French Diplomats go on strike

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
I see. So if these resolutions said that we (did it say USA?) must enforce it, we basically disregarded Article VII for 12 years?

 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
the Iraqi resolutions stated something about "serious consequenses"

there is a lot of debate if "serious consequenses" meant

we are going to bomb the hell out of you and occupy a country with 120.000 troops for 5+ years

specialists in international law are still debating if the war was legit but I'm sure you're an expert in these matters
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
the Iraqi resolutions stated something about "serious consequenses"

there is a lot of debate if "serious consequenses" meant
Is one of those meanings "no consequences"?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
the Iraqi resolutions stated something about "serious consequenses"

there is a lot of debate if "serious consequenses" meant

we are going to bomb the hell out of you and occupy a country with 120.000 troops for 5+ years

specialists in international law are still debating if the war was legit but I'm sure you're an expert in these matters
it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force. If the US made an article VII resolution calling for all chinese to chew bubblegum on the 25th of december and it passed, the SC would have the right to use force to make the chinese abide by that order.

The french, russians, and chinese knew what category resolution 1441 fell under and still signed it. Article VI, however, is more like a suggestion or recommendation than an order.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Dari, can you hook me up with a link or something? I looked around UN.org but didn't really find anything describing what 'Article VII' means.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Dari, can you hook me up with a link or something? I looked around UN.org but didn't really find anything describing what 'Article VII' means.
do a search on invoking Chapter VII or Article VII resolutions (united nations).
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Is this what you are talking about Dari? This is Chapter 7 of the UN charter.


*******************************************************


CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/ii]

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this what you are talking about Dari? This is Chapter 7 of the UN charter.


*******************************************************


CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

Article 47

1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.

2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.

3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.

4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.[/ii]


sounds familiar. where is your link?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
UN charter

If this is what you've been talking about, perhaps you could show me where it says what you say it does.

<<Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.>>

 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
No. Tell me.

I don't think you understand me.
Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.
the Iraqi resolutions stated something about "serious consequenses"

there is a lot of debate if "serious consequenses" meant
Is one of those meanings "no consequences"?
no but where does it say that you can invade a sovereign country and occupy it.
please show me

thx

 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Wha exactly is the problem with france? They are a very democratic country with decent industry... my time there in the south..in montpelier..was great. Good food, good service (not these bad french waiter rumors), and very nice people. Guess if you got green though everyones nice. (ie tourists).. Germany OTOH was rude, cold, distant people with crap for resturants.
theyre socialist. the govt controls EVERYTHING!

The resolutions, IMO, had absolutely nothing to do with why we went to war. There is a world of difference between going to war because of resolutions and going to war using resolutions as a reason.
but they passed resolution 1441 right before the war. and the US kept referencing resolution 1441 as a basis for action. at least thats what I pulled from newscasts and radio and such.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
they still got their asses handed to them on a plate (to use a colourful american impression.)
It's "on a platter".. and colorful expression:)
Hah! :D You got me...... (takes notes.. apart from stupid american spelling... ;) )
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dpm People overlook the fact that Germany at the time had the finest land fighting organisation in the world, with a new strategy that was nothing less than a RMA - far better that that of Britain or France, and certainly far better than the USA. People overlook the fact that Britain would certainly have been defeated too, if it hadn't been for the English Channel. If the US hadn't had the atlantic between them and mainland europe, there's a good chance that they'd have surrendered too. (I know, I know, things would have been different, but still) Bear in mind, that when the US first came to fight the Germans, in North africa , they still got their asses handed to them on a plate (to use a colourful american impression.) -- even after a couple of years to study the germans and practise. The Germans were simply damn good at what they were doing, and the rest of the world had to struggle to catch up. We today are just lucky that we for the existance of the english channel and the atlantic ocean, thats all. And before anyone asks - I'm not french. But I have lived in both France and America, so I think I'm pretty unbiased here.
Of course, a responsible US President (in a hypothetical non-Atlantic Ocean/Western Europe world), seeing the likely possibility for a mega threat like that would have invaded Germany and deposed Hitler before anything really bad had a chance to happen. And France would have bitched the whole time. Ironic, eh?
That sort of thing is very interesting to think about, isn't it? A change in geography like that would have had such far reaching repercussions that its hard to quantify, but there would certainly have had to be a radical change in the American character, its essential belief in the benefits of isolationism. Which would have made a difference in the First world war as well. Of course, in this case, the USA would never have achieved Independance - possibly never have wanted it in the first place.

But to answer your hypothesis - do you think that really would have happened? I think FDR was a pretty responsible president, yet who knows how long he would have waited to declare war if Japan hadn't attacked? Looking back on it, Germany was a clear danger to the USA - it was clear that once it had conquered Europe its main aim was the USA. And if it *had* conquered Europe (without the intervention of the USA, I think it pretty clear that it would have - and at least conquered Russia as far as the Urals), It would be in a good position to challenge America - think how dangerous Russia was - a German conquered Europe would have been ten times worse. Looking back, it seems irresponsible that America waited until it was forced into the war, but then the actions of all the allies seems irresponsible.

In France's defense, at least it drew a line in the sand (along with Britain) before it was itself attacked, and then stood by its word.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Gen,
theyre socialist. the govt controls EVERYTHING!


No country is socialist. There never has been a socialist country only business like employee owned firms southwest airlines where employees vote on thier bosses and leadership. France like us is capitalist society with a democracy.. Learning the terms of the debate would be a good start: Here's a great primmer to start with:

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.
Text
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
UN charter

If this is what you've been talking about, perhaps you could show me where it says what you say it does.

<<Well, unlike most resolutions authorized by the United Nations Security, Article VII resolutions sanctions force to carry out such resolutions. Most UN resolutions condemning israel fell under article VI, which doesn't aurhorize force. All UN resolutions against Iraq fell under article VII.>>

Re-read the text without the diplo-speak and you will see that force is sanctioned to carry our Chapter VII resolutions. Or would you like me to spell it out for you?
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Gen,
theyre socialist. the govt controls EVERYTHING!


No country is socialist. There never has been a socialist country only business like employee owned firms southwest airlines where employees vote on thier bosses and leadership. France like us is capitalist society with a democracy.. Learning the terms of the debate would be a good start: Here's a great primmer to start with:

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.
Text
LOL what a crock! socialists always present the same tired excuse for socialism never working. it is always pathetically easy to refute.

socialism calls for the gradual metamorphasis from other ideaologies such as capitlism, the always and constant failing of nations such as the union of soviet SOCIALIST republics (USSR) is that in the transitional phase from private ownership to communal or social ownership ends in a dictatorship or oligarchy because at the point to where the goverment has total power, those in control of the governemnt do let let go of it...thus arriving at the dictatorships and oligarchies. history constantly demonstrates this to be correct, but socialists being among the most plain stupid of all creatures will never learn this, they and when confronted with the historical failure of this idiotic political dogma, always say "well socialism never has been tried"

this quote from that article:

"Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all."

comes straight from the communist manifesto, and even the definition of "communism" in the merriam webster dictionary, to quote:

"a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably "



the simple fact is it has been tried repeatedly and failed dismally...and it always will.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<spell it out for you?>>

Yes, please. :)

I see a lot of 'shall' and 'may' and 'should'.


I guess the reason I'm being such a doubting Thomas here Dari is because I don't recall anyone using this argument before...including the administration. Is it possible you're wrong? You seem to be a little reluctant. Is it another matter of interpretation, and your interpretation (along with your mentor's I assume) is a little skewed from others?
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Gen,
theyre socialist. the govt controls EVERYTHING!


No country is socialist. There never has been a socialist country only business like employee owned firms southwest airlines where employees vote on thier bosses and leadership. France like us is capitalist society with a democracy.. Learning the terms of the debate would be a good start: Here's a great primmer to start with:

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.
Text
Zebo, wtf are you talking about? the govt controls jobs, controls transportation, and controls the media. the definition of socialism i know [ Socialism ] clearly fits that description. all the govt of france needs to do now is control the means of production for food and consumer goods and they are truely a socialist state.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<spell it out for you?>>

Yes, please. :)

I see a lot of 'shall' and 'may' and 'should'.


I guess the reason I'm being such a doubting Thomas here Dari is because I don't recall anyone using this argument before...including the administration. Is it possible you're wrong? You seem to be a little reluctant. Is it another matter of interpretation, and your interpretation (along with your mentor's I assume) is a little skewed from others?
Like I said earlier, you have to take away the diplo-speak and decipher their true meanings. Diplomats speak in vague languages so that their meaning can be anything within a certain scope. If anything, they will never be explicit.If you've never worked for a large bureaucratic entity or gov't agency, I'd doubt you'd understand what I'm saying. You won't find any UN declaration where their intentions are layed out clearly for Joe Sixpack to understand. Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant. However, overtime, these (UN) interpretations solidify and it becomes common knowledge, through precedent, what lies behind those esoteric words.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant.>>

I see. So it really is a matter of interpretation. Ask yourself this Dari, why are you (and your mentor) the only ones who are expressing this opinion?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant.>>

I see. So it really is a matter of interpretation. Ask yourself this Dari, why are you (and your mentor) the only ones who are expressing this opinion?
WTF is the deal with this mentor thing? What does my mentor have to do with this?

And what makes you think only a few are expressing these opinions? Go to the UN and listen to these people speak. You'll come out more confused than when you went in. Luckily, for you, I'm here to translate (;))

BTW, diplomats only have their words to go by, so it has to be both powerful and vague. That allows the narrator to narrow his opinion if he so chooses.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant.>>

I see. So it really is a matter of interpretation. Ask yourself this Dari, why are you (and your mentor) the only ones who are expressing this opinion?
sidetracking is a form os doublespeak gaard... ;)

perhaps this will make it easier for you

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

that is not bush being quoted, that is CLINTON laying out his reasons for attacking iraq in 1998. now if clinton was justified in commiting acts of war against the nation of iraq "based on existing U.N. resolutions" why all of a sudden is it "illegal" for bush to do the same thing for the same reasons?

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back and say exactly what they meant.>>

I see. So it really is a matter of interpretation. Ask yourself this Dari, why are you (and your mentor) the only ones who are expressing this opinion?
sidetracking is a form os doublespeak gaard... ;)

perhaps this will make it easier for you

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

that is not bush being quoted, that is CLINTON laying out his reasons for attacking iraq in 1998. now if clinton was justified in commiting acts of war against the nation of iraq "based on existing U.N. resolutions" why all of a sudden is it "illegal" for bush to do the same thing for the same reasons?
Because it's based on his interpretition (suspicions) of Bush's motives, not of existing international law.

Gaard: "If Clinton did it, it must've been for the right reason."
Gaard: "Bush went to war to help out his cronies in the M.I.C., oil industry, and as revenge for 9/11"
Dari: "As stupid as that sound, do you really believe it?"
Gaard: "Yes, I do."
Dari: "Wow"
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
It must be late...I have absolutely no idea what you just said. Were you excercising some sort of sidetracking/doublespeak?

Oh, and just for the record, you still haven't pointed out exactly where Chapter VII confirms your theory.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY