes out to them.

by J Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:27

Can I refer you all to some interesting sites related to Rockefeller and Bush families are/have been members of globalist,anti-Constitution organizations. The Rockefellers and Bushs and their corporations have been using the U.S. government to wage war and interfere with other countries so their corporations could make greater profits. firstly 2 articles by James P Tucker jr
http://www.americanfreepress.net/04_16_02/Trilat_2002/trilat_2002.html

http://www.spotlight.org/06_06_01/Spotlight_Busts_Bilderbergers_/spotlight_busts_bilderbergers_.html
http://www.nesara.us
http://www.principalityofcamside.cc/Government/USA/NESARA/NesaraMain.htm
http://members.tripod.com/white_knights911/nwsletter.htm

by Pa Wed Dec 11, 2002 15:33 naughton_patrick at hotmail dot com

In Israel, back in the day (late 80s) there was a zionist paper reeleased which called for the removal of saddam "in the interest of israel"...
it's authors included mr. netanyahou(spelling?), the ex israeli prime minister, the current head of the CIA & two prominent members of the current Bush administration...was Saddam right when he called the open US aggression aggainst him an israeli/american zionist plot?...wasnt the third world war forseen to be between the nation of islam & the zionists...I dont want to sound anti semitic, but i find it hard not harbour these feelings in light of their foreign policy... George Bush is obviosly a corrupt warmonger... his biggest financial backer during his election campaign was Enron...

I wont get started...He could be the end of us all though

by ham Mon Dec 09, 2002 23:00

To understand any given situation it is necessary to ask "WHY",therefore broadening out the issue,each answer needing analysis"why".In this way the issue spreads-out;as a consequence clarity is lost,one issue runs into another creating a web of info(which is important),but CLARITY is lost.Choose your questions with purpose! The americans/british&interested parties want to maintain power,the equilibrium must be protected(of course i mean between the governments&multinationals),so lets not ask why there will be a war or if saddam is an evil man,the answers are obvious!It is equally important to have factual info,but not to wage a verbal war with facts and stats because your opposition is already inundated with info(tv adds etc),instead suggest reading material;there is plenty! To analyse,give your view but not give an alternative is totally understandable;to those that cite this as a reason to rubish your point of view,BLAH. There are two ways of effecting change,your vote&the education of your childern.Remember truth&wellbeing do not always mix comfortably with commercialism&unrealistic profit. To the nay-sayers"catch-22/joseph heller"

by cru Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:38

remember two weeks ago? the ESB just won a gigantic contract from the american government to supply electricity to the southeast or some such hole. ESB is state owned. and the irish government is fairly strapped 4 cash

by cru Thu Nov 21, 2002 16:23

i was just wondering did anyone ever hear of the kuwaiti`s drilling sideways into iraq`s oil sources prior to the first gulf war?

by Bertie hater Wed Nov 20, 2002 20:57

"but that doesn't mean we can't use them to deal with iraq"

"that's what we got, saddam has been told "this is your last chance, no more dicking about or else!!"

Who do you mean by "we"? The vast majority of people who use this website would not count themselves among this "we"?

I can only presume that you mean the tiny minority of the world's population who support the Bush-Blair axis of incompetence, but maybe you would clarify.

by John Wed Nov 20, 2002 19:08

d,
Why is Iraq all of a sudden enemy no.1 again?
Why didn't the yanks (& co.) finish him off the first time if that was their desire?
Why did they facilitate Saddam by moving their forces aside so that he could butcher the revolting Kurds in the north and shia's in the south after the 1991 gulf war?
Why did they set Saddam up with the means to produce chemical and nuclear weapons in the first place?
Where is Osama bin Laden?
Why is North Korea, which has admitted to posessing a ready to go nuclear bomb not been forced to entertain weapons inspectors?
Same for Israel?
Most importantly, why do you think Iraq is a threat to anyone? None of the states on its border feel threatened. It is fairly definite that there are NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq according to the aforementioned Scott Ritter nor the means to deliver any such load outside the range of its immediate neighbours. There are many countries which constitute a far greater threat to world peace, why are the yanks not going gung ho into their territories, sending in spies under the pretext of inspections. Would the US let the Iraqi's examine their weapons of mass destruction?
Try and respond to some of these questions.

ps Seeing as you claim to want to be informed, you might consider the possibility that the reason many people in the developing world have a problem with the US/EU has nothing to do with a hatred of freedom and democracy - in fact it is a hatred of the form of "freedom" and "democracy" they have been subjected to by the people of those countries for hundreds of years and continuing to this day, notionally in the form of economic imperialism (the neo-liberal way imposed by the IMF/WB [read US/EU] which has impoverished every developing country it has come in contact with) but recently reverting to good old style military imperialism (Grenada, Panama, Iraq 1, Serbia, Afghanistan to name but a couple of the most recent which spring to mind). Your thoughts on this are most welcome.

by Someone who hates FF and PD voters Wed Nov 20, 2002 19:06

"you're crazy if you think FF are paying it's workers to go around leftie sites and trying to spread the gospel according to bertie... they simply couldn't be bothered...."

How could you possibly know this unless you work for FF?

by MG Wed Nov 20, 2002 18:59

"d",

I never suggested the establishment of a UN army. I oppose ALL wars, except to defend one's territory from attack or to rid oneself of foreign domination. Therefore, the answer to your question is 'No' I don't agree with you.

Also, I would advise to read up a little on international law. It is illegal to use the threat of military force to try to get others to do your bidding. Therefore, "an aggressive UN resoulution allowing inspectors backed up by the threat (no bluffing) of military force..." (your words) would be illegal.

PS: By my links, do you mean my political affiliations? If so, I have none. I am a full-time journalist. The only time I ever used my vote was to vote 'no' to Nice last month.

by ostile witness - orrible subversives Wed Nov 20, 2002 18:26

d, indymedia.ie doesn't exist to convince you of anything. If you want to bone up on world affairs and politics then hire yourself a private tutor. Even better, read a fucking book.

by d Wed Nov 20, 2002 17:41

i'll answer your last point first... i don't work for any of those organisations you mentioned... i'm a student in trinity college... i'm not a member of any party but in general i vote PD or FF... although if i were registered in some constituencies i'd vote labour/green just because i'm very impressed by some of their candidates... you're crazy if you think FF are paying it's workers to go around leftie sites and trying to spread the gospel according to bertie... they simply couldn't be bothered....

i'd imagine there are units in the guards etc who check out these sites... but i'd say they are mainly interested in the violent/militant, bordering on subversive marchers who cause problems at some protests... i don't think the guards mind if your opinion is that ireland should not have supported that un resolution...

why do i write to what is mainly a leftie site?... well because although in general i am right wing... i don't think contributing to rightie sites would help me develop thoughts on issues of the day... it's better to get a different prespeecitve from either leftie friends or even people like you on sites like this... believe it or not it is actually possible for you to convince me my opinion on iraq is wrong... DOES THAT SEEM FAIR ENOUGH TO YOU????

back to iraq....

yep i aggree i'd like to see the establishment of a UN army... an aggressive well-equipped force of men whose allegience is to the UN and not to any one country... this is not gonna happen in the near future... so the UN solution is basically to 'subcontract' out wars to local armies... e.g. NATO in kosovo, the brits in sierra leone and possibly the RRF in the future... i'd prefer if these 'subcontractors' all had clean hands... but i aggee some of them don't... but that doesn't mean we can't use them to deal with iraq... DO YOU AGGREE WITH ME?????

i don't want a war but what i want is an aggressive UN resoulution allowing inspectors backed up by the threat (no bluffing) of military force... that's what we got, saddam has been told "this is your last chance, no more dicking about or else!!"... and i think this is makign the best a bad situation...

haven't read your links yet...
D

by MG Wed Nov 20, 2002 15:07

Check out:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico.html

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/zapatista.html

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/marcos_index.html

If you're really interested, some of Marcos' writings have been collected in a book called "Our Word Is Our Weapon", edited by Juana Ponce de Leon, published by Serpent's Tail.

Some extracts can be read at:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,445551,00.html

by MG Wed Nov 20, 2002 14:24

The stuff you're reading about Saddam is untrue. I agree that he is a tyrant, but his neighbours do not feel threatened by him and the last UN inspector, a man by the name of Scott Ritter, who has described himself as "a card-carrying Republican and Bush supporter", said that Saddam has no nuclear weapons. His miniscule amount of biological/chemical weapons have a limited shelf life and any left over since the start of the sanctions (1990) would be useless now. Saddam Hussein has never issued a threat against the so-called "West". He has threatened USA and Britain, who have been bombing his country illegally on a weekly basis since 1998. Under international law, Saddam is entitled to defend his country from attack. I would love to see Saddam disarmed, but not by the USA, because they will use the situation to effectively colonise Iraq and steal its oil. Pakistan, India, North Korea, France, Britain, Russia, Israel and all other countries with weaponry capable of destroying the world should also be disarmed. The United Nations is the only body which should be given this task, not Bush, Blair or anybody else. Unfortunately, at the moment, the UN (and particularly the security council) is dominated by US and Britain, who are in my view the biggest threats to world peace at the moment. Also, the UN was established to prevent war, so if it does sanction a US-British massacre next year, it will have lost all credibility.

I also have a question for you: if you support war, what the hell are you doing contributing to this site? Maybe you should join a right-wing discussion group instead. You're perfectly entitled to your views, but posting them on this site makes me very suspicious. Do you deny that you work for FF, FG, PDs, Lab, Gardai or some other establishment that bends over backwards for the US warmongers?

by Intransigent Wed Nov 20, 2002 02:10

Seems like most of the people on this thread can't wait for the next bit of 'collateral damage.' Cause that's what a war on Iraq is gonna provide us with. Iraqi kids don't matter once we have that oil right?

by Intransigent Wed Nov 20, 2002 02:08

Fianna Fail watchdogs of the newswire come and defend yourselves. We know your good at it. Half the newswire is from you guys.

by d Wed Nov 20, 2002 00:10

MG:
i agree bush is a scumbag... and for example i'd love to see trade santions against america until they abolish the death penalty... i realize of course that that's never gonna happen!!!...

the fact that it's not gonna happen is unfair... but just because bush/america does the wrong thing sometimes it doesn't mean that another wanker (saddam in this case) should not be dealt with... where is the flaw in my logic???

G:
any ideas on what we should be doing to deal with iraq???

Barry:
at least you've come up with an alternative solution... however i don't think it will be effective... the problem with sanctions is that even if they are perfectly enforced (and black market stuff will always get through because you can't police borders which are 1000's miles of desert) you will only marginally affect the life of saddam... certainly you can deny him many western luxories but with a country of that size i believe they are reasonably self-sufficient... he can build his own porsche factory if he wants!!!... sanctions make life for ordinary joe's in iraq very difficult so they are also unfair on them(although i think it is appropiate that we tried them for a number of years before resorting to war)... again i ask you where is the flaw in my logic???

by Raymond McInerney Tue Nov 19, 2002 23:47 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie 122 Vale Avenue, Carew Park, Limerick

PREVENTION WING
An Auxiliary Defence Force

‘A PREVENTION WING in every military offers “victory before war”. This PREVENTION WING consists of a group of Yogic Flyers practising Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Programme and thereby creating the Maharishi Effect the “Field Effect of Consciousness”—which expresses itself in coherence and harmony in collective consciousness.’

‘A PREVENTION WING requires only two to three per cent (2-3%) of military personnel to be trained to create the Maharishi Effect. The creation of such a PREVENTION WING in the defence force of every country will bring military power in alliance with the invincible power of Natural Law and will thereby create invincibility for every nation and lasting world peace.’

by Subcomandante Marcos Tue Nov 19, 2002 21:10 The mountains of the Mexican south-east

"To our lack of alternatives, they offer a continuation of the nightmare."

by Phil Tue Nov 19, 2002 20:32

Suggestion: "Stop the illegal flow of oil thru Syria and Turkey which finances Saddams regime and stop the flow of luxury western consumer goods which buy the continued loyalty of those who surround him."

ie. trade sanctions - what all you punters have been giving out about for years.

by barry Tue Nov 19, 2002 19:46

Given that Americas solution last time round was to slaughter tens of thousands of conscripts who would have risen up against Saddam, "observed" whilst the republican guard slaughtered the Kurdish who did rise up and called back the French Foreign Legion when they were only thirty miles from Saddam in order to keep a destabilising influence in the region (as if Israel weren't enough), one should take all suggested solutions with a pinch of salt.

As to Gerrys idea that Indymedia.ie should shut up unless we can provide an alternative solution to George and Saddams lunatic 'I can sacrifice more innocents than you can' brand of international statesmanship, well how about this one: (at the risk of seeming terribly naive) why not try fully imposing the sanctions that have been killing the poorer members of iraqi society for ten years now.

Stop the illegal flow of oil thru Syria and Turkey which finances Saddams regime and stop the flow of luxury western consumer goods which buy the continued loyalty of those who surround him.

Finally, for f**ks sake lay off this "Oh, he's an evil boogeyman, he's got weapons of mass destruction" nonsense. American society may be based on fear and mistrust, buying into this mass hysteria, but hopefully Ireland is not(yet). Saddam started out as an American puppet, most of his worst crimes were committed under American patronage(gassing his own people, using biological weapons) and the only reason he's been in power (even alive) for the last decade is because the American military made a strategic decision to allow him to remain so. Saddam is a dangerous and despotic Iraqi leader, but an American replacement for him is not likely to be any better.

by g Tue Nov 19, 2002 19:44

I agree MG, the comments being made by these heads are laughable.
They truly sound like they're being told to stir up shit, cos fuck those people at Indymedia know what is really goin on, poor fuckers they're only the lackies though! So long you crazy lazy dumb-ass Cyber-Goons!

by MG Tue Nov 19, 2002 19:18

George W Bush is a scumbag. He signed more than 150 death warrants while governor of texas, including warrants that paved the way for the execution of mentally ill people and juveniles. He also possesses such a vast amount of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam's arsenal is meaningless in comparison. USA is the only country in history to have used a nuclear bomb in anger. USA has conducted chemical and biological experiements on its own citizens. USA has bombed 20+ countries since the end of WWII.

Why did George Bush Snr allow Saddam's Republican Guard to slaugher the southern Shi'ites at the end of 1991 Gulf War. US warplanes and spyplayes flew overhead watching the Iraqi soldiers massacring Shi'ites who had begun an rebellion in response to a call from USA to rise up against Saddam. The US troops occupying the southern desert actually made way to allow Saddam's troops enter the southern villages and towns.

Do you know that good ol' Donald Rumsfled has personally met, dined with and schmoozed with Saddam and all his key henchmen. That was back in the good 'ol '80s, when Saddam was doing USA's bidding. The good 'ol '80s is also when the USA sold chemical and biological agents to Saddam and taught him how to use these weapons against the Iranians (who had overthrown the US puppet Shah in 1979).

So Gerry, read a history book before you accuse people on Indymedia of moral misjudgement. The same goes for "d", who I still believe works in the Fianna Fail press office...

by d Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:46

yep gerry... i think you hit the nail on the head there... nobody comes up with alternative suggestions... of course i don't like the fact that iraq is being threatened with war but it's the only thing that can be done.... it's making the best of a bad situation....

by John Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:45

Better just bomb the fucks because irish indymedia layabouts are too fukking lazy to even come up with any alternatives, never mind acting on them. For real!
As Madeleine Albright said a few years ago (ie the numbers are higher now), a half million dead kids was a price worth paying to keep Saddam in check. And that was only sanctions (ye could ask Castro about them too).
Perhaps if the possessor of most of worlds weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological and chemical) agreed to have its facilities inspected the same as it demands of the Iraqis (with Iraqi inspectors), the Iraqis might reciprocate. But the US is unlikely to agree to that.
It's like the Brits saying to us 'don't practice yer religion or we'll bom the fuk outta ye'. Would ye be inclined to accept such an ultimatum or would ye do yer utmost to deflect it without enduring a heavy bombing?
Is there a better way to handle disputes than punching someones lights out? It's the same solution but it has to be based on MUTUAL trust.

by Gerry Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:28

"but if you are gonna disagree with the resoulution would ya try and suggest an alternative as well???"

...Because this is IndyMedia. Nobody ever comes up with alternatives, suggestions or ideas here. The aim here is to find an "issue", "protest" until you're blue in the face, and then, well, nothing.

by d Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:24

what else should ireland have done???

i agree the US has an ulterior motive in the resoulution... they want to control iraqi oil... but at the same time saddam is a nutcase who must be dealt with... he cannot be allowed to possess chemical weapons... so basically i believe the americans are doing the right thing although for the wrong reasons....

i know many of you will disagree with me... but if you are gonna disagree with the resoulution would ya try and suggest an alternative as well??? of course the threat of war is not the ideal solution but it is the best of a bad bunch of solutions....

by Gerry Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:20

...because Saddam is a scumbag and deserves to be kept in check? Pretty obvious to most people apart from the blinkered far-left.

by Ray Tue Nov 19, 2002 17:58

This is news?
As I recall, there were a few articles on here about Ireland's vote in the UN. Back when it happened, almost two weeks ago.