Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on October 22, 2002, 04:30:19 AM
-
or is it just GW finally being diplomatic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2348065.stm
-
Want me to punt the thread where I said it was saber rattling the whole time? Saber rattling is part of diplomacy.;)
Pei, you going to the UK Con?
-
Bush isn't going soft on Iraq, he's just busy with more important matters right now...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s03-uspo.html
-
France attacks, US surrenders. ;)
"PARIS, France (AP) -- It sounds like political suicide: Alienate your most powerful ally, risk looking soft against an aggressive dictator, argue for bureaucratic deliberation over decisive action.
But French President Jacques Chirac's strident stand against a unilateral U.S. strike to topple the Iraqi government is making strong progress internationally -- and winning Chirac points at home.
Paris' policy, backed by fellow permanent U.N. Security Council members Russia and China, has had an impact in Washington. A revised U.S. proposal ensures there will be "consequences" if Iraq fails to comply with weapons inspectors, but stops short of directly calling for military action."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/22/france.iraq.ap/index.html
-
It's hard to compete with Terry McAuliffe, but you have to try.
-
Thrawn, from that article:
Other factors were also at work. Germany, for example, came out early in full opposition to war
in Iraq, leaving no room to work with Washington and depriving it of a leadership position. With
Britain in the U.S. camp, the path was wide for France to take a middle path.
I'm certain that had NOTHING to do with the fact that they sell nuclear technology and machinery to Iraq. ;)
-
Pei, you going to the UK Con? [/B]
Not unless you can persuade Boeing to lend me a jet to fly from LAX or Orange County in the near future. Even then I wouldn't be able to take the time off as things stand now. :)
I'll probably go next year when I'm back in the UK permanently.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm certain that had NOTHING to do with the fact that they sell nuclear technology and machinery to Iraq. ;)
Or that oil isn't a consideration for Bush going in. :D
Whee diplomacy!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Or that oil isn't a consideration for Bush going in. :D
Whee diplomacy!
Well DUH! Lets see, without oil, does America flourish?
Like I said, we need self-dependency, thats either in the form of drilling north of you in the Yukon, or alternate energy sources...make em ride Camels again before they make us ride horses! :D
-
the truth is Bush realizes Saddam would kick our arse :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
thats either in the form of drilling north of you in the Yukon,
Not to be a nit picky jerk, but the Yukon is Canadian (Yukon Territory), Alaska is to the west of it.
-
I'm saying invade Canada, take her resourses...what are you guys going to do? Free speech us to death? :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm saying invade Canada, take her resourses...what are you guys going to do? Free speech us to death? :D
LOL...
Well for heaven's sake don't insult Canadian beer...you just might be surprised at how difficult an invasion would be if the US did so.:D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm saying invade Canada, take her resourses...what are you guys going to do? Free speech us to death? :D
:D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Or that oil isn't a consideration for Bush going in. :D
Whee diplomacy!
Its a bigger factor for France not wanting in. Total Petrolium is one of the big winners of an Iraq oil contract....but then you knew that :)
BTW same deal for russia..
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Its a bigger factor for France not wanting in. Total Petrolium is one of the big winners of an Iraq oil contract....but then you knew that :)
BTW same deal for russia..
Nope, didn't know that. But now I do, thanks.
-
Nobody had problems about going to war to secure strategic patroleum reserves in arabia for the free world in WWII, why is it such a moral dilema now ? Like gibralter or panama It is of extreme strategic importance .
-
Originally posted by Samm
Nobody had problems about going to war to secure strategic patroleum reserves in arabia for the free world in WWII, why is it such a moral dilema now ? Like gibralter or panama It is of extreme strategic importance .
Easy answer:
P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S
-
11345 US Marines battle 710 Iraqs
who wins?
using an open number 4, write down the numbers & flip them over for the answer :)
-
(http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKorea/KoreaGIFS/nick.gif)
-
"who wins?"
Shell... but that leaves out several other gas companies.. why do they lose? Not enuff Iraqis left to spell 'em out? :)
-SW
-
I don't know. I think that Bush's poor grasp on foreign policy is beginning to show again (pre 9/11). It's kinda looks like he's being played by everyone. Did China put N. Korea up to annoucing their nuclear program? I don't see why they would otherwise.
I don't think some countries are sick of his unilateral policies and are starting to shut him down, internationally speaking.
-
Chimpy finally figured out banannas don't come from Iraq.
-
Man you are the most ridiculous person on this board lol.
I am surprised you even bother posting.
-
N Korea 'announced' as a result of being confronted with evidence of it, it's not like they just decided to reveal their weapons program.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
N Korea 'announced' as a result of being confronted with evidence of it, it's not like they just decided to reveal their weapons program.
exactly:
"After a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with evidence of a uranium-based program in that country with enough plutonium for at least two nuclear weapons, North Korea admitted to a top U.S. diplomat two weeks ago that it has had a secret nuclear weapons program.
Because of the admission, the White House said Sunday it considers the 1994 Agreed Framework effectively dead. The agreement called for the United States to provide energy assistance to North Korea in exchange for Pyongyang's promise to stop seeking to develop nuclear weapons. "
http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp
http://cisac.stanford.edu/news/pressrelease.html
"The 1994 Agreed Framework (AF) between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has become the centerpiece of recent US efforts to reduce the threat of conflict on the Korean peninsula. Under the AF, the US and its allies (mainly South Korea) will provide the DPRK with two large nuclear-power reactors and other benefits such as annual shipments of fuel oil for the generation of electricity until the nuclear-power reactors being built for that purpose are able to do so. In exchange the DPRK will declare how much nuclear weapon-usable material it has produced; identify, freeze, and eventually dismantle specified facilities for producing this material; and remain a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow the implementation of its safeguards agreement."
lying, sneaking nk's - if they so much as blinked now, they'd be glass - handsomehunkes