Slashdot Mirror
Domain: foxnews.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to foxnews.com.
Comments · 3,415
-
You bet!
As an out-of-state college student, it requires significantly more effort to vote than if I was close to home. While E-voting won't cure voter apathy, it'll certainly help.
Yes, I am a lazy bum and don't feel like filling out an absentee ballot. I've got other issues to deal with. (Engineering at VT anyone?)
I often discuss political affairs with my friends and family, read the news, read the commentary, and mock the communists.
This just proves that just because you're lazy doesn't mean you're uninformed. -
Who has money for funding good research when....
How can you expect for funds to be available for funding research when:
There's a high profile hunt for probably non-existent weapons of mass freaking destruction?
And when the people who we are casually tossing into the axis of evil decide to hate us for some mysterious reason?
And particularly when we need every cent to make bombs big enough to take out a small Syrian town??
-
Re:Lies!
Man, you are dead, haven't you heard?
FoxNews
You hung yourself. -
Given the current political climate..
the Russian isolation experiment where 6 people will spend 500 days in a simulated spacecraft environment I assume that they're talking about Putin and his cabinet...
-
Re:Grow upDude, lighten up. He was making fun of the FORMER Iraqi Misinformation Minister. He actually proposed that it was a movie set and that we were not there. He said we weren't anywhere near Baghdad. It truly WAS comic gold to see him say that. Unfreakinbelievable. Heres some quotes from him:
"Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected."
"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion
This one is good, the day we took the airport:"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."
This REALLY cracks me up, as if they even have PATRIOT(not the act) like systems:
"NO", snapped Mr al-Sahaf, "We have retaken the airport. There are NO Americans there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!""Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any langer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catchign them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target."
Regarding the scuds we shot down with PATRIOT missiles:"It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
"They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 tanks into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind."
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
This is regarding the THOUSANDS of pow's we have of theirs:"Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"
Sorry for editorializing, but I wanted to put them in perspective. Iraqi Bob, as FNC and others have dubbed him, is HILARIOUS. He really is. I could listen to him all day.Sources:
zdnet article
Iraqi Info Minister Fan Site(down atm, but will be back soon)
Working Version of previous site as of 4-12-03 3:15AM CDTFox News rules by the way. Watch it everyday! Go Sean Hannity!
-
Re:Grow upDude, lighten up. He was making fun of the FORMER Iraqi Misinformation Minister. He actually proposed that it was a movie set and that we were not there. He said we weren't anywhere near Baghdad. It truly WAS comic gold to see him say that. Unfreakinbelievable. Heres some quotes from him:
"Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected."
"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion
This one is good, the day we took the airport:"Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."
This REALLY cracks me up, as if they even have PATRIOT(not the act) like systems:
"NO", snapped Mr al-Sahaf, "We have retaken the airport. There are NO Americans there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!""Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any langer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catchign them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target."
Regarding the scuds we shot down with PATRIOT missiles:"It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
"They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 tanks into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind."
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
This is regarding the THOUSANDS of pow's we have of theirs:"Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"
Sorry for editorializing, but I wanted to put them in perspective. Iraqi Bob, as FNC and others have dubbed him, is HILARIOUS. He really is. I could listen to him all day.Sources:
zdnet article
Iraqi Info Minister Fan Site(down atm, but will be back soon)
Working Version of previous site as of 4-12-03 3:15AM CDTFox News rules by the way. Watch it everyday! Go Sean Hannity!
-
Fox and FriendsFair and Balanced.
We report. You decide.
-
Fox and FriendsFair and Balanced.
We report. You decide.
-
Re:No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths?
Um, no.
He makes me sick because he has no empathy for the poor bastards caught in the middle. How about the auto mechanic with four kids who was conscripted six weeks ago? Most of these guys aren't professional soldiers. You're over the edge if you think everyone in the Iraqi army runs around committing atrocities. Please. That's asinine. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh would say. Anyone, including you, who has no compassion for these poor bastards makes me sick.
After filtering your rant for content, I gather you'd like to know how I'm different from the poster? Yes, my belly's full, and yes, I am pursuing the American Dream. The difference is that I am well aware of how lucky I am to be born in the U.S.A, and how unlucky some guys are to be born in Iraq and find themselves in a bad place at an incredibly bad time.
