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 (835 Views)
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:28 PM
Dan: Interesting theory, so Hussein MEANT for us to take over Iraq.  That makes sense.  :rolleyes:

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
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
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 07:28 PM
Wichita: So I guess that's a no.

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
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
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:39 PM
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.

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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 07:49 PM
I guess the question is if you think one single nation has the legitimacy to authorize the invasion of another.

Personal Response

Exactly ... why do you think that they do?

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I don't. That's up to the UN Security Council.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 02:49 PM
I guess the question is if you think one single nation has the legitimacy to authorize the invasion of another.

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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 07:39 PM
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.

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
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
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
The Sisko
Jan 19 2005, 07:54 PM
I don't. That's up to the UN Security Council.

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 »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus