In one sense I think Chirac has inadvertently done the US a favour. In other threads people have mentioned it's more acceptable for the US to go to war without attempting to get a second UN resolution, than it is for them to go to war having attempted and failed to get the resolution. Chirac could have kept quiet and simply vetoed the second resolution when it was put forward, without the help of any other countries at all.
I have to agree. It didn't help that they said they'd veto ANY new resolution. They condemned it before Iraq did! What we have seen here is France's attempt at a global power play...which failed miserably. They should have known Bush would go with or without the UN. Time for inspectors in France to search for Weapons of Mass OBStruction.
pscates:
Quote:
We're the only military in the world who would probably show that much restraint and goodwill. Do you think China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq themselves, etc. would conduct a campaign like this? Precision strikes, repeated breaks and opportunities for the enemy to surrender, etc.
We're doing EXACTLY what we said we were going to do, and - knock on wood - so far we're doing it beautifully. I know that drives a few of you absolutely around the bend, but get over it
Couldn't have said it better. The nay-sayers and protesters are becoming a joke. Do they even know what they are protesting? Seriously, the no war for oil thing is tired. The baby killer thing is ludicrous. We have heard it all, from "war is never the answer" (wow) to Bush is Hitler (funny, I don't remember Hitler dropping food rations on civilians) to "Saddam is bad but we don't think war is required" (OK, then how about another solution?) I think that some just get used to being "anti-war". It's like their identity.
" Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.""
. They should have known Bush would go with or without the UN.
This is not an argument. It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy. Chirac did do nothing to save UN, nor did Bush.
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
The attitude of Bush toward Blair showed that he is not listening to his friends and go his way.
Is there some sort of caption to go along with that pic? Sorry, but your feeble attempt to suggest that this death is the result of liberation is a bit sketchy without any facts. For all we know, that could be a victim of Iraqi torture and murder that has been going on for 20 years. It could also be an Iraqi soldier who fired on a group of Marines...bad idea on his part. It could also be a soldier attemptint to retreat and shot and left for dead by his own commander, that's one of the reasons the conscription fighters are fighting at all...fear of execution. Learn some journalistic integrity.
My sentiments, exactly! There's no caption or story to go with this picture, so who knows what is going on in there other than it being creepy looking. Yes, one could track down where this picture comes from, but damn, if you are going to post something like this, at least have the respect of including some contextual info with it. If the meaning has been misrepresented in the manner in which it was posted here, that would constitute a rather disgusting manner to make a point, IMO. The fact that nothing else was given with this photo makes it even more suspicious.
Is that what you would have us believe is soley going on over there, bunge, or did you just do it for "Shock and Awe"?
It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy.
This assumes of course that the UN Security Council had much legitimacy in the first place that could be saved. I would dispute that it did. In terms of security matters, it has always been a weak organization which may not be such a bad thing.
Quote:
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
He didn't reject the Blair proposal at all. Not sure where you got that. He certainly didn't endorse it as fully in public as he should have but the Shrubbery clan never rejected it.
Is there some sort of caption to go along with that pic? Sorry, but your feeble attempt to suggest that this death is the result of liberation is a bit sketchy without any facts.
Sorry, I didn't expect any rational human being to be able to ignore the obvious. I probably still shouldn't.
Killjoy? You're sick in the head if you blame me for that.
A link to register at the Washinton Post? How useless. Why don't you just come clean and put some words and quoted text from that article to this picture? (No, I'm not going to give out my name and email to some website just to further investigate a point that you bring up. My email gets spammed enough as it is.) Either way, the picture you posted is not representative of the goals of liberation anyway, yet that is the meaning you are implying. Perhaps, you could have prefaced it with "Face of War" or "Face of Oppression", but you chose to be a killjoy and imply this is the "Face of Liberation". Yes, I do blame you, as a matter of fact. Your approach here was tasteless- right along the lines of a gritty fetus picture as a means to sell planned-parenthood.
Can't tell anyone what the articles say, as my comprehension of Arabic is nil, but there is a gallery of pictures from Iraq.
On the main page, below the main articles, are three images ... click on the middle one and it will open a pop-up window with a collection of pictures.
(Note that you have to click what you would normally consider the 'back' arrow to move to the next picture ... as things run right-to-left over there.)
FAIR WARNING - VERY GRUESOME PICTURES IN THE GALLERY.
(Of course, also, please consider the source of these images ... I can't vouch for Al-Jazeera's politics, but I can guess.)
Let's hope the coalition troops can get the job done as cleanly and safely as possible.
(Do NOT post links to images like that. It doesn't matter if we're at war, the rules of the board still apply. - groverat)
I have to agree, bunge, that picture is pointless.
Powerdoc:
Quote:
This is not an argument. It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy. Chirac did do nothing to save UN, nor did Bush.
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
The attitude of Bush toward Blair showed that he is not listening to his friends and go his way.
It's a very good argument, actually. What Chirac accomplished is making his country look like obtsructionists. When one comes out and says he will veto ANY new resolution, that's unreasonable.
Second point: Bush did EVERYTHING to do this within the UN. Even 1441 was not needed. They had passed 16 prior resolutions on the topic. He and Powell made every effort to involve the security council. But, France and Russia made it ridiculously difficult. Any reasonable person would say Iraq was in clear violation on multiple ocassions. France and Russia had business deals to protect as well as power bases to satisfy. At last count, we had ten votes, Powerdoc. The security council, and in essence France and Russia, could not enforce their own resolutions. It was just reported today that Russian agents had been in Bagdhad as late as THIS WEEK showing the Iraqis how to use jamming equipment that the Russians smuggled in inside humanitarian aid. Finally, Chirac did not ask for an ultimatum. France wanted a 120 day "working period" with no dealine or ultimatum. That was the whole point....and it was a ridiculous idea.
Third point: Bush listened to Blair intently. Most pundits argued that the real reason Bush went for the second resolution for so long was due to Blair's perceived need at home. Your last statement is patently false.
Comments
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
The softwood lumber thing is just bullshit politics. Bush should be shot.
I hate to tell you this, but you cannot say that. Seriously. Say it enough, and you are going to have a visit from the Secret Service. No shit.
In one sense I think Chirac has inadvertently done the US a favour. In other threads people have mentioned it's more acceptable for the US to go to war without attempting to get a second UN resolution, than it is for them to go to war having attempted and failed to get the resolution. Chirac could have kept quiet and simply vetoed the second resolution when it was put forward, without the help of any other countries at all.
I have to agree. It didn't help that they said they'd veto ANY new resolution. They condemned it before Iraq did! What we have seen here is France's attempt at a global power play...which failed miserably. They should have known Bush would go with or without the UN. Time for inspectors in France to search for Weapons of Mass OBStruction.
pscates:
We're the only military in the world who would probably show that much restraint and goodwill. Do you think China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq themselves, etc. would conduct a campaign like this? Precision strikes, repeated breaks and opportunities for the enemy to surrender, etc.
We're doing EXACTLY what we said we were going to do, and - knock on wood - so far we're doing it beautifully. I know that drives a few of you absolutely around the bend, but get over it
Couldn't have said it better. The nay-sayers and protesters are becoming a joke. Do they even know what they are protesting? Seriously, the no war for oil thing is tired. The baby killer thing is ludicrous. We have heard it all, from "war is never the answer" (wow) to Bush is Hitler (funny, I don't remember Hitler dropping food rations on civilians) to "Saddam is bad but we don't think war is required" (OK, then how about another solution?) I think that some just get used to being "anti-war". It's like their identity.
" Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.""
Wow.
I hate to tell you this, but you cannot say that. Seriously. Say it enough, and you are going to have a visit from the Secret Service. No shit.
Silly boy. The Secret Service thinks that Bush should be shot as well.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]RodUK:
. They should have known Bush would go with or without the UN.
This is not an argument. It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy. Chirac did do nothing to save UN, nor did Bush.
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
The attitude of Bush toward Blair showed that he is not listening to his friends and go his way.
Originally posted by bunge
Ahh... "The Face of Liberation"....
Shouldn't that be the "face of UN sanctions"?
(Never ceases to amaze me how much of a killjoy some people can be, btw...)
Originally posted by bunge
Ahh... "The Face of Liberation"....
Is there some sort of caption to go along with that pic? Sorry, but your feeble attempt to suggest that this death is the result of liberation is a bit sketchy without any facts. For all we know, that could be a victim of Iraqi torture and murder that has been going on for 20 years. It could also be an Iraqi soldier who fired on a group of Marines...bad idea on his part. It could also be a soldier attemptint to retreat and shot and left for dead by his own commander, that's one of the reasons the conscription fighters are fighting at all...fear of execution. Learn some journalistic integrity.
Is that what you would have us believe is soley going on over there, bunge, or did you just do it for "Shock and Awe"?
It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy.
This assumes of course that the UN Security Council had much legitimacy in the first place that could be saved. I would dispute that it did. In terms of security matters, it has always been a weak organization which may not be such a bad thing.
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
He didn't reject the Blair proposal at all. Not sure where you got that. He certainly didn't endorse it as fully in public as he should have but the Shrubbery clan never rejected it.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
Chirach rejected *any* ultimatum. point of fact
Originally posted by groverat
Chirach rejected *any* ultimatum. point of fact
Not the last week before the war. He suggested it perhaps monday the 16. I have eard it on the radio (france info, a sort of equivalent of CNN).
Yes it was just one day before the 17, but he made it.
Originally posted by Randycat99
(Never ceases to amaze me how much of a killjoy some people can be, btw...)
Killjoy? You're sick in the head if you blame me for that.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
Is there some sort of caption to go along with that pic? Sorry, but your feeble attempt to suggest that this death is the result of liberation is a bit sketchy without any facts.
Sorry, I didn't expect any rational human being to be able to ignore the obvious. I probably still shouldn't.
Originally posted by bunge
Killjoy? You're sick in the head if you blame me for that.
A link to register at the Washinton Post? How useless. Why don't you just come clean and put some words and quoted text from that article to this picture? (No, I'm not going to give out my name and email to some website just to further investigate a point that you bring up. My email gets spammed enough as it is.) Either way, the picture you posted is not representative of the goals of liberation anyway, yet that is the meaning you are implying. Perhaps, you could have prefaced it with "Face of War" or "Face of Oppression", but you chose to be a killjoy and imply this is the "Face of Liberation". Yes, I do blame you, as a matter of fact. Your approach here was tasteless- right along the lines of a gritty fetus picture as a means to sell planned-parenthood.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Your approach here was tasteless- right along the lines of a gritty fetus picture as a means to sell planned-parenthood.
At least we now have your word that the left and the right use the same tactics.
Can't tell anyone what the articles say, as my comprehension of Arabic is nil, but there is a gallery of pictures from Iraq.
On the main page, below the main articles, are three images ... click on the middle one and it will open a pop-up window with a collection of pictures.
Al-Jazeera Main War On Iraq Page
Or use this link to get to the gallery directly:
Al-Jazeera Image Gallery
(Note that you have to click what you would normally consider the 'back' arrow to move to the next picture ... as things run right-to-left over there.)
FAIR WARNING - VERY GRUESOME PICTURES IN THE GALLERY.
(Of course, also, please consider the source of these images ... I can't vouch for Al-Jazeera's politics, but I can guess.)
Let's hope the coalition troops can get the job done as cleanly and safely as possible.
(Do NOT post links to images like that. It doesn't matter if we're at war, the rules of the board still apply. - groverat)
Powerdoc:
This is not an argument. It's not because Bush would go with or without, that we have to follow, just to save the UN legitimacy. Chirac did do nothing to save UN, nor did Bush.
Bush also rejected a resolution of Blair asking one week and several conditions, and he suggestion of Chirac asking for an ultimatum of 60 or 30 days.
The attitude of Bush toward Blair showed that he is not listening to his friends and go his way.
It's a very good argument, actually. What Chirac accomplished is making his country look like obtsructionists. When one comes out and says he will veto ANY new resolution, that's unreasonable.
Second point: Bush did EVERYTHING to do this within the UN. Even 1441 was not needed. They had passed 16 prior resolutions on the topic. He and Powell made every effort to involve the security council. But, France and Russia made it ridiculously difficult. Any reasonable person would say Iraq was in clear violation on multiple ocassions. France and Russia had business deals to protect as well as power bases to satisfy. At last count, we had ten votes, Powerdoc. The security council, and in essence France and Russia, could not enforce their own resolutions. It was just reported today that Russian agents had been in Bagdhad as late as THIS WEEK showing the Iraqis how to use jamming equipment that the Russians smuggled in inside humanitarian aid. Finally, Chirac did not ask for an ultimatum. France wanted a 120 day "working period" with no dealine or ultimatum. That was the whole point....and it was a ridiculous idea.
Third point: Bush listened to Blair intently. Most pundits argued that the real reason Bush went for the second resolution for so long was due to Blair's perceived need at home. Your last statement is patently false.