Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #1  
    with respect to Iran...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810021/

    The exact reason why often the US finds it needs to go in its own path.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    with respect to Iran...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810021/

    The exact reason why often the US finds it needs to go in its own path.
    You are right of course. Bring them on, fire away!

    By the way, what's the current percentage of Americans who think Bush's (the US if you prefer) "own path" in Iraq was clever idea? 30% or so, isn't it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #3  
    You are right of course. Bring them on, fire away!

    Or maybe we should look the other way and just give in. Maybe we should just let them make a few nukes. Maybe we should just let them go about and follow through on their threats of nuking Israel. Appeasment has always worked in the past after all, so why not now. Besides, their president seems like a rational guy.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    with respect to Iran...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810021/

    The exact reason why often the US finds it needs to go in its own path.
    Excuse me. How exactly is this a failure of the UN?
  5. #5  
    Did you really sign up just to post in the off topic forum?
    If so a generic political forum may be a better place for you..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    with respect to Iran...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810021/

    The exact reason why often the US finds it needs to go in its own path.
    So discussion and debate is failure but a unilateral approach based on poor information and possibly misinformation is not? Please...
    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
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    So discussion and debate is failure but a unilateral approach based on poor information and possibly misinformation is not? Please...
    Care to give your definition of unilateral?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Did you really sign up just to post in the off topic forum?
    If so a generic political forum may be a better place for you..
    Considering at least one poster above you has a majority of posts in OT (AFLAC coming to mind), I'm sure you'll give the same advice to them as well...
    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..."
  9. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Care to give your definition of unilateral?
    What planet are you living on?
    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
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    What planet are you living on?
    I didn't think you would give your definition on unilateral.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #11  
    eKeith,

    what unilateral action are you referring to? You do realize, there are other countries besides the U.S. with troops in iraq?
  12. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #12  
    Your thread is about the failure of the UN and your comment was a justification for the US to find its "own path". Why didn't the US allow the second UN resolution on Iraq to proceed before invading the country? Because the Bush administration knew it would go to debate and probably fail. Disregarding the UN to follow your own path is the unilateral failure. And just because a couple other countries decided to play along dosen't diminish the US leadership in that decision nor does it constitute a coalition. The deed is done and all other countries must do the honorable thing and support the cleanup effort...
    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
  13. #13  
    The failure of the UN has long been evident. From forces that stand by while hundreds of thousands of people are masacred to UN forces leading sex trade and slave trade groups. What more needs to be said?

    And how could I forget to mention rampant corruption at the highest levels?
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    Your thread is about the failure of the UN and your comment was a justification for the US to find its "own path". Why didn't the US allow the second UN resolution on Iraq to proceed before invading the country? Because the Bush administration knew it would go to debate and probably fail. Disregarding the UN to follow your own path is the unilateral failure. And just because a couple other countries decided to play along dosen't diminish the US leadership in that decision nor does it constitute a coalition. The deed is done and all other countries must do the honorable thing and support the cleanup effort...
    Yes the UN failed, they failed the world when they failed to enforce the resolutions they imposed on Saddam, this simply told every other dictator in the world that the UN has no power. If you tell your children that if they take money out of your wallet again they will be punished in this manner (name your punishment, beating, restriction, no phone whatever) and they take money from your wallet, and you way you do it again and you are really going to get it. A week later they take money out of your wallet again and you say, if you take money again you will be in trouble and once again they clean you out and you still do nothing what does that tell your other kids. The same basic principle applies here. The UN set forth resolutions, Saddam continually defied the resolutions, the UN threatened, Saddam defied again. Why would anyone else pay attention to the UN, there is no concern of reprisals.

    And, it was not a unilateral action. You have been fooled by the media.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #15  
    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...
    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
  16. #16  
    How long were we to wait to find out if WMD existed? IMO, the WMD issue was played up to garner support of the segment of the population that couldn't stomach going back into Iraq to finish the Gulf War. It was, after all, an extension to the Gulf War. Once is was clear that UNSC resolution 1441 would be repeatedly disregarded by Saddam's regime the war was inevitable.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by eKeith
    Your thread is about the failure of the UN and your comment was a justification for the US to find its "own path". Why didn't the US allow the second UN resolution on Iraq to proceed before invading the country? Because the Bush administration knew it would go to debate and probably fail.
    Uhm....the second resolution was passed on April 3rd 1991. The US, Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, etc....did not act until after the 12th resolution pass on Nov 8th 2002. To see a summary timeline of resolutions, Iraq's obstructions, etc... browse here: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...eline.htm#1991

    To claim the US went it unilaterally is simply playing twisting facts to promote a personal agenda vs simply stating the facts of what actually happened. Let's look at it from you posted point of view. If Military support from Poland, Australia, Italy, etc...don't count. And if the non military support of other countries like Japan are thrown out and ignored to prove a point. We cannot deny that the UK played a Major military role. So if we discard and ignore all the other countries who offered both military and nonmilitary support, that still leaves us with the US and the UK....again non unilateral.

    Nothing more than my observation of the facts of what happened vs the definition: acted on by only one involved party or nation
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/13/2006 at 09:56 PM.
  18. #18  
    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...
    I actually agree with most of what you said. The UN is not yet a failure with Iran....but is failing, and failing fast. I do believe that if the UN continues to fail, that the scary truth of a military option is going to continue to become more than just talk and move to threats. That is then the first step down a VERY slippery slope that can build momentum that sometimes cannot be easily stopped and reversed.

    After reading over the last 2 years plus since it was discovered that Iran had been lying to the world for the last 20 years about their nuke program, Iran has been committing to talks about some agreement, then turning everything off and saying they are going to do it anyways.... then again turn the tables back on for talks....then shut them down again, just to enter talks again.....it seems that maybe Iran is using any attempted negotiations and the UN as an excuse or cover to buy themselves more time to do whatever they want to do.

    As for Iraq and WMDs your point is well taken, but with after the fact knowledge. The point is that we did not know and that is how Saddam wanted it. He didn't want us to know he didn't have any. He did not want us to know that he had plans laid out to get them back. He did not want Iran to know they did not have any. He was holding a finger in his pocket pointing it at the world saying stop or I will shoot if you come after me. Only after he was taken down could we see it was only his finger.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/13/2006 at 11:28 PM.
  19. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Uhm....the second resolution was passed on April 3rd 1991. The US, Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, etc....did not act until after the 12th resolution pass on Nov 8th 2002. To see a summary timeline of resolutions, Iraq's obstructions, etc... browse here: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...eline.htm#1991

    To claim the US went it unilaterally is simply playing twisting facts to promote a personal agenda vs simply stating the facts of what actually happened. Let's look at it from you posted point of view. If Military support from Poland, Australia, Italy, etc...don't count. And if the non military support of other countries like Japan are thrown out and ignored to prove a point. We cannot deny that the UK played a Major military role. So if we discard and ignore all the other countries who offered both military and nonmilitary support, that still leaves us with the US and the UK....again non unilateral.

    Nothing more than my observation of the facts of what happened vs the definition: acted on by only one involved party or nation
    Thanks for the link Hobbes. However I prefer to get such information directly from the UN.

    I was specifically talking about the proposed 2nd resolution on the use of military action as proposed by France:
    "France’s representative proposed a two-stage approach. During the first stage, the Council should adopt a resolution clearly specifying the "rules of the game". That resolution should also send a clear warning to Iraq that the Council would not tolerate new violations. During the second stage, if the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observed that Iraq was refusing to cooperate fully with the inspectors, the Council should meet immediately to decide on appropriate measures to take -- ruling out no alternatives." See UN Press release of 17/10/2002.

    In the continuing debate, the majority of Security Council members supported continued and enhanced inspections as they did not yet consider the use of force justified as compliance was forthcoming:
    "In the ensuing debate, several members of the Council, including France, Russian Federation, China and Germany, supported continued and enhanced inspections as an alternative to the United States’ drive to disarm Iraq by force. France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin -- in a statement followed by applause in the Chamber –- said that the option of inspections had not been taken to the end and that the use of force against Iraq was today not justified. “No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of inspections”, he said. “No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and stable world, for war is always the sanction of failure.” See this UN Press Release of 05/02/2003 and the UN Press Release of 14/02/2003.

    However, "The United States and the United Kingdom had waged war, stated the Observer for the League of Arab States, at a time when Iraq was positively cooperating with United Nations inspectors, who had stated that they only needed a few more months to discharge their tasks. The only party authorized to disarm Iraq was the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).

    And as such, "The Security Council, holding its first debate on Iraq since hostilities began on 19 March, was called on to end the illegal aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of invading forces, by an overwhelming majority of this afternoon’s 45 speakers. Expressing regret that diplomacy had failed to resolve the question of Iraq’s disarmament, speakers emphasized that the current war, carried out without Council authorization, was a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Many stressed they could not understand how the Council could remain silent in the face of the aggression by two of its permanent members against another United Nations Member State". See this UN Press Release of 26/03/2003.
    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
  20. eKeith's Avatar
    Posts
    759 Posts
    Global Posts
    779 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ... As for Iraq and WMDs your point is well taken, but with after the fact knowledge. The point is that we did not know ...
    And that is why the majority of UN Security Council members urged for more time for the inspectors before military action was determined.
    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
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions