Bush regime invades Iraq for 52 months... and...?

[fred_smith]

Just a few reminders of how Germany is proving itself as a responsible world citizen…

[quote]Germany’s stakes in the Iran crisis
Germany is Iran’s No 1 European trade partner and its booming import-export with Iran will be a net casualty of any UN (or other) sanctions on Iran, compared with the United States, which has practically no economic interests at stake in Iran as a result of 27 years of US sanctions.

Iran is a major market for Germany’s industrial and technological products, just as Germany is an importer of Iranian oil and such goods as rugs; some 35% of Iranian rugs are exported to Germany. According to a recent article in Der Spiegel, “Between 2000 and 2005, German exports to Iran more than doubled. Last year they reached a new record of 4.4 billion euros [US$5.6 billion], or 0.6% of Germany’s total export volume. Manufacturers of machinery and equipment are the main beneficiaries because Iran is using German know-how to develop its economy.”

Another report by the Iran-German Chamber of Commerce indicates that as much as 75% of Iran’s small and medium industries rely on imported goods and technology from Germany. German companies and banks are also involved in projects in Iran’s industrial free zones. [/quote]

atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE27Ak01.html

and here is how Germany uses sticks against Iran. Given that the leadership of Germany is convinced that sanctions would be the most effective method of getting the mullahs to change their behavior, one is left very confused as to how and why they are so actively subverting their own stated goals by financing and trading with the mullahs.

Read on…

[quote]An article by Nikolas Busse in yesterday’s (10 May) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung points out that commercial sanctions against Iran could prove highly effective – on the condition, that is, that the EU countries and, in particular, Germany cooperate. The United States, of course, already prohibits trade with Iran. But will the EU states cooperate? An extract:

More comprehensive sanctions [i.e. including commercial sanctions] would be tied to ever higher costs also for the West – and, in particular, for Germany. Should commercial sanctions be applied, it would be first and foremost the EU states that are affected. In 2004, Germany was the most important supplier of Iran (12.3% of all imports), followed by France (8.5%), Italy (7.9%), and China (7.5%). Due to its long-term cooperation with Europe and a lack of local know-how, Iran is particularly dependent upon imports in the automobile and machine-building industries and the oil and gas sectors. As consequence, Iran could be highly susceptible to sanctions.

Nikolas Busse ends his article by alluding to what he calls a “well-known and fundamental problem with sanctions”:

The fewer the states that participate, the more ineffective they are. A “Coalition of the Willing”, of which one is yet again talking in Washington in reference to Iran, could only work if Iran’s most important trading partners participate – above all, the EU.

Current German policy in fact actively encourages exports to Iran: notably by having the German state assume the financial risks of German firms exporting to Iran (via the so-called “Hermes” program of export credit guarantees). [/quote]

trans-int.com/blog/archives/ … U-and.html

and

[quote]If there is a western nation today that has the means to confront such madness with effective sanctions, it is Germany. For the last 25 years, the German government has offered its good offices to the anti-Semitic Mullahs in Tehran with a shamelessness unrivalled by any other western government. In 1984, Hans-Dietrich Genscher was the first western Foreign Minister to pay his respects to the Mullah regime. Ten years later, Germany’s federal intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), trained Iranian intelligence agents in Munich. (See Arthur Heinrich, “Zur Kritik des ‘kritischen Dialogs’”, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, May 1996.) And whereas since 1995 American firms are prohibited from trading with Iran, Germany will, in the words of Werner Schoeltzke of the German Near and Middle East Association, , “remain the preferred technology partner of Iran also in the years to come” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 5 December 2003).

Germany is today by far the most important supplier of goods to Iran and its exports are increasing at a steady 20% per year. In 2004, German exports to Iran were worth some €3.6 billion. At the same time, Germany is the most important purchaser of Iranian goods apart from oil and Iran’s most important creditor.

Since, however, Ahmadinejad provided the world with such a stark reminder of the ideological foundations of the Mullah-dictatorship – Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and the destruction of Israel – Berlin is in a tight spot. On the one hand, Berlin would not like to put in danger Germany’s special relationship with Tehran. On the other hand, it does not look particularly good when the country from which came the Holocaust practitioners now collaborates with the regime of the Holocaust deniers. On 11 December, Germany’s new deputy Chancellor, Franz Müntefering of the SPD, indicated the way out of this dilemma: “Berlin Demands a ‘Reaction’ to Ahmadinejad” ran the headline in the following day’s edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 December 2005). This sounded surprisingly forceful. But whoever read the small type quickly understood the actual meaning of the headline: “ Berlin demands a ‘reaction’ to Ahmadinejad from everyone else”. The deputy Chancellor was cited as follows: “We cannot do it alone. Rather this has to be frankly discussed in the framework of the European Community and it must in the clearest possible terms be discussed in the framework of the United Nations”.

Excuse me? Germany can do nothing on its own? Only the German government can abrogate the 2002 investment agreement between German and Iran. Only Berlin can terminate the “Hermes” export credit guarantees that offer Iran advantages beyond almost any other country. As a consequence of the “Hermes” guarantees, the German state takes over all the specific risks connected with exports to Iran. Already in 1992, exports to Iran enjoyed the second highest level of Hermes guarantees after only Russia, and since then their scope has been continually increased. To bring an end to the privileges that the Mullah-dictatorship thus enjoys is entirely possible, though evidently politically unwanted. Müntefering’s uncompromising rhetoric is just the musical accompaniment to “business as usual”. Thus whereas the German government speaks impressively at the EU summit of sending “a clear signal of the sharpest possible disapproval”, in the Bundestag it speaks sheepishly “of avoiding the isolation [of Iran]”.

And what of Germany’s “Left” opposition? Should we not assume that privileging the most elementary human rights over the interests of the big corporations would be a special concern of the “Greens” or the “the Left” alliance? Far from it. Apart from some few exceptions, the “Left” has not been prepared to allow the Holocaust denier from Tehran to deprive it of its conspiracy theories and rage against “BuSharon”. “If the Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not exist,” writes, for example, the Berlin-based “Green” daily Die Tageszeitung (taz), “the USA and Israel would have had to invent him” (15 December 2005). Ahmadinejad’s words are only to be taken seriously inasmuch as they “provide a welcome pretext for the USA and Israel.”

Thus, on 16 December 2005, all the parties represented in the German Bundestag united to pass a resolution – including not a single word about the German-Iranian special relationship – applauding the Müntefering line: “The German Bundestag welcomes that the German government has stood up to the remarks of the Iranian President.” Yes indeed: Bravo and many more such successes! Given the obvious solicitude for the requirements of German industry, it would not surprise me if Ahmadinejad ordered his next batch of plastic keys for his Basiji from Germany. But will 500,000 keys to paradise be enough for the war against Israel? [/quote]

trans-int.com/blog/archives/ … rmany.html

and then there is this…

[quote]Europe and the Mullahs
How the EU subsidizes trade with Iran.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

On the record, Europe claims to be as concerned as America about a nuclear-armed Iran. The record also shows, however, that Europe’s biggest countries do a booming business with the Islamic Republic. And so far for the Continentals, manna trumps security.

The European Union–led by Germany, France and Italy–has long been Iran’s largest trading partner. Its share of Iran’s total imports is about 35%. Even more notable: Its trade with Tehran has expanded since Iran’s secret nuclear program was exposed. Between 2003 and 2005, Europe’s exports rose 29% to €12.9 billion; machinery, transport equipment and chemicals make up the bulk of the sales. Imports from Iran, predominantly oil, increased 62% to €11.4 billion in that period.

In the absence of an official embargo against Tehran, private EU companies have sought commercial opportunities in Iran. But the real story here is that these businesses are subsidized by European taxpayers. Government-backed export guarantees have fueled the expansion in trade. That, in turn, has boosted Iran’s economy and–indirectly by filling government coffers with revenues–its nuclear program. The German record stands out. In its 2004 annual report on export guarantees, Berlin’s Economics Ministry dedicated a special section to Iran that captures its giddy excitement about business with Tehran.

“Federal Government export credit guarantees played a crucial role for German exports to Iran; the volume of coverage of Iranian buyers rose by a factor of almost 3.5 to some €2.3 billion compared to the previous year,” the report said. “The Federal Government thus insured something like 65% of total German exports to the country. Iran lies second in the league of countries with the highest coverage in 2004, hot on the heels of China.”

Iran tops Germany’s list of countries with the largest outstanding export guarantees, totaling €5.5 billion. France’s export guarantees to Iran amount to about €1 billion. Italy’s come to €4.5 billion, accounting for 20% of Rome’s overall guarantee portfolio. Little Austria had, at the end of 2005, €800 million of its exports to Iran covered by guarantees.

The Europeans aren’t simply facilitating business between private companies. The vast majority of Iranian industry is state-controlled, while even private companies have been known to act as fronts for the country’s nuclear program. EU taxpayers underwrite trade and investment that would otherwise be deterred by the risks of doing business with a rogue regime.

It’s also hard not to see a connection between Europe’s commercial interests and its lenient diplomacy. The U.N.'s December sanctions resolution orders countries to freeze the assets of only 10 specific companies and 12 individuals with ties to Iran’s nuclear program. Europe’s governments continue to resist U.S. calls for financial sanctions, and the German Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that tougher economic sanctions would cost 10,000 German jobs.

As if on cue, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier last week detected in Tehran a “new ambition” to resume talks. The last time the Europeans promoted such diplomatic negotiations, Iran won two more years to get closer to its goal of becoming a nuclear power.
In 2004, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily, then-Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told Iranians to consider Europe a “protective shield” against U.S. pressure.
The EU continues to provide a shield for its business interests in Iran, and thus a lifeline to a regime that is unpopular at home and sponsors terror abroad. [/quote]

opinionjournal.com/editorial … =110009689

I just love Fischer don’t you? hahahahahahahahaahah

[Rascal]

@fred smith

haha Rascal hahaha I love it when you get your self-righteous law-abiding German persona on.

Glad you do, though I am sure you hate the fact that I am right.

1. No one lied. At least, no one proved that any US leader lied.

Irrelevant, was not part of the argumentation.

2. Your statements where US officials said Saddam HAS wmds are excellent. That would therefore prove an imminent threat and therefore justify the invasion.

Uh, since when does a claim prove anything? Your argument is laughable.

The fact that there were no wmds is beside the point as long as US officials genuinely believed that wmds existed.

The point was the claim made that Iraq had WMDs, and regardless what they believed or why they believed that, it does not prove the existence of WMD. And without such proof it’s ridiculous to argue there was an imminent threat and thus justify the invasion.
Besides, wasn’t it your side that argued there was no imminent threat *, instead you wanted to prevent the threat from becoming imminent? Another argument that suddenly “evolves” …

• Even though that was disproven by statements made by the Bush administration

3. Regardless of the actual existence of wmds, Saddam was treaty bound to comply with inspectors to prove that he was not developing wmds. He did not. No one ever said that he had complied. The ceasefire ending the first Gulf War was thus null and void. Just because we waited 12 years does not make that matter any less clear or… LEGAL.

I recall that the UN inspectors were in Iraq but before they could reach a final conclusion the US asked them to leave since the US announced it’s going to invade Iraq. Kind of convenient, if you think about it.

4. The US went to the UN in 1990 to declare the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait “illegal.” This thus constitutes a precedent. The fact that the UN never declared the US invasion of Iraq “illegal” means that at best it was “not legal” and never “illegal.” The fact that the occupation was declared “legal” sort of weakens the case even more. What is the big deal now about the “legality” of the invasion when the occupation is declared “legal?” hmmm

Not legal = illegal. But again, nothing to do with the pre-war claims made by Bush & Co.

blahblahblah

So, where is that quote from Blix?

[fred_smith]

Glad you do, though I am sure you hate the fact that I am right.

You keep telling yourself that…

Irrelevant, was not part of the argumentation.

Yes, I can see where you would not want to have the three reports detailed earlier included in any discussion. They all proved that no US or British officials lied, nor did they “sex up” intelligence nor did they pressure any intelligence officers to make the facts fit the policy.

Uh, since when does a claim prove anything? Your argument is laughable.

IF US officials truly believed that Saddam had wmds and I believe that they did, then this would justify action against Saddam.

The point was the claim made that Iraq had WMDs, and regardless what they believed or why they believed that, it does not prove the existence of WMD.

So?

And without such proof it’s ridiculous to argue there was an imminent threat and thus justify the invasion.

But they thought that they had proof. They were wrong. And given that the Butler and Duelfer reports found that he had every intention of restarting his wmd programs (which I note with amusement you also studiously refuse to admit) then he was the credible threat that required action.

Besides, wasn’t it your side that argued there was no imminent threat *, instead you wanted to prevent the threat from becoming imminent? Another argument that suddenly “evolves” …

Yes, Bush said we were going to act before Saddam became an imminent threat but his reference here was not chemical or biological weapons but nuclear. The US believed that he still had chemical and biological but had not yet developed a nuclear weapon. The nuclear weapon as Kenneth Pollack so correctly pointed out was the one regret Saddam had about the invasion of Kuwait. Not because he was wrong but because he did not wait until he actually possessed on to guarantee his conquest.

* Even though that was disproven by statements made by the Bush administration

According to whom? You. You certainly are very impressed with your own arguments. Have fun with that. Your views are ultimately irrelevant eh?

I recall that the UN inspectors were in Iraq but before they could reach a final conclusion the US asked them to leave since the US announced it’s going to invade Iraq. Kind of convenient, if you think about it.

Yes, how precipitious of the US to ask them out after the cat and mouse in and out game with the inspectors for 12 years and after 17 binding UN resolutions. I note with even greater mirth that such a stalwart supporter of the sanctity of international law never raises the issue of Saddam’s non-compliance with either the ceasefire treaty agreements or the binding UN resolutions. Was there after all a UN resolution that called on the US NOT to invade Iraq? Where is it? And where were the 17 binding UN resolutions that called on the US not to invade? not to take aggressive action? Hmmm? hahah

Not legal = illegal.

Yes, I could see how you would want to stick to that definition. But again, there was a precedent. Nations have gone to the UN prior to taking action and nations have gone to the UN to have actions already taken declared “illegal.” No such action took place either prior to or following the US invasion. The only action was in fact to declare the US led occupation “legal.” Right?

But again, nothing to do with the pre-war claims made by Bush & Co.

So what? You keep obsessing about these statements. You keep harping on the fact that the US was not “authorized” to act. Yet, given that your own leaders believed Saddam to be a danger, why don’t you think that the US was entitled to view him as a danger? And the ceasefire treaty had been abrogated by Saddam’s non-compliance. We are the guarantors by treaty of the Persian Gulf’s security not you.

So, where is that quote from Blix?

Here you go… I am leaving the other parts in as well even though they go against my position in fairness.

[quote]Dr Blix’s own thoughtful, reasonable character also told against him.

"[I said] it would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little. His book Disarming Iraq, published just in advance of the first anniversary of the war, gives him a chance to say “I told you so” and he does say that. But he does it in the same quiet, restrained way in which he sought the truth.
He even admits that, at one stage, as late as 20 February 2003 “I tended to think that Iraq still concealed weapons of mass destruction.”
But he states his conclusion about the war simply enough: “It was caused by an unjustified armed action by the US and the UK.” [/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3544889.stm

So as late as Feb. 20, 2003, mere weeks before the invasion, Blix believes that Saddam had concealed wmds. I note that he thinks that the invasion was “unjustified” but it was not his position to say either way. Ironically, he is right that it would be absurd to invade and find very little. That indeed happened. All of this, however, is beside the point. The key question is whether Saddam was a threat. Even without wmds, he was a threat. And to avoid accepting the conclusions of both the Butler and Duelfer reports which categorically stated that Saddam had every intention of restarting his wmd programs once sanctions had collapsed is patently ridiculous.

But Rascal, as you obviously care so much about international law so much, why not tell us how Germany’s trade ties and financing of the mullahs is helping your government’s stated aim of avoiding an attack on Iran by tightening sanctions? Smirk. Double Smirk. I doubt that you will want to talk about that or your nation’s major contribution to Saddam’s nuclear, chemical and missile technology, equipment and supplies. Nope. Not at all. haha

[Rascal]

Fred, stick to the argument:

[quote=“fred smith”]The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.

Now, now fred - do we need to dig out the pre-war quotes again that prove you wrong, i.e. where Bush & Co. claim, without any doubt, that Iraq has WMD?
That the US only went to determine Iraq’s WMD capacity was argued later, after the initial invasion and all the embarassment when they didn’t find any. But that doesn’t make it necessarily true.[/quote]
The quotes provided prove that it was not about determining the WMD status but rather that it was about Saddam having WMD. End of discussion.

[fred_smith]

End of discussion.

I think that this is a good idea.

I disagree with your assertion and I note with great amusement your desperate efforts to limit this discussion. haha We all understand that Rascal, really we do…

and by the way Rascal…

[quote]The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.

Findings and Declaration of Policy
The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support “regime change.” The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law’s stated purpose was: “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

[edit] Support for Groups opposed to Hussein
This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq’s neighbors, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated 7 groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were (1) The Iraqi National Accord, (2) The Iraqi National Congress, (3) The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, (4) The Kurdistan Democratic Party, (5) The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, (6) The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and (7) The Supreme Council for The Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army),and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

[edit] Contemplation of Post Hussein Iraq
The Act contemplated the future need for War Crimes Tribunals in Iraq stating, “The Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.”

A generalized statement of policy toward the post-Hussein Iraq was also set forth stating, “It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

[edit] Precursor to War

President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings
to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October of 2002 (Public Law 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002) [4].[/quote]

Here is the thinking behind the Act…

[quote] Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein.

For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein’s regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.

The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.

After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And [b]then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.[/b]

Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.

One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?

As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.

[b]Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable[/b]. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.

The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. [b]In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.[/b]

[pH9488]

Let there be no mistake about it. Saddam is the problem, and there will be no permanent solution as long as his regime remains
. The Iraq Liberation Act gives the President tools that he should find useful in designing a comprehensive strategy to deal with Saddam both in the short term and over the longer term. The legislation does not require the President to equip a rebel army in Iraq, but it gives him all the authority he needs to do so. If he uses that authority, it will cost money, perhaps as much as $99 million that the bill authorizes, perhaps ultimately more, but whatever the cost, it will be far less than the $1.4 billion supplemental appropriation we provided this year alone for unbudgeted U.S. military operations against Saddam Hussein.

Since this bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the administration to try to refine it in order to make it most useful to the President. At their suggestion we have incorporated a number of changes at our committee markup last week to improve the legislation, and as a result of our work with the administration I have been informed the administration does not oppose enactment of the bill.

With regard to one technical matter, I note that the criterion in Section 5 (c)(1) for designation of Iraqi opposition organizations is intended to ensure that only broad based organizations are designated. They may be broad based by having a broad spectrum of groups cooperating within one organization. In the case of organizations composed primarily of one ethnic sector such organizations may also be designated if they include a broad spectrum of individuals within the sector. In any event, I would expect the designation issue to be the subject of dialogue and accommodation between the Executive Branch and Congress as required by the notification provision contained in section 5(d).[/quote]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

house.gov/paul/congrec/congr … 100598.htm

[Rascal]

Uh, look, seems the great US (with their buddy UK) is once again begging for help: UN resolution on bigger Iraq role

My, my, fred - seems Bush is indirectly admitting he doesn’t have a grip on things (not that others hadn’t noticed yet …).

[fred_smith]

How nice to see you changing the subject Rascal. I wonder why…

Fine. Let the UN get involved. But make no mistake, that will not change the force levels will it? I mean if one campaign in Afghanistan has Germany tapped out and France to boot, what would you be sending anyway? your girl scouts to direct traffic? pick up litter? teach “international law.” haha

[Rascal]

@fred smith

How nice to see you changing the subject Rascal. I wonder why…

Am I? If you were a look at the title of this thread you would notice that my post is entirely on-topic, unlike some of yours.

Fine. Let the UN get involved. But make no mistake, that will not change the force levels will it? I mean if one campaign in Afghanistan has Germany tapped out and France to boot, what would you be sending anyway? your girl scouts to direct traffic? pick up litter? teach “international law.” haha

We can send Fischer, Schroeder and Merkel, that will scare any terrorist off. But anyhow, it’s a kind of funny that the UN is always good enough later …

[sulavaca]

[quote=“fred smith”]
The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.[/quote]

And then I woke up and had my coffee!

Tell me another one!

[fred_smith]

Read the Clinton Administration Iraqi Liberation Act. What was the primary goal? Regime change? Has this been accomplished? Yes. So, the primary goals of the past two administrations have been met. Do not, however, pretend though that the Bush administration had absolutely no idea of the problems that they would face in Iraq. Obvious enough given the reasons why Bush I chose not to invade.

Rascal: No one cares about the UN. Maybe this is Gordon Brown’s baby. After all, the US is not the one that wanted to go to the UN regarding Iraq. We did not with regard to Afghanistan did we? No, Iraq and the UN, that was Tony Blair’s great idea which should go a long way to putting paid to the notion that somehow Europeans are more sophistated, knowledgeable or nuanced than the American cowboys. Hooh hooo hooo.

[fred_smith]

So… it is correct… The UN is planning on playing a more active role in Iraq. The US State Dept has no comment. Hmmm. That surge must be working awfully well if the cowardly UN is interested in getting more involved. I mean, after all, no one told the UN that it could not be more involved. After the bombing in 2003, it chose to hightail it out of there. Now, it is interested in coming back. Hah! Good money to be made at a hardship post but conditions safe enough for our widdle UN bureaucrats. Too rich by far.