At U.N., Bush defends Iraq invasion

I presume Kofi was referring to the tactics of the former Iraqi regime.

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I presume Kofi was referring to the tactics of the former Iraqi regime.

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

And the situation might be quite different if we didn't have a moron occupying the Oval Office.

0 Replies

Quote:

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

Maybe if Bush hadn't invaded, this situation in Iraq might be different.

0 Replies

Quote:

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

Perhaps if we ourselves did not laugh at UN laws, others would not either.

Perhaps if we did not consider ourselves above and outside the UN, other's would not either.

How can we hold Iraq to a standard that we ourselves break consistently? It's the height of hypocracy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

It kills me when people say things like this. It's rather like the senate majority leader saying 'maybe if the Senate was a credible institution that actually stood behind its resolutions....'.

Kofi is right. The UN as a body and upholder of the rule of law is only as strong and consistent as its member countries. More here...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34446

0 Replies

The unmitigated gall of Bush asking for international help in rebuilding Iraq. The mind boggles...

0 Replies

Quote:

Maybe if the UN was a credible institution that actually stood behinds it resolutions 10 years ago, this situation in Iraq might be different.

Part of the neoconservative wisdom in America is to shun the international community in order to serve a partisan purpose. It's no wonder that the endless demonization of the U.N. from these rabid political ideologues is part of this process.

In case woiyo forgot what was said back in February of 2001:

Quote:

Powell: He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

Rice: We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

0 Replies

Dookie - Absolutely the situation would be different.

Heres how -
1. We would STILL have our Air Force wasting taxpayer dollars by "doing the no-fly dance".
2. France, Germany and Russia would TILL be paying extortion to Saddam under the shoddy UN Oil for Food program.
3. Saddam would have had 2 more years to use his "new found cash" as well as whatever "assets" that have NOT been found to rebuild as an even bigger regional threat.

So yea, things would certainly be different.

0 Replies

And now the unedited text of the president's speech at the UN:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133036,00.html

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

1. We would STILL have our Air Force wasting taxpayer dollars by "doing the no-fly dance".

Methinks the 'no-fly dance' is cheaper than the 'all-out-invasion boogie'.

0 Replies

Duck - I would expect you to think that way.

Consider the cost of keeping those pilots, planes supplies etc over there for 12 years and what did it get us????

It got us the UN Oil for Food scam.

It got us Saddaam somehow secretly removing his arsenal.

It got thousands of Iraqi citizens killed.

0 Replies

Might well be that the Fox gives the correct White House text, on the UN website, you can get all speeches, live and archived.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Dookie - Absolutely the situation would be different.

Heres how -
1. We would STILL have our Air Force wasting taxpayer dollars by "doing the no-fly dance".

At the least, the Kurds, and probably the Shi'ites of the south, appreciated that "waster" of taxpayer dollars. You're so revved up on the program, you cannot see your own contradictions. You're contending that it has been alright to have spent more than one hundred billion in a couple of years to protect the poor benighted citizenry of Iraq from Saddam, but that a mcuh cheaper enforcement of the no-fly zone was a waste of money.

Quote:

2. France, Germany and Russia would TILL be paying extortion to Saddam under the shoddy UN Oil for Food program.

But now, we get to put money directly into the corporate pockets of Halliburton and Bechtel . . . oh yeah, big improvement . . .

Quote:

3. Saddam would have had 2 more years to use his "new found cash" as well as whatever "assets" that have NOT been found to rebuild as an even bigger regional threat.

This is the most ludicrous part of the conservative dogma. Saddam was suddenly going to go all senile on us, and stick his neck out conveniently to be chopped off. Incidentally, Resolutions 686, 687 and 688 would have automatically given us the right to take UN-sponsored military action had he done so. I am certain the PNAC would have loved nothing better than the thought that Hussein would suddenly lose it, and attack a neighbor--but even they weren't that naive, they knew they'd have to engineer something. Then September 11th came along and dropped in their collective lap like a ripe plum. All they had to do was created a false impression that Husseing was implicated, and bingo, they could drop that boring old war in Afghanistan, and hot-foot it over to Iraq to beat up the guy they always wanted to get, and along the way, establish the southwestern Asian bases their manifesto calls for. It is truly sad that so much of the public fell for that; it is sadder still how much blood and treasure has been wasted by these criminally irresponsible cowboys. Dream on . . . sincerely hoping reality never jumps up and bites your particular butt . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

It got us Saddaam somehow secretly removing his arsenal.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

He secretly snuck those WMD out of the country. Go on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, Woiyo....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo:

LOL!!!!

Quote:

1. We would STILL have our Air Force wasting taxpayer dollars by "doing the no-fly dance".

As opposed to how many taxpayer dollars being currently spent on the occupation and reconstruction?

Quote:

2. France, Germany and Russia would TILL be paying extortion to Saddam under the shoddy UN Oil for Food program.

And this is reason alone for invading Iraq?

Quote:

3. Saddam would have had 2 more years to use his "new found cash" as well as whatever "assets" that have NOT been found to rebuild as an even bigger regional threat.

Unfortunately for you, the facts seem to be that Saddam was NOT rebuilding his WMDs, as was wildely claimed before the war.

The fact is that UN weapons experts, who actually went to Iraq to inspect concluded that Iraq had no WMDs. The US and UK chose to ignore the findings of UN weapons experts and they chose to rely on some flawed or doctored intelligence to suit their impending purpose to "get rid of Saddam".

I have yet to hear a rightwingers response to why Powell and Rice said one thing in February 2001, and then something entirely different leading up to the Iraqi invasion.

0 Replies

woiyo:

Quote:

It got us Saddaam somehow secretly removing his arsenal.

Prove it.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Duck - I would expect you to think that way.

Consider the cost of keeping those pilots, planes supplies etc over there for 12 years and what did it get us????

It got us the UN Oil for Food scam.

It got us Saddaam somehow secretly removing his arsenal.

It got thousands of Iraqi citizens killed.

Let's not forget that Halliburton, through its subsidiaries, also was involved in the UN Oil for Food program.

How many Iraqi citizens have been killed since we invaded?

All in all, this is an incomplete comparison. What has the invasion gotten us?

0 Replies

Woiyo:

We did not "get" the food for oil program, but rather it's what the Iraqis got. We don't live in Iraq. Iraq is not our country, and what the Iraqis think of whether the Iraqis are better off with or without Hussein - is a moot point.

I'm certainly glad Saddam Hussein was not running America. But then he never was, was he?

Bush is a weak confused representative of his party and the inequality that is their hallmark. Intelligent folks will vote for Kerry.

Does anyone remember who Hitler's opponent was - or what his name was? Bush supporters should remind themselves that all "good" Germans voted to make Hitler their leader.

If you are a Bush supporter, Meditate on just how good a German you are. There will be no "Krystalnacht" - but the looting of the vibrant markets created by Clinton and Gore were virtually the same thing. Who needs to break glass when you can direct tap on the banks?

Now that Hussein is gone, just how much resentment do you have for the Iraqi people, and how sure are you that they need us?

0 Replies

If this poll represented a cross section of the public it would be good news.

As it is it proves that five out of six people who can type are Kerry supporters.

I wonder what percentage of the population can type.

0 Replies

At U.N., Bush defends Iraq invasion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know