Furthermore, I don't think the word "hypocrite" means what you think it means (and it's definitely not spelled "hypocrit"). A hypocrite is a person given to the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. Here's an example: your ID is just as obscured as mine, bryan1945, since you have included neither email nor web addresses on your info page, yet you have criticized me for being an AC. That's a hypocrite.
Last, my post isn't anti-american. Read it again. It's anti-ignorant. The point I failed to make to you about traveling (which I thought was obvious) is that it helps one gain an understanding of different cultures, which breeds compassion (there's that word again!). It's also makes one truly appreciate being an American.
btw, I would definitely recommend traveling to Bosnia and Serbia. I went to both in 1996. Beautiful country, full of very compassionate people. And passionate girls, now that I think about it --but then again she was a Polish national... -
Protesters Trash Grounds Around Rumsfeld's Home
War protesters trashed the grounds around a northern New Mexico home owned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, placing "No War" stickers and throwing children's clothes around the property, authorities say.
STORY -
Re:Protestors
if fox is really the best prove you can come up with, you really should try to stay out of arguments
for those to lazy to copy&paste -
My SourcesFox News: They report, you decide. Fair and balanced coverage of the world around you.
And Rush Limbaugh when I'm driving. MEGA DITTOS!!!
-
Might I suggest
Fox News, people bitch about it, but there are actual facts presented on there, as opposed to Indymedia or the Nation
-
Re:World ending! News at 11!
Humanity is so ridiculous in its endless tendency to linearly extend every trend into the infinite future. As a "Daily Show" the other night humored: If an infant keeps its rate of growth for several decades, soon it will be the size of giant office buildings and killing us all!
Well, people *are* getting fatter. London had to overhaul theatre seats to keep American tourists; especially now that we have giant cheeto's to eat. What more proof do you need? -
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
First rule of toxicology
-
Wisecracks
From here on, I declare all wisecracks about not playing the game to be Redundant. The jokes been made. If you don't understand the fun is programming to beat the game, think about it. If you don't think programming can ever be fun, go back to Fox.
-
Re:Oh Well
we are becoming known for invading the privacy of citizens of the world
And not just any old citizens.
Incidentally, this story (spying on UN delegates) seems to have had a very low profile in the US media, not sure why, in general I find the coverage pretty good, usual suspects excepted of course. -
Re:Typical SuSE
When it comes to business ethics, American companies aren't exactly the most shining examples...
Are you trying to tell us that French and German commercial interests have made no money selling dual use technologies to the Iraqis in the past 10 years? Do you really believe that the Swedish arms industry has stopped paying bribes to 3rd world defense ministers? Are you claiming that Swiss and Luxembourg banking establishments no longer welcome ill gotten gains or that the Japanese conglomerates are no longer the largests contributors to the campaign coffers of the LDP?
American companies are no better or worse in their business ethics than any other developed country's companies. Each company must be judged independently of others. And even those that -
Re:Action
Maybe the ACLU could give them some pointers about what to do...
-
Who is Loren Green?was: And I can't imagine one without
Lorne Green. Who is Loren Green?
There is a Lauren Green at Fox News Channel.
Lauren Green serves as an anchor for FOX News Channel's (FNC) daytime news program "Fox News Live," where she provides daily news updates.
Prior to joining FNC in 1996, Green served as a weekend news anchor and correspondent at WBBM-TV (CBS) in Chicago. From 1988 to 1993, she was as a general assignment reporter at KSTP-TV (ABC) in St. Paul, Minnesota.
A graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, Green was named Miss Minnesota in 1984 and was the third runner-up in the 1985 Miss America contest.
-
Re:Iraqi lives and future vs an ancient battery.Hi, K.
North Korea is arguably a far greater threat to US security than Iraq. The message to the world is thus: Get nukes as fast as you can! That's a very bad message to send.
You see it as a message. I see it as a piece of reality that hasn't changed since 1945. Once you have nuclear weapons, you become effectively unattackable. That's what makes this so urgent. Hussein with nuclear weapons will be unstoppable, and he has a proven history of attacking his neighbors and annexing their land. He did it to Kuwait, and tried to do it to Iran. I think that the prospects of an "Iraqi Empire" covering the middle east are very real and a nuclear-armed Hussein would be impossible to contain. He isn't sacrificing his country to build nuclear weapons for nothing. He expects to get his investment back manyfold once he has them.
I can't see how funding terrorism plays a vital role for suicide bombers. They would have found ways to blow themselves up regardless of financial support. I think the role money plays in terrorism is greatly exaggerated.
Hussein is paying about $25,000 to the families of each suicide bomber. It was $10,000. Then the suicide bombing started to slow down, the bounty was raised to $25,000, and the suicide bombings started to pick up again. According to this 2001 article,, unemployment in the Palestinian territories was at 38%, and the average per-capita income fell from USD2000 to USD1680.
In other words, if you become a suicide bomber, the reward to your family is equivalent to about 15 years guaranteed salary. The average per-capita income in the United States is $30,000. 15 years salary at that rate would be $450,000. The poverty line in the United States is defined at around $13,500. 15 years salary at that rate would be around $200,000. I don't want to dispute the exact numbers, but it's pretty clear that the amount of money being supplied to the poverty-stricken families of suicide bombers is enough to lift them out of poverty and live comfortably for many years, even after they lose their home after Israeli retaliation. It's not just a token payment. It's an active form of recruiting that is very successful. Delivering your immediate/extended family from poverty is a huge incentive to become a suicide bomber, and with that incentive gone, recruiting suicide bombers is going to be much more difficult.
While a prosperous Iraq may incite revolutions in other countries, it is also quite likely to have the opposite effect. Remember that many of these countries have been extremely rich, yet have oppressive regimes, and seeing US as an evil force from outside is going to make oppression stronger.
That's exactly why we can't replace Hussein with another oppressive strongman. But that's my point -- the "liberation" has to be real, or it won't serve the purpose of shutting down the terrorist organizations. Again, this requires a huge chance in U.S. policy. We now have to follow through on our words. This is Bush's risk. If he can't follow through on his promise of democracy, then this will be a disaster.
You give "just a little support" to the regimes of Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. It's deja-vu all over again...
I'll have to defer to you on that
it wouldn't be hard at all to detect nukes if they had them, radioactive dust would remain at the sites where experiments were conducted, easily detectable.
I know a lot about nukes also, and all that a lack of radioactive evidence means is that they are working the U235 route, not the Plutonium route. But we knew that already.
There are two ways to make a nuclear bomb -- you can either extract U235 from natural uranium, or you can build a reactor and breed plutonium. Hussein's original plan was to breed plutonium, hence the breeder reactor that was destroyed by the Israelis. Since then, it's almost certain that he has switched over to an all-U235 weapons program, which is much more expensive, but has the advantage of being virtually undetectable.
A U235 weapon can be created without any radioactive evidence. Basically, you start with natural uranium, and use isotope separation technology to isolate the U235. No radiation or nuclear waste is created in the process. This is why the discovery of UF6 gas centrifuge technology is so disconcerting. It points to a nuclear weapons program that can be easily and perfectly concealed.
Also, the only reason that the U.S. conducted a test-firing of an atomic bomb was because of the extremely complex technology required to make a plutonium implosion bomb work. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, on the other hand, was a U235 bomb. A U235 bomb is much, much simpler. It's basically a cannon, with a U235 ring at the breech end, and a U235 slug as the "bullet". One moving part. You fire the cannon, and when the bullet enters the breech, it creates a critical mass, and the fission reaction runs away. The U.S. was so absolutely convinced that the Hiroshima bomb would work that they dropped it untested. Once you have the U235, building an atomic bomb is much, much easier then building a plutonium bomb. If you overbuild it even slightly, it's practically guaranteed to work.
I would be a lot more concerned with terrorists setting off a nuke in a US harbor they built inside a container in a ship than Saddam building nukes.
Agreed, which is why a missile defense system is obsolete. If your mission is to destroy a U.S. city, then launching a missile means national suicide, where as if you sneak a bomb into a harbor you are likely to get away with it. That's another reason why a covert nuclear weapons program is so dangerous. Plus, just an observation, The Al Quaida planners appear to be huge Tom Clancy fans. Crashing airplanes into buildings is right out of Debt of Honor., and presumably they've gotten their hands on a copy of The Sum Of All Fears.
I don't know that much about biological and chemical weapons, but lets note one thing: There's nothing you can do with bombs that you can't do with inspectors in a fast helicopter. You could look for similar things
First, we don't know where most of the weapons are, and we won't be able to begin finding them until the U.S. has taken control of Iraq and wiped out Hussein's secret police network. Once that is done, we will easily find the weapons, using the same powerful technique that we used in the Gulf war. Bags of money. Most of the weapons systems found in the last war were found by bribing soldiers and officials. It's the most cost-effective system ever. You can spend a million dollars trying to track down a weapons system, or you can find someone who knows, and give them $10,000. It's the most basic, oldest, low-tech form of intelligence known to man, but it won't work until we're on the ground, and have wiped out the existing regime and secret police network.
Second, something that people seem to forget, the purpose of the inspectors was not to find the weapons. The resolution was that the inspectors would be led to the weapons, and would verify their destruction. This is not happening. One or two bombs every couple of weeks does not count. If Hussein were really complying with Res. 1441, the inspectors would be busy monitoring the destruction of thousands of missiles and weapons systems, and thousands of gallons of biological and chemical agents per day.
Third, the only reason that Hussein is allowing the inspectors in is that he is confident that they won't be able to find anything.
And finally, by all evidence, the inspectors have been compromised. According to Blix, they have all been offered bribes, and some of them have accepted those bribes. The Iraqis have infiltrated the inspection teams, and are being tipped off as to where the inspections are going to be. The best explanation as to why they are doing this seems to be that the inspectors see their primary role not as disarming Iraq, but in preventing war. In other words, if they admit that the inspections have failed, then they feel that they will be responsible for the war. As a result, they have now shifted from their intended role -- overseeing Iraqi destruction of their own weapons -- to a new role of working with the Iraqis to deter a U.S. attack. Hence the microscopic "progress", the dribbling out of weapons here and there. The Iraqis voluntarily hand over two weapons, and the inspectors call this a sign of progress and declare that they need more months. It isn't "progress."
In other words, the entire inspection process is a sham. It's purpose is now delay, not disarmament.
What if the inspectors continue to "inspect" Iraq for five more years, until Hussein successfully test-fires an atomic bomb, announces that Iraq is now a nuclear power, and kicks the inspectors out? Is this implausable? It appears to be Hussein's entire long-term strategy!
For example I regard the "depleted uranium" craze as a complete panic with no basis in reality.
Agreed. Depleted uranium is about as radioactive as the surrounding sand. however, large segments of the media appear to be completely ignorant about this detail. In reality, those birth defects and cancers are far more likely to be caused by exposure to chemical weapons, which the Depleted Uranium crowd conveniently forget have been used by Hussein against the Iraqi people time after time.
[U.S. attack vs revolution] To attempt an answer, it is extremely important for a people to have their own destiny in their own hands.
Internal revolutions rarely turn out well. They tend to result in a power struggle that is won by the most ruthless of the internal factions.
As an example of what we're trying to do, after the U.S. military victory in Afghanistan, the U.S. brought the factions together, provided a building with military guard, and pretty much told them to go in and not come out until they had created a representational government. Now you can argue about whether it is working or not, but if the Taliban had been ousted by a violent revolution, this would not have happened. Those warlords would not have been sitting together in a room. They would have been battling it out for control of the country. The purpose of U.S. occupation of Iraq is:
1) To prevent a power vacuum and the resulting violent power struggle.
2) To safeguard the new government against foreign invasion. (Saudi Arabia has been floating the idea of sending in "Arab peacekeepers")
3) To ensure that the new government is formed peacefully, with the participation of all of Iraq's internal factions.
None of which would come to pass in a violent revolution.
Only if they can convince a lot of people that they do have an enemy, it is possible for the theocrats to retain power. And right now, the US is that enemy. If the US seize to be that enemy, there will be a lot more room for improvement in Iran.
I think that the U.S. actively turning Iraq into a prosperous democracy will have an enormous effect on the Iranian people. They will want it too, and will be much more likely to turn to the U.S. to help make it happen.
Far more then if the U.S. stands by and does nothing. That's what we are doing now, and it isn't making us very popular. Besides, right now, Hussein's grip on Iraq is so strong that the odds of a revolution any time soon are practically zero. I think that it's a fantasy option. It's only possible with the sort of massive covert aid that I'm arguing is doomed to be a long-term strategic failure.
As for Bush recent speech, it wasn't really anything new there, as far as I can see.
Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world." That's a huge shift, and based on the current wave of articles on arabnews, the Saudis don't like it a bit. As a matter of fact, they're pissed off and freaking out. For good reason. If the U.S. succeeds in converting Iraq into a democracy, then the Saudi general population -- the vast majority who are not part of the monarchy -- are going to want the same thing, and the monarchy will be doomed. And that's part of Bush's secret strategy. The Saudis are part of the problem. It's just that they don't fully comprehend that we know it and are working, in the long term, to eliminate the threat of the Saudi monarchy to world peace. The Saudis are easily worse then Hussein as far as being a danger. I still haven't forgotten the Saudi "Terror telethon", where they raised $100,000,000 in contributions and handed the money over the Arafat. It isn't that we're ignoring them
The US has very likely destroyed the UN.
Sorry, but the U.N. died with the fall of the Soviet Union. It isn't much of a loss. It's packed with dictatorships and tyrants. The U.N. was really a proxy organization for U.S./Soviet relations. I will agree that the U.S. has been very liberally handing out the rope for the U.N. to hang itself, but the problem is that the U.N. has gone from being pro-democratic to being pro-terrorist and pro-dictatorship. The U.N. has run its course. It will collapse and be replaced, perhaps by an institution that demands representational government as a condition of participation.
one of my favorite one-liners is "Violence is always the last resort of the incompetent" (Isaac Asimov).
I don't know the context of the quote, but it is woefully incomplete. Just because you're using violence doesn't mean that you're incompetant. It can also mean that you're defending yourself, or preventing greater violence, or liberating a people from a tyrant. This war is all about preventing greater violence and ending ongoing violence.
I really can't think of any justice system or science that can work without [the] principle [that] "the burden of the proof is on the claimnant"
International relations have never worked that way. A "justice system" presupposes a greater authority. There is no "greater authority" in world politics. It certainly isn't the U.N., where a small number of large democracies are outnumbered by dozens and dozens of small dictatorships. I reject the theory that the United States must, as a matter of some principle, treat a murderous dictatorship in the same manner as a representative democracy. This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.
If the U.S. goes in, and finds no WMD, and if the Iraqis rise up against us, then history will be our judge and the prestige and influence of the U.S. will be diminished. If on the other hand, we go in, and find bunkers full of nerve gas and chemical weapons, and mass graves, and operating uranium gas centrifuges, and completed nuclear bomb assemblies waiting for the uranium components, and widespread evidence of Iraqi government atrocities, then it will be a different story.
I personally think that the Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets once they are rid of Hussein, and with the sanctions lifted, Iraq will become the richest industrial democracy in the Middle East. And then the other Arab dictatorships will collapse. And then the threat of terrorism will cease, because the general population will choose security and wealth over terrorism and death. To quote again from Bush's speech:It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.
Bush is tapping into a deep, powerful well. As I said, either you believe that he's sincere, or that he's lying and it's business as usual. I think that he's sincere in his beliefs and intentions in this instance. If you don't think that he's sincere, then you won't trust him. It all comes down to that basic assessment. -
Re:And I can't imagine one without
There's a Lauren Green on Fox News.
-
Yea, but now
I can't picture a Galactica without Loren Green.
Well now we have Lauren Green, I can stand to watch her all day!
Also, I hope the wardrobe departments continue the Science Fiction media tradition, tighter clothes and less of them on the chicks please. Stop underestimating slutty so much and PLEASE higher heels! -
Re:I know far less than I should.
Actually, the army *wanted* him gone with the coup attempt in 2002 after Chavez's supporters opened fire on anti-Chavez protestors. He was removed from power, which the US governement applauded because he is a right bastard. However, after a day or two, elements in the army restored him to power. At which point, he spent the next year purging the military of those he felt were disloyal to him. He's disarming opposition police forces. Now he's rounding up and murdering political enemies, truck bombing countries who criticize him, and cozying up to other dictators.
Plenty of damning evidence against Chavez, these links are just the first I found while searching. -
Re:Bad Priorities
You make a very good point. Have you read/heard/seen Bush's plans for Iraq?
Here: Bush Discusses Post-Hussein Iraq
Of course, I don't necessarily believe things that come out of politicians mouths, but there are some politicians to whom I'm more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. You may not agree with Bush's policies, but I find him generally straightforward. -
You can add most of Europe, actually...
9. Czech Republic
10. Cyprus
11. Hungary
12. Slovenia
13. Slovakia
14. Bulgaria
15. Romania
16. Turkey
17. Poland
18. Lithuania
19. Estonia
20. Latvia
21. Malta
22. And even more...
For story see here. -
Re:Humane Considerations
When Bin Laden said that he "is in partnership with Iraq", and when he calls on Iraqi citizens to carry out suicide bombings against Americans, I would say that has something to do with Iraq.
