| Author | Message | | Guest-400c | | Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:46 pm Post subject: UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France |
| Look at the accurate comment below about the UN/US double standard for Israeli weapons of mass destruction (to include Israeli nuclear weapons) as the rogue state of Israel has been in violation of various UN Security Council Resolutions for years (to include paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 as eloquently mentioned below, and the US/UN does nothing about such):
[Fwd: REMARKS by Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Syria and France at THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL]
Date: 2/14/03 11:52:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Remarks by the deputy prime minister and minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, Mr. Farouk al-Shara and by the minister of foreign affairs of France, Mr. Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin.
----------------------------
REMARKS BY MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
FOLLOWING THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTORS IN IRAQ
DATE: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2003
(C) COPYRIGHT 2003, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 1919 M ST. NW;
SUITE 220; WASHINGTON, DC - 20036, USA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FOR INFORMATION ON SUBSCRIBING TO FNS, PLEASE CALL JACK GRAEME AT 202-347-1400.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
-------------------------
Remarks by the deputy prime minister and minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, Mr. Farouk al-Shara.
MIN. AL-SHARA: (Through interpreter.) Mr. President, Mr.
Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen. Three months ago, our
council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. Syria joined the
unanimity after receiving assurances and clarifications that voting in
favor of the resolution meant proceeding seriously towards a peaceful
resolution to the issue of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction and that the resolution would not be used as a pretext for
waging war against Iraq.
Just a little while ago, Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei submitted
their reports and noted the progress made in the period that had
elapsed since they last submitted their reports to the council. What
this means is that in no more than two weeks, substantial progress has
been made in the work of the inspectors. The progress reached its
peak today when Iraq issued a decree prohibiting weapons of mass
destruction there. The progress is a proof that the inspections are
bringing about important results, given the dialogue, cooperation and
mutual confidence between the inspectors and Iraq. The council must,
therefore, continue to support the inspectors and allow them
sufficient time to undertake their task as prescribed in Resolution
1441.
Mr. President, our region stands at a grave crossroads, teetering
between war and peace. Our region has tremendously suffered the
scourge of many wars, and continues to this very day to bear the brunt
of a racist policy against the defenseless Palestinian people, a
policy based on occupation and settlement, and bent on destroying man
and nature.
We have been advised since 1973 to seek, through our policies, a
peaceful settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict, to normalize
relations with Israel and to cooperate with it in different fields,
despite the fact that Israel, first, continues to occupy Syrian,
Palestinian and Lebanese territories, to build settlements thereon and
to threaten its neighbors; second, Israel continues to possess all
kinds of weapons of mass destruction, to be exclusively in possession
of nuclear weapons, and to reject any international oversight or
inspection, unlike the states of the Middle East that accepted such
international oversight and inspection; and third, Israel continues to
defy all the United Nations resolutions, over 500 of them, 31 of which
were adopted by the Security Council, and refuses to recognize an
independent Palestinian state endorsed by the international community,
including the United States of America. And even when the United
States of America voted on the resolutions, these resolutions remain
"dead letter"; as we say in Arabic, "ink on paper."
The ink has faded lately, the paper yellowed, and miraculously Sharon
became a man of peace.
Against this backdrop, allow me to ask: Where does today's Iraq
stand? Hadn't Iraq recognized the state of Kuwait and its
international borders that were demarcated by the Security Council?
Weren't no-fly zones imposed on Iraq in the northern and southern
parts of the country, without legal terms of reference to justify such
a ban? Hasn't Iraq opened all its doors, without conditions or
reservations, to the inspectors, and hasn't it cooperated with them
positively at a time when Israel rejected any form of inspection over
its nuclear facilities?
Against this paradoxical background, aren't many justified to
wonder also whether such policies are indicative of double standards?
Or perhaps we are to construe that the real danger lies in the fact
that these policies are deliberately designed to put Iraq and
Palestine, in particular, and the Arabs and Muslims, in general, in a
bind and jeopardize their present and their future. Wouldn't these
policies also impact the vital interests of the world at large?
We are in favor of a peaceful solution to the question of Iraq.
Common sense also dictates that there be no alternative to this
solution. We, as neighbors of Iraq, with considerable experience in
what is going on around us, understand more than anyone else that this
is the first war in the Middle East region unanimously rejected by the
Arabs. The majority, the great majority, of the people of the world
are saying no to this war.
This war will result in grave consequences for the unity and
integrity of Iraq and its people. It will spill over to the entire
region.
The war will lead to total anarchy, benefiting solely those who take
it upon themselves to spread fear and destruction everywhere.
Those who are beating the drums for war make no secret of their
objective, which is not disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass
destruction; rather, they have a hidden agenda that they are seeking
to implement through the entire region, the prelude to which is their
war against Iraq. Had they really been seeking the elimination of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, they would have done so by
supporting the work of the inspectors and granting them enough time to
accomplish what they were set out to do.
Mr. President, we support the peaceful solution to the question
of Iraq because we also believe that the war option will erode the
international coalition to combat terrorism. The first signs of this
erosion have already surfaced on the Afghan theater. We will spare
you any details with which we assume you are all too familiar.
The simple thought that war would be one of the options before
the Security Council is by itself a proof not only of the failure of
the Security Council to discharge of its task, but also that of the
entire international order. Under these circumstances, we believe
that there is no alternative to respecting the Charter of the United
Nations and using its institutions to safeguard world peace, security
and prosperity, instead of putting the world for months on the edge of
a volcano.
The efforts made by prominent members of the Security Council to
stress the need to pursue a peaceful solution in order to implement
Security Council Resolution 1441 gives us hope that the world order is
still in good shape.
In this context, we recognize the French, German, Russian and Chinese
efforts, as well as those of the majority of the Security Council
members, devoted entirely to the promotion of the United Nations, its
charter, and the central role it should play. Such efforts should be
appreciated by us all.
We have considered the French proposals to strengthen the work of
the inspectors. Inspections have brought about considerable
achievements that could not be otherwise realized by military force.
Therefore, we support the French ideas because they are an alternative
to war. They constitute the basis or strengthening the inspections
regime so as to allow it to fulfill the task entrusted to it as soon
as possible.
The fulfillment of this task will immediately lead to the
lifting, through appropriate measures, of the sanctions imposed on
Iraq under Security Council Resolution 687. It would also lead to the
activation of Paragraph 14 of that resolution, which calls for the
declaration of the Middle East as a zone free from all weapons of mass
destruction -- nuclear, bacteriological and chemical -- without
excepting any state, including Israel, which alone has acquired all of
those lethal weapons.
Mr. President, in conclusion, I say it is truly a historic
moment. War in the 21st century is not a game. It has become a
tragedy condemnable by history. Let us work for peace, because we can
achieve peace if we pursue it in good faith, with strong determination
and armed with the political will. These requirements are readily
available among those who are faithful to the charter of the United
Nations, a charter, when all is said and done, remains the sole
authority capable of maintaining world peace and security.
Thank you, sir.
===================================================
Remarks by the minister of foreign affairs of France, Mr. Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin.
DOMINIQUE GALOUZEAU DE VILLEPIN (French minister of foreign
affairs): (Through interpreter.) Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-
General, distinguished ministers, distinguished ambassadors, I would
like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have
given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to
reiterate to them France's confidence and complete support in their
work.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the
Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests
on two fundamental elements at this time. We are pursuing together
the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to
achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to
this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility,
which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions.
Let us be clear. Not one of us feels the least indulgence
towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime. In unanimously adopting
Resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-
stage approach proposed by France: disarmament through inspections
and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council
of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly
in the event inspections failed and only in that event that a second
resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple. Do we believe in good conscience
that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead end, or
do we believe that the possibilities regarding inspections presented
in 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France believes two things. First,
the option of inspections has not been taken to the end. It can
provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq.
Secondly, the use of force would be so fraught with risk for people,
for the region and for international stability that it should only be
envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we just learned from the reports by Mr. Blix and Mr.
ElBaradei? We have just learned that the inspections are purchasing
results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue
together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the
inspections are purchasing results. At earlier reports to the
Security Council on 27 January, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and
the director-general of the IAEA identified in detail areas in which
progress was expected. Significant gains have now been made on
several of these fronts.
In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided
the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced they
are reestablishing two commissions of inquiry, led by former officials
of weapons programs in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests.
In the ballistic area, the information provided by Iraq has
enabled the inspectors to make progress. We now know exactly the real
capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must
now be dismantled in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions.
In the nuclear domain, useful information has been given to the
IAEA on the most important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on 27
January. The acquisition of magnets that could be used to enrich
uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely
to have provided it with uranium.
And so here we are at the heart of the logic of Resolution 1441,
which must ensure effective inspections through precisely identifying
banned programs and then eliminating them. We all realize that
success in the inspections presupposes that we get full and complete
cooperation from Iraq. France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is emerging. Iraq has agreed to aerial
reconnaissance over its territory; it has allowed Iraqi scientists to
be questioned by inspectors without witnesses; a bill barring all
activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is being
adopted, which is in accordance with the long-standing request from
the inspectors; and Iraq is providing a detailed list of experts who
witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.
France, naturally, expects these commitments to be (durably ?)
verified as facts. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on
Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation. Progress like this
strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective.
But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still
remains. Questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made,
and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding.
I made some proposals to the council on 5 February, and since
then, we detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and
Mr. ElBaradei, which was distributed to council members. What is the
spirit of those proposals? They are practical and concrete proposals
that can be implemented quickly. They are designed to enhance the
efficiency of inspection operations. They fall within the framework
of Resolution 1441, and consequently, they do not require a new
resolution by this council. They come to support the efforts of Mr.
Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, who are, naturally, the best place to tell us
which ones they wish to ensure maximum effectiveness in their work.
In their reports, they have already made useful and operational
comments.
France has already announced it has additional resources available to
Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with our Mirage IV
reconnaissance aircraft.
Oh, yes, I hear criticism. There are those who think that
inspections, in their very essence, cannot be effective at all. But
let me recall that that was the very foundation of Resolution 1441,
and that inspections are producing results. One may judge them
inadequate, but the results are there.
Then there are those who believe that continuing the inspection
process is a kind of delaying tactic to prevent or avert military
intervention. That naturally raises a question of how much time is
allowed Iraq. And this brings us to the heart of the matter. What is
at stake is our credibility and our sense of responsibility. Let us
have the courage to see things as they are. There are two options.
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us
not forget that having won the war, peace has to be built. Let us not
delude ourselves. This will be long and difficult because it will be
necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and to restore stability in a
lasting way in a country and a region harshly affected by the
intrusion of force.
Faced with that prospective, there is an alternative --
inspections -- which allow us to move forward day by day with the
effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end, is that
choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No one today can claim that the path of war will be shorter than
the path of inspections. No one can claim that it would lead to a
safer, more just, more stable world, for war is always the sanction of
failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many
challenges at this time?
So let us give the United Nations inspectors the time they need
for their mission to succeed, but also let us all be vigilant and ask
Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the council.
France, for its part, would propose another meeting on 14 March
at the ministerial level to assess the situation. We would then be
able to judge the progress made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this
time. There is an alternative to war: Disarming Iraq via
inspections. Moreover, premature recourse to the military option
would be fraught with risks. The authority of our action is based
today on the unity of the international community. Premature military
intervention will bring this unity into question, and that would
detract from its legitimacy and in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the
stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the
sense of injustice, increase tension and risk paving the way to other
conflicts.
We all share the same priority: Fighting terrorism mercilessly.
This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of
September 11, this has been one of the highest priorities facing our
peoples. France has been struck hard by this terrible scourge several
times, and it is wholly mobilized in this fight which involves all of
us, which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security
Council meeting held on 20 January and France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the U.S. secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported
alleged links between al Qaeda and the Baghdad regime. Given the
present state of our research and intelligence in liaison with our
allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. But we must assess
the impact that disputed military action would have on this level.
Would such intervention today not be liable to exacerbate divisions
between societies, cultures, peoples; divisions that nurture
terrorism?
All along, France has been saying we do not exclude the
possibility that force may have to be used one day. If the inspectors
reports concluded it was impossible to continue inspections, the
council would then have to take a decision and its members would have
to meet all of their responsibilities.
In such an eventuality, I just want to recall now the questions I
stressed at our last debate on 4 February, which we must answer.
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify
immediate recourse to force? How do we ensure that the considerable
risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control? In any
case, in such an eventuality it is the unity of the international
community that would ensure and guarantee its effectiveness. It is
the United Nations that, whatever happens, will still tomorrow be at
the center of the peace to be built.
To those who are anguished, wondering when and how we are going
to cede to war, I would like to say that nothing at any time in this
council will be done in haste, in misunderstanding, out of suspicion
or out of fear. In this temple of the United Nations, we are the
guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous
responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority
to disarmament through peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France; from
a continent like mine, Europe, that has known war, occupation,
barbarity. It is an old country that does not forget and is very
aware of all it owes to freedom fighters who came from America and
elsewhere. And yet France has always stood upright in the face of
history before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wants resolutely
to act together with all members of the international community.
France believes in our ability to build together a better world.
Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
======================================================
* Visit our "Basket of Links"
a special page includes new articles and links.
http://www.alhewar.com/Baskets.htm
We hope you will visit (http://www.alhewar.com) frequently
(and tell your friends about us too!).
* Subscribe to Al-Hewar:
http://www.alhewar.com/support.html | |  | | Guest-400c | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 4:32 am Post subject: |
| First, 687 does not create a nuclear-free zone.
Second, 1441 is a UN Article 7 resolution. There is a MAJOR difference between Article 6 and Article 7 resolutions. I've posted it here. You should learn it.
Third, Israel has not used WMD against its neighbors or its own people. | | | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:36 am Post subject: UN/US Double Standard for Israeli Nukes |
| | Cowboy wrote: | First, 687 does not create a nuclear-free zone.
Second, 1441 is a UN Article 7 resolution. There is a MAJOR difference between Article 6 and Article 7 resolutions. I've posted it here. You should learn it.
Third, Israel has not used WMD against its neighbors or its own people. |
More spin and truth distortion by the Zionist "Cowboy"... UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is intended to enforce prior UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq (to include UN Security Council Resolution 687). Paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (to include Israeli nuclear missiles which are far more a threat to the region than anything impotent Iraq has). The Zionist "cowboy" can spin and truth distort all he wants, but it isn't working on the rest of the world (beyond uninformed Americans that the Zionist controlled US media/press keep s"dumb" for the benefit of Israel). For more on the US/UN double standard for Israel weapons of mass destruction, access the URL included below (when did Iraq ever unprovokingly intentionally murder American sailors like the Israelis did in the treacherous USS Liberty attack):
Washington Post article: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty (US Double Standard with Iraq):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uss-liberty/2003/02/01/the-attack-on-the-uss-liberty.php | | | | Top | | Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:51 am Post subject: Re: UN/US Double Standard for Israeli Nukes |
| | Guest-c651 wrote: | | Cowboy wrote: | First, 687 does not create a nuclear-free zone.
Second, 1441 is a UN Article 7 resolution. There is a MAJOR difference between Article 6 and Article 7 resolutions. I've posted it here. You should learn it.
Third, Israel has not used WMD against its neighbors or its own people. |
More spin and truth distortion by the Zionist "Cowboy"... UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is intended to enforce prior UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq (to include UN Security Council Resolution 687). Paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (to include Israeli nuclear missiles which are far more a threat to the region than anything impotent Iraq has). The Zionist "cowboy" can spin and truth distort all he wants, but it isn't working on the rest of the world (beyond uninformed Americans that the Zionist controlled US media/press keep s"dumb" for the benefit of Israel). For more on the US/UN double standard for Israel weapons of mass destruction, access the URL included below (when did Iraq ever unprovokingly intentionally murder American sailors like the Israelis did in the treacherous USS Liberty attack):
Washington Post article: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty (US Double Standard with Iraq):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uss-liberty/2003/02/01/the-attack-on-the-uss-liberty.php |
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
