Millions Worldwide Rally Against Iraq War

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu
Funny to see how all these pro-Bush warmongers trying so hard to trivialize the largest rally every seen in many of the countries and the largest in the US since Vietnam. Maybe if they step out of their little circle they knows how Bush and his personal war is so unpopular outside of the US. Even in the US, most people support the war only with the blessing from UN, which is less and less likely with Bush's lack of diplomatic savvy.

Whatever warmongers said, today is a historical day for people standing up for peace. Unless you can organize something larger, and show that you and there are people out there actually dare to stand out for what you believe in, STFU.

Today was also a great day for Saddam Hussein remaining in power and keeping his ability to kill all that oppose him, while using the UN as his tool.

So you are saying now you want your government go after every ruler in the world who kills those that oppose him? I can give you at least a list of 20 countries, including Russia and China. Maybe Bush has the b@lls to go after them too. ?

So you now admit the UN is a pointless organization? How can you expect the UN to go after the biggies if it cant even effectively handle the small ones.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how I am saying UN is a pointless organization. Looks like you feel UN should be a nice little dog just like Blair, or it is an ineffective organization?

No, I feel if the UN is going to be a worthwhile organization it should have the balls to enforce its resolutions.

Ok, now we are talking Hussein's @ss should be kicked not because he killed all those that oppose him, but because of the resolution. Fine. UN is enforcing it's resolution. It is trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, unlike you, the weapon inspectors do not have the luxury of all the US media as well as the United State government feeding them the undeniable "evidence" of WMD, and they also have the duty to give an unbiased presentation of facts. They have to actually see WMD to say Iraq has WMD, and so far they have not seen that. The UN has not determined Iraq violated the resolution, so what do you expect them to do? Be a nice little puppy of US and say Yesir, let's send troops to Iraq?

No, Blix has stated the Iraq is violation of 1441. Things that 1441 calls for, but Iraq has done or allows.

1. Interviews of scientists(recently a handfull have been interviewed(result of US heat not inspectors), 3500 were listed at the end of gulf war 1.)
2. No U2 overflights at this point(This might change as the US is keeping the heat on Saddam)
3. Still no documentation provided of weapons destruction.
These are key components to 1441, none of have been followed.

The only reason any of this is happening is the threat of war.

Saddam is using Blix and the UN as a tool to save his hide and so far it is working.

1. they have already assured to provide allow for more interviews
2. They are allowing u2 overflights now if i heard correctly yesterday
3. they are saying they are working on it [sounds like they are procrastinating]

but hey, 2 out of 3 is progress.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu
Funny to see how all these pro-Bush warmongers trying so hard to trivialize the largest rally every seen in many of the countries and the largest in the US since Vietnam. Maybe if they step out of their little circle they knows how Bush and his personal war is so unpopular outside of the US. Even in the US, most people support the war only with the blessing from UN, which is less and less likely with Bush's lack of diplomatic savvy.

Whatever warmongers said, today is a historical day for people standing up for peace. Unless you can organize something larger, and show that you and there are people out there actually dare to stand out for what you believe in, STFU.

Today was also a great day for Saddam Hussein remaining in power and keeping his ability to kill all that oppose him, while using the UN as his tool.

So you are saying now you want your government go after every ruler in the world who kills those that oppose him? I can give you at least a list of 20 countries, including Russia and China. Maybe Bush has the b@lls to go after them too. ?

So you now admit the UN is a pointless organization? How can you expect the UN to go after the biggies if it cant even effectively handle the small ones.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how I am saying UN is a pointless organization. Looks like you feel UN should be a nice little dog just like Blair, or it is an ineffective organization?

No, I feel if the UN is going to be a worthwhile organization it should have the balls to enforce its resolutions.

Ok, now we are talking Hussein's @ss should be kicked not because he killed all those that oppose him, but because of the resolution. Fine. UN is enforcing it's resolution. It is trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, unlike you, the weapon inspectors do not have the luxury of all the US media as well as the United State government feeding them the undeniable "evidence" of WMD, and they also have the duty to give an unbiased presentation of facts. They have to actually see WMD to say Iraq has WMD, and so far they have not seen that. The UN has not determined Iraq violated the resolution, so what do you expect them to do? Be a nice little puppy of US and say Yesir, let's send troops to Iraq?

No, Blix has stated the Iraq is violation of 1441. Things that 1441 calls for, but Iraq has done or allows.

1. Interviews of scientists(recently a handfull have been interviewed(result of US heat not inspectors), 3500 were listed at the end of gulf war 1.)
2. No U2 overflights at this point(This might change as the US is keeping the heat on Saddam)
3. Still no documentation provided of weapons destruction.
These are key components to 1441, none of have been followed.

The only reason any of this is happening is the threat of war.

Saddam is using Blix and the UN as a tool to save his hide and so far it is working.

1. they have already assured to provide allow for more interviews
2. They are allowing u2 overflights now if i heard correctly yesterday
3. they are saying they are working on it [sounds like they are procrastinating]

but hey, 2 out of 3 is progress.

1. Yes but given that families of the interviews are threatened, i doubt these interviews will be of much help.
2. U2 flight are to be allowed on the condition of the no fly zone lifted. The french have moved 4 recon planes to the area. Any bets on them being shot at?
3. Yes they are procrastinating on all fronts, just they have done with the past resolutions. Saddam is using the UN as a tool.

This is hardly progress as the inspection process is not supposed to an easter egg hunt. Soon Iraq will be disarmed with or without UN approval.

 

[conjur]

Peaceful protesters?

BTW, there is a way to edit what you quote 😉

 

[RU482]

millions of protesters...bah, 5+Billion people in the world and they could only come up with Millions

 

[Queasy]

The discussion above about inspections is pointless. Resolution 1441 was never about inspections. It was supposed to be about Blix and Co. going to Iraq and finding proof that Saddam has lived up to the previous 16 resolutions and helping Iraq disarm.

Saddam and Iraq have not done that. They have not lived up to their end of the bargain and are giving in just a little bit at a time to say that they are cooperating. The purpose? To drag this process out as long as possible for the world community to grow apathetic and just appease him to allow him to stay in power.

There were inspections all during the 90s that uncovered WMDs and other illegal programs/weapons. Why go back and inspect the same stuff over again? It is Saddam's turn to show that Iraq is serious about becoming a member of good-standing in the world community. Instead, he is only interested in power plays (his stated goal is one Arab nation...under his leadership, of course).

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu
Funny to see how all these pro-Bush warmongers trying so hard to trivialize the largest rally every seen in many of the countries and the largest in the US since Vietnam. Maybe if they step out of their little circle they knows how Bush and his personal war is so unpopular outside of the US. Even in the US, most people support the war only with the blessing from UN, which is less and less likely with Bush's lack of diplomatic savvy.

Whatever warmongers said, today is a historical day for people standing up for peace. Unless you can organize something larger, and show that you and there are people out there actually dare to stand out for what you believe in, STFU.

Today was also a great day for Saddam Hussein remaining in power and keeping his ability to kill all that oppose him, while using the UN as his tool.

So you are saying now you want your government go after every ruler in the world who kills those that oppose him? I can give you at least a list of 20 countries, including Russia and China. Maybe Bush has the b@lls to go after them too. ?

So you now admit the UN is a pointless organization? How can you expect the UN to go after the biggies if it cant even effectively handle the small ones.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how I am saying UN is a pointless organization. Looks like you feel UN should be a nice little dog just like Blair, or it is an ineffective organization?

No, I feel if the UN is going to be a worthwhile organization it should have the balls to enforce its resolutions.

Ok, now we are talking Hussein's @ss should be kicked not because he killed all those that oppose him, but because of the resolution. Fine. UN is enforcing it's resolution. It is trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, unlike you, the weapon inspectors do not have the luxury of all the US media as well as the United State government feeding them the undeniable "evidence" of WMD, and they also have the duty to give an unbiased presentation of facts. They have to actually see WMD to say Iraq has WMD, and so far they have not seen that. The UN has not determined Iraq violated the resolution, so what do you expect them to do? Be a nice little puppy of US and say Yesir, let's send troops to Iraq?

No, Blix has stated the Iraq is violation of 1441. Things that 1441 calls for, but Iraq has done or allows.

1. Interviews of scientists(recently a handfull have been interviewed(result of US heat not inspectors), 3500 were listed at the end of gulf war 1.)
2. No U2 overflights at this point(This might change as the US is keeping the heat on Saddam)
3. Still no documentation provided of weapons destruction.
These are key components to 1441, none of have been followed.

The only reason any of this is happening is the threat of war.

Saddam is using Blix and the UN as a tool to save his hide and so far it is working.

1. they have already assured to provide allow for more interviews
2. They are allowing u2 overflights now if i heard correctly yesterday
3. they are saying they are working on it [sounds like they are procrastinating]

but hey, 2 out of 3 is progress.

1. Yes but given that families of the interviews are threatened, i doubt these interviews will be of much help.
2. U2 flight are to be allowed on the condition of the no fly zone lifted. The french have moved 4 recon planes to the area. Any bets on them being shot at?
3. Yes they are procrastinating on all fronts, just they have done with the past resolutions. Saddam is using the UN as a tool.

This is hardly progress as the inspection process is not supposed to an easter egg hunt. Soon Iraq will be disarmed with or without UN approval.

Charrison, one can always say that the families will be threatened to give interviews. But that is self defeating. On one hand we demand more, but then on the other people with you view are saying they aren't good enough because the interviewee's family might be threatened. Since we will never know if they will be threatened or not, maybe we should just drop the interview idea altogether?

The no fly zone was a creation of the U.S. and England ONLY. The U.N. doesn't recognize them, so how can we on one hand demand that Iraq abides by U.N. 1441 when we by ourselves [and england] go without the U.N. and impose 'no fly' zones?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu
Funny to see how all these pro-Bush warmongers trying so hard to trivialize the largest rally every seen in many of the countries and the largest in the US since Vietnam. Maybe if they step out of their little circle they knows how Bush and his personal war is so unpopular outside of the US. Even in the US, most people support the war only with the blessing from UN, which is less and less likely with Bush's lack of diplomatic savvy.

Whatever warmongers said, today is a historical day for people standing up for peace. Unless you can organize something larger, and show that you and there are people out there actually dare to stand out for what you believe in, STFU.

Today was also a great day for Saddam Hussein remaining in power and keeping his ability to kill all that oppose him, while using the UN as his tool.

So you are saying now you want your government go after every ruler in the world who kills those that oppose him? I can give you at least a list of 20 countries, including Russia and China. Maybe Bush has the b@lls to go after them too. ?

So you now admit the UN is a pointless organization? How can you expect the UN to go after the biggies if it cant even effectively handle the small ones.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how I am saying UN is a pointless organization. Looks like you feel UN should be a nice little dog just like Blair, or it is an ineffective organization?

No, I feel if the UN is going to be a worthwhile organization it should have the balls to enforce its resolutions.

Ok, now we are talking Hussein's @ss should be kicked not because he killed all those that oppose him, but because of the resolution. Fine. UN is enforcing it's resolution. It is trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, unlike you, the weapon inspectors do not have the luxury of all the US media as well as the United State government feeding them the undeniable "evidence" of WMD, and they also have the duty to give an unbiased presentation of facts. They have to actually see WMD to say Iraq has WMD, and so far they have not seen that. The UN has not determined Iraq violated the resolution, so what do you expect them to do? Be a nice little puppy of US and say Yesir, let's send troops to Iraq?

No, Blix has stated the Iraq is violation of 1441. Things that 1441 calls for, but Iraq has done or allows.

1. Interviews of scientists(recently a handfull have been interviewed(result of US heat not inspectors), 3500 were listed at the end of gulf war 1.)
2. No U2 overflights at this point(This might change as the US is keeping the heat on Saddam)
3. Still no documentation provided of weapons destruction.
These are key components to 1441, none of have been followed.

The only reason any of this is happening is the threat of war.

Saddam is using Blix and the UN as a tool to save his hide and so far it is working.

1. they have already assured to provide allow for more interviews
2. They are allowing u2 overflights now if i heard correctly yesterday
3. they are saying they are working on it [sounds like they are procrastinating]

but hey, 2 out of 3 is progress.

1. Yes but given that families of the interviews are threatened, i doubt these interviews will be of much help.
2. U2 flight are to be allowed on the condition of the no fly zone lifted. The french have moved 4 recon planes to the area. Any bets on them being shot at?
3. Yes they are procrastinating on all fronts, just they have done with the past resolutions. Saddam is using the UN as a tool.

This is hardly progress as the inspection process is not supposed to an easter egg hunt. Soon Iraq will be disarmed with or without UN approval.

Charrison, one can always say that the families will be threatened to give interviews. But that is self defeating. On one hand we demand more, but then on the other people with you view are saying they aren't good enough because the interviewee's family might be threatened. Since we will never know if they will be threatened or not, maybe we should just drop the interview idea altogether?

The no fly zone was a creation of the U.S. and England ONLY. The U.N. doesn't recognize them, so how can we on one hand demand that Iraq abides by U.N. 1441 when we by ourselves [and england] go without the U.N. and impose 'no fly' zones?

If the families are threatened, the interviewed have to be seen as having limited usefullness. We do know the families are scientist are being threatened.

While the UN did not start the no fly zones, they do not oppose them either.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: rchiu
Funny to see how all these pro-Bush warmongers trying so hard to trivialize the largest rally every seen in many of the countries and the largest in the US since Vietnam. Maybe if they step out of their little circle they knows how Bush and his personal war is so unpopular outside of the US. Even in the US, most people support the war only with the blessing from UN, which is less and less likely with Bush's lack of diplomatic savvy.

Whatever warmongers said, today is a historical day for people standing up for peace. Unless you can organize something larger, and show that you and there are people out there actually dare to stand out for what you believe in, STFU.

Today was also a great day for Saddam Hussein remaining in power and keeping his ability to kill all that oppose him, while using the UN as his tool.

So you are saying now you want your government go after every ruler in the world who kills those that oppose him? I can give you at least a list of 20 countries, including Russia and China. Maybe Bush has the b@lls to go after them too. ?

So you now admit the UN is a pointless organization? How can you expect the UN to go after the biggies if it cant even effectively handle the small ones.

Perhaps you can enlighten me how I am saying UN is a pointless organization. Looks like you feel UN should be a nice little dog just like Blair, or it is an ineffective organization?

No, I feel if the UN is going to be a worthwhile organization it should have the balls to enforce its resolutions.

Ok, now we are talking Hussein's @ss should be kicked not because he killed all those that oppose him, but because of the resolution. Fine. UN is enforcing it's resolution. It is trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, unlike you, the weapon inspectors do not have the luxury of all the US media as well as the United State government feeding them the undeniable "evidence" of WMD, and they also have the duty to give an unbiased presentation of facts. They have to actually see WMD to say Iraq has WMD, and so far they have not seen that. The UN has not determined Iraq violated the resolution, so what do you expect them to do? Be a nice little puppy of US and say Yesir, let's send troops to Iraq?

No, Blix has stated the Iraq is violation of 1441. Things that 1441 calls for, but Iraq has done or allows.

1. Interviews of scientists(recently a handfull have been interviewed(result of US heat not inspectors), 3500 were listed at the end of gulf war 1.)
2. No U2 overflights at this point(This might change as the US is keeping the heat on Saddam)
3. Still no documentation provided of weapons destruction.
These are key components to 1441, none of have been followed.

The only reason any of this is happening is the threat of war.

Saddam is using Blix and the UN as a tool to save his hide and so far it is working.

1. they have already assured to provide allow for more interviews
2. They are allowing u2 overflights now if i heard correctly yesterday
3. they are saying they are working on it [sounds like they are procrastinating]

but hey, 2 out of 3 is progress.

1. Yes but given that families of the interviews are threatened, i doubt these interviews will be of much help.
2. U2 flight are to be allowed on the condition of the no fly zone lifted. The french have moved 4 recon planes to the area. Any bets on them being shot at?
3. Yes they are procrastinating on all fronts, just they have done with the past resolutions. Saddam is using the UN as a tool.

This is hardly progress as the inspection process is not supposed to an easter egg hunt. Soon Iraq will be disarmed with or without UN approval.

Charrison, one can always say that the families will be threatened to give interviews. But that is self defeating. On one hand we demand more, but then on the other people with you view are saying they aren't good enough because the interviewee's family might be threatened. Since we will never know if they will be threatened or not, maybe we should just drop the interview idea altogether?

The no fly zone was a creation of the U.S. and England ONLY. The U.N. doesn't recognize them, so how can we on one hand demand that Iraq abides by U.N. 1441 when we by ourselves [and england] go without the U.N. and impose 'no fly' zones?

If the families are threatened, the interviewed have to be seen as having limited usefullness. We do know the families are scientist are being threatened.

While the UN did not start the no fly zones, they do not oppose them either.

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

 

[Queasy]

What's your definition of 'uni-lateral'? The U.S. has 26 countries and counting in agreement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What's your definition of 'uni-lateral'? The U.S. has 26 countries and counting in agreement.

Bush has only two commitments for troops (Blair without caveat, Howard is wavering) every other nation has a hand out or already in our pockets. Furthermore, I challenge you to name any country demonstrating majority support for a US-led war against Iraq WITHOUT UN authorization.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

Difference being, the UN agreed to 1441 and are now backing away from it. Completely different situation than what you described.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

Iraq is in violation of 1441 and the past 16 resolutions reguarding WMD. The UN would rather keep a tyrant in power than disarm him. Then toss some Al queda links in for good measure(What has been shown to the US public is somewhat weak, but our intel says it exists)

I would rather not belong to organization with these values.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What's your definition of 'uni-lateral'? The U.S. has 26 countries and counting in agreement.

Bush has only two commitments for troops (Blair without caveat, Howard is wavering) every other nation has a hand out or already in our pockets. Furthermore, I challenge you to name any country demonstrating majority support for a US-led war against Iraq WITHOUT UN authorization.

The US and the US is doing most of the heavy lifting.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

Iraq is in violation of 1441 and the past 16 resolutions reguarding WMD. The UN would rather keep a tyrant in power than disarm him. Then toss some Al queda links in for good measure(What has been shown to the US public is somewhat weak, but our intel says it exists)

I would rather not belong to organization with these values.

I believe our intelligence organization is referred to as the CIA.

The CIA has yet to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In fact, they have felt that Washington has been breathing down their back to much in trying to find a link - to the point that they feel pressured. There was an article regarding this in the L.A. times recently.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What's your definition of 'uni-lateral'? The U.S. has 26 countries and counting in agreement.

Bush has only two commitments for troops (Blair without caveat, Howard is wavering)

Sounds eerily similar to the Gulf War where the US provided the vast majority of the troops and weapons.

every other nation has a hand out or already in our pockets.

And I'm sure that all the 'pro-Iraq/anti-war' countries have not made any wink-wink, nudge-nudge deals with each other.

Furthermore, I challenge you to name any country demonstrating majority support for a US-led war against Iraq WITHOUT UN authorization.

I'll take the challenge when its not 3AM in the morning and I don't feel like doing any research that goes beyond my insomnia-laden memory. 😀

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

Iraq is in violation of 1441 and the past 16 resolutions reguarding WMD. The UN would rather keep a tyrant in power than disarm him. Then toss some Al queda links in for good measure(What has been shown to the US public is somewhat weak, but our intel says it exists)

I would rather not belong to organization with these values.

I believe our intelligence organization is referred to as the CIA.

The CIA has yet to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In fact, they have felt that Washington has been breathing down their back to much in trying to find a link - to the point that they feel pressured. There was an article regarding this in the L.A. times recently.

Fortunatly we have more than one group doing intel.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

Not really. This is really only between Iraq and the US.

Why are the french acting unilaterly in the ivory coast? Do you have a problem with the french military beating up on a smaller country(this is saying alot😉 )

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Right so then drop the interviews. One less gripe we have with them.

But from the reaction of Russia's foreign minister's speech, the majority of the U.N. may oppose a uni-lateral attack on Iraq. Then what? Must we listen to what the U.N. wishes, as we have demanded the same from Iraq?

No, I did not say drop the interviews, just realize they are of limited usefullness. It is another tool that could prove Iraq is or has disarmed. If the UN was serious about it, all 3500 scientest and families would be put in a safe place while interviews occured. But guess what, this is not happening and i really doubt Saddam would allow for it.

If the UN fails to enforce its own resolutions, what good are resolutions. The UN is just a toothless debating club. If the UN fails to act, there is very large chance the US will be leaving the debating club. League of Nations, part II.

So let me get this straight. Our only leg to stand on at this point [in attacking iraq] is that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolution 1441... but on the other hand we are ready to leave the U.N. if the U.N. 'fails to act' (i.e. agree to attacking iraq) on Iraq's violation of 1441? Seems like on one hand we are demanding Iraq respect the U.N.'s decision, and on the other hand we are demanding that the U.N. respects ours.

Iraq is in violation of 1441 and the past 16 resolutions reguarding WMD. The UN would rather keep a tyrant in power than disarm him. Then toss some Al queda links in for good measure(What has been shown to the US public is somewhat weak, but our intel says it exists)

I would rather not belong to organization with these values.

I believe our intelligence organization is referred to as the CIA.

The CIA has yet to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In fact, they have felt that Washington has been breathing down their back to much in trying to find a link - to the point that they feel pressured. There was an article regarding this in the L.A. times recently.

Fortunatly we have more than one group doing intel.

Charrison, supposedly we live in a free democracy. With this much bickering back and forth between the people for war in Iraq and those opposed to it at this point, why on earth would our government not share information if they had it? They had no problem trying to create a link between the 'supposedly' dead [as of a few months back when OBL released his first tape] OBL [wow, all of a sudden he is alive!]and Iraq a couple weeks back, so why would they hold other information if they had it?

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

Not really. This is really only between Iraq and the US.

Why are the french acting unilaterly in the ivory coast? Do you have a problem with the french military beating up on a smaller country(this is saying alot😉 )

Well, then if you think this is only between Iraq and the US, then stop interferring with Taiwan when China decides to take over the island, after all, that's between China and Taiwan, and it should be none of US' beeswax. Be consistent!

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

Not really. This is really only between Iraq and the US.

Why are the french acting unilaterly in the ivory coast? Do you have a problem with the french military beating up on a smaller country(this is saying alot😉 )

Yes, really. In the speech Colin Powell made, he said the greatest threat Iraq poses is to its neighbors. Last I checked, we were QUITE far from Iraq. It's for the well being of the Kuwaitis... we swear!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

Not really. This is really only between Iraq and the US.

Why are the french acting unilaterly in the ivory coast? Do you have a problem with the french military beating up on a smaller country(this is saying alot😉 )

Yes, really. In the speech Colin Powell made, he said the greatest threat Iraq poses is to its neighbors. Last I checked, we were QUITE far from Iraq. It's for the well being of the Kuwaitis... we swear!

And its neighbors we still protect today. The peaceniks dont mind us keeping the problem in check, they just really hate it when we want to remove a problem.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

You do realize that it is generally people that hold the minority view that feel the need to protest, right?

No, it's people with nothing more than a voice (or a vote) that feel the need to protest and it is abundantly clear the MAJORITY sentiment is consistent with the protesters in this case.

It is certainly conceivable that a poll of Likud Party members, the Texas GOP, or Saddam's family members (including the imprisoned, exiled, or dead) would yield a plurality for regime change.

the majority of europeans. but they don't count.

This is not an internal affair of the US, it is an international affair, so every country in the world has a say.

Not really. This is really only between Iraq and the US.

Why are the french acting unilaterly in the ivory coast? Do you have a problem with the french military beating up on a smaller country(this is saying alot😉 )

Yes, really. In the speech Colin Powell made, he said the greatest threat Iraq poses is to its neighbors. Last I checked, we were QUITE far from Iraq. It's for the well being of the Kuwaitis... we swear!

And its neighbors we still protect today. The peaceniks dont mind us keeping the problem in check, they just really hate it when we want to remove a problem.

So is it an internal affair or not? You say it is internal. Colin Powell says it is not.

Choices, choices.


Jesus, who should I believe?