Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:26:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1254 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
Note: The “consequences” did not include what happened (i.e. armed
intervention).
|
From what I can tell, the consequences didn’t really amount to much other than
saying “Stop, or I’ll say ‘stop’ again!” If the UN wants to be taken
seriously, they need to stick to their own decisions, and follow up on their
resolutions in some tangible way.
|
No, they need to ignore debates based on flawed intelligence.
| |
| |
That is a rather subjective view.
|
Just because the UN fails to enforce their resolutions doesn’t mean those
resolutions are invalidated. The US may not have had a UN mandate ordering
them to attack, but they certainly had a broken UN mandate ordering SH to
comply with the legally binding terms of his surrender.
|
Are you saying that mandate was still valid?
| |
| |
What did SH do whilst Clinton was running things that was worth even lobbing
missiles at?
|
Aside from continuing to hinder UNSCOM, we didn’t really know. Maybe nothing,
maybe funding WMD research. The point is that he accepted the terms of his
surrender and pointedly defied them, while the Clinton missile-lobbing tactic
was only serving to embolden him.
|
So Clinton should have done less; not more?
| |
| |
I hear they have returned. ;-(
|
I’m considerably less than shocked to hear that. England still came back
nearly 40 years after the American Revolution and tried to subjugate us again,
Scotland is under British control despite having won freedom from them in
1314...
|
Britain comprises Scotland, England and Wales (i.e. Britain can’t subjugate
Scotland as it is part of it). Scotland is now a willing part of the UK; the
Queen even has a < http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page559.asp palace> just 5
miles from where I sit.
Did your SAT test cover geography? ;)
| |
| |
... or because they were CIA spooks rather than independent experts…
|
If it was a case
|
It was.
| |
of them refusing on the grounds of CIA infiltrators, they
should have singled them out and refused entry to just those people. Turning
|
I think that is what he tried to do.
| |
| |
Even if the Iraqis did not want the war?
|
The Iraqi people wanted SH overthrown. They may not have wanted war
|
That did not. But guess what; nobody ever asked them what they wanted.
| |
| |
Which countries are we talking about?
|
France and Germany come to mind right away. Both nations were very vocal in
condemning the US for initiating military action, both nations ended up in the
“well, we’re glad he’s gone...but you still shouldn’t have done it” camp, both
nations demanded to be involved in the reconstruction, and both nations have
been grumbling about the whole situation since then.
|
This view appears very subjective.
Scott A
| |
And after the results of 9-11, if they thought there was any other possible
outcome to this situation, they should be voted out of office ASAP for gross
incompetence. Bush Jr. may have been looking for an excuse to invade, but the
UN handed it to him on a silver platter and then collectively washed their
hands.
|
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
