itsmedave Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 In addition, I remember watching Patti Davis, Reagen's own daughter, on a daytime talk show...possibly Donahue, saying she knew firsthand that her father asked the Iranians to keep the hostages until after he was elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Like my O.J. analogy, we know it hasn't been proven, but we pretty much know this is what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 PTB, BKKTRVL, This is more less my point. We keep hearing the mission statement being changed, from WMD to Ridding Iraq/the world of Sadaam, to now fighting AQ...havn't you noticed, the enemy is no longer referred to as "Iraqi Insurgents" or Bathist loyalist etc, now they are just "Al-Quaida." Too much bullshit to believe anything this administration has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 If you refer to the res 1441, here is part of the statement by US Ambassador John Negroponte (from the UN press release): "The resolution contained, he said, no â??hidden triggersâ? and no â??automaticityâ? with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution. And one way or another, Iraq would be disarmed. If the Security Council failed to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violation, the resolution did not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security." It's quite obvious to me that Negroponte "admits" that the resolution as NOT automatically giving green light to any member state to the use of force in case of non-compliance by Saddam. The passus "If the Security Council failed to act..."etc might seem contradictory but implies nonetheless further Security Council procedure. "The resolution did not constrain..." looks to me as less convincing as an interpretation for legimitizing "Alleingang" by the US in using force. So, if you meant to say that by resolution 1441, President Bush was given a mandate to use force, you seem to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 I took the word from Kofi Annan... You should learn to take responsibility for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 What kind of childish nonsense game are you playing? Kofi Annans use of the word "unilateral" as opposed to action decided by the Security Council is widespread practice on the Iraq invasion issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogueyam Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 Kofi Annans use of the word "unilateral" as opposed to action decided by the Security Council is widespread practice on the Iraq invasion issue. It is dishonest regardless of how many people do it. Unilateral means undertaken by one party. Look it up. The fact that Kofi Annan, a lying, America-hating criminal, tells a certain lie is no excuse for repeating it yourself. To claim otherwise is Orwellian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playtheblues Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 My patience with you is running out. President Bush unilaterally took action towards Iraq. The fact that a few other countries, notably the UK, cooperatated with him by sending troops, did not make it a multilateral action. Not even conservative Americans will support your use of languague. Even Bush Sr, his father, warned GW Bush in March 2003, against "unilateral" action, that is use of force not explicitly authorized by the UN, towards Iraq. Answer instead the question about which UN resolution you were referring to. If res 1441 gave President Bush the mandate to use force, then why did the US think they needed a second resolution, the one which was never put on the table (in anticipation of a veto by the French)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 But wasn't Iraq doing their best to be in full compliance and the reports coming out confirmed they were clean like Hans Blix? I seem to recall it was the "we know they are doing WMD, but we can't tell you how we know nor will we share it with you or weapons inspectors" that was the crucial factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 PTB, give it up with RY...he enjoys posting bullshit, it appears simply to be provocative...I think he discerns pleasure and amusement at annoying others....he really isn't the sharpest tool in the box, as you will quickly see from his childish retorts. On a couple of occasions I've called him on his reasoning, he's failed to produce anything substantive or he's been seemingly unable or incapable of producing a reply. He behaves like a troll... The alternative is he believes what he writes...which is very scary and it would be incomprehensible that such a person could function in daily life (the degree of cognitive distortions would inhibit normal social interaction and impact upon all aspects of a persons existence). Faced with facts and reality he soon goes away....and then reappears elsewhere to repeat the cycle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.