Soooooo Sorrrrryyyyyy Saddam - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Support the UN Resolution
yes 19 73.08%
no 7 26.92%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-08-2002, 10:06 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Soooooo Sorrrrryyyyyy Saddam

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=350321


Well, it looks like the UN is now behind the United States and England about Iraq.


Sooooooo.......


How many of you will now support action against Iraq if they do not comply with the new resolutions?


Peace (To ALL)
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-08-2002, 10:50 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:52 PM

Saddam is a fart-knocker; I don't care what anyone else here says.
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-08-2002, 11:49 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:52 PM
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-09-2002, 08:49 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:52 AM
I voted no. I don't support attacking Iraq regardless of the opinion of the UN.

It'll be interesting to see how much opposition to an attack just melts away now France, Russia, China, the UK and US have given their support to it.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-09-2002, 05:55 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Funny, how many people opposed to military action here did so on the grounds that the USA did not have the support of the world community. Now that the USA does, it will be interesting to see those same people's opinions on the issue now.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 05:20 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Funny ?
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 09:00 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
Funny ?
Yes it is funny......

I think most people who were against the action felt that Bush was not working through the UN the way his father did. It is a different situation from when his father weas president. Not as 'clear cut" as some have pointed out.

15-0 Vote.
He has the support of the UN.....


I really wonder what evidence was shared behind the scenes to bring about the vote......That nobody thought would happen.




Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 09:41 AM   #8
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Funny, how many people opposed to military action here did so on the grounds that the USA did not have the support of the world community. Now that the USA does, it will be interesting to see those same people's opinions on the issue now.
almost as funny + interesting as trying to establish how many of the people who claimed that they gave a rat's ass about the UN's opinion + that Sadam has had his "last oportunity" a long time ago will now see this UN resolution as a "victory"
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:12 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:52 AM
I never said that I did not give a rats ass about the UN's opinion. I have always stated that the USA was acting in accordance with the UN ceace fireagreement and UN resolutions passed in 1990/1991 unlike many of the other UN members. The USA has always had the legal right to use all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance with its UN obligations passed under chapter 7 rules that allow for the use of military force to bring compliance. To satisfy world opinion though, without any legal need to do so, the USA had another resolution passed in the UN and it passed 15-0. Yet, it does not surprise me that there are people here and elsewhere that will not see this as approval for Bush and his policies on Iraq. They will now simply dismiss the new UN resolution which they said was required to do anything. So, yep, I do find that a bit funny.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:25 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 12:52 AM
I support the UN resolution. I still do not support war.

I think the parties concerned should act in the way they claim to be acting at the moment; we see what Hussein's got, see whether he is willing to give them up, and then see what options we have as of yet. I still do not believe in disregarding all of this with war branded on our intentions. If we should act, we should act with caution. A caution, which I must confess to, has been exhibited by the Bush administration.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 04:38 PM   #11
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:52 AM
I have problems seeing this solution as Bush his take on how the situation with Iraq should be solved

Bush started with statements such as "when you're not with us you're against us"
he has made clear from the beginning (the beginning of exactly what, I'm not sure of) that attacking Iraq is the only solution
so I have trouble seeing the UN resolution as Bush succeeding in getting his message across

that's why I think it's kind of ironic that I'm reading posts now how Bush got what he wanted from the beginning
he hasn't
he wanted to attack the axis of evil, starting with Iraq


Bush has made clear he won't take no as an answer
he will attack whether the UN agrees or not

the UN has now found a way to at least stall some time
I don't think that will help
neither do I think that bombing Iraq will help solve the problems between the Western society and the Middle East


I think the problem is far greater than the question whether it's funny or not that people at this forum posted their opinion that it is not smart to attack with no allies to back you up
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 11-10-2002, 05:41 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,459
Local Time: 06:52 PM
wink

ya you know what, if the us didnt have such huge interests in their oil, we'd never pay attention to them.

honestly, they wouldnt make the news. noone here would even know who saddam is. have they proved that theyre supporting terrorists, particularly osama bin laden and his cronies?

what about palestine? dont they have terrorists? why dont they go and clean that up? again, no oil, no reason to send americans there.

meanwhile in china and north korea, theyre the ones who have human rights groups up in arms, but because they are militairy powers, and dont possess oil, the us will abstain from attacking them. for now.
__________________
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:07 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:52 AM
If all Bush wanted to do was attack Iraq, he could have done that months ago or even a year ago.

Bushes goal has been to disarm Iraq period, with or without inspections. Bush never made clear that attacking Iraq was the only solution. He did say that if the same inspections regime was used that failed to 100% account for Iraq's WMD program from 1991-1998 that the military solution would be the only option. Bush has pushed for a tough resolution in the UN that opens all of Iraq to inspections and allows for military operations to begin if there is any stalling at any point by Iraq.

Bush has gotten exactly what he wanted, not that he needed it to legally take action against Iraq though. If the UN has vetoed the resolution or said no to it, then we would cooperate with other countries outside the UN to bring Iraq into compliance with the Gulf War ceace fire terms of 1991.

The UN vote has no effect on US preperations for military operations against Iraq. Ships filled with tanks and other equipment continue to head toward the Gulf region as they have been doing for the past month. Bush hopes that the inspections will succeed, but we are prepared go to war if Iraq returns to its cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement for the Gulf War was not set up so Iraq could decide 11 years later if they wanted to comply with the conditions of that ceacefire agreement.

The situation in Iraq is not about western society vs. the middle east. Its about Iraq's unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions brought into being because of its unprovoked aggression in the region. Iraq's behavior and weapons of mass destruction programs together, threaten international security.

When international security is threatened, its not smart to do nothing just because the opinions of others say not to. Bush has succeeded in convincing the world that only a toughened inspections regime with the potential to use force if Iraq obstructs the inspections is the only way to disarm Iraq. It is the other members of the UN that have switched to Bushes position.

Bush has never stated that the USA is going to invade North Korea or Iran, the other members of the Axis of Evil. Honestly describing their behavior cannot be translated as were going to militarily invade them.

In regards to Iraq, Bush never stated that he would never work with the UN and would invade Iraq immediately in regards to Iraq's violation of UN resolutions. If that were the case, the USA would have invaded Iraq months ago. He has doubted the ability of the old UN inspections regime to work. But he got the UN to approve a new resolution that would clearly spell out that the inspectors were allowed to go anywhere they want, and that obstruction would mean that military action could come at any time. He got that all in one resolution despite European request for two seperate resolutions.

Honestly, I never thought that Bush would be able to get the UN to go along. But he did with a 15-0 vote! Thats better than his father did when Iraq brutally invaded Kuwait. The Bush administration has always wanted UN support for disarming Iraq. It simply said though, it would not be constrained in disarming Iraq if it did not get that support. It would be absurd not defend oneself just because of a vote in the UN. The USA has demonstrated though that it is willing to listen to other countries concerns by working with the UN. Now, US military action, if needed, has the stamp of UN approval on it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-11-2002, 12:19 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Zoomerang,

All countries have huge interest in oil. Its a vital part of the global economy, and a dictator cannot be allowed to toy with it and there by play with peoples standard of living around the world. But even in countries that do not have oil, like Afghanistan, if they engage or support actions that threaten the security and standard of living of people around the world, then yes the USA and other countries are going to be involved in solving that security problem posed by that country.

Palestine does not have terrorist armed with weapons of mass destruction currently. In addition, Israel has managed the terror there very well considering its size and depth of the terror movement in the area. The IDF can take care of things there without help from the USA.

Actually China does have oil. But unlike Iraq, they have not invaded and attacked 4 different countries without provication in the past 15 years like Iraq has. China is not in violation of chapter 7 security council resolutions that call for the use of force to bring about compliance.

North Korea unlike Iraq, has not invaded and attacked 4 different countries, without provication, in the past 15 years. North Korea is not in violation of chapter 7 security council resolutions that call for the use of force to bring about compliance.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2002, 05:07 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ghetofabu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Kitchen
Posts: 4,038
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96
ya you know what, if the us didnt have such huge interests in their oil, we'd never pay attention to them.
I don't think this is strictly an oil thing. We do not even get a majority of our oil from there. It is the Europen community if I am not mistaken who does. *goes to dig up link to support this*
__________________

__________________
ghetofabu 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 07:52 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