Cheney you are full of ****

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Nash
Well, there hasn't been a terrorist orange alert since last November, so maybe it's working.

I've got some elephant repellant in my kitchen cupboard. It has been 100% effective.

[Holden McGroin]

Well Nash,

When UNSC 1441 was passed, and gave Saddam "one last chance to comply", and warned of 'serious consequenses" of their were failure to comply with 1441. Troops began to build up in Kuwait in October, and backed up the threat.

10 days later UNMOVIC arrived in Iraq.

Hanz Blix spoke of Iraqi cooperation put forth by "outside influences" but also said that cooperation was not what it should be if the Iraqis were fully committed to disarmament like the South Africans were.  While Blix was opposed to the military action, he spoke of frustration that inspectors were not supposed to be investigators but were supposed to be verifiers.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin

When UNSC 1441 was passed, and gave Saddam "one last chance to comply", and warned of 'serious consequenses" if their were failure to comply with 1441. Troops began to build up in Kuwait in October, and backed up the threat.

Hmmm... if we're going to use UNSC 1441 as the reason, shouldn't it have been up to the UNSC to enforce it?

Or... is it now the policy of the U.S. to selectively enforce UN resolutions?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... if we're going to use UNSC 1441 as the reason, shouldn't it have been up to the UNSC to enforce it?
 

You would think so wouldn't you?

[Nash]

Yeah, you would.

Erhm... huh?

So I guess what you're saying is that the UN didn't do the job of enforcing its rules so the US stepped in to enforce its rules for them.

For one thing, the US and everybody else would be a hell of a lot better off right now if, when it came to Iraq, the US didn't jump in and start enforcing the UN's rules against the UN's wishes. Okay? That much we now know.

For another, Powel stood up in front of them with a PowerPoint presentation the cost of which probably equaled the GDP of a few third world countries combined, trying to show the UN what it thought it knew. It's not as if Uganda or wherever has spy satellites.

When push came to shove, the US kicked out the UN's ability to verify the intelligence that the US was so kindly supplying to them. The UN wanted to check it out. The US wouldn't let them. And you wanna foist the blame on the UN?

Your remark seems only to say "They wouldn't do it, so we had to."

Thus, in light of everything we now know, your argument becomes "They wouldn't do it, because it was not justified, but we did it anyways, because they wouldn't." Well good for you. It's irrational.

[Holden McGroin]

Actually it is my opinion, and that opinion is totally academic, that if France, Russia, and China agreed with th UK and the USA and supported the military threat, Saddam may have realised his hand had been called, and the possibility existed that he may have begun to comply with the 1991 cease fire.  

But since the UN has only authorized military action twice, in 1950 and in 1991 IIRC,  I believe that Saddam thought "They won't do anything, eventually get bored and go home."

[Nash]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Saddam thought "They won't do anything..."

Do anything about what?

Really...

Holden, lets get real here. Saddam was the walking dead long before you and I got wind of it. Long before we were lied to about the reasons for it.

Half of his country was restricted airspace, his joint was getting bombed the shreck up daily, his army was destroyed, he couldn't trade with the rest of the world, and finally the inspectors weren't allowed to say that he really wasn't up to much of anything.

China or whoever else wasn't needed to back up any threat. The inspectors were in, didn't find anything, and were yanked. What more could have been done by China or whoever else?

[rpm]

Holden, I'll make it easy for you. If you see a politician and his lips are moving, there's a greater than 80% chance he's lying regardless of the subject.

[Holden McGroin]

Nash,

If you get pulled over by the police and they demand that you hand over your license and registration do you argue over the legitimacy of the stop, or do you comply?

I suggest you comply.

The effect of of a monolithic UNSC would have been stronger than a split council and I contend may have been effective in making the inspections actually work and may have averted the use of the military option.

But only twice in the history of the UN has it been more than a paper tiger.

[Holden McGroin]

Please enlighten me GS.

When, other than Korea 1950 and Kuwait 1991, has the UNSC authorized the use of force against anyone?  Not just blue hat peacekeepers, but real armed forces capable of taking and holding territory?

[Torque]

i doubt there will be any solid paper trail. but holden, would you endorse your children to fight in cheney's war?

[Holden McGroin]

The Kosovo operation was a NATO operation.  Operation Allied Force.  

Show me the UNSC reslolution authorising that UN forces "take" Bosnia.   UNPROFOR was initially established in Croatia to ensure demilitarization of designated areas. The mandate was later extended to Bosnia and Herzegovina to support the delivery of humanitarian relief, monitor "no fly zones" and "safe areas". The mandate was later extended to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for preventive monitoring in border areas.

[Holden McGroin]

Sorry about the edit, I thought I got it before you replied.

[Holden McGroin]

I posted it for 10 seconds when I saw you were trying to answer my question already.  What... do like to vulch too?

Resolution 1031 (1995) establishes IFOR as a mop up peacekeeper force.

Resolution 1244 (1999) authorises KFOR in June, but NATO struck in March 24.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Raider179
He's the VP. He has already shown he has zero tact in handling these kind of situations. Why do you think they keep him holed up in some bunker somewhere.  "allegations" please. If you don't think we are doing some really bad **** down in GITMO you can just keep living in your fairy tale world.

So what part of "allegations" in your original post is wrong?


As far as doing some really bad **** down in gitmo.
It sounds more like there may have been some abuse not torture.  

In my opinion they dumb down the definition of torture when they include scantily dressed women sitting on laps, sleep deprivation, cold air conditioners and threatening to flush the Koran.