All Arabs oppose strike on Iraq

Bahrain Tribute ^ | 21 january 2002 | AFP

[knighthawk]

BAGHDAD: Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa said in Baghdad yesterday that all Arab countries would oppose an eventual US military strike on Iraq.

“There is an Arab consensus on opposing any strike against any Arab country,” Mussa told reporters after arriving here on the first official visit to Iraq by a head of the pan-Arab body since 1990.

“The Arab League, the Arab Ministerial Council and the Arab summit, all were very clear in (upholding) the security, safety and territorial integrity of all Arab countries, including Iraq,” he said at the airport when asked about the possibility of a US military offensive against Iraq.

Mussa said he would discuss various aspects of the situation in Iraq with officials here, including President Saddam Hussein, during his 24-hour visit.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri was on hand at the airport to greet Mussa, who arrived to sanctions-hit Iraq on a special flight authorised by the UN.

“Iraq opens its arms to its Arab brethren, chief among them the man who leads the mechanism of joint Arab action,” Sabri said in a reference to the Arab League chief.

Mussa’s visit comes ahead of an Arab summit due March in Beirut. “I am visiting Iraq at a critical time for the Arab world and the Middle East region,” Mussa said.

“The talks I will hold here are important in the context of reviving Arab solidarity,” he added.

[wattsmag2]

Been there, done that. My comments are still out there on multiple threads(some of which you have been referred to 3 times) waiting for your reply. I won't hold my breath.

[Buckeroo]

Your opinion about the world is mirrored in hatred; you use the government as your prop.

[is_is]

Actually, Saddam only wanted his property back.

So it was ok for him to invade Kuwait killing many in the process??? All over oil??? Your double standards are beginning to show.....

[wattsmag2]

On second thought, let me give you an example of what I think is a good law, and a bad law.

I think laws which prohibit the possession of a firearm by a citizen are bad. Unconstitutional in my opinion, for what that's worth.

At the same time, I think laws which prohibit the ownership or possession of a firearm by a violent criminal, particularly one who has used a firearm in the commission of a crime, are good. I feel the criminal has lost his rights as a citizen.

I do not believe citizens should be stripped of their right to bear arms merely on the fact they have been served with a restraining order, particularly if they have no history of violence.

[wattsmag2]

I do not respond to either gibberish or "mindreading".

[LibWhacker]

ALL Arabs oppose strike on Iraq

Good. For us, or against us . . .

[Mark17]

There I said it. I feel a lot better.

Well, I never said anything that you did, but I wish I had.

[The Great Satan]

They can relax. Mr. Hussein knows we aren't going to take him out. The anthrax he so generously provided to his agent, Mr. Atta, is protection enough. He got his yuks watching Mr. Atta take down those towers, and now he's sitting pretty. You can thank bill clinton for that.

[Buckeroo]

You choose to ennoble the cause of war because America was involved? Maybe you should take a look at yourself before suggesting that I substantiate anything that Saddam as performed.

[is_is]

Only in a dictatorship the people are seperated from the government.

Got to disagree with you here.....the people of America are so removed from their goverment as to almost be NON-participants.

The very thing our goverment stands for.....freedom....is the thing that has allowed it to be twisted and bent out of shape by those less scrupulous, with goals that are not in tune with the average citizen. It is the best thing going but it is broken IMHO.

[Long Cut]

This is predictable. The Arabs only wish to APPEAR to support "one of their own". Like Gulf War I, most will do so until A. They themselves are threatened; or B. Soddom starts getting his a$$ stomped. Then, they'll support the winner. They are master fencesitters.
Most of their rhetoric is for internal consumption only.

[wattsmag2]

Most of their rhetoric is for internal consumption only.

You mean you think they are covering their arses? Is that in the Koran? heh heh

[Marysecretary]

No flaming here, either. I agree pretty much with what you say although I'm not convinced EVERY Muslim believes that, only those who are extremists, but I could be wrong. I was once. (Smile)

[Marysecretary]

No flaming here, either. I agree pretty much with what you say although I'm not convinced EVERY Muslim believes that, only those who are extremists, but I could be wrong. I was once. (Smile)

[Marysecretary]

BINGO! Hit the nail right on the head, but you know us, we'll do it anyway.

[Long Cut]

Another thing they're masters at. Witness how far the Kuwaiti elites ran after the invasion by Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I supported our actions there (exept letting Soddom live) but the people we were supposedly protecting didn't do themselves very proud.
'Course now every last one of them, you can be sure, claims to have fought with the "Resistance". We should have just kept the oil.

[hollywood]

"I feel the criminal has lost his rights as a citizen."

Either a person is a criminal, and behind bars, or a person is a citizen, having paid his/her debt to society (if previously a criminal), free to enjoy all rights granted by the Constitution. I see no reason why a citizen should not be able to defend his/her self, family, or property. The deeper issue here is the prison system; too many crooks get released before they've paid their dues and been truly reformed. By your logic, once a criminal, always a criminal. Further, by your logic, ex-convicts should simply reach for the phone when their family is threatened.

[cardinal4]

recognise

California profile,but Labour Party champion?Last time I checked,Americans spelled it with a z.

[wattsmag2]

Having paid one's "debt" does not necessarily give one the right to be trusted again with all the rights of citizenship. IMHO.

[wattsmag2]

By your logic, once a criminal, always a criminal. Further, by your logic, ex-convicts should simply reach for the phone when their family is threatened.

Nope, if the criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, too bad. He ought not be allowed to have easy access to repeat his error. His "family" ought to move on from the loser.