Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92
  1. #21  
    Let's stick to Iran for the most part in this thread. If you want to rehash the last 2 years of debates on these same Iraq topics here are some links and threads you can start with:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Here it is again. Saddam welcomed us into his country with open arms willing to expose any corner at the whim of inspectors. Bush lied but everyone else saying the same thing must have been due to their naive unwavering belief in every word he said, because they said the same thing....of course that doesn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ....man here it comes again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and.....

    With this point always coming up on a regular basis with several different approaches, I have replied to it in extreme detail several times over. Instead of requoting everything, Here are some links for you to review and respond in the appropiate Iraq threads where this has been hammered out over and over and over and over and over again...:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=289 -- WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...5&postcount=49 -- Blixt reports

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=290 -- Timeline of US policy on Iraq

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=202 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=206 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=47 -- Iraq accountability for WMDs lack of full disclosure of all their WMD activities

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=215 -- World Intelligence of WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=306 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=292 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=294 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=296 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...&postcount=307 -- Iraq and Terrorists & WMDs

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=50 -- Should have gone after Iran instead of Iraq

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=629 -- Expanded list of links (some are the same as above)
    .
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    And that is why the majority of UN Security Council members urged for more time for the inspectors before military action was determined.
    Uh, no. The majority of the UN Security Council members urged for more time so they could suck more money out of the food for oil scam.
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #23  
    Excuse me. How exactly is this a failure of the UN?
    your right DaT, its a roaring success.
  4. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Let's stick to Iran for the most part in this thread...
    Good point... got carried away there with my response...
    Iran is asking for trouble...
    ... but so did North Korea...
    Current Phones: Unlocked AT&T Pre3; Samsung Galaxy Nexus i9250; HTC Desire A8181
    Current Tablets: Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 183825U; HP TouchPad 32GB w/ACL
    Previous Devices: Unlocked UK Pre3; HTC Touch Diamond; Palm Unlocked GSM Treo 680; PalmOne Unlocked GSM 650; Palm Tungsten T3 w/PalmOne WiFi Card, PowerToGo and ASUS WL-330g; 3Com Palm III; Sony Clie N760C
  5. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Uh, no. The majority of the UN Security Council members urged for more time so they could suck more money out of the food for oil scam.
    Can't argue with that motive too...
    Current Phones: Unlocked AT&T Pre3; Samsung Galaxy Nexus i9250; HTC Desire A8181
    Current Tablets: Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 183825U; HP TouchPad 32GB w/ACL
    Previous Devices: Unlocked UK Pre3; HTC Touch Diamond; Palm Unlocked GSM Treo 680; PalmOne Unlocked GSM 650; Palm Tungsten T3 w/PalmOne WiFi Card, PowerToGo and ASUS WL-330g; 3Com Palm III; Sony Clie N760C
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    I agree about the UN as failing in general but IMHO it is premature to label the current debate on Iran as a failure.

    Furthermore, past UN failures do not justify past actions by the US RE: Iraq. In fact, I believe the UN and US are close to justifying military action against Iran whereas the action against Iraq was premature IMHO as evident by the lack of WMD...
    A very sensible post. I appreciate you state that it is your opinon that the US invaded prematurely. Numerous posters state that as fact. With the information available at the time, I feel (in my opinon) it was the right thing to do, I thought that on my flight into the region at the time also. I have not seen it posted here, but even Saddams generals have stated that they were led to believe they had WMDs until after the invasion. This was stated by them during the trial this past week (sorry I do not have a cite I heard it on NPR)
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    your right DaT, its a roaring success.

    You wanna answer the question? How is what you referenced a failure of the UN?
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    your right DaT, its a roaring success.
    In comparison to the situation in Iraq, it may well turn out to be that, who knows?

    Besides, don't forget that Ahmadinejad is walking on thin ice, his support in Iran is not strong. A few more months without economic progress for the Iranians may solve at least that problem...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    In comparison to the situation in Iraq, it may well turn out to be that, who knows?

    Besides, don't forget that Ahmadinejad is walking on thin ice, his support in Iran is not strong. A few more months without economic progress for the Iranians may solve at least that problem...
    You are right about Ahmandinejad walking on thin ice. He does not have the total control over the Iranian people as Saddam did over the Iraqi people. So trying to compare Iraq and Iran does not work in that regard. Comparing how the UN is handeling the situation may however be similar.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    A very sensible post. I appreciate you state that it is your opinon that the US invaded prematurely. Numerous posters state that as fact. With the information available at the time, I feel (in my opinon) it was the right thing to do, I thought that on my flight into the region at the time also. I have not seen it posted here, but even Saddams generals have stated that they were led to believe they had WMDs until after the invasion. This was stated by them during the trial this past week (sorry I do not have a cite I heard it on NPR)
    Well said: We must always appreciate the liberties we have such as sharing our diverse opinions without fear as we are fortunate to be living in the free world...
    Current Phones: Unlocked AT&T Pre3; Samsung Galaxy Nexus i9250; HTC Desire A8181
    Current Tablets: Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet 183825U; HP TouchPad 32GB w/ACL
    Previous Devices: Unlocked UK Pre3; HTC Touch Diamond; Palm Unlocked GSM Treo 680; PalmOne Unlocked GSM 650; Palm Tungsten T3 w/PalmOne WiFi Card, PowerToGo and ASUS WL-330g; 3Com Palm III; Sony Clie N760C
  11. #31  
    Today's UN and Iran relationship development:

