Who is the greatest threat to world security and peace?

Éomer of Rohan

Consider the following.

The US, the most heavily armed nation on earth - with an army navy and airforce greater than that of Hitler's Germany when it was engaged in wars on all three theaters (East, West and North African). The US has more weapons of mass destruction than any other nation on earth. They have not signed the 'no first use' agreement, nor have they agreed not to use said weapons on nations that do not possess them. They have recently restarted the ABM program (if one listens to the meaningless rhetoric emanating from GWB), threatening to start a new arms race. The Bush administration - not exactly paragons of virtue. We have already seen the emerging ENRON scandal wash over. There are hints of links between Colin Powell and his former oil company - an alarming prospect in view of the upcoming war. In his first month of office, GWB managed to offend what amounts to the second and third most powerful nations - Russia and China, by threatening to break a treaty with one and by spying on the other. Tore up the Kyoto Protocols and in place substituted an agreement that would allow the US to increase it's emissions of Carbon Dioxide.

NATO - the most powerful alliance the world has ever seen and now, since the amendment of article five of the North Atlantic Charter, no longer just a defensive alliance. France, Britain, Germany - all hugely powerful nations and staunch capitalists.

The UN security council - since it's inception, a biased and undemocratic and basically unfair unit, based along the demands of the most militarily powerful nations - those 5 with the permanent seat and a veto.

Russia - a fallen nation in a state of economic crisis due to the forced switch to a capitalist democracy and a market economy. Possessor of many nuclear weapons which despite thriller fiction are very heavil guarded indeed. Possessor of the second largest WMD arsenal in the world.

China - theoretically able to call upon 200 million armed men. By 2010 geopolitical analysts have stated that China will be a power to be reckoned with, having finished a large period of naval building, including her first aircraft carrier, something that may one day threaten Taiwan.

Iraq - a relatively stable nation headed by a cruel dictator who's overriding desire is money - as shown by his gamble in invadng Kuwait. Unknown whether he possesses WMD but US says that he does - UN weapons inspectors remain unconvinced.

Korea - a (terminally?) declining regime in economic crisis that has admitted the possession of nuclear weapons and the possession of MRBM's. Has just reactivated it's nuclear power station capable of producing weapons grade plutonium for use in the contruction of further nuclear weapons.

Al - Quaeda - A fundamentalist terrorist group bent on the overthrow of Western power in the middle east and the removal of the Israelis from an artificially created homeland (Fact: the Balfour declaration set up Israel in it's present position - a declaration that was not discussed with Palestinians or the native inhabitants of the region). Capable of devastating terrorist attacks. Reduced capacity due to heightened securoty measures and US strikes on suspected headquarters??

Who is the GREATEST threat to world security, peace and prosperity (not necessarily monetary but possibly environmental also?).

Victor

Didn't we jsut have one of these?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Possessor of many nuclear weapons which despite thriller fiction are very heavil guarded indeed.

Actually, a lot of the "security" in Russia has been based on the threat of what will happen as opposed to proactive security.

Ans as Gorbachov said "I am now releasing your most dangerous enemy, the unknown".

Éomer of Rohan

Personally I thought I would like to edit the options a little, all the better to stimulate debate.

The Saint

The US considering it has done more to undermine and make irrelivant the UN, the only orginisation for world stability.

Cork

Originally posted by The Saint
The US considering it has done more to undermine and make irrelivant the UN, the only orginisation for world stability.

Well - If certian dictators were not trying to undermine the UN by not distroying weapons - The US would not bother with Iraq.

How long will it take Iraq to dis-arm?

Who is the greatest threat to world security and peace?

Who bailed Europe out of WW2? I really don't think the Germans have much of a reputation with regards foriegn policy & the French are only interested in their contracts with Iraq.

Who is the greatest threat to world security and peace?

Internationally Organised Groups that operate in many countries.

You see links bewteen certain terrorist organisations and certain rogue states.


Like suicide bombers - Are their familys obtaining compansation for outside partys?

ZeFrog

North Korea is threatening to launch nukes. So even if it did nothing, it matches your creteria.

Al Quaeda is a threat by definition.

Hussein should stop playing with everybody's nerves.

USA: I would specify Bush administration, cause I doubt that american citizens are a threat.
I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate that USA real motives (for a war on Iraq) are self interests.
Though, there are some organizations in USA that are a threat to world peace in my opinion.
Example: Project for the New American Century

www.newamericancentury.org/

They say: "American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.
"
One of the head of this organization is Bruce Jackson, who already started his job by conceiving the controversal letter signed by the 10 countries of the 'new europe'.



I think we should revise UN, make it stronger, and ask US to not act unilaterally but with the security council.

The Saint

"Who bailed Europe out of WW2? I really don't think the Germans have much of a reputation with regards foriegn policy & the French are only interested in their contracts with Iraq."

Russia, US, France. Whats your point? Russia actually did more to defeat the Nazis than anyone else, does that mean we should help them bomb Chechnya? Who invaded south Vietnam in 61 using agent orange on civilians which still affects people today causing birth defects in children and refuse to take the blame for it or pay for aid, which is left to Europe and Japan and also did the same in Laos and Cabodia? (this was before the Vietnam war perpitrated on the people they were to defend in the Vietnam war).Who invaded Panama a few few months before the Gulf War killing civilians and installed a puppet regime and was condemned by the International court for unlawful use of force which was then vetoed by them? Nearly an exact copy of whar Saddam did in the Gulf war. Who has overthrown democratically elected governments and installed brutal dictators in most of latin America and also in Asia? Who funded the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which wiped out a quarter of the population of the country with full knowledge of what was happening? There are many more examples of this. Who is in violation of the Geneva convention for destroying water supplies AFTER the Gulf war in Iraq killing many thousands of civilians as a result with this intention and also destroyed dams in North Korea drowning hundreds and causing desease and death to many thousands and destroyed crops in NK, Laos and Cambodia, also in violation of the Geneva convention? Shall I continue or do you still think the US is great for helping out towards the end of the World Wars?


"Internationally Organised Groups that operate in many countries.
You see links bewteen certain terrorist organisations and certain rogue states.
Like suicide bombers - Are their familys obtaining compansation for outside partys?"

And who funded and heavily armed such groups in South America, Middle East and Asia for decades when they were perpetrating their worst attrocities with full knowledge of what they were doing?


"Well - If certian dictators were not trying to undermine the UN by not distroying weapons - The US would not bother with Iraq.
How long will it take Iraq to dis-arm?"

Which country has votoed more resolutions than any other and bullies, threatens and bribes other countries into supporting them? Which country refuses to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has said it will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states if deemed necessary? Which country refused to sign the UN Convention on the rights of the Child, the only other being Somalia? Which country refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty eventhough the vast majority of casualties are children? Which country refuses to be held accountable for war crimes by not signing up to the International Criminal court?

Cork, I think you need a history lesson and see who has killed more civilians in the last 30 years, Saddam or the US. Go read a history book. What I have stated here is just the tip of the Iceberg and I have intentionally stated very few events which happened after WWII coz if I went into the attrocities that happened before I'd be here all day.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
You see links bewteen certain terrorist organisations and certain rogue states.

You mean like the Contras destroying civilian infrastructure (read food supplies) in Nicaragua being supported bu the USA?

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
You mean like the Contras destroying civilian infrastructure (read food supplies) in Nicaragua being supported bu the USA?

The US have also supported the Middle East & Irish Peace processes.

Which country has votoed more resolutions than any other and bullies, threatens and bribes other countries into supporting them? Which country refuses to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has said it will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states if deemed necessary? Which country refused to sign the UN Convention on the rights of the Child, the only other being Somalia? Which country refused to sign the anti-landmine treaty eventhough the vast majority of casualties are children? Which country refuses to be held accountable for war crimes by not signing up to the International Criminal court?

Point taken. But that does not solve the problem of Saddam not co-operating with Dr. Blix.

Why does Saddam want these arms?

He is giving the UN the complete run around.

It is worse the Gardai trying to find potein Stills in the West of Ireland.

The Saint

"The US have also supported the Middle East & Irish Peace processes."

You must be ****ing joking. The Irish peace process OK, but the Middle East? They have been as reluctant to make peace as Israel. They offered a sham in Oslo and vetoed resolutions against Israel condemning them for unlawful use of force, refusing to allow investigation into alleged massacres and refusing to allow UN humanitarian monitors in the occupied territories.

"Point taken. But that does not solve the problem of Saddam not co-operating with Dr. Blix."

Killing civilians doesnt help either especially when the Turk will be allowed to go into Iraqi Kurdistan when they are hated as much as Saddam. The Kurds said they may even attack the Turks and maybe Americans if the Turks go in and rightfully so.

"Why does Saddam want these arms?"

Why does the US refuse to sign the Anti balistic missile treaty if they dont wish to use them?

Éomer of Rohan

Some people (notably Cork) ignore two fundamental points.
1) The US is probably the most aggressive nation in the world today. If you really want arguments to support this, review them in my posts 'America; Bully or Policeman' and 'Succesful American Wars'

2) No one can say that Saddam has weapons for sure; Colin Powell said that 'proof of their [Iraqi] non cooperation is the failure of the weapons inspectors to find weapons' - does anyone else find this ridiculous?

Originally posted by The Saint
"The US have also supported the Middle East & Irish Peace processes."

You must be ****ing joking. The Irish peace process OK, but the Middle East? They have been as reluctant to make peace as Israel. They offered a sham in Oslo and vetoed resolutions against Israel condemning them for unlawful use of force, refusing to allow investigation into alleged massacres and refusing to allow UN humanitarian monitors in the occupied territories.

surely you must be referring to the Bush administration alone here??
For it was Bill Clinton and the democrats that were pro-active in the middle east and the Bush administrations distaste of Arafat that allowed a shaky process to start to fall apart.
That was sheer carelessness/Wrecklessness on the part of the Republicans.

Why does the US refuse to sign the Anti balistic missile treaty if they dont wish to use them?

Well historically, they have negotiated many reductions with the old soviet Union.
Maybe the U.S have WMD's as deterrents ??
One things for sure, I wouldn't be depending on Osama Bin laden or any of his ILK to be defending my western way of life, if he got his hands on nuclear devices or Dirty bombs....,rather I'd be afraid that those madmen would use them against us infidels, unless we repent our infidel ways and wrap our women up in Burka's and of course stop them from going to school :rolleyes:
you will note of course, that extremists like them, in no way represent ordinary decent law abiding muslims and indeed are indirectly harming their way of life by promoting conflict between Islam and Christianity/Western lifestyles.

Originally posted by : Éomer of Rohan
No one can say that Saddam has weapons for sure; Colin Powell said that 'proof of their [Iraqi] non cooperation is the failure of the weapons inspectors to find weapons' - does anyone else find this ridiculous?

They might come out of the woodwork when this war starts, as I now think it will, and then we can possibly congratulate sadam on what a good job he has done on hiding them.

If he uses none, of course, he will have our sympathy as he will be the victim in all this, good, humane ruler and all as he is... :rolleyes:
mm

Éomer of Rohan

Well historically, they have negotiated many reductions with the old soviet Union.

From Man

The US did not initiate the arms reduction treaties; it was the USSR that always placed it on the diplomatic table, something supported by the offer of unilateral disarmament from the Soviet Union??

For it was Bill Clinton and the democrats that were pro-active in the middle east and the Bush administrations distaste of Arafat that allowed a shaky process to start to fall apart.

Let us not forget the countries behind the present state of the Middle East; the UK when she was in charge of the Palestinian Protectorate and Iraq and then succeeded by the US which proceeded to fund Israeli armament and backed such woeful regimes as Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Yemen AND IRAQ not to mention Turkey.

Bill Clinton while looking for peace and furthering the Camp David agreement was on the other hand supplying the Israelis with the money to buy american weapons such as the helicopter gunships they presently use to keep the Palestinians in subjugation

They might come out of the woodwork when this war starts, as I now think it will, and then we can possibly congratulate sadam on what a good job he has done on hiding them.

Get it through your head; we are not acting as apologists for Iraq - and if the Americans do invade it will not be with regard for Human Rights and it will not be to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Americans have no proof, just a thirst for Iraqi oil. If WMD are the primary concern, why don't they disarm China or Korea or Pakistan or India. Answer; they are afraid the weapons will be used against them if they tried. Thus logic dictates that the Americans know that he does not in fact have such weapons or they would not be planning an invasion!!! The real answer is that none of the other countries have access to one of the world's largest oil supplies. This war is pure greed end of story and those who think otherwise are either being deluded or are trying to delude others.

The US did not initiate the arms reduction treaties; it was the USSR that always placed it on the diplomatic table, something supported by the offer of unilateral disarmament from the Soviet Union??

I wonder why the soviet union would have wanted total dis armament ?? It wouldn't have anything to do with,the possibility that the propagation of communism might have been easier if the U.S hadn't got any Nuclear weapons..?? but thats another topic, I simply brought it up, to make a point that they were willing to negotiate when,these weapons weren't as proliferated as they are now.

Un popular as my view on this may be with CND, I do firmly hold the view that, the five permanent members of the security council who posess nuclear weapons, genuinely do so as a deterrent.
that deterrent capability, being ever more important, in todays dangerous world.
It ain't worth anything though if the technology was to fall into the hands of terrorists.

Let us not forget the countries behind the present state of the Middle East; the UK when she was in charge of the Palestinian Protectorate and Iraq and then succeeded by the US which proceeded to fund Israeli armament and backed such woeful regimes as Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Yemen AND IRAQ not to mention Turkey.

Oh absolutely, some worse than others, just me wondering out aloud, what would be happening today, if we had a democrat in the Whitehouse at the time of Gulf war one.
Probably not the sorry mess we are seeing today, but not perfection either.

Bill Clinton while looking for peace and furthering the Camp David agreement was on the other hand supplying the Israelis with the money to buy american weapons such as the helicopter gunships they presently use to keep the Palestinians in subjugation

thats good business,I can't fault the Americans for that.
I can fault them however for allowing the Republicans to mess up the opportunity to further a situation whereby , Israel would not see the need to be on the attack when it comes to the Palestinians, and consequently be arming itself as a deterrent.

Get it through your head; we are not acting as apologists for Iraq - and if the Americans do invade it will not be with regard for Human Rights and it will not be to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Americans have no proof, just a thirst for Iraqi oil. If WMD are the primary concern, why don't they disarm China or Korea or Pakistan or India. Answer; they are afraid the weapons will be used against them if they tried. Thus logic dictates that the Americans know that he does not in fact have such weapons or they would not be planning an invasion!!! The real answer is that none of the other countries have access to one of the world's largest oil supplies. This war is pure greed end of story and those who think otherwise are either being deluded or are trying to delude others.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it, and indeed, I in some ways agree with you but I have other suspicions too.I suspect the Republicans are after the oil, yes. But their reasonings may be much deeper than just, U.S corporations controling the Oil.there might be more to this than meets the eye, like an unspoken fear that the Oil is at risk of being hi-jacked, and used as an economic weapon against the west. Tony Blair isn't putting his political career on the line for the good of his health.

Incidently, theres merit in what I am saying, isn't there, if Sadam uses chemical and biological weapons, when the U.S, UK and others attack, he will be proving that he was in breach of 1441 all along won't he?

Get it through your head; we are not acting as apologists for Iraq .

Never said you or anyone else was,and I don't appreciate, the implication, if it is there that I *must* get something you say through my head as if it were gospel, just as, anything I say or believe here could be mistaken also.
mm
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The US have also supported the Middle East & Irish Peace processes.

Are you trying to argue that as long as you do one or two good acts, that everything else is okay?

Saddam feeds 17 million starving people every month. Whats your point?

Point taken. But that does not solve the problem of Saddam not co-operating with Dr. Blix.

And despite a direct challenge to substantiate this statement, you have singularly failed to come up with anything, so I think we should all just ignore this re-iteration of an empty piece of rhetoric.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
And despite a direct challenge to substantiate this statement, you have singularly failed to come up with anything, so I think we should all just ignore this re-iteration of an empty piece of rhetoric.

He's refusing to destroy his illegal missiles. He's also refusing to let the inspectors interview his scientists freely and privately. Saddam is cooperating to some extent, but it's very far from the unconditional and complete cooperation required by resolution 1441.

The Saint

I think he still has WMD but is that worth rushing to war to kill masses of civilians. As for Clinton, he was nearly as bad as Bush he just was nice about it.

Ste.phen

Originally posted by Man
Incidently, theres merit in what I am saying, isn't there, if Sadam uses chemical and biological weapons, when the U.S, UK and others attack, he will be proving that he was in breach of 1441 all along won't he?

The way I understand it, when the U.S, Uk, etc attack, it wont really matter anymore who was right, and who was wrong...

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
He's refusing to destroy his illegal missiles.

This Was brought up in another thread. As I explained there, those missiles, and the test information was included in the weapons declaration. It is only recently that this has suddenly become an issue, which is highly convenient for those making plans for war.

It should also be noted that the missiles havent been actually inspected. They have been declared illegal based on some theoretical decision where someone who hasnt inspected the missiles is simply alleging that their design is "clearly" for missiles with a longer range capability.

Of course, the fact that this is probably because the Iraqi's would have taken the research already done pre-sanctions and modified it to fit in with the sanctions (hence saving money and time in re-researching), but thats not even worth considering.

Lets not even go into the fact that with 75% of the tests giving ranges less than 150km, the effective range of the missile is in fact within the limits...just not the theoretical maximum range.

Also, the papers which are slightly more balanced in their reporting are pointing out that Hussein has refused to destroy the missiles because they have not been properly inspected. They have been condemned without any inspector physically inspecting the missile, or conducting tests on them.

I cannot understand why Blix doesnt just turn around and say "OK, tomorrow an inspector will physically inspect the missiles, their designs, etc. etc. and you have 7 days to meet any test requirements that you say we should be carrying out."

What is happening at the moment is that the UN inspectors are saying "X is wrong" and the Iraqi's are saying "Thats not a fair assessment - you havent even inspected this properly".

While I think that ultimately they should be destroyed, I also happen to think that this is far from a lack of full co-operation, unless by "full co-operation" you really mean "full capitulation".

He's also refusing to let the inspectors interview his scientists freely and privately.

Not true.

His scientists are refusing to be interviewed privately and freely, and various factions are stating as fact that this is Hussein's doing. It is possibly his doing...hell, I'd go so far as to say its *probably* his doing. I sure as hell wouldnt state it as fact, as this would be somewhat dishonest IMHO.

For example, no-one is interested in checking into allegations by scientists that previous "open and free" interviews resulted in the inspectors misquoting them, and taking their comments out of context to arrive at conclusions that the scientists never necessarily supported.

It is also worth noting that the IAEA inspectors under Al Baradae are perfectly happy to conduct their interviews, and dont have any major issues with the structure. The UN, on the other hand, are refusing to follow the same path and are offering nothing in the way of compromise, or indeed are even willing to entertain the allegations of corrpution arising from such previous interviews.

Furthermore, there seems to be no moves to finding a solution. The UN solution remains "shut up and do what we say".

Again, co-operation appears to be more correctly termed capitulation...its "do as we say, whatever we say, and whenever we say it, or you are guilty".

Co-operation is where two sides work together, not where one side dictates to the other.

Then again, I suppose in a situation where limited air strikes are generally classified as a diplomatic manouever, this would be considered co-operation.

jc

SloanerF1

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Some people (notably Cork) ignore two fundamental points.
1) The US is probably the most aggressive nation in the world today. If you really want arguments to support this, review them in my posts 'America; Bully or Policeman' and 'Succesful American Wars'

They may well be the most aggressive nation in the world, but they are certainly not the most aggressive organisation. I refer of course to Al-Quaeda and other terrorist organisation, whose clear intention it is to threaten world security and peace. If the US becomes a threat, it will be through stupidity and imperialism. I do not think this will be enough to make them the greatest threat to security or peace

Éomer of Rohan

Al Qaeda et al are threats only to the US and the allies that aid and abet her in her trampling of the Palestinian people.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Two things: Al - Qaeda mentioned Palestine in their first broadcast following the collapse of the twin towers and the strike on the pentagon so unless you qualify that as recent, you are mistaken.

Second: conceded, the problem was not solely the backing of Israel by the US, it was the backing of other tyrannical repressive regimes as well, such as that in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE, Yemen AND IRAQ at one point. In general it is western interference in affairs that do not concern them that provoked the terrorist attacks. This interference was sometimes due to oil and sometimes due to idiocy (eg the forced establishment of Israel)

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Al Qaeda et al are threats only to the US and the allies that aid and abet her

Actually they are threats to us all.
And whats worse,they don't negotiate.
mm

PiE

Define a rogue nation? Would it be a nation who continually ignores international requests; acts in foreign countries without prior permission; uses force to get it's way; refuses to comply with UN regulations and has an un-needed amount of WMD?

Or would it simply be those countries that refuse to comply with the most powerful nation in the world?

The US are fast becoming the largest threat to world peace. They've realised that everyone hates them and they wanna hit them before they get hit. They're trying to impose their will on Europe and the rest of the world, instead of looking after themselves and acting when asked by NATO & the UN.

I know they've probably been doing it for decades, but that bumbling moron Bush hasn't a clue how to handle diplomatic relations.

The Saint

I think you'll find that the CIA is the most aggressive orginisation in the world.

Incidently, theres merit in what I am saying, isn't there, if Sadam uses chemical and biological weapons, when the U.S, UK and others attack, he will be proving that he was in breach of 1441 all along won't he?

Um, so if he doesn't use these weapons, America is going to leave quietly, and not change anything? Hardly. From day one, this has been the main issue, for America's urge to invade Iraq, and it hasn't even been proved yet.

One question though. We all agree that chemical & biological weapons are awful, but how do you feel abt Nuclear weapons? Cause if America was invaded by china, can u really imagine the US not using everything in their arsenal, should they be on the verge of defeat? So will you shout at America, because we KNOW that they have chemical, biological & Nuclear weapons?

One other point. Iraq has been in two main wars, in the last 30 years or so. How many has the US? Surely, America is a much larger threat to peace than Iraq?

The Saint

Just a taste of US illegal aggression. There are many many more.


USA AGGRESSION AND ACTS OF WAR AGAINST SOVEREIGN NATIONS



1950 Korean War – The USA battled North Korea without any declaration of war and called it a police action.


1955 Vietnam War – The USA was unhappy about the communist government in the north, so it firstly embarked on training the South Vietnam military, then got fully involved in a large scale civil war, bombing all of Vietnam and surrounding countries until eventually it was beaten in 1975 and driven out.


1961 Invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs) - After the fascist US backed dictator Fulgencio Batista was deposed by Fidel Castro, the USA, unhappy about his new communist government, funded and backed an illegal invasion of Cuba which failed. The USA maintains sanctions against Cuba to this day.


1965 Invasion of Dominican Republic – The USA was unhappy about the duly elected government, so it invaded and deposed it and installed a puppet regime.


1973 Deposing of Salvador Allende in Chile with USA involvement – The USA was unhappy about the legally elected socialist government, so the CIA arranged for Allende to be deposed and a US backed fascist dictatorship led by Augusto Pinochet was installed, that was responsible for killing many tens of thousands of innocent Chileans.


1983 Invasion of Grenada – The USA was unhappy about the new legally elected socialist government, so on the pretext that USA citizens were in danger, the USA invaded and deposed the government.


1985 Iran-Contra Affair – The USA secretly funded a guerrilla army with money made from illegal weapons sales to Iran because it was opposed to the legally elected Socialist government of Daniel Ortega. The USA also illegally mined the harbour of Managua to disrupt shipping.


1986 Bombing of Libya – Without offering any hard evidence whatsoever, the USA claimed that Libya was masterminding global terrorism and illegally bombed Tripoli, killing the daughter of Libyan leader Gaddafi and other innocent civilians.


1989 Invasion of Panama – The USA claimed that Panamanian head of state Manuel Noriega was allowing drug shipments to transit Panama enroute to the USA so against established international law, the USA illegally invaded Panama, kidnapped Noriega and illegally took him to USA where he was jailed.


1990 Persian Gulf War – The USA masterminded the bombing and invasion of Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait although Kuwait was not a USA ally and was previously Iraqi territory. Evidence has emerged that Iraq was given secret sanction by the USA to annex Kuwait until the USA reversed its policy without informing Iraq, thus setting Iraq up to be invaded.


1993 Missile strike on Iraq – The USA claimed that Iraq was plotting to kill the then USA President and bombed Baghdad, however no proof has ever been given that such a plot existed.


1998 Cruise missile bombing of Afghanistan – The USA bombed the residence of suspected USA embassy bombing mastermind Osama Bin Laden, killing innocent people. USA was not at war with Afghanistan.


1998 Cruise missile bombing of Sudan – The USA claimed that Sudan was operating a chemical weapons factory and bombed it without warning. The USA was not at war with Sudan and this was nothing more than an illegal naked act of war.


1998 Iraq no-fly zone - With the UK, the USA is imposing an illegal no-fly zone on Iraq without UN sanction. This action is not part of the cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the UN and under international law, it is an illegal act of continuing aggression by the USA.


1999 Air war against Yugoslavia – This was a totally illegal act of aggression on a sovereign nation. USA interests or citizens were not at risk and war was not declared. NATO is a defence alliance and has no mandate to wage war unless member countries are attacked. USA missiles and bombs have killed innocent civilians including those the USA claims to want to protect.