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:
Locked Topic
UN still irrellevant?; Bush asks for irrellevant assistance
Topic Started: Apr 19 2004, 01:43 PM (967 Views)
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
ANOVA
Apr 24 2004, 08:54 AM
Quote:
 
I never like beating a dead horse but...


Linquistic logic states the the use of the word "but" negates all that procedes. It seems that the use of such logic and the fact that you flog the dead horse despite your supposed dislike of the action indicates that you actually like such beatings.

Wow, your right, when actions and words don't match, an individual looks hypocritical. But, what do I know?

ANOVA

Besides the UN is irrelevent.

:hail:

touche

I was just thinking that. Upon deep introspection, I also like to beat donkeys and asses.

But like you say, you've gotta take a persons word for some things.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
ANOVA
Apr 24 2004, 08:54 AM


Wow, your right, when actions and words don't match, an individual looks hypocritical. But, what do I know?

ANOVA

Besides the UN is irrelevent.

I respectfully make one point of clarification.

I didn't call anyone a hypocrite. You came to that assumption yourself so please don't tell me I'm right about anything. I don't deserve that affirmation. If we are to discuss any matter in a civil fashion then we must make it a point to understand where exactly the person you're talking to is coming from, otherwise it just gets nasty, the discussion gets circular and we learn nothing from each other.

I was in doubt, I asked a question and in turn will thank him/her for the answer.

Quote:
 


Besides the UN is irrelevent.
I agree with that statement and IMHO that's what GW shoulda said in the first place. Then it would have been "period end of story" for me.

:wave2: exit stage left :beam:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
It's far from perfect, but it's the best hope we currently have for a forum for nations to discuss thier differences and work toward peaceful solutions on an equal footing.
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Ah yes, an equal footing. Allow some countries the power to veto Security Council resolutions for all eternity and not others.

And the UN is frequently used for peace, yesiree bob it is. You never have countries trying to push their own agendas down other nations' throats.

There are so many different viewpoints bouncing around in that building that you can never get anything more then words and promises, never actions.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
The U.S., being one of the nations on the Security Council can also veto resolutions of all others as well. There are a lot of changes that need to happen for the UN to be an effective body, such as the power to back up resolutions they have made. The UN armed forces is more of a peace keeping force though. The U.S. also has many many factions arguing against each other which cause legislation years to get passed, ususally not without watering down or having pork attached.

As I said, they have lots of problems, but I realize that most people here would rather be without a democratic body of nations. You're entitled to your opinions. Remember that East Timor is a sovreign nation now under the protection of the UN peacekeeping forces against decades of tyranny under a dictator the U.S. appointed after the Japanese invasion which murdered hundreds of those people. Not that the U.S. is always wrong and UN is always right, but the UN is far from useless.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Okay... we've already proven that the Bush Administration never said that the UN was irrelevant. Why is it being brought up again?

I wonder if East Timor is off the tourism terror watch list?
Offline | Profile ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
I respectfully make one point of clarification.


Point taken

ANOVA
Offline | Profile ^
 
Intrepid2002
Member Avatar
UNGH!
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 26 2004, 04:07 PM
Okay... we've already proven that the Bush Administration never said that the UN was irrelevant. Why is it being brought up again?

I wonder if East Timor is off the tourism terror watch list?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :wacko: :blink: :wave: :wave2: :bow: :beam:
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
The problem with the UN is that they have always been loathe to send troops into countries with stable governments. This is why the UN is next to useless in the realm of fighting terrorism. If the US were to follow the UN's example, then the terrorists would have an impenetrable base that they could attack from.

Terrorism is a major enemy of the world right now. If the UN does not change its outlook on things, then they will be making the same mistake that the world did when they allowed Hitler to build up Nazi Germany.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
The UN actually spends most of it's time and effort on peacekeeping ventures in unstable areas and governments because that's where the need is the greatest. Terrorism as you say isn't really their forte. They are generally more interested in keeping the peace than fighting a war. That's where the problem lies. The fact is, Iraq is not connected to Al Qaeda nor have any WMDs been found which is why they refused to support the US invasion. Iraq did not pose an immenent threat as required by 1441 to authorize an invasion. The current US administration has a difference of opinion on this. There's no need to bash anybody about it, what's done is done. Now the UN is assisting our efforts to bring order to Iraq and help create a legitimate government the people can live with there. Diplomacy and peace keeping is their strong suit, so I agree with you that fighting a war on terror is not really thier strong suit.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Apr 27 2004, 11:26 AM
The UN actually spends most of it's time and effort on peacekeeping ventures in unstable areas and governments because that's where the need is the greatest.  Terrorism as you say isn't really their forte.  They are generally more interested in keeping the peace than fighting a war.  That's where the problem lies.  The fact is, Iraq is not connected to Al Qaeda nor have any WMDs been found which is why they refused to support the US invasion.  Iraq did not pose an immenent threat as required by 1441 to authorize an invasion.  The current US administration has a difference of opinion on this.  There's no need to bash anybody about it, what's done is done.  Now the UN is assisting our efforts to bring order to Iraq and help create a legitimate government the people can live with there.  Diplomacy and peace keeping is their strong suit, so I agree with you that fighting a war on terror is not really thier strong suit.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on all counts.

In addition to Iraq giving safe refuge to terrorists, and Saddam's government meeting with terrorists, terrorists TRAINED IN IRAQ at an airbase named Salman Pak.

I guess you only read the news you want to hear. The Kay report discussed WMDs and WMD programs. In addition, there were two servicemen killed yesterday when they were inspecting a suspected WMD factory.

As for the UN, I guess you forget that they participated actively in the Korean War?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I think my statement about Iraq having no ties to Al Qaeda is correct, but don't take my word for it:

Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda


from the press conference, 31 Jan 2003

>>> During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign.

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Second, about the WMDs:

Kay report justifies U.S.-British led war in Iraq

By Catherine Housholder

Published: Thursday, February 5, 2004

Article Tools:
Page 1 of 2


Since David Kay, the now former head of CIA weapons inspection team in Iraq, released his report on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, many Democrats have tried to twist Kay's apolitical findings into a political slamdunk for the left.

Continuously repeated is the simplistic question/answer bounced around and echoed by wire services and other media: Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? "I don't think they ever existed," Kay said.

Some unwisely believe that statement discredits the U.S.-British-led war in Iraq. If Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, and the U.S. invaded Iraq on the premise that Iraq had WMD, the war was unjustified and Bush should be held responsible.

However when Kay testified to the Senate Armed Service Committee on Wednesday January, 28, he made it quite clear the war was justified even though the intelligence was wrong. What many are not hearing from the media is this: Iraq was a "more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what we turn out may not have been a fully accurate estimate," Kay stated.

Let's review the facts: David Kay is an apolitical scientist who has repeatedly stated Bush did not pressure to do anything other than discover the truth about Iraq's, as we now know, non-existent WMD. He told the unabashed truth of his findings in Iraq. When Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) interrogated Kay, Kay agreed with the following: Saddam Hussein developed and used WMDs. He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. UN inspectors found biological and chemical weapons in Iraq in the 90s. He once had a very active nuclear program. The former dictator "realized and had ambitions to use weapons of mass destruction."

So the point is," McCain concluded, "if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction."

Kay agreed. That argument stands even after Kay announced Iraq did not have WMDs when the U.S. invaded.

Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Apr 27 2004, 12:32 PM
I think my statement about Iraq having no ties to Al Qaeda is correct, but don't take my word for it:

Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between
Saddam and al Qaeda


from the press conference, 31 Jan 2003

>>> During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign.

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Second, about the WMDs:

Kay report justifies U.S.-British led war in Iraq

By Catherine Housholder

Published: Thursday, February 5, 2004

Article Tools:
Page 1 of 2


Since David Kay, the now former head of CIA weapons inspection team in Iraq, released his report on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, many Democrats have tried to twist Kay's apolitical findings into a political slamdunk for the left.

Continuously repeated is the simplistic question/answer bounced around and echoed by wire services and other media: Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? "I don't think they ever existed," Kay said.

Some unwisely believe that statement discredits the U.S.-British-led war in Iraq. If Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, and the U.S. invaded Iraq on the premise that Iraq had WMD, the war was unjustified and Bush should be held responsible.

However when Kay testified to the Senate Armed Service Committee on Wednesday January, 28, he made it quite clear the war was justified even though the intelligence was wrong. What many are not hearing from the media is this: Iraq was a "more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what we turn out may not have been a fully accurate estimate," Kay stated.

Let's review the facts: David Kay is an apolitical scientist who has repeatedly stated Bush did not pressure to do anything other than discover the truth about Iraq's, as we now know, non-existent WMD. He told the unabashed truth of his findings in Iraq. When Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) interrogated Kay, Kay agreed with the following: Saddam Hussein developed and used WMDs. He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. UN inspectors found biological and chemical weapons in Iraq in the 90s. He once had a very active nuclear program. The former dictator "realized and had ambitions to use weapons of mass destruction."

So the point is," McCain concluded, "if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction."

Kay agreed. That argument stands even after Kay announced Iraq did not have WMDs when the U.S. invaded.

First of all, your FIRST post happened before the war. We've learned a lot since then. Have you thought of that? Times change, events change, information changes.

Second, READ THE KAY REPORT FOR YOURSELF. It is on the web and is in black and white. Who is this Catherine Housholder? ANother opinion columnist from one of your "web sites"?
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Show me any evidence you have that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al Qaeda. Time for you to cite your sources sir.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I have posted them all through here, for the past several months. Look for yourself. I'm tired of playing games with you.

But just so you don't think I'm running away, here's just ONE of them.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/378fmxyz.asp

Enough games.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus