Day X is here - PAINT THE TOWN RED - Constitution clearly being breached by Government

by Daithi Thu Mar 20, 2003 04:13

Pentagon telling reporters that a "surgical strike" has taken place against "Iraqi leaders". Doesn't seem to be large-scale bombing as of yet - Baghdad is more anti-aircraft fire at present. Still awaiting the Bush statement in five minutes time.

by Skeptic Thu Mar 20, 2003 04:25

US Armed Forces Radio is reporting that a meeting of senior Iraqi planners was attacked by a strike just before 6am on Thursday morning.

There's no way of telling how accurate this is.

Please remember that the Pentagon has official Psy-Ops people placed with the major news organisations and will be trying to spin things to suit themselves.

Bush made a very short address, perhaps less than 5 minutes, in which he promised that he would use whatever force was necessary.

Speculation is that this attack happening during broad daylight is part of the "shock and awe". Everyone was expecting that it would be a night-attack, but the satellite guided munitions allow daytime attacks.

The Iraqi people are now paying the price of cheap oil.

by eamonn c Thu Mar 20, 2003 04:28

France, Others: Attack on Iraq Illegal

Thursday March 20, 2003 2:20 AM

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The most outspoken opponents of military action against Iraq - France, Russia and Germany - insisted Wednesday the United States will be acting illegally if it attacks Iraq and overthrows Saddam Hussein.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told the U.N. Security Council that no U.N. resolution authorized military action or ``the violent overthrow of the leadership of a sovereign state.''

There are also ``no indisputable facts'' to demonstrate that Iraq threatens the United States, he said. If there were, the Bush administration could exercise its right under the U.N. Charter to respond in self-defense.

The foreign ministers of Russia, France and Germany attended an open council meeting held only hours before the clock ran out on a Wednesday evening deadline set by President Bush for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face war. Though the Bush administration has said the time for diplomacy was over, the ministers made a point of attending to reaffirm their opposition to war and assert the primacy of the United Nations.

Declaring that military intervention ``has no credibility,'' Germany's Joschka Fischer also stressed, ``There is no basis in the U.N. Charter for a regime change with military means.''

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin reiterated his country's contention that a war would not only be illegal but would exacerbate the tensions and divisions on which ``terrorists feed.''

The three ministers did not say they would raise the issue in the council after a war begins. They insisted the U.N. Security Council would have a role in the aftermath of war.

Predicting ``imminent disaster'' for the people of Iraq, Secretary-General Kofi Annan implored the United States and its allies Wednesday not to forsake humanitarian aid when the fighting starts.

``This is a sad day for the United Nations,'' Annan said. ``I know that millions of people around the world share this sense of disappointment and are deeply alarmed.''

He said he plans to submit proposals to the council shortly on adjusting the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was providing food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies for about 60 percent of Iraq's 22 million people until it was suspended this week.

The council meeting was called to hear a report by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix outlining a dozen issues that Iraq needed to resolve to prove it was disarming peacefully, but for many members, his list of disarmament tasks was eclipsed by the approaching war. Blix expressed disappointment that inspections were curtailed after only 3 months.

With war looming, the session took place in an atmosphere of sadness and defiance, with many members determined not to be sidelined by the conflict. To show its importance, the foreign ministers of Syria and Guinea also attended.

By contrast, the United States, Britain and Spain were among the 10 countries represented by their ambassadors. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he had no intention of coming to New York, and U.S. officials made a point of downplaying the meeting's importance.

In a short speech, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte reiterated that the United States believes Saddam had failed to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and called Blix's program ``quite simply out of touch with the reality that we confront.''

He said the United States and others were preparing a draft resolution that would ensure the continuity of the oil-for-food program, and expressed hope it would be adopted quickly to minimize any interruption of humanitarian assistance.

Virtually all council members expressed concern about the plight of the Iraqi people, but there was concern about a U.S.-backed draft, because the United States would also be the occupying power.

In looking ahead to a U.N. role as the Iraq conflict unfolds, Russia's Ivanov made clear that there cannot be a political settlement in the country without the Security Council.

``The United Nations has never been so necessary,'' echoed de Villepin, whose speech was greeted with applause in the council chamber, as were his two previous presentations against U.S. military action.

But as the meeting broke up, with the council still bitterly divided, the mood was tense.

``It's a tragedy,'' said Chile's U.N. Ambassador Gabriel Valdes. ``Another tragedy is going to begin now.''

by imc Thu Mar 20, 2003 04:29

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56689-2003Mar19.html

BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2866109.stm

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2493559,00.html

by Daithi Thu Mar 20, 2003 04:36

Reuters reporting that state radio went off the air and was replaced by U.S. broadcasts shortly afterwards. The view of the TV talking heads etc is that the tactics at present are to target authority and symbolically take control with special ops forces and follow that with the expected heavy assault.

Bush says in speech that the U.S. will accept "no outcome but victory". Blair to speak in next half hour.

by Jason Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:19 jasongrehan at yahoo dot com

if you're such an 'indy' news source, how come all of the links on this particular plage come from Reuters, the Washington Post, etc? Do'nt you have people on the ground in Iraq?

by John Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:26

If you are going to defend it you may as well know what is it and it does not mention Neutrallity anywhere in it so how can we be breaching it??
For the uneducated here, I`ve posted it.
Article 28 (3)
1° War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with
the assent of Dáil Éireann.
2° In the case of actual invasion, however, the Government may take whatever steps
they may consider necessary for the protection of the State, and Dáil Éireann if not
sitting shall be summoned to meet at the earliest practicable date.
3° Nothing in this Constitution other than Article 15.5.2° shall be invoked to invalidate
any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing
the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or
to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in
pursuance of any such law. In this sub-section "time of war" includes a time when there
is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of
which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such
armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State
and "time of war or armed rebel-lion" includes such time after the termination of any
war, or of any such armed conflict as aforesaid, or of an armed rebellion, as may elapse
until each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that the national
emergency occasioned by such war, armed conflict, or armed rebellion has ceased to
exist.

by rob Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:52

We are actively participating in the war, against article 28.3.1, ". . . and the State shall not participate in any war . . .", by refueling war machines and allowing passage. Were our poiticians to abide by the constitution then the American military would have to find alternative routes or persuade the Irish population to wholeheartedly support their war.

by John Thu Mar 20, 2003 14:08

So are we to stop all military flights over irish aerospace? No bloody likely, if we did it would also be stopping flights of American and Canadian troops for UN peacekeeping missions. If you are to stop one you will want to stop the other. The choice is yours, but these piped dreams will never come true. Like with that face. Its like pissing against the wind.

by Rich Thu Mar 20, 2003 20:04

Saddam will be shot like the dog he is!
The Baath party members will be hung like dogs from the lampposts by the people they oppress!
Long live the people of Iraq who are to be liberated from tyranny!
Long live Blair!
Long live Bush!
In the words of Dr.Martin Luther King : "Free at last!"

Watch and weep you cheese eating surrender monkeys! Shame upon you! You gave into the tyranny of Saddam Hussein! You sided with him!

by CiaranOB Tue Mar 25, 2003 20:33

You use the words of a pacifist while you celebrate these murderers? What kind of an idiot are you?

Let me provide another MLK quote:
"My Government is the world's leading purveyor of violence."