| 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: |
| Solid proof that Sen. Boxer is a liar or ignorant | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 19 2005, 01:21 AM (835 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Jan 19 2005, 02:35 PM Post #76 |
|
Time to put something here
|
No I am sure he wished non of this happened, but he knew it was going to. He meant to scare us away form the get go by telling us that he had WMDs and that he would use them, but when that didn’t stop us and it was evident we where coming in like it or not, he may have come up with the above thought. You asked why he didn’t use his WMDs if he had them. The explanation does make sense (if you keep your mind open to other possibilities). :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 19 2005, 02:35 PM Post #77 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I am simply pointing out that an assumption has been made without any evidence to justify it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 19 2005, 02:37 PM Post #78 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
But Sisko - aren't you also making assumptions without any proof to back them up. History suggests that the stalling would continue. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 19 2005, 02:37 PM Post #79 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Holy Smoke! You have seriously never heard of the attack on US forces at Pearl Harbor? Yikes! It's pretty hard to make the rest of my point until you get up to speed on that situation. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 19 2005, 02:39 PM Post #80 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I don't know if it would or wouldn't. Blix said he wanted 30 days. I am saying we should have given it to him to show our willingness to cooperate with the UN. It seems that is an unpopular opinion, but I think the US is sometimes unwilling to cooperate with the rest of the world on various issues including this one. That's all. Wichita: :rolleyes: Please. I studied to be a history teacher. Please explain how Pearl Harbor, the attack of the Japanese 60 years prior is evidence that the UN, who didn't exist at the time would continue stalling the invasion of Iraq. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 19 2005, 02:46 PM Post #81 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Actually, the US DID demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the UN. What is at question is should they be required to cooperate on the UN's timetable (endlessly) or they permitted sovereignty to make their own decisions on when enough is enough. For example, the first relief arrived via US helicopters to remote regions of the tsunami area within a week. To do so required the reassignment of a US aircraft carrier group (no easy task). Had the US waited for the UN to make a decision on whether or not it should be reassigned, who knows when those flights would have started. UN aid is still getting underway although the US, Australians, Indians, and a variety of other countries have been doing it for several weeks. By going ahead with the reassignment - and connecting with the UN later to coordinate efforts, the US was able to get the flights started at least 1 -2 weeks quicker. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 19 2005, 02:49 PM Post #82 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Maybe, but the other nations (which do not make up the whole world) don’t make it easy, when they themselves do not cooperate on various issues including this one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 19 2005, 02:49 PM Post #83 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I guess the question is if you think one single nation has the legitimacy to authorize the invasion of another. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 19 2005, 02:53 PM Post #84 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Exactly ... why do you think that they do? End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 19 2005, 02:54 PM Post #85 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I don't. That's up to the UN Security Council. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 19 2005, 02:55 PM Post #86 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Where did one single nation authorized the invasion of another - seems to me we are working with a coalition of nations that include some of the top respected nations in the world. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 19 2005, 02:56 PM Post #87 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Good - then you are well aware of the stalling tactics used by the Japanese and their similiarity to those employed by the Iraqi's. The only thing different is the name of the organization used. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 19 2005, 02:56 PM Post #88 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Trying to change the topic again, I see. Here's the deal: We didn't have a peace treaty with Iraq. We had a truce after the first Gulf War. We didn't need the UN to justify attacking Saddam Hussein, WE DID IT AS A COURTESY. So, it was NOT up to the UN security council, it was up to THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 19 2005, 02:58 PM Post #89 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
So we do have the legitimacy to authorize the invasion of sovreign nations. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks AB. Wichita: Point taken, but were there League of Nations inspectors in Japan investigating them at the time? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 19 2005, 02:59 PM Post #90 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Where France - by virtue of its veto power - can decide whether or not an invasion occurs. What single power greater does France currently have? Certainly, given the massive bribery of the Oil-for-Food program, it has paid off for them economically. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


9:46 AM Jul 11