0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 10:28 pm
Dyslexia -- I've heard much the same thing about costs. Take a look back a page or two, if you haven't already, at the predictions that we will come up short militarily, too.

I guess Bush is giving new life to that old song about flying in "on wing and a prayer!!"
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 10:29 pm
By the way, has everyone (particularly everyone with a mortgage) seen the 3/11 Krugman op-ed piece in the NYTimes? Don't miss it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 10:29 pm
one wing and a lot of prayer
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 10:32 pm
Prayer? sheesh.....
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 10:55 pm
Dys wrote:

Run--Forest---Run

Careful dys Forest was a hero of mine----he refused to accept his limitations and he didn't try to maintain a facade as a poet.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 11:19 pm
Kara - I'd like to focus your attention on a line from my post which you quoted:

Quote:
This is the beauty of the positions people on the political left so often take...

My comments attacked POSITIONS that people on the POLITICAL LEFT (I did not use the word "liberal" as you claimed) OFTEN TAKE. While I understand that you disliked the candor of my comments, I would hope that you would refrain from painting them as something they are not.

I did not write that "all liberals do X". I did not write that "all people on the left do X". I did not in fact attribute anything to "liberals" or those on the left in general. What I did, specifically, was to complain regarding a specific behavior that I dislike, and by extension about anyone and everyone who behaves in that manner.

You are of course absolutely entitled to dislike, even despise, my point of view, but please do so based on what I actually wrote, not your knee-jerk reaction to the admittedly strident, unpleasant way I expressed myself.

Those soldiers do far more for the cause of peace than any protestor ever can. That is my opinion. I respect those who speak out for what they believe, but that respect is nothing compared to the regard I have for those who actually achieve the ends for which others clamor. I also believe that many thronging to protest against war--both here and abroad--are in fact motivated purely by their rabid dislike for our President or our country. These people get nothing from me but my disdain.

Thinking about it today, it occurred to me that sometimes it is the function of the soldier to take us from an untenable peace over dangerous terrain to a peace with which we can live. Clamoring for "peace" means nothing unless you define the terms of that peace. What must we have to live in peace and what things are we unwilling to live peacefully without? Today some in this country have weighed the threat Saddam poses us as they perceive it and believe it is a threat they can accept as part of their peace. Far more have considered the same facts and concluded that they would prefer a peace wherein that threat was removed. These latter are willing, if necessary, to let soldiers fight and risk their lives to carry us all to what they see as a more desirable peace.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Mar, 2003 11:27 pm
...exhausted by the mental exertion, the wizened sage paused to thoughtfully stroke his long white beard, then turned and started back up the mountain to his mysterious sanctum...

Thank You, oh wise sage!! the natives clamored, so grateful that he deigned bestow his priceless pearls unto their undeserving ranks...

Laughing Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 12:19 am
..
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 02:24 am
Dear Kara, you are going to D.C. with much caring support along. Just see how many of your online friends are writing about this! Just today I was realizing that now I feel that too much time spent watching the TV, or listening to radio, or even being online on the Net is definitely NOT ACTION. At this point in time, I think bodies on the line is the way to go...

Anyone else counting some days with trepidation?
0 Replies
 
hiama
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 02:36 am
Latest in from Rumsfeld seems to indicate that any assault on Iraq is not contingent on a UK presence, due to the fact that most of parliament and a very large chunk of the country here are telling Tony Blair he is being unconsitutional. He is on the brink of bringing down the government so shrub may have to go it alone.
0 Replies
 
Docent P
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 03:23 am
Two bad words about American so-called "pacifists":

As Michael Waller reports in his Marching For Saddam article, the main coordinator of these anti-war protests is the World Labor Party basing in NY. It originated from the famous Trotsky Socialist Party in 1956 when the Trotskists condemned the Soviet actions in Hungary. Besides Hungary the World Labor Party also supported the Soviet invasions to Chekhoslovakia and Afghanistan (what great pacifists we see Laughing ). Also these comrades approved the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the communist terrorists in Columbia, criticized the US for their war on Taliban and created the Committee for Miloshevic's defence.

The main idol of the Party is Korean leader Kim Chen Ir. That was why the main demonstrations took place on Feb 15 - it's the Kim's birthday. I wonder if anyone of the anti-war protesters knew that he was celebrating this date Laughing . In other words American todays "pacifists" found a good company. Forward Dear Comrades - to the light Communist Paradise!

This is these comrades' site:
http://www.iacenter.org/

Here you can see some details in the WashPost's article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30813-2003Mar2.html
0 Replies
 
HofT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 04:45 am
Trotting out the old Trots?! LOL

Why doesn't more of that lively argument appear on Russian internet sites, one wonders; it would be sure to swing Russia's vote in the U.N. Security Council <G>
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 05:54 am
Its getting hard work to catch up every morning!

Overnight I seem to have missed out on quite a bit, including a dinner invite in Washington (who was paying?). But this is my 2 pence worth for today. First a quote

Quote:
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/iraq_judgement.shtml

THE JUDGMENT - Professor Vaughan Lowe

121. My conclusion, therefore, is that under present circumstances it would be contrary to international law for the United Kingdom to engage in military action against Iraq, or assist any other State in taking such action, unless it was expressly authorised to do so by the United Nations Security Council.

122. It follows from this that the United Kingdom would incur responsibility not only if United Kingdom forces themselves engaged in an unauthorised armed attack upon Iraq, but even if the United Kingdom merely provided material assistance to the United States. As Article 16 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, adopted in 2001, makes clear, States are responsible not only for the wrongs that they themselves do, but also for helping other States to do wrong. Since an unauthorised attack by the United States would be unlawful for the reasons given above, if the United Kingdom were in any way materially to facilitate such an attack it would be internationally responsible for the assistance that it gave.



Perception
"group that consists only of administration bashing". Fine it needs a good bashing
"(anywhere but a French restaurant)" What on earth have you got against French cuisine, I wonder. Vive La France Vive Chirac Vive Dominique de Villepin!

TIMBER
"I am deeply concerned by the prospect of violence arising from this weekend's demonstrations".
Pity you don't seem as concerned about the violence due to kick off the week after.
"Journalists enjoy no special exemption from death if they elect to go in harm's way".
Seems harm's way is filing something the US military doesn't want filed. Journalists are clearly being threatened to conform or risk death.

TW
"Yours are just self-congratulatory, masturbatory fluff".
Hope you feel embarrassed by your comments quoted back.

Kara
"I'll admit there is some enticement there...meeting Steve, who would not nod woodenly when I extemporized".
Well I'm sure that would be a pleasure reciprocated! I might nod, though not woodenly (I've never been known as a wooden nodder). You could interpret it as being in genuine agreement with your pearls of wisdom, or it might be in agreement with the excellent Bordeaux so kindly supplied by Mr and Mrs P. (!)

Or are we reduced to sharing a sandwich on the bus to Washington?

Blatham
"The reputation of the US has been deeply damaged already. If the administration continues on its path without England, England ... England".

Britain please. Or GRANDE BRETAGNE as we are so proud to call ourselves these days. Alternatively The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

There are Scots Welsh and Irishmen (and women) who get quite excited when England is used to mean Britain. (Me? I'm quite relaxed actually, they don't really count, we are just being polite)

Snood

"exhausted by the mental exertion, the wizened sage paused to thoughtfully stroke his long white beard, then turned and started back up the mountain to his mysterious sanctum..."

Brilliant, especially when I first mis read it as scrotum.

hiama

Have you ever known a time like this? UN smashed EU smashed NATO smashed British Government smashed and Prime Minister likely to find himself before the ICC on charges of war crimes?
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 06:00 am
I might be totally out of whack here with this really stupid thought of mine, but suppose US and UK attack Iraq without support of UN. Then, as a member of UN, can Iraq demand that UN help Iraq defend its borders ??

What happens then ??
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:00 am
BBC RADIO MONITORING SERVICE AT CAVERSHAM REPORTS

12.30 GMT TODAY

IRANIAN RADIO STATES OSAMA BIN LADEN CAPTURED IN PAKISTAN
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:05 am
Crikey! Any more on that Steve?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:22 am
Nothing on that around here, but it is early. And just when I thought I had turned off the telly for some peace and quiet.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:27 am
i can find nothing either - tried BBC online - CNN....
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:28 am
Steve, do you have a link?
0 Replies
 
ul
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2003 07:33 am
Nothing here yet- but

Wed, 12/Mar/2003] UNCONFIRMED REPORTS SUGGEST THAT BIN LADEN HAS BEEN CAPTURED IN PAKISTAN BY US & PAKISTANI FORCES. NO MORE DETAILS AVAILABLE AS YET.



http://www.yaqoot.com/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:02:45