 |
|  |
 |
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003 time: 23:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kramerman
I reiterate:
|
You are trying to get me into a corner since I have been quick to point out the US's many failures yet seem never to recognize it's successes. Nice try but no cigar.
The UN has been given the role to maintain world security and order AMONG OTHER THINGS, the security issue is something it has failed to do during conflicts regarding the great powers as I have previously stated. On the other hand, there is no international intitution which grants these rights to the United States. Unlike the UN, the US chooses to do things on behalf ot its own interests, not those of the world community. Therefore, a US "success" can more accurately be described as a success in its foreign policy for the safeguarding of its interests, not as a success to rid the world of some evil. Intent - side-effect. Like in the Iraq example, if freedom is given to the Iraqi people, it is only a side-effect from a conflict waged for less than noble reasons which we have argued about enough so far.
Thus, now I ask you to reiterate, how if you believe the US to have failed and succeeded, why the UN has only failed 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:27
|
|
quote: Thus, now I ask you to reiterate, how if you believe the US to have failed and succeeded, why the UN has only failed |
I never said anything about the UN failing or succeeding.. i actually agree with you on the point that it does both... nobody is perfect.
quote: Kramerman, there is no evidence to support the fact that the US would not totally obliterate Iraq if they decided to use WMD. |
This could only feasiblely happen if Iraq uses them on the US... Saddam aint that stupid!!! Rather, Saddam would threaten Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or any other neighboring countries that it is not invading. If a coalition moves in to remove him, he could threaten to take out one of those countries.
quote: . If Iraq used these weapons the response would have made the most massive bombing of Baghdad seem like bird droppings. |
This possibility is still even unlikely if Saddam used WoMD directly on the US. By nuking Baghdad, we would just inflame the world, even if it was a retaliation...
quote: Even crazy dictators are not that stupid |
yes, i know this. that is why i dont even begin to suspect that Saddam would openly use them on the US... and probably not on Israel either.
quote: If Iraq built WMD it would have been for its own deterrent, not for aggression. |
yes, it would be a deterrent against a coalition to remove saddam from a country(ies) in which he has invaded.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Master Zen
Mr. Hans Blix, the only person authorized to say whether Iraq had been in material breach of resolution 1441 never said those words. He even up to his last report said that Iraq had increasinly collaborated with the inspectors. BTW, where are the WMD? Oh, right, they are in Syria now... nice excuse. |
I believe your point is that Saddam was justified in relying on what Blix was requiring even though he knew the US, the UK and Spain, among others, were going to go to war if he did not comply in the manner of the 5 points? What was he thinking? --that France, Germany and Russia would go to war with 50+ countries lead by the US in order to protect him? Didn't he take George Bush seriously. And, if he did not, why not?
The only thing I can think of is that Saddam either is crazy or wilfully misinformed by his advisors. The last part may be the more likely answer given that dictators like to kill bearers of bad tidings.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003 time: 23:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
I believe your point is that Saddam was justified in relying on what Blix was requiring even though he knew the US, the UK and Spain, among others, were going to go to war if he did not comply in the manner of the 5 points? What was he thinking? --that France, Germany and Russia would go to war with 50+ countries lead by the US in order to protect him? Didn't he take George Bush seriously. And, if he did not, why not?
The only thing I can think of is that Saddam either is crazy or wilfully misinformed by his advisors. The last part may be the more likely answer given that dictators like to kill bearers of bad tidings. |
Saddam had to show the world he was at least a little willing to comply with the resolution. Iraq could have just said screw you, you're going to invade me anyway so do it now. That would have not been very favorable to world opinion. If you ask me, the war started at the preciesely exact timing in which had the US delayed, it would have soured its foreign policy to an unacceptable level. The war could not have come at a better time in which the interests of the US and Iraq reached a certain equilibrium, not too soon nor too late.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
I dont think its a double standard, I think we're just speaking in terms the other members of the UN can understand.
afterall they are use to just saying things and claim that they have this vast coalition of ppl saying things against the US. so the US fights back w/ its own coalition of ppl saying things.
hardly a double standard.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
chegi off topic, but ever since u claim that bush didnt win the presidential election I haven't taken u very seriously. sometimes toning it down gets ppl to listen to u more.
sorta random but meh
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
whoever started at whispering and moved to screaming thinking it would help is the bigger idiot than the person who is being belligerent.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
ok zen u officially lose "only after screaming can u recognize the mule"
thats not very good at all=[
=P
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
Now Chi, you know very well there were some complex and mysterious geopolitical reasons behind that event. Couldn't possibly be anything as simple as an insatiable desire for power.....
As to the rest, GePap, you asked me earlier if I thought that Marx was "right." No, he was not. On the other hand, there are professionals by the thousand here in America, and all across the globe that make a living out of collecting facts about groups of people, and using those facts to extrapolate the probable actions of FUTURE people in that same category. The most high profile of these professionals are those who profile serial killers, and their work has resulted in an extremely high "catch rate" of these folk.
Why is that? Could it be that they're onto something? That identifying common patterns of behavior *does* have predictive value.
Of course. That should be blatantly obvious, even to you. If it's not....well, back to dreamland I s'pose.....
Invasion: Obviously during the invasion inself, there cannot be any sort of minimized military presence. I didn't specifically say that, because I thought it was probably rather self evident. Apparently not.
But the purpose behind it was after the invasion, we could dramatically reduce our military presence. Further, you have just outlined a fatal flaw in your lovely containment theory.
Yes....it was working. And we had NO idea how long we'd have to keep it up, did we? Maybe his son, and their sons, and their grandsons, and THEIR grandsons would all have made it to power. Given the father's stance toward the US, it is unlikely that his sons would have a radically altered opinion, since the family has been a part of daddy's inner circle since they've been able to hook up cables to a car battery to assist with a torture or three. I think it's a safe bet to say that he's made quite sure his political view "run in the family" as it were.
But....as I say....since this is obviously a deep, baffling mystery to you....so be it. Just don't be alarmed when there are those of us who aren't so confused.....
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
ur smoking crack if u think I"m jumping into this w/ u now. like I sed, was just a random comment. I was not inviting u to argue. nor did I want to.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
I never said in my original post that u were lying, just that being radical^3 can cause ppl to turn u off. and sometimes toning it down will get u a lot more results.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
hehe yes but by then I was just replying to u! u had already started see.
ha!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
Now Chi, you know very well there were some complex and mysterious geopolitical reasons behind that event. Couldn't possibly be anything as simple as an insatiable desire for power.....
As to the rest, GePap, you asked me earlier if I thought that Marx was "right." No, he was not. On the other hand, there are professionals by the thousand here in America, and all across the globe that make a living out of collecting facts about groups of people, and using those facts to extrapolate the probable actions of FUTURE people in that same category. The most high profile of these professionals are those who profile serial killers, and their work has resulted in an extremely high "catch rate" of these folk.
Why is that? Could it be that they're onto something? That identifying common patterns of behavior *does* have predictive value.
Of course. That should be blatantly obvious, even to you. If it's not....well, back to dreamland I s'pose.....
Invasion: Obviously during the invasion inself, there cannot be any sort of minimized military presence. I didn't specifically say that, because I thought it was probably rather self evident. Apparently not.
But the purpose behind it was after the invasion, we could dramatically reduce our military presence. Further, you have just outlined a fatal flaw in your lovely containment theory.
Yes....it was working. And we had NO idea how long we'd have to keep it up, did we? Maybe his son, and their sons, and their grandsons, and THEIR grandsons would all have made it to power. Given the father's stance toward the US, it is unlikely that his sons would have a radically altered opinion, since the family has been a part of daddy's inner circle since they've been able to hook up cables to a car battery to assist with a torture or three. I think it's a safe bet to say that he's made quite sure his political view "run in the family" as it were.
But....as I say....since this is obviously a deep, baffling mystery to you....so be it. Just don't be alarmed when there are those of us who aren't so confused.....
-=Vel=- |
At first, i was going to reply point by point, but you know what..lets agree to disagree. I keep saying one thing, and you keep saying another. Whatever.
Che and yavoon... discussing whether shrub was elected or installed by a judiciary coup de etat is not for this thread. Thank you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|