-
Re:muslims are all evil!
Why Iraq?
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question. -
The Dailies
-
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code
Sorry, I don't mean to get too off-topic, but I'm outright insulted by your comment about rape offenders.
Judging by recent lawsuits, no one knows what rape is anymore. Half the time, the victim doesn't make it clear that she (assuming typical circumstances, the victim is female) refuses intercourse. Furthermore, current laws do not recognize anal rape as rape. And what is to say for statutory rape?
No, I'm not a rapist nor a rape victim. I ask you to think before you speak. -
Re:The terrorists.....
Would people before 9/11 have run out of a club screaming and freaking out because someone used mace? Nope.
No, they would have stayed where they were and happily choked down the cloud of caustic mist!
Are you that stupid?
Stampede deaths have been happening ever since people began gathering in confined places thousands of years ago. Here's a few recent examples. Note that only two of these 23 incidents occurred after 9/11/01. -
Re:HDTV or DTV?
nobody cares about watching some crappy sitcom or the local news in high definition.
Well, besides me. But I would also LOVE to see Kiran Chetry and Ann Coulter in HD! -
Re:Anticompetitive?
I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes
But do you like the taste, and... want to help the Palestinians?
-
Often overlooked reason PCs are selected over suns
-
It's the tree hugger's fault! ;-)
There is an article on Fox News that is blaming the disaster on the change to a more environmenntally friendly foam. Apparently until 1997 they used a freon based CFC foam that had much fewer problems.
-
Re:We probably won't see the AF images
According to Fox News, the pictures were taken from a telescope located at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. I haven't located the images on their site yet, but I did see them on the cabletv broadcast this morning.
-
Video: Columbia's Last TransmissionThis Fox News video of their first airing of the last transmission from the astronauts around 9:00am ET also provides insight into what might have happened. (If using Windows Media Player, right click on the preview-ad, click "Navigate", then "Skip Forward" to jump to the actual coverage.)
Shawn Shephard discusses the potential "tire pressure problem". From the video:
A tire explosion could very well take a door off. Underneath the tires would be all sorts of hydrolics
-
Re:Wrong...prolly [sic] not signed to Sony...
Actually, he is but not for long.
-
Re:Who are the ad wizards...
At least there is a growing sentiment against these things. Most recently, FOX News, AdAge, and college papers came to the rescue. What a waste of $4 million. One of the people in AdAge points out the irony of this running at the same time as so many pro-drinking ads.
-
T-3
On FoxNews this AM they mentioned the commercials for Terminator 3 and The Hulk are going to be fetured too!
-
Iraq?Hmmm, sounds like this could be a problem for the impending military conflict between the U.S. and Iraq. Our "smart bombs" are guided by GPS. Oh, wait, they already bought some from the Russians! Doh!
In all seriousness, how much you want to bet the military thought about this long ago and has ways around it (different frequencies, etc.)
-
Re:Reasons?
Maybe this story has something to do with it? Essentially, the entertaiment and tech industries have "struck a deal" which means we won't have CDBTPA, but won't have fair use either.
-
Re:Not newsYes, this really isn't news. But this is:
Raise your hand if you like 'em young.
Har. Taco must be taking it hard, so to speak.
-
Re:Bully for MIT
I am slightly sympathetic to Lindh, who is young and thought he was fighting for his principles. I don't know whether he realized he was an American citizen when Americans attacked the Taliban, or whether he intended to make war on the United States, etc. If he did, he made war on me, too, regardless of his nationality. He did make enough damaging admissions that I am convinced of his guilt, if not his guilty heart. I certainly wasn't with the conservative crowd jumping up and down yelling treason (which he was not charged with).
Then there's that whole "unlawful combatant" thing I still don't understand.
A funny wrinkle in American constitutional law -- from early on, we established the rule that we don't strip people of citizenship (almost) regardless of what they do, unless they renounce it. There is no exile.
However, his intent to renounce can be inferred from his participation in a foreign army, if that's what the Taliban is -- this inference is what the state dept. writing on the passport probably refers to. a brief article So you can renounce it, but it's very hard to lose it. Lindh apparently hasn't lost it, and perhaps does not want to, and so will still be a citizen in and after prison. Some have subsequently suggested this should change, though it would be difficult to apply to him as an ex post facto punishment.
