0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 02:30 pm
Polls have been taken (by a pollster who appears to work with a Vets' organization, per Google search) on how the American people would define success in the American attack on Iraq. I wish I could have taken down all the results for you -- I can't but I'll give you the website and you can listen to the audio later: http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/

The polls investigated opinion on "If the US disarmed Iraq and got Saddam and sons out..." what if:

There were many Iraqis killed: that would not be a success

There would be 1000 Americans killed: that would be a success

America was disliked by many other countries: not a success

Further, most don't think Iraq will become a democracy. One woman (caller) asked, what would happen if we didn't find Saddam?

There was much much more. Sorry I was unable to take notes and pass it all along. Listen to the first 15 minutes of the audio of hour 2 of Talk of the Nation, link above. General Nash follows the pollster and is very interesting on What If We Screw Up During War Or After....
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 02:44 pm
"I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq."

--Robin Cook, British patriot, former Blair Cabinet minister, and a man imprevious to the intimidation of Karl Rove
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 02:47 pm
Some reactions to Bush's speech spoken by leaders from around the world:

Reactions
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 03:09 pm
thanks LittleK "The Vatican:

"Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history."
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 03:09 pm
that gave me shivers and I'm not even a believer.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:05 pm
If the Catholic Church can nullify a relationship of considerable duration and consequences through administrative edict (i.e., a marriage), can not an electorate nullify an election after the fact?
Could we not have some kind of un-Supreme Court to get rid of all of this mess?

I don't mean impeachment - that is too constrained and contrived. Something simpler. If our humble mechanical gadgets, our PCs, can be made to "undo", why can't we.

We'll all just gather around the latest 'reality' show and vote, say, oops, we made a mistake, erase the last couple of years and we'll all start over.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:33 pm
412 MP's back Blair on his way to war, 149 oppose.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:35 pm
Beat me to it Walter. For one unfamiliar with the nuances of British Politics, does this imply a strengthening of Blaire's overall position?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:39 pm
I think, Steve (or some other of Her Majesty's subjects) can judge this better than me.

IMHO, it isn't as bad as feared. I could imagine, he lost some backing in his party (and re this, I certainly will get some more information on Friday).
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:47 pm
Quote:
If the Catholic Church can nullify a relationship of considerable duration and consequences through administrative edict (i.e., a marriage), can not an electorate nullify an election after the fact?


LOL, sumac.

LittleK, I agree with you about the statement from the Vatican. The words signal (adj.) and gravitas come to mind.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:49 pm
Blair will be relieved.

Its worked out as I said a few posts back.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 04:51 pm
Quote:
"I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. ..


pdiddie, this point from Robin Cook is too seldom made. Israel has flouted many more UN resolutions than has Saddam Hussein.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 05:11 pm
True Kara

Then the response is often that resolutions pertaining to Iraq are Chapter 7 resolutions i.e. mandatory on that country, and resolutions on Israel come under Chapter 6, calling on that party AND OTHERS....

But the sad fact is that the USA has used (or threatened use of) its veto to ensure those resolutions come under chapter 6 not 7, when Israel is concerned.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 05:18 pm
I get totally ****ed off where Israel is concerned.

Should anyone be interested, I started a deliberately provocative thread on Abuzz, suggesting that American recognition of Israel was a mistake. I expected to be called an anti semite jew hater etc etc, and I was!...

but I'm not so it doesn't matter

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.319033/discussion_in_list/ci/0/
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 05:44 pm
steve, this is an issue that is not easily discussed in the US, either. So much is wrapped into definitions and allegiances. When you add religion to the mix -- or even just ethnicity -- you are dealing with hot stuff.

Some people seem to be pro-Palestine just to be anti-Israel. I think our country's lack of even-handedness is showing on this issue, and I will admit it is a difficult one.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 06:06 pm
Quote:
Americans have rallied strongly