    Iran's Top Leader: Nuclear Program Is 'Irreversible'

    TEHRAN, Iran — Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that Tehran's nuclear program was "irreversible" and warned that any retreat in the face of international pressure would "break the country's independence."

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took the tough line over the nuclear program hours before the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were to hold discussions on what action to take if Iran doesn't back away from its atomic ambitions.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed to resist pressure from the U.N. Security Council over the program,

    -------------------------

    "The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue ... as breaking the country's independence, which will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," state television quoted Khamenei as saying to diplomats brought home from its embassies around the world for consultations with Iranian leaders.

    "Any retreat at this point will bring an unending chain of pressures and further retreats. Therefore, this path is irreversible and the foreign policy establishment has to bravely defend Iran's right," he said.

    In a nationally televised speech in northern Iran, Ahmadinejad said "no power" can take nuclear technology away from Iran.

    -------------------

    Moscow has been trying to convince Tehran to accept a U.S.-backed compromise proposal under which uranium enrichment for Iran's nuclear program would take place in Russia. But negotiations ended in a stalemate after Tehran rejected a Russian demand to suspend uranium enrichment activities at home.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday that Moscow was "very disappointed with the way Iran has been conducting itself in these negotiations."

    "One day they reject it, the other day they don't," he said. (NOTE: That is just what I said above!)

    FULL STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187773,00.html
  12. #32  
    UN Succeeds Again

    U.N. Approves New Human Rights Council

    U.N. member states ignored U.S. opposition and overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council on Wednesday, attempting to strengthen the world body's machinery to deal with major human rights offenders.

    The vote in the 191-member General Assembly was 170-4, with three abstentions.

    The Bush administration refused to back the new council, saying it was not the radical reform needed to ensure that countries like Cuba, Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe — known as rights abusers — were barred from membership.

    U.S. officials said Washington does not support withholding money from the U.N. budget that will fund the new council, but no decision has been made on whether it will seek a seat on the new council.
    .
    .
    .
    ----------------------------------
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Out of curiousity, why do you view this as a success? Seems they're just replacing one ineffective body with a spiffy new (and probably equally ineffective) body, but we'll see.

    Not picking a fight, just want to hear you opine.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #34  
    I am not sure this is to be deemed a success yet. One council is being replaced by another council. No real change in criteria, it says the human rights records will be reviewed, big deal, does not say if you are gross violater you will be removed, just reviewed. Not impressed.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Out of curiousity, why do you view this as a success? Seems they're just replacing one ineffective body with a spiffy new (and probably equally ineffective) body, but we'll see.

    Not picking a fight, just want to hear you opine.
    The single nation with the most wealth did NOT get to shove their druthers through.

    I consider 170 - 4 to represent the overwhelming choice of the planet.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The single nation with the most wealth did NOT get to shove their druthers through.

    I consider 170 - 4 to represent the overwhelming choice of the planet.
    So, because it went against US wishes, it was a success? Wow!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    So, because it went against US wishes, it was a success? Wow!
    Yes, exactly. For the reasons I stated. If that doesn't promote democracy to the World I don't know what would.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, exactly. For the reasons I stated. If that doesn't promote democracy to the World I don't know what would.
    To hel! with human rights, the vote went against what the USA stood for. SUCCESS!!!!!! WOO HOO!!!!!!!

    You are amazing
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  19. #39  
    Will Sudan, that well known paragon of human rights, chair this committee? Maybe it is Somalia's turn?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    To hel! with human rights, the vote went against what the USA stood for. SUCCESS!!!!!! WOO HOO!!!!!!!

    You are amazing
    Why is what I'm saying to hell with human rights? I;m applauding this:
    "A year ago, Secretary-General
    Kofi Annan proposed replacing the widely criticized and highly politicized U.N. Human Rights Commission, which has allowed some of the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect one another from condemnation.

    The Human Rights Council, approved Wednesday, is a watered-down version of Annan's vision. But the secretary-general still called it "historic," and human rights groups welcomed its creation.

    "This gives the
    United Nations the chance — a much-needed chance — to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world," Annan said in a statement.

    While no country will be satisfied with everything in the resolution establishing the new council, he said it provides "a solid foundation on which all who are truly committed to the cause of human rights must now build."

    AND the fact that the wealthiest nation didn't get to push around the rest of the World. Democracy.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions