Guess the speech.*
Found some interesting words on the net and played with them, now who's words are they originally?
"For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the UN created - a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes intolerable for us ...
As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions through by pressure. Ten years ago, in the last Gulf War there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On our own initiative we have, not once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament, proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts made for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problems of the middle East, of the problems of the people of Israel and the palestinian people.
It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the UN is not law to us.
In the same way, We have tried to solve the problems of Iraq by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem was to be solved had little interest for the European Powers. But time is not a matter of indifference to us ...
For four months we have calmly watched developments, although we never ceased to give warnings. In the last few days we have increased these warnings ...
We made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part of the French government. They proposed, not that they themselves should carry out the negotiations, but rather that the US and Iraq should come into direct contact and once more pursue disarmament.
I must declare that We accepted the UN proposal for disarmament which is known to you. For two whole days I sat in my government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Iraqi government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a position to go into the French proposals. The Iraqi government also said they would inform the UN of their decision.
If the US government and its leader patiently endured such treatment the United States would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Iraqi government to conduct serious disarmament.
The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all to thank Italy and Spain, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task ourselves.
This night for the first time, Iraqi regular soldiers fired four missiles on Kuwaiti territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be dealt with swiftly. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect a clear hard response ... until the safety, security of the United States of America and the american way of life is secured."
*Disclaimer: In no way am I trying to make a political equation here. Just trying to point out some interesting aspects of war rhetoric.
"For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the UN created - a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes intolerable for us ...
As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions through by pressure. Ten years ago, in the last Gulf War there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On our own initiative we have, not once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament, proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts made for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problems of the middle East, of the problems of the people of Israel and the palestinian people.
It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the UN is not law to us.
In the same way, We have tried to solve the problems of Iraq by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem was to be solved had little interest for the European Powers. But time is not a matter of indifference to us ...
For four months we have calmly watched developments, although we never ceased to give warnings. In the last few days we have increased these warnings ...
We made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part of the French government. They proposed, not that they themselves should carry out the negotiations, but rather that the US and Iraq should come into direct contact and once more pursue disarmament.
I must declare that We accepted the UN proposal for disarmament which is known to you. For two whole days I sat in my government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Iraqi government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a position to go into the French proposals. The Iraqi government also said they would inform the UN of their decision.
If the US government and its leader patiently endured such treatment the United States would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Iraqi government to conduct serious disarmament.
The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all to thank Italy and Spain, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task ourselves.
This night for the first time, Iraqi regular soldiers fired four missiles on Kuwaiti territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be dealt with swiftly. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect a clear hard response ... until the safety, security of the United States of America and the american way of life is secured."
*Disclaimer: In no way am I trying to make a political equation here. Just trying to point out some interesting aspects of war rhetoric.
Comments