Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
humanitarian crisis unfolding; Congo
Topic Started: Nov 1 2008, 03:13 AM (501 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ But if people understood what a Chapter 7 resolution is, then they'd understand that the authorization was given in 1991 with the ceasefire agreement.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
I remember... and understood but could not understand why it was only enforced against Iraq... untill a recent exchange with you, there are less severe resolutions... learn something everyday
Edited by whitestar, Nov 3 2008, 09:50 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
whitestar
Nov 3 2008, 09:21 AM
Dwayne
Nov 3 2008, 08:34 AM
The most important issue was actually the enforcement of UNSC 'Chapter 7' resolutions, which if a little logic was applied it would be recognized that those resolutions covered everything from the weapons to human rights violations.
Yea, I remember.. I also remember that the UN would not back the military answer to enforcement but as I said, I didn't care. Saddam had handed the US a legitimate cause to go in and take him out, just as long as the people were freed from the tyranny any excuse will do. And that's what I believe it was, just a legitimate cover for the Clinton admin's already determined course of action.
^^^ edited for accuracy. It was Clinton who changed the USA's policy towards Iraq to "regime change" ... and then did nothing to support that change. Just words.

;)

Anyone else remember Bush's address the Friday before the invasion? He thoroughly covered a variety of justifications and was lambasted for NOT focusing on WMDs. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
RTW
Nov 3 2008, 12:57 PM
whitestar
Nov 3 2008, 09:21 AM
Dwayne
Nov 3 2008, 08:34 AM
The most important issue was actually the enforcement of UNSC 'Chapter 7' resolutions, which if a little logic was applied it would be recognized that those resolutions covered everything from the weapons to human rights violations.
Yea, I remember.. I also remember that the UN would not back the military answer to enforcement but as I said, I didn't care. Saddam had handed the US a legitimate cause to go in and take him out, just as long as the people were freed from the tyranny any excuse will do. And that's what I believe it was, just a legitimate cover for the Clinton admin's already determined course of action.
^^^ edited for accuracy. It was Clinton who changed the USA's policy towards Iraq to "regime change" ... and then did nothing to support that change. Just words.

;)

Anyone else remember Bush's address the Friday before the invasion? He thoroughly covered a variety of justifications and was lambasted for NOT focusing on WMDs. :shrug:
I'm not gonna make a song a dance over it and don't want it to go any further than this comment...
In future RTW I would appreciate you not editing my posts.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
whitestar
Nov 3 2008, 07:43 PM
In future RTW I would appreciate you not editing my posts.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, like I was really sneaky about it and tried to take your quote out of context or something. I'm not familiar with anyone ever complaining about their words being quoted more accurately than originally delivered. Well, there's alway a first time I suppose.

I miss the old forum where the field that contained the post you were quoting was labeled, "here you can edit the post you are quoting". :P

There's already enough misinformation and half-truths flying around this time of year. I would appreciate you not contributing to the disinformation.

Is this an agreeable compromise?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
whitestar
Member Avatar
Captain
RTW
Nov 3 2008, 08:14 PM
whitestar
Nov 3 2008, 07:43 PM
In future RTW I would appreciate you not editing my posts.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, like I was really sneaky about it and tried to take your quote out of context or something. I'm not familiar with anyone ever complaining about their words being quoted more accurately than originally delivered. Well, there's alway a first time I suppose.

I miss the old forum where the field that contained the post you were quoting was labeled, "here you can edit the post you are quoting". :P

There's already enough misinformation and half-truths flying around this time of year. I would appreciate you not contributing to the disinformation.

Is this an agreeable compromise?
I realize there was no underhand motive RTW but from my view, your manner of making a point is closer to a teacher marking a students work, "edited for accuracy".
I'm willing to learn as any good student and if you have something to teach me, I'm willing to listen but please don't put words in my mouth. You obviously have a point and done quite succintly but I'd rather you put your view in your own words not in mine.
Sorry, no compromise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus