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
Solid proof that Sen. Boxer is a liar or ignorant
Topic Started: Jan 19 2005, 01:21 AM (839 Views)
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Or either you're with us or against us.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Sisko - sometimes you need to put the rhetoric aside.

Despite the insults thrown around the fact of the matter is that by your own admission there were countries that agreed with the US. How could you ever get 100% cooperation from the entire world? It will never happen. If your criteria is waiting for the cooperation of the entire world then inertia is the result.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Not of the entire world, of the security council. All rhetoric aside, we could've wait another month for the UN to finish inspections before we invaded, but we had to do it right away because we were told that there was an immenent threat of nuclear holocaust.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Don't get me started on the security council. The countries they have in the rotating seats are a disgrace half the time. You will never get cooperation from the security council when half the seats are held by the countries that pose the greatest threats to security.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
According to international law, that's what is required to authorize an invasion. Such measures are put into place to deter the abuse of power. Although I agree that there should be certain criteria to earn the priveledge of being on the security council.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 11:25 AM
There are, as you say, many reasons, but the primary reason was the immenent threat of a WMD attack from Iraq.  ... It wasn't the only reason, but it was the main scare tactic employed.

I disagree, it was not the primary reason in my prospective, their where a few primary reasons. It was however the most vocalized and capitalized reason (by the bush administration, the media, the congress it seems, the water cooler dictions).

I also do not agree that it was used as a scare tactic, because it was a legitimate reason to be scared about. We may have been wrong about it, but before the fact many many indications pointed to the fact that it was a real danger to be worried about, (and if not for us at lest for our allies to whom we are committed) – WMD aren’t a thing you can wait to see what happens with.



Quote:
 
I think she may have worded her response wrong.
That I would not have a problem agreeing with. It may be true, she may have made a mistake with her words that makes her sound ignorant on the situation.


Quote:
 
Or either you're with us or against us.
As stated by president Bush in his state of the union address or as stated by the media in bold type? If the first I disagree with your use of the phrase, if the latter I agree with your use of the phrase.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
The intelligence about the existance of WMDs was false, yet there are still some who insist that it was buried in the sand somewhere while the U.S. overran the country. I am sure they teach that in military tactics. Always bury your ace in the hole. :rolleyes:

There are several other politicians who appear ignorant on a variety of things due to the way they speak who will remain nameless. :angel:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 11:55 AM
The intelligence about the existance of WMDs was false, yet there are still some who insist that it was buried in the sand somewhere while the U.S. overran the country. I am sure they teach that in military tactics. Always bury your ace in the hole. :rolleyes:

and? if ture how does that discount anything I said?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 04:40 PM
Not of the entire world, of the security council. All rhetoric aside, we could've wait another month for the UN to finish inspections before we invaded, but we had to do it right away because we were told that there was an immenent threat of nuclear holocaust.

Personal Response

Actually there were sound military reasons (having to do with troops movements in Iraq) to do so at that time, but that's too boring to take into account when a chance to criticize presents itself.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
*sigh*

Critical or not, I am answering the Admiral's question as to whether we should've done nothing. I am saying, no, we should do something, but should be more willing to work with the UN. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 10:30 AM
Or either you're with us or against us.

As Min said, set the rhetoric aside.

The war won't be fought in the way you want it to be, so let it go. Hindsight is 20/20.

At least admit that your "rest of the world" cooperation was France and Germany.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 11:04 AM
*sigh*

Critical or not, I am answering the Admiral's question as to whether we should've done nothing. I am saying, no, we should do something, but should be more willing to work with the UN. :rolleyes:

Or MAYBE the UN should have wanted to work with us.

I noticed you haven't posted on any of the threads that had to do with the UN Oil For Food program, which has been shown to be one of the main reasons why France, Germany, Russia, and the UN were not willing to support us. It takes the phrase "Coalition of the Bribed" (so snidely used by certain members here) to a new level.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Yes, there was a UN scandal as well as a US intelligence scandal. The whole thing stinks.

We've all been over this a dozen times (probably more) as the election, the war is over, whatever my opinion on the situation is moot.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 19 2005, 05:07 PM
It takes the phrase "Coalition of the Bribed" (so snidely used by certain members here) to a new level.

Personal Response

:loling: :loling:

Very true ....

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 11:11 AM
Yes, there was a UN scandal as well as a US intelligence scandal.  The whole thing stinks.

We've all been over this a dozen times (probably more) as the election, the war is over, whatever my opinion on the situation is moot.

No, there was not a "US Intelligence scandal". There was bad intelligence, but that is no scandal.

DO NOT try and sweep the UN's O.F.F. debacle under the rug by equating it to supposedly faulty intelligence. Secondly, Saddam spent TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS bribing the UN, and the countries of France, Germany, and Russia. THIS is a scandal.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus