Czy Komisja ONZ rozbroi Irak?

[Gość: galaxy2099]

Ja zadalbym pytanie.
Czy ONZ przestanie kiedys bronic tyranow i mordercow ?

[Gość: rightwinger]

Gość portalu: galaxy2099 napisał(a):

> Ja zadalbym pytanie.
> Czy ONZ przestanie kiedys bronic tyranow i mordercow ?

Ciekawe pytanie. Gdy kilka tygodni temu ktos zaczal strzelac
przed gmachem ONZ przestraszeni "dyplomaci" zadzwonili po
policje. Dlaczego nie wyslali swoich inspektorow, zeby
dokonali "inspekcji" co sie dzieje ? To zenujaca instytucja.

[Gość: ala einstein]

Gość portalu: galaxy2099 napisał(a):

> Ja zadalbym pytanie.
> Czy ONZ przestanie kiedys bronic tyranow i mordercow ?
Sadam demokrata nie jest ale Bush ma sumieniu ( o ile mu go nie
aputowano) kilka tysiecy afganskich obywateli (nie liczac
talibanow ) a wkrotce z pewnoscia X - tysiecy obywateli z Iraku.
Wszystko jest wzgledne..etykietki tyranow i mordercow rowniez

[galaxy2099]

Po takim tekscie juz wiem, ze ty Einstein (bez obrazy dla uczonego pana
Alberta Einsteina), ze ty zupelnie nie odrozniasz demokracji od totalitaryzmu.
Dla pocieszenia dodam, ze jest to generalny problem wszystkich ruchow
pacyfistycznych.


Gość portalu: ala einstein napisał(a):

> Gość portalu: galaxy2099 napisał(a):
>
> > Ja zadalbym pytanie.
> > Czy ONZ przestanie kiedys bronic tyranow i mordercow ?
> Sadam demokrata nie jest ale Bush ma sumieniu ( o ile mu go nie
> aputowano) kilka tysiecy afganskich obywateli (nie liczac
> talibanow ) a wkrotce z pewnoscia X - tysiecy obywateli z Iraku.
> Wszystko jest wzgledne..etykietki tyranow i mordercow rowniez

[Gość: Kris]

galaxy2099 napisał:

> Po takim tekscie juz wiem, ze ty Einstein (bez obrazy dla uczonego pana
> Alberta Einsteina), ze ty zupelnie nie odrozniasz demokracji od
totalitaryzmu.
> Dla pocieszenia dodam, ze jest to generalny problem wszystkich ruchow
> pacyfistycznych.
>
Einstein moze wymyslilby jakis sposob inny od silowego,Bush nie.On postepuje w
mysl zasady silny a glupi,chociaz wszyscy wiedza,ze w tym przypadku nie o
demokracje idzie.
>
> Gość portalu: ala einstein napisał(a):
>
> > Gość portalu: galaxy2099 napisał(a):
> >
> > > Ja zadalbym pytanie.
> > > Czy ONZ przestanie kiedys bronic tyranow i mordercow ?
> > Sadam demokrata nie jest ale Bush ma sumieniu ( o ile mu go nie
> > aputowano) kilka tysiecy afganskich obywateli (nie liczac
> > talibanow ) a wkrotce z pewnoscia X - tysiecy obywateli z Iraku.
> > Wszystko jest wzgledne..etykietki tyranow i mordercow rowniez

do Ali Enstein!

[Gość: Rob]

Gość portalu: ala einstein napisał(a):

> Wszystko jest wzgledne..etykietki tyranow i mordercow rowniez

Badz gotowa, twoi przyjaciele zadbaja o ciebie!

www.ogrish.com/images/execution/execution_014.jpg

Widziane z Waszyngtonu

[Gość: mirmat]

SAM BYM LEPIEJ TEGO NIE NAPISAL:
November 14, 2002
Showdown . . . or slowdown? Paul Greenberg

Now that the United Nations has given Iraq's Saddam Hussein a last Last Chance
to disarm, the games have only begun.
It was reported yesterday that he will accept the Security Council's terms, but
this fox has escaped the trap before. First he'll extract all the propaganda
value he can out of the latest showdown and try to extend it indefinitely
— by negotiating, demagoguing, adding reservations to the U.N.'s
irresolute resolution, and generally playing for time.
Why else would Saddam call his rubber-stamp parliament into session? His is a
regime of One Man, One Vote — and he's the one man with the one vote. The
televised proceedings of his parliament are just for show — and to gain
time.
Saddam may be tantalizingly close to acquiring fissionable material for his own
nuclear weapon, or he may just want to put the finishing touches on his
chemical and biological arsenal. His aim right now is neither war nor peace,
but enough time to make himself unassailable — a la Kim Jong-il.
North Korea's sainted leader also signed on the dotted line, promising to forgo
nuclear weapons — preparatory to announcing, years later, that he would
acquired them. Only the usual naifs were surprised.
After weeks of negotiation, hesitation and general vacillation, our "friends"
on the Security Council — France and Russia — have agreed to
pretend to crack down on Saddam Hussein. In return, he can pretend to obey.
In the end, it will be up to America and our allies (read Great Britain) to
enforce the U.N.'s wispy words. Or watch the U.N. follow the League of Nations
into history. It's almost there now.
Imagine what would have happened if, instead of seizing Kuwait in 1991, Saddam
had waited till he had a nuke of his own — and pressed on to seize the
Saudi oil fields as well. He soon may be in a position to do just that and more
if he can only extend all this palaver till it becomes even clearer that's all
it is.
If the U.N. will just dither long enough — that is, if it will just be
the U.N. — Saddam Hussein, too, may be able to hold off the world. Till
now, without a fully developed strategic arsenal, he has been deterred by the
West. But once he's a nuclear power, he'll deter the West.
Saddam needn't actually use his nuclear weapon to dominate the Middle East and
the world's oil-based economy; all he has to do is have one. Under a nuclear
umbrella, his unrealistic ambitions might suddenly seem realistic, his
delusions of grandeur less delusional — and far more dangerous.
As this president noted early in the game: Time is not on our side. And that
was some time ago.
Almost from the moment he seized power in Iraq, Saddam has been dreaming of
global power: "We draw a large picture of Iraq. We want Iraq to possess a
weight like that of China, a weight like the Soviet Union, a weight like the
United States, and that is indeed the factual basis of our actions." —
Saddam Hussein, January 1980.
The succession of disastrous wars he has launched since indicates how little
his mad dreams have changed. He seems to have learned little from all those
defeats but to be craftier.
And would Saddam, once he had his nuclear assembly line in place, slip a sample
or two to a favorite terrorist gang or two? That's the question the experts on
terrorism have been debating in their rarefied precincts.
A more practical question for Americans to consider is: Why wait till he has
one to find out?
Is anyone really willing to gamble that Saddam Hussein, once allowed to develop
strategic weapons, won't use them? Or distribute them? Or at least advance his
dominion under their cover?
There will always be those whose response to any oncoming danger is to
temporize. Maybe if we do nothing, or extract still another promise to disarm
from some dangerous thug, he will reform. We can now see how well that approach
worked with North Korea's Kim Jong-il.
As the long, long debate proceeds over just what to do about Saddam Hussein, if
anything, it might be well to remember all the statesmen and pundits who
assured us that Kim Jong-il, too, could be trusted to keep his word and abjure
nuclear weapons.
It's quite a long and distinguished list. Among its brighter luminaries: Bill
Clinton; Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, of course; both see-no-evil
secretaries of state during the Clinton Years, Warren Christopher and Madeleine
Albright; Jessica Matthews then of The Washington Post; and of course the New
York Times.
All their assuring statements about North Korea during those blissful years
need to be kept in mind whenever these same Pollyannas resurface to warn that
this current administration is much too keen on disarming Saddam Hussein, who
surely can be reasoned with. Just like Kim Jong-il.