Author Topic: Media Bias revisited re: WMD... (Read 615 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** October 08, 2003, 07:59:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It didn't it mention consequences?

No. It does not.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:00:03 PM »

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:06:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Sandman, "UN Security Council" is an oxymoron. France ended any hope the SC would be able to enforce 1441. No use following the law if everyone else isn't. Iraq was able to break the law for 12 years, no biggie.

Take your "UN Ball" and go home. Get US out.

I didn't play the UN card. I simply responded to it. Rework of the SC is something Annan has been asking for years. Certainly, the SC has some serious flaws that need to be addressed, but France acted within the constraints of the system. The U.S. chose to circumvent it.

Get US out... that's laughable. We created the UN.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #18 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:12:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No. It does not.

You're correct. It says "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

A synonomous diplospeak phrase, basically saying "or else".

Sandman · « **Reply #19 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:13:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You're correct. It says "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

A synonomous diplospeak phrase, basically saying "or else".

If 1441 had sufficient teeth, the U.S. would not have submitted a draft resolution for the disarmament of Iraq... don'tcha think?

Kieran · « **Reply #20 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:36:20 PM »

It's not laughable at all. We should do it. Now. We change our minds. We quit. Cya. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Sandman · « **Reply #21 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:47:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
It's not laughable at all. We should do it. Now. We change our minds. We quit. Cya. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

I totally disagree. While the U.S. doesn't really need U.N. permission to do anything, having U.N. sanction is better than going alone. Perfect example would be Gulf War I.

Kieran · « **Reply #22 on:** October 08, 2003, 08:54:49 PM »

Yeah, those sanctions work wonders... SH was suffering like nobody's business. Yessir, good thing the UN stepped in to handle THAT mess.

And the Congo.

And Liberia.

And...

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** October 08, 2003, 09:03:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Yeah, those sanctions work wonders... SH was suffering like nobody's business. Yessir, good thing the UN stepped in to handle THAT mess.

And the Congo.

And Liberia.

And...

Wrong definition...

Gunslinger · « **Reply #24 on:** October 08, 2003, 09:54:39 PM »

Man i get tired of saying this....

If you librals like sadam sooooooo much...fly him over here make him a member of your party and greet him with open arms since EVERYONE knows he was such a CAREING humanitariion and a great contribution to planet earth

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:02:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Man i get tired of saying this....

If you librals like sadam sooooooo much...fly him over here make him a member of your party and greet him with open arms since EVERYONE knows he was such a CAREING humanitariion and a great contribution to planet earth

Non sequitur. We're tired of it too.

Kieran · « **Reply #26 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:04:49 PM »

UN sanctions don't work. Too many corrupt members willing to make secret deals. Get US out.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #27 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:04:50 PM »

if your tired of it let it be than...sadam had the means to produce the weapons.....and were there's smoke there's fire

Sandman · « **Reply #28 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:24:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
UN sanctions don't work. Too many corrupt members willing to make secret deals. Get US out.

I meant #1, or 4c... I think you're talking #5.

Main Entry: 1sanc·tion
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin sanction-, sanctio, from sancire to make holy -- more at SACRED
Date: 15th century
1 : a formal decree; especially : an ecclesiastical decree
2 a obsolete : a solemn agreement : OATH b : something that makes an oath binding
3 : the detriment, loss of reward, or coercive intervention annexed to a violation of a law as a means of enforcing the law
4 a : a consideration, principle, or influence (as of conscience) that impels to moral action or determines moral judgment b : a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards c : explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification : APPROBATION
5 : an economic or military coercive measure adopted usually by several nations in concert for forcing a nation violating international law to desist or yield to adjudication .

Sandman · « **Reply #29 on:** October 08, 2003, 10:26:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
if your tired of it let it be than...sadam had the means to produce the weapons.....and were there's smoke there's fire

What weapons? You mean the ones we can't find? I'm sorry, but I don't consider a "weapons program" to be an imminent threat.