So What's the Rush? - Page 3 - 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 02-26-2003, 01:19 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:37 PM
All interesting stuff. I think I've sufficiently started a thought-provoking thread, hopefully, but now I must get some sleep. I'll respond to some of this tomorrow probably.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 01:20 AM   #32
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 62
Local Time: 01:37 AM
its not that big of a deal that clinton lied. but if it wasnt such a bigdeal to lie about something so small then why did he find it neccesarry to lie about something so small in such a big way under oath? my thoughts is not on this lie that was such a big deal but it does make me wonder if we did see a little bit of his true colors about this. if he lied this one time what else did he lie about that we did not know about? if someone lies it means theve lied before. domocrats love to bash they are haters, but they say there lovers but yet not really.
__________________

__________________
megadrum2002 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 06:51 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
where were these protesters when clinton went into haiti and kosovo without the UN or a declaration of war? Hmm... ohhhhh yeah... they were supporting clinton 'cause he was a democrat. How could I forget.
The UN was not needed to declare war then. We had not agreed to a cease-fire with either nation. Once the cease-fire is declared unless we are once again attacked we have no right to invade unless the security council clears it. It has been this way since the UN was formed.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 05:08 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Dreadsox,

"The UN was not needed to declare war then. We had not agreed to a cease-fire with either nation. Once the cease-fire is declared unless we are once again attacked we have no right to invade unless the security council clears it. It has been this way since the UN was formed"

So your saying that the USA did not need the UN in 1990/1991 to push Iraq out of Kuwait? The UN Charter does not say the only time when Security Council approval is needed for military action is in the case of a ceacefire violation. There actually was a ceacefire in Kosovo that the Serbs were constantly violating it to root out KLA soldiers. The UN Security Council never approved military action that was taken, and many countries screamed and complained just like they are today. In any event, the Security Council already approved for member states to engage in military action if Iraq is in material breach which it certainly is. This Authorization was given in Res. 678, re-affirmed in Res. 687, re-affirmed again in 1441.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 09:44 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Did I say that? Show me where I said that. It was in reference to Kosovo. The UNITED STATES HAD NOT AGREED TO A CEASE FIRE IN KOSOVO.....THEY HAVE WITH IRAQ. Your situations are not the same situations.

Don't put words in my mouth and twist what I have clearly and consistently been saying in this thread and others. You are better than that. I would appreciate it, otherwise, there is no point in continuing. I have not done it to you, and I would appreciate you not doing it to me.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 10:02 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

This Authorization was given in Res. 678, re-affirmed in Res. 687, re-affirmed again in 1441.
Keep ignoring all of the parts to 1441 and cling to 678.
Ignore that 1441 gives another chance.
Ignore that 1441 says the Council Will convene to decide what to do if the INSPECTORS file a report saying Iraq is not cooperating.

It does say these things. It does not say the United States determines what to do if the INSPECTORS file the negative report.

The links I have provided below written by LAWYERS agree with this.

I do believe this next resolution will pass. I think the tide is shifting a bit. I do not think Russia or China will Veto. France, I do not know....they are pretty determined.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 10:17 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Dreadsox,

I was asking you a question, not stating you had in fact said this or that.

Well I need to look up if the Ceacefire in Kosovo was in fact a UN ceacefire. If it was, you have a similar situation like Iraq. Remember the Iraq situation was a UN Ceacefire as well. But regardless of the ceacefire, you have the use of force against another country without Security Council approval. So if I can ask the same question again, isn't military action without the consent of the Security Council a violation of the UN charter? Remember, Kosovo is apart of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had not attacked any country in any way. Looks to me like military action was a violation of the UN Charter. Yet, I don't see any of the serious problems or fallout from that military action( Kosovo) that people say we will suffer by not having UN approval in going into Iraq.

I fully agree that the USA should do its best to get as much support around the world, but if it can't convince the rest of the Security Council, I think it should take matters with other like minded countries into its own hands since it clearly has the legal bases to do so based on past resolutions. If Saddam is such a massive threat, which he indeed is, it would make little sense, in my opinion, to not act to defend ourselves and other from this threat, just because several members on the current Security Council disagree. In any event, it looks like Bush is succeeding. The Washington Post has reported that Saudi Arabia is now on board for military action(their not on the security Council). Mexico is also now on board with the USA. I think Bush is actually going to get his resolution.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2003, 10:37 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Dreadsox,

Remember:

#1 the language of 678
#2 the fact that 678 has been used by past administrations
justify military action.
#3 678 is re-affirmed in 687
#4 678 is re-affirmed in 1441
#5 Where I come from "Serious Consequences" does not mean to sit down and have another chat in my opinion. Don't know if thats what you think, but there are certainly others out there who do.

The Bush Administration wrote most of this resolution, but you seem to refuse to see their interpretation of it.

I support the Bush Administration view on this. You support some Lawyers and others interpretation on this. I don't think the Bush Adminsistration from a legal stand point needed 1441. 678 justified past military action and it can certainly justify any current action against Iraq. Yep, I keep going back to 678, and if anyone reads the Resolutions, you'll see that those that have written the resolutions go back to it also.

I've looked at everything and definitely come down on the side of State Department and every Presidential Administration after Reagan was in office.

Iraq is obviously failing to take its "last chance". Blix has yet to report that Iraq is fully complying with all its obligations.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-27-2003, 05:48 AM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Iraq is obviously failing to take its "last chance". Blix has yet to report that Iraq is fully complying with all its obligations.
Blix also has yet to report that Iraq is in "material breach" (or not cooperating at all). There is a difference between not fully cooperating and not cooperating. That things could be better does not mean that things are bad. They just can be better.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn 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 08:37 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