Make Your Case - Page 4 - 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 01-29-2003, 04:25 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Dreadsox,

In 1999 the USA and NATO attacked and removed Serb forces from Kosovo thereby enforcing multiple UN resolutions in regards to the conflict in Kosovo. This was done without the approval of the United Nations.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 04:40 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Sting,

Yes, but that problem was within Nato's jusrisdiction right?
How many Arab countries are coming in on this operation?

I am just trying to convince myself. The book I am reading is convincing me....

The Threatening Storm

You would like it.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 05:28 PM   #48
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Sting,

Yes, but that problem was within Nato's jusrisdiction right?
How many Arab countries are coming in on this operation?

I am just trying to convince myself. The book I am reading is convincing me....

The Threatening Storm

You would like it.

Turkey is a nato member, and is part of the coalition... possible "justification" for Nato support.

btw halfway thru said book, but got sidetracked by The War Against The Terror Masters by Ledeen. Quick and easy read.

an aside, it seems strange the Tony Blair is getting such short-shrift w/ regard to Kosovo. If I recall he pretty much was the driving force behind the operation....
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 06:04 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Dreadsox,

Kosovo did not fall under NATO's jurisdiction at the time. The UN had passed resolutions against Serb aggression and the unfolding humanitarian disaster it was causing. The US wanted to act with others just as it does in the current case with Iraq. The USA failed to get the UN to go along with using force but it did get NATO to go along. If NATO had not gone along, the USA then would of formed a smaller coalition of countries, as it is doing in the current case with Iraq, and acted to prevent the Serb slaughter in Kosovo.

Its true that few if any Arab countries will participate in this operation if it happens, and right now, publically, none are. Be sure to read chapter 6 ( the regional perspective) in "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack for more on this issue.

"The Threatening Storm" is a great book with lots of information. I'm almost finished reading it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 06:22 PM   #50
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Sting we relize that they need to prove that they havent disarmed. But i think what alot of people are saying that they dont agree with the UN resolution! Just because the UN passed it doesnt mean everyone has to agree with it.

I personally think Bush started to make his case last night but he will need more to convince others.

I am convinced that Iraq is decieving the world. But many are not. You must look at this from others points of view.

Saddam will fall by summer. And i'm glad!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 06:25 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:53 AM
I do look at this from others points of view and I have tried to explain my position. The fact is, no matter what evidence is presented, some people will never be convinced.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 06:37 PM   #52
War Child
 
UKTan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 883
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Genuine question for you all

Its been stated many many times that the US has not been able to share its evidence because of the risk to the intelligence network, those ppl providing the info etc etc, I'm intrigued to know why now (or rather 5th Feb) can this evidence be shared? Whats changed?
__________________
UKTan is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 06:53 PM   #53
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:53 AM
IMO Bush is being pressured by citizens in the US and recent polls. 70+% want the case made against Iraq and a coalition response against Iraq. Therefore he is willing to share some data with the security counsel to make his case.

I hope this is the reason and Powell will not just be regurgitating the same points. If so I have more hope for the US and the power of the people (sorry to be corny).
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 07:08 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:53 AM
But on the other hand, photos or films or articles can be manipulated so easily.

If the UN says they have nukes, so be it. Then they┤ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed. I mean, just bc Hussein is a madman? Thats not very ... objective... pah.

Before bombing around the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If Security is so important, why don┤t the U.S. ratify it?

I know - from very reliable sources - that very probably other states would follow the U.S. example.

Without nuclear tests no development of nukes.

So whats the point w disarming (not that I┤d be against it...)?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 09:38 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:53 AM

I do not think that Saddam Hussein is so benevolent that he would dispose of his weapons simply because the U.S. ratifies the CTBT.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 09:53 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:53 AM
HIPHOP,


"Then they┤ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed"

With that statement you seem to be forgetting what has transpired the past 12 years. Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990. The US and UN pushed Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 and was ready to go to Baghdad if Saddam did not surrender and agree to the terms of the 1991 ceacefire agreement. In 1991, Saddam signed the ceacefire agreement and agreed to give over all WMD weapons. Saddam has used such weapons to target and kill civilians on a massive scale. The international community was in total agreement that Saddam should not have such weapons. UN inspectors spent the period from 1991-1998, before they were kicked out, attempting to make sure Iraq was disarming.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 09:59 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:53 AM
UKTAN,

Its because the type of evidence that will be presented on February 5 does not compromise intelligence sources. Other evidence though would.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2003, 10:06 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
But on the other hand, photos or films or articles can be manipulated so easily.

If the UN says they have nukes, so be it. Then they┤ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed. I mean, just bc Hussein is a madman? Thats not very ... objective... pah.

Before bombing around the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If Security is so important, why don┤t the U.S. ratify it?

I know - from very reliable sources - that very probably other states would follow the U.S. example.

Without nuclear tests no development of nukes.

So whats the point w disarming (not that I┤d be against it...)?

look, for me, it's not nukes....(I don't think they have them). It's the biological agents.

why is this so hard for people to understand??? let's consider the scenario: al-queda is passed whatever biological agent from iraq, smuggles it into the u.s., and lets it free in times square.

think it won't happen if given the chance? why wouldn't it? YOU provide EVIDENCE that it WON'T.
__________________

__________________
JOFO 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 02:53 AM.


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