French Diplomats go on strike

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
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 of 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.
yes, whoever heard of precedent having anything to do with law! it is not like many judges when making a decision EVER look for cases similar to thiers that preceeded them to help them in their judgments! ;) ROFL!

time for sleep.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
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.

you were jsut provided an example precedent that was being discussed, and asked a direct question about it, here it is again.

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, BASED ON EXISTING UN 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."

again..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 and the same resolutions?

let me add this to the mix m the same speech givin to the american people explaining why CLINTON attacking iraq

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. ringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."



hmmm..sounds familiar....
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
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.

you were jsut provided an example precedent that was being discussed, and asked a direct question about it, here it is again.

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, BASED ON EXISTING UN 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."

again..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 and the same resolutions?

let me add this to the mix m the same speech givin to the american people explaining why CLINTON attacking iraq

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. ringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."



hmmm..sounds familiar....
so according to you Bill Clinton had an invasion in mind and a 5+ year occupation ???

yeah right



 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
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.>>
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.
Here it is. The keyword in your arguement is the word "may". If force is to be an option then the resolution will be passed with article VII in mind. Now, IMHO whether "an option" = "an intent" is the only arguement you could make from this that makes any sense.

Andy
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
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?

My apologies Shad0hawk. I really must've been tired last night because I thought this was part of Dari's ramblings. (ramblings = some kind of fictitious conversation between he and I).

First I'd like to point out these 3 parts of Clinton's quote...

1) based on existing U.N. resolutions - I assume he's saying that these resolutions gave him the right to do whatever he wants? Because he's not specific at all what he's going to do.

2) and Iraq's own commitments - what are these? If they are important enough to use as an excuse to launch some missiles at another country, aren't they important enough to specify?

3) we would be prepared to act without delay - On par with 'serious consequences' IMO. If he had sent our troops in there, or tightened santions, or increased our vigilance in guarding the no-fly zones, would they all be acts?

That being said, and my questions asked, I say that, even though those who constantly use Clinton's attack as a comparison to Bush's war fail to see the obvious differences, for Clinton to justify the attack by citing resolutions was wrong.



 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
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.

Time after time, in thread after thread, you state that Article VII automatically gives us the authority to use force against Iraq. Yet, you've never said "This part here...XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX...is where it gives the authorization." Would you say that this part..... 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.
.....is the part you're talking about? Of course not. ;) There must be a specific part of the chapter that gives you reason to keep saying what you do. Or let me guess. Your mentor told you that this chapter automatically gives authorization, and you never really understood where.

Oh, and about the mentor thing. You brought it upon yourself, IMO. What's with some of your posts? Either someone is telling you what to say or someone else is using your account. Just look at the post that I quoted and compare it to this post by you. (I could get Luvly in here to do a comparison and tell us if it's the same person. ;) )




 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
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.

Time after time, in thread after thread, you state that Article VII automatically gives us the authority to use force against Iraq. Yet, you've never said "This part here...XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX...is where it gives the authorization." Would you say that this part..... 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.
.....is the part you're talking about? Of course not. ;) There must be a specific part of the chapter that gives you reason to keep saying what you do. Or let me guess. Your mentor told you that this chapter automatically gives authorization, and you never really understood where.

Oh, and about the mentor thing. You brought it upon yourself, IMO. What's with some of your posts? Either someone is telling you what to say or someone else is using your account. Just look at the post that I quoted and compare it to this post by you. (I could get Luvly in here to do a comparison and tell us if it's the same person. ;) )

I mentioned article VII because it is common knowledge that Article VII resolutions sanction force. Now you want to nitpick and clearify what "is" is. Try as hard as you want, you won't see an explicit order for action. What you will see, however, is a clear understanding based on precedent (if you've studied UN resolutions) and the very article we're now arguing over.

Isn't it funny how the debate has shifted from whether or not Bush was right in going to war against Iraq to whether or not the Article VII sanctions member states to use force, as it clearly does? See Gaard, this is what happens when you come off the street (protesting) and focus on the letter of the law. It's what I've been stating for almost a year now. I'm glad you (and I) have come this far. You have been enlightened.

As for all the hoopla about a mentor? Yes, I have one. He's a professior at my alm mater and very adept at international politics. I like to pick his brain alot and respect his opinion, which usually carries the day. And no, my mentor does not create threads or posts in this forum. Finally, I don't understand your reference to my other thread. Are you saying this and that were made by two different people?


 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
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.

Time after time, in thread after thread, you state that Article VII automatically gives us the authority to use force against Iraq. Yet, you've never said "This part here...XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX...is where it gives the authorization." Would you say that this part..... 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.
.....is the part you're talking about? Of course not. ;) There must be a specific part of the chapter that gives you reason to keep saying what you do. Or let me guess. Your mentor told you that this chapter automatically gives authorization, and you never really understood where.

Oh, and about the mentor thing. You brought it upon yourself, IMO. What's with some of your posts? Either someone is telling you what to say or someone else is using your account. Just look at the post that I quoted and compare it to this post by you. (I could get Luvly in here to do a comparison and tell us if it's the same person. ;) )

I mentioned article VII because it is common knowledge that Article VII resolutions sanction force. Now you want to nitpick and clearify what "is" is. Try as hard as you want, you won't see an explicit order for action. What you will see, however, is a clear understanding based on precedent (if you've studied UN resolutions) and the very article we're now arguing over.

Isn't it funny how the debate has shifted from whether or not Bush was right in going to war against Iraq to whether or not the Article VII sanctions member states to use force, as it clearly does? See Gaard, this is what happens when you come off the street (protesting) and focus on the letter of the law. It's what I've been stating for almost a year now. I'm glad you (and I) have come this far. You have been enlightened.

As for all the hoopla about a mentor? Yes, I have one. He's a professior at my alm mater and very adept at international politics. I like to pick his brain alot and respect his opinion, which usually carries the day. And no, my mentor does not create threads or posts in this forum. Finally, I don't understand your reference to my other thread. Are you saying this and that were made by two different people?
And still you fail to share with us why you constantly say that force is automatically authorized. Your mentor's been unavailable, hasn't he? Tell you what, from now on everytime you make your claim of authorized force I'll make the claim that you're wrong. When I'm asked to back up my claim I'll just say that it's common knowledge and call it good. How's that? If you are so adamant about not showing where the resolutions automatically give authorization, nor will you at least give what passage, if interpreted just so, would cause one to come to that conclusion, why don't you ask your mentor to come on here in your stead.

As for my being enlightened. You are absolutely right. This little exchange has indeed enlightened me. But nothing to do with Iraq/resolutions.





 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Dari
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.

Time after time, in thread after thread, you state that Article VII automatically gives us the authority to use force against Iraq. Yet, you've never said "This part here...XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX...is where it gives the authorization." Would you say that this part..... 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.
.....is the part you're talking about? Of course not. ;) There must be a specific part of the chapter that gives you reason to keep saying what you do. Or let me guess. Your mentor told you that this chapter automatically gives authorization, and you never really understood where.

Oh, and about the mentor thing. You brought it upon yourself, IMO. What's with some of your posts? Either someone is telling you what to say or someone else is using your account. Just look at the post that I quoted and compare it to this post by you. (I could get Luvly in here to do a comparison and tell us if it's the same person. ;) )

I mentioned article VII because it is common knowledge that Article VII resolutions sanction force. Now you want to nitpick and clearify what "is" is. Try as hard as you want, you won't see an explicit order for action. What you will see, however, is a clear understanding based on precedent (if you've studied UN resolutions) and the very article we're now arguing over.

Isn't it funny how the debate has shifted from whether or not Bush was right in going to war against Iraq to whether or not the Article VII sanctions member states to use force, as it clearly does? See Gaard, this is what happens when you come off the street (protesting) and focus on the letter of the law. It's what I've been stating for almost a year now. I'm glad you (and I) have come this far. You have been enlightened.

As for all the hoopla about a mentor? Yes, I have one. He's a professior at my alm mater and very adept at international politics. I like to pick his brain alot and respect his opinion, which usually carries the day. And no, my mentor does not create threads or posts in this forum. Finally, I don't understand your reference to my other thread. Are you saying this and that were made by two different people?
And still you fail to share with us why you constantly say that force is automatically authorized. Your mentor's been unavailable, hasn't he? Tell you what, from now on everytime you make your claim of authorized force I'll make the claim that you're wrong. When I'm asked to back up my claim I'll just say that it's common knowledge and call it good. How's that? If you are so adamant about not showing where the resolutions automatically give authorization, nor will you at least give what passage, if interpreted just so, would cause one to come to that conclusion, why don't you ask your mentor to come on here in your stead.

As for my being enlightened. You are absolutely right. This little exchange has indeed enlightened me. But nothing to do with Iraq/resolutions.
Look at Fencer's post.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
I saw Andy's post, but I figured that it couldn't possibly be the one you say gives authorization because, like Andy said, it uses 'may' and not 'will'. And if you cast aside the 'may' argument, it says that the 'Security Council' may...not the 'United States' may. Are you saying this Article is what leads you to believe that the Iraq resolutions automatically authorize force?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
I saw Andy's post, but I figured that it couldn't possibly be the one you say gives authorization because, like Andy said, it uses 'may' and not 'will'. And if you cast aside the 'may' argument, it says that the 'Security Council' may...not the 'United States' may. Are you saying this Article is what leads you to believe that the Iraq resolutions automatically authorize force?
Jeezus, there you go again with the definition of what "is" is. Once the SC has passed an Article VII resolution, it leaves it to member countries to carry out such resolutions, whether they are on the receiving end or offensive. The UN does not have a standing army so it cannot carry out its own resolutions (please try to understand this). Only member states can carry out resolutions sanctioned by the members on the SC. The US, Angola, Micronesia, even the Vatican can carry out UN resolutions. None of this is really difficult to understand. And like I stated earlier, the (diplomatic) language is vague by default, so don't expect to find any explicit statement.

EDIT: As for sanctioning force, that can be packaged with the original resolution, so that the SC doesn't have to meet again to discuss any barometer on progress. A nice, tidy package of words is all it takes to bring everything around. Going back and forth on resolutions (protesting the disobeying of one resolution with another resolution) is why it's taken 12 @#$&ing years to deal with Iraq.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
I think we'll just have to stay on seperate paths concerning this issue Dari. I know it's not a high priority to convince me why you think the way you do, but apparently I'm nitpicking if I ask you to explain. All I get is "It's vague, take my word for it." It just seems like you have an obligation to tell me why you say what you say when I get this...<<Do you even undersstand what an Article VII resolution is?>> and this <<it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force.>> But keep on making the claim, and I'll keep on thinking "Yeah, he makes the claim all the time, but refuses to explain why except to say that the wording is vague."

I'm not saying you're wrong Dari, but I'm certainly not just going to take your word for it. Maybe if your initials were GWB it might be prudent to just take your word for it (according to some on this board), but you're just a guy with a mentor. ;)
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we'll just have to stay on seperate paths concerning this issue Dari. I know it's not a high priority to convince me why you think the way you do, but apparently I'm nitpicking if I ask you to explain. All I get is "It's vague, take my word for it." It just seems like you have an obligation to tell me why you say what you say when I get this...<<Do you even undersstand what an Article VII resolution is?>> and this <<it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force.>> But keep on making the claim, and I'll keep on thinking "Yeah, he makes the claim all the time, but refuses to explain why except to say that the wording is vague."

I'm not saying you're wrong Dari, but I'm certainly not just going to take your word for it. Maybe if your initials were GWB it might be prudent to just take your word for it (according to some on this board), but you're just a guy with a mentor. ;)
fine, don't take my word. But please believe the countless others that are pointing out the same thing.

One other thing. As if it wasn't obvious enough, I'll spell it out for you: Diplo-speaks are vague so that everyone can come to agreement.

And please drop the mentor thing, it's become annoying.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we'll just have to stay on seperate paths concerning this issue Dari. I know it's not a high priority to convince me why you think the way you do, but apparently I'm nitpicking if I ask you to explain. All I get is "It's vague, take my word for it." It just seems like you have an obligation to tell me why you say what you say when I get this...<<Do you even undersstand what an Article VII resolution is?>> and this <<it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force.>> But keep on making the claim, and I'll keep on thinking "Yeah, he makes the claim all the time, but refuses to explain why except to say that the wording is vague."

I'm not saying you're wrong Dari, but I'm certainly not just going to take your word for it. Maybe if your initials were GWB it might be prudent to just take your word for it (according to some on this board), but you're just a guy with a mentor. ;)
fine, don't take my word. But please believe the countless others that are pointing out the same thing.

One other thing. As if it wasn't obvious enough, I'll spell it out for you: Diplo-speaks are vague so that everyone can come to agreement.

And please drop the mentor thing, it's become annoying.
and there are countless others that don't agree with you, including a lot of specialist "international law"

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
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.

you were jsut provided an example precedent that was being discussed, and asked a direct question about it, here it is again.

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, BASED ON EXISTING UN 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."

again..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 and the same resolutions?

let me add this to the mix m the same speech givin to the american people explaining why CLINTON attacking iraq

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."



hmmm..sounds familiar....
so according to you Bill Clinton had an invasion in mind and a 5+ year occupation ???

yeah right




not according to me, according to bill clinton, what do you think he meant by "bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.? a couple of weeks?



 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
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.

you were jsut provided an example precedent that was being discussed, and asked a direct question about it, here it is again.

"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, BASED ON EXISTING UN 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."

again..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 and the same resolutions?

let me add this to the mix m the same speech givin to the american people explaining why CLINTON attacking iraq

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."



hmmm..sounds familiar....
so according to you Bill Clinton had an invasion in mind and a 5+ year occupation ???

yeah right




not according to me, according to bill clinton, what do you think he meant by "bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.? a couple of weeks?
bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation

you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation

thx



 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,023
3,870
136
Originally posted by: Dari
link

I guess they're following the french military, which has been on strike for over 150 years now.


Flame Bait, nothing more.


Perhaps some people ought to be sent to a special forum.


"Fight Club"




;)
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Gaard
I think we'll just have to stay on seperate paths concerning this issue Dari. I know it's not a high priority to convince me why you think the way you do, but apparently I'm nitpicking if I ask you to explain. All I get is "It's vague, take my word for it." It just seems like you have an obligation to tell me why you say what you say when I get this...<<Do you even undersstand what an Article VII resolution is?>> and this <<it doesn't matter what the resolution says, as long as it falls under article VII, then it's sanctioned by force.>> But keep on making the claim, and I'll keep on thinking "Yeah, he makes the claim all the time, but refuses to explain why except to say that the wording is vague."

I'm not saying you're wrong Dari, but I'm certainly not just going to take your word for it. Maybe if your initials were GWB it might be prudent to just take your word for it (according to some on this board), but you're just a guy with a mentor. ;)
fine, don't take my word. But please believe the countless others that are pointing out the same thing.

One other thing. As if it wasn't obvious enough, I'll spell it out for you: Diplo-speaks are vague so that everyone can come to agreement.

And please drop the mentor thing, it's become annoying.

Let me say this. As if it wasn't obvious enough, I'll spell it out for you: It doesn't appear to be working. Like freegeeks said, there are countless others who aren't in agreement. Maybe the diplomats can try to be a little less vague if they want everyone to come to an agreement? If I should believe your countless, should you believe my countless?

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks

bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation

you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation

thx
he said that in the context of giving a speech outlining his reasons/authority for military action against iraq.

strange logic? well what do you think he was referring to? the time and effort of wishful thinking? perhaps saying pretty please for 10 years? how else are you going to remove a dictator from power? lets look at that comment in the broader context of what it was given.

"We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

there you have it bill clinton on record saying the best way to deal with saddam is to forcably remove him.

i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...









 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard

My apologies Shad0hawk. I really must've been tired last night because I thought this was part of Dari's ramblings. (ramblings = some kind of fictitious conversation between he and I).
no problem, the same thing has happened to me, plus i am trying to get my case mods done :)

Originally posted by: Gaard
First I'd like to point out these 3 parts of Clinton's quote...

1) based on existing U.N. resolutions - I assume he's saying that these resolutions gave him the right to do whatever he wants? Because he's not specific at all what he's going to do.

2) and Iraq's own commitments - what are these? If they are important enough to use as an excuse to launch some missiles at another country, aren't they important enough to specify?

3) we would be prepared to act without delay - On par with 'serious consequences' IMO. If he had sent our troops in there, or tightened santions, or increased our vigilance in guarding the no-fly zones, would they all be acts?

That being said, and my questions asked, I say that, even though those who constantly use Clinton's attack as a comparison to Bush's war fail to see the obvious differences, for Clinton to justify the attack by citing resolutions was wrong.
well from those few quotes there were none mentioned, in the rest of his speech there were, plus you have to remember the speech is explaining why we are committing acts of war on the nation of iraq. an act of war is an act of war, missile strikes, plane strikes, ground troops... and no one had a probem with clinton commiting acts of war AND reccomending the "best solution to the problem" being "a change of government" based on what? "existing un resolutions and saddams commitments"

all george bush has done is pick up where clinton left off, and many democrats thier hypocrasy condemn bush and laud clinton for doing the same thing for the same reasons concerning the same resolutions.


 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Shad0hawk - <<i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...>>

How can you be sure if you haven't asked him? Want his e-mail address? ;)
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks

bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation

you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation

thx
he said that in the context of giving a speech outlining his reasons/authority for military action against iraq.

strange logic? well what do you think he was referring to? the time and effort of wishful thinking? perhaps saying pretty please for 10 years? how else are you going to remove a dictator from power? lets look at that comment in the broader context of what it was given.

"We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

there you have it bill clinton on record saying the best way to deal with saddam is to forcably remove him.

i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...
you can't read your own posts

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

with that he is stating the opposite. "Prudently"and "invasion" doesn't go together. "Working with the opposition" doesn't sound like he was planning an invasion.
Like I said before. Show me a link where Clinton talks about an invasion.

btw there are numerous links about the Iraqi policy of Clinton

they seem to fall into two camps: one side prefers to arm Iraqi opposition
groups, while the other side wants to continue the current policy of
"containment," which involves slowly starving the Iraqi population to
death.
link

so this confirms your own link about "working" with the opposition
so show me where Clinton wanted to invade with US troops

please pretty please
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Shad0hawk - <<i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...>>

How can you be sure if you haven't asked him? Want his e-mail address? ;)
i do not need, besides we used to live about 20 miles apart or so. ;)

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks

bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation

you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation

thx
he said that in the context of giving a speech outlining his reasons/authority for military action against iraq.

strange logic? well what do you think he was referring to? the time and effort of wishful thinking? perhaps saying pretty please for 10 years? how else are you going to remove a dictator from power? lets look at that comment in the broader context of what it was given.

"We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

there you have it bill clinton on record saying the best way to deal with saddam is to forcably remove him.

i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...
you can't read your own posts

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

with that he is stating the opposite. "Prudently"and "invasion" doesn't go together. "Working with the opposition" doesn't sound like he was planning an invasion.
Like I said before. Show me a link where Clinton talks about an invasion.

btw there are numerous links about the Iraqi policy of Clinton

they seem to fall into two camps: one side prefers to arm Iraqi opposition
groups, while the other side wants to continue the current policy of
"containment," which involves slowly starving the Iraqi population to
death.
link

so this confirms your own link about "working" with the opposition
so show me where Clinton wanted to invade with US troops

please pretty please
i never said he was "planning" an invasion, i did however show you where he said(quite plainly) "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government" he then goes on about "helping opposition forces" but also mentions "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever AMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. " and pointed out that bush is simply picking up where clinton left off. it is beginning to look like your supposed rebutment is a simple semantic game based on something i never said. it is the usual dem tactic to futily try to hide hypocrasy and duplicity.

here it is again...maybe you can catch it this time.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. WheneverAMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. ~ bill clinton

so what were the american forces doing? what did he mean by "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government"? does "best" mean something else other than best? does "time and effort" really mean "quick and easy" perhaps a timeframe of before teatime on that following thursday?

so maybe you can answer the same question: if clinton did not need other UN resolutions to commit acts of war on iraq, why does bush?

"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."

does "act" mean "pretend" in the context of this sentence? what were they going to do "without delay, diplomacy or warning."? perhaps toss cheesy poofs at them and sing rude songs about saddam's lineage, maybe even resorting to *gasp* harsh language to force him to leave?

;)











 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
81
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: freegeeks

bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort != invasion + occupation

you have some very strange logic. Show me a link where the Clinton administration was really thinking about an invasion + occupation

thx
he said that in the context of giving a speech outlining his reasons/authority for military action against iraq.

strange logic? well what do you think he was referring to? the time and effort of wishful thinking? perhaps saying pretty please for 10 years? how else are you going to remove a dictator from power? lets look at that comment in the broader context of what it was given.

"We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people. The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

there you have it bill clinton on record saying the best way to deal with saddam is to forcably remove him.

i am very sure when he was talking about "The decision to use force" was not farting in thier general direction and taunting them...
you can't read your own posts

We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

with that he is stating the opposite. "Prudently"and "invasion" doesn't go together. "Working with the opposition" doesn't sound like he was planning an invasion.
Like I said before. Show me a link where Clinton talks about an invasion.

btw there are numerous links about the Iraqi policy of Clinton

they seem to fall into two camps: one side prefers to arm Iraqi opposition
groups, while the other side wants to continue the current policy of
"containment," which involves slowly starving the Iraqi population to
death.
link

so this confirms your own link about "working" with the opposition
so show me where Clinton wanted to invade with US troops

please pretty please
i never said he was "planning" an invasion, i did however show you where he said(quite plainly) "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government" he then goes on about "helping opposition forces" but also mentions "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever AMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. " and pointed out that bush is simply picking up where clinton left off. it is beginning to look like your supposed rebutment is a simple semantic game based on something i never said. it is the usual dem tactic to futily try to hide hypocrasy and duplicity.

here it is again...maybe you can catch it this time.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. WheneverAMERICAN FORCES are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. ~ bill clinton

so what were the american forces doing? what did he mean by "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government"? does "best" mean something else other than best? does "time and effort" really mean "quick and easy" perhaps a timeframe of before teatime on that following thursday?

so maybe you can answer the same question: if clinton did not need other UN resolutions to commit acts of war on iraq, why does bush?

"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."

does "act" mean "pretend" in the context of this sentence? what were they going to do "without delay, diplomacy or warning."? perhaps toss cheesy poofs at them and sing rude songs about saddam's lineage, maybe even resorting to *gasp* harsh language to force him to leave?

;)

whatever ....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY