French Diplomats go on strike

Page 4 - 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: freegeeks


whatever ....
yes, simply dismiss it and continue on.


just a little addition it seems clinton adminitration DID in fact plan on and want saddam gone.

link

excerpt:

The United States will make a "deliberate, sustained" effort to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, senior officials said yesterday. A day after air strikes ended, they acknowledged that Iraq retains some of its deadly weapons capability and may have to be attacked again to eliminate them.

President Clinton's foreign policy team made the rounds of the Sunday TV talk shows, carrying reconnaissance photos that showed the rubble of Iraqi weapons facilities but sounding the message that an Iraqi threat remains.

"We would like to see a different regime," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That is what we are going to be working toward by more active support of the various opposition groups."

U.S. intelligence officials and outside experts have said in recent months that Iraqi opposition groups are in no position to challenge Saddam's heavily armed and entrenched government and military. And while U.S. warplanes dropped leaflets onto Iraqi forces in southern Iraq suggesting they oppose Saddam, there was no evidence that any did.

Overthrowing Saddam from within will require a long-term U.S. commitment, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I'm under no illusions that is achievable quickly or easily," Berger said. "But we are determined to pursue that objective in a very steady, deliberate, sustained way."



 

Shad0hawK

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


whatever ....
yes, simply dismiss it and continue on.
no problem ;)
and in typical liberal fashion, when the lib gets beat in a debate he you can just ridicule others. ;)

so to provide a better example, i will just say have i nice day.(i really need to work on my case mod)

:D

 

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


whatever ....
yes, simply dismiss it and continue on.
no problem ;)
and in typical liberal fashion, when the lib gets beat in a debate he you can just ridicule others. ;)

so to provide a better example, i will just say have i nice day.(i really need to work on my case mod)

:D

the difference between you and me is that I came with sources to backup my claim that the Clinton policy was not about invasion but more about containment and support for the Iraqi opposition
I asked a few times for sources about your claim that the Clinton administration had an invasion in mind and you could not get any futher then stuff that can be interpretated in different ways

no need to discuss this further. this thread is going in my vault and when Clinton writes his memoires, he will proof me right ;)

I will post about in on Anandtech using my 155 gig fiber internet connection

good luck with the case mod
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
War. If there is one single reason for not being vague and coming right out and saying what you mean, I would think it would be war. The resolution's wording means this. What Clinton means is this. Isn't it sad that 'interpretation' has to come into play when talking about this war?
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: freegeeks
the difference between you and me is that I came with sources to backup my claim that the Clinton policy was not about invasion but more about containment and support for the Iraqi opposition.
I asked a few times for sources about your claim that the Clinton administration had an invasion in mind and you could not get any futher then stuff that can be interpretated in different ways
again i never made the claim clinton had an invasion in mind, that is your sidestep of the point i was in fact making. that clinton made the asertions :

1. the best way to solve the saddam problem is to get rid of saddam, no "intepretation" needed, he came right out and said so in his 1998 address to the nation after attacking iraq.

2. he did not need new resolutions to do so, he came right out and said what he was doing was "based on existing resolutions" agian no "intepretation", just plain english that for some reason so many have a hard time comprehending.

anyway as the edit of my preceding post has shown, he DID in fact plan on ousting saddam. i gave sources. would you like more?

q]Originally posted by: freegeeks
no need to discuss this further. this thread is going in my vault and when Clinton writes his memoires, he will proof me right ;)

I will post about in on Anandtech using my 155 gig fiber internet connection

good luck with the case mod[/quote]

clinton's own word's have already proved me right...

and i will post pics of the mod



 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
War. If there is one single reason for not being vague and coming right out and saying what you mean, I would think it would be war. The resolution's wording means this. What Clinton means is this. Isn't it sad that 'interpretation' has to come into play when talking about this war?
yes it is. that is why i am glad what clinton said was very literal and straightforward(often unusal for him)


now do you see how this directly backs up the point Dari was making about vagueness? you seem to be agreeing with him now.

;)

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
War. If there is one single reason for not being vague and coming right out and saying what you mean, I would think it would be war. The resolution's wording means this. What Clinton means is this. Isn't it sad that 'interpretation' has to come into play when talking about this war?
yes it is. that is why i am glad what clinton said was very literal and straightforward(often unusal for him)


now do you see how this directly backs up the point Dari was making about vagueness? you seem to be agreeing with him now.

;)

Dari hasn't convinced me that his interpretation is correct. If you agree with him that we (not the UNSC) were automatically given the authority to use force, maybe you could do the honors. (Mind you, Dari isn't saying that the resolutions themselves give authorization, he's saying that the UN Charter ...specifically, Chapter VII...automatically gives authorization. See my 12/01/2003 9:12 PM post.)
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Gaard, I read through the thread (it was painful) and realize that Dari could not prove his statement about Chapter 7 or Article 7 allowing the use of force automatically. Nice job in pinning him!
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Gaard
War. If there is one single reason for not being vague and coming right out and saying what you mean, I would think it would be war. The resolution's wording means this. What Clinton means is this. Isn't it sad that 'interpretation' has to come into play when talking about this war?
yes it is. that is why i am glad what clinton said was very literal and straightforward(often unusal for him)


now do you see how this directly backs up the point Dari was making about vagueness? you seem to be agreeing with him now.

;)

Dari hasn't convinced me that his interpretation is correct. If you agree with him that we (not the UNSC) were automatically given the authority to use force, maybe you could do the honors. (Mind you, Dari isn't saying that the resolutions themselves give authorization, he's saying that the UN Charter ...specifically, Chapter VII...automatically gives authorization. See my 12/01/2003 9:12 PM post.)

Okay, Gaard, one more time. This is tiring but so long as it helps one liberal, I think I would've done my job: The United Nations writes resolutions. When it comes to hot topics, the UNSC resolutions are written UNDER two charters, Article VI and Article VII. Unlike Article VI, Article VII sanctions the use of force (by member states) to carry out whatever resolutions are written under it. An Israeli-condenming Article VI resolution is nothing more than a recommendation. An Israeli-condemning Article VII carries more punch because member states can enforce the resolution by most means. So, in a sense, you are right. But when resolution 1441 referred to "serious consequences," everything was nicely packaged in that document (not only for the threat of force, but for its enforcement as well).

As for Clinton, he (could've) bombed Iraq just for the fact that the previous umpteen resolutions fell under Article VII. Resolution 1441 was the bundle that ended all this charade. And thanks to the ingenuity of lawyers and diplomats, a vague resolution was written for all to agree on without really agreeing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY