How is this Unilateral????? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-17-2003, 07:08 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Why is it unilateral?

pResident W. Bush announced the goal of regime change without building a consensus first.

It was a unilateral move.

There was no serious opposition to the Afghan/Taliban War because of the horrors of 9-11.

The administration was drunk* on their own success in Afghanistan. They wrongly assumed they had carte blanche to do what ever they wanted.

This is perceived as arrogant, dangerous, and intolerable by many.

This is a recurring problem with Rumsfeld.

Most of the world believes Saddam should go. They just don’t want to a unilateralist setting the agenda
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 07:24 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Another thing to consider is how many people in those countries actually support their governments.

The polls indicate that a vast majority of the British, for example, completely disagree with Blair, but his country is listed here.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-17-2003, 07:42 PM   #18
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 08:31 PM

'Bullying' into a 'Multilateral' War.. Regardless of how one may feel about it.. It seems Bush has jumped through the hoops, and if he were to attack Iraq, he would be an elected president, with a Congressional resolution, with many voices of approval from NATO (The recently signed Letter), and a UN resolution. We all welcome conspiracy theorists, but the paper trail is there, may the allies step in line.

Melon, Many would consider overwhelming force or violence to be the only real relevant diplomacy.

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 07:45 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Beefeater
Melon, Many would consider overwhelming force or violence to be the only real relevant diplomacy.
And North Korea is the master of it.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:20 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:31 PM
Normal


some were chosen to lead.
some were chosen to follow.
still others were chosen to shriek.

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:45 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:31 PM
and do some always follow blindly?

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:47 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:31 PM

clever.
however not accurate.

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 08:55 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Beefeater
'Bullying' into a 'Multilateral' War.. Regardless of how one may feel about it.. It seems Bush has jumped through the hoops, and if he were to attack Iraq, he would be an elected president, with a Congressional resolution, with many voices of approval from NATO (The recently signed Letter), and a UN resolution. We all welcome conspiracy theorists, but the paper trail is there, may the allies step in line.
Beefeater
I'm not saying Hitler and Bush are anything alike, but according to this same exact logic, one could argue that Hitler's rise to power and the following exercise of it, was perfectly okay because it, too, was perfectly legal and legitimate (Hitler passed several laws and provisions in order to achieve his aims legally). Once again, I'm not saying Bush's intentions are anything like Hitler's, but the logistics of your argument are the same. Therefore, you haven't convinced me with such an argument.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 09:00 PM   #24
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Why is it unilateral?

Most of the world believes Saddam should go. They just don’t want to a unilateralist setting the agenda


Unless your name Is Jack Chirac, and you don't believe that SADDAm should go, and you do WANT to set the agenda....

"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany.

Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later.

“Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.
He warned the candidates the position could be "dangerous" because the parliaments of the 15 EU nations still have to ratify last December's decision for 10 new members to join the bloc on May 1, 2004.
Chirac particularly warned Romania and Bulgaria, who are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate," Chirac said. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."


Roamania and Bulgaria not part of Europe?
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 10:52 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Good post Us3. I think its about time we shined the light on French Unilateralism.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 11:50 PM   #26
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:31 PM
This is a great thread Dread, I thank you for posting alot of threads with great info!

Anyways, ON the topic of Canada. I have no doubt Canada will either support this war or send troops. Canada is playing it safe but if US goes it with or without the UN they would join or at least publically support(while not giving support, but thats jean for ya)

I would be intrested though to see how many nations would stand with the US if no UN resolution was passed! I really think that the US should let them inspect until the end of summer, prove that Iraq isnt disarming and then attack, this would help them in the world of the eyes. They could shut France up.

One more thing, doesnt anyone focus on the harm Saddam does on his own people? We all can agree he is evil but only some people totally think we should get rid of him. If you were being treated the way the IRaqi people are wouldnt you want the US to help. I just cant see the logic in turning the focus always on the US. We dont relize that in this war good will be done, but once again we need to beat up on the US...
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 02-17-2003, 11:57 PM   #27
On Thin Ice
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 47
Local Time: 08:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

Once again, I'm not saying Bush's intentions are anything like Hitler's, but the logistics of your argument are the same. Therefore, you haven't convinced me with such an argument.
I'm not quite sure what it is you are looking for, I am giving a reply to those who whine and complain that Bush is 'Going this Alone', being a 'Cowboy', and Spitting in the face of the International Community. By the multitude of evidence referenced.... UN Resolution of Force, Verbal Support of 23 Nations, and Letters of Support from many of the NATO allies, it is obvious that he has genuinely won and convinced these nations and organizations. But keep tuned, more will most definitely be on the way. Dreadsox will keep you posted as long as he is not researching Gen. Clark.

I'm not quite sure what you require to be convinced that America is not 'bullying' its way into this war, But I hardly would think that these 23 nations, the UN, and many of our NATO allies would say that they were 'bullied' into their position.. for a whole host of reasons, No. 1 starting with pride. And did it ever occur to you that the backers of our stance on Iraq actually intrinsically hold similar positions as the US?...

But feel free, continue on your search for any and every natural deductional proof that allows you to feel right. In the meantime, I will await Jean Chrétien's wise acknowledgement of support for the USA.

Beefeater
__________________
80 Proof
Beefeater is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 12:00 AM   #28
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 01:31 PM
Beafeater, you must relize something about Jean.

Even though in my above post i said i do believe the country will go ahead with the US you cant really rule out us not going. Jean is in his homestretch of his nearly 10 yrs in power and he is liable to do anything! 90% he goes, or should i say the country goes but dont ever count out him going off and knocking the US. He passed the Kyoto, he can do ANYTHING!!!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 12:37 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Beefeater
But feel free, continue on your search for any and every natural deductional proof that allows you to feel right. In the meantime, I will await Jean Chrétien's wise acknowledgement of support for the USA.
Beefeater
Look, I'm simply saying that the US should go through the UN, and if the UN doesn't give them permission, clearly there isn't enough evidence and incentive for the world to put up with a pre-emptive strike that will cost thousands of lives (not to mention pots of money). Basically, the US's position is based on fear. That fear is based on a suspicion that Iraq will use WMD on the US. I don't think Saddam Hussein would ever be that stupid, but now the US have pushed him so far that they have backed themselves into a corner, and now they have to go in (besides, at this point they would lose face if they didn't). This war will happen. There's no argument there. The question is whether it will happen through the UN or not. We'll wait and see.

BTW, Cretien isn't as much of a fool as people make him out to be. He knows very well why he should remain distant on this issue. He (publicly) supports the US, but like everyone else, he thinks it would be very unwise to go in without UN consent. And he's right.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 03:46 AM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wallyworld
Posts: 571
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by us3




Unless your name Is Jack Chirac, and you don't believe that SADDAm should go, and you do WANT to set the agenda....

"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany.

Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later.

“Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq.
He warned the candidates the position could be "dangerous" because the parliaments of the 15 EU nations still have to ratify last December's decision for 10 new members to join the bloc on May 1, 2004.
Chirac particularly warned Romania and Bulgaria, who are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007.

"Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate," Chirac said. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."

Wow, Jack. Threatening prospective members of the EU because they dare disagree with your shit country. How big of you.

Maybe it's time that France is relieved of the burdensome chore of being an "alley" of the US.
__________________

__________________
Clark W. Griswold, Jr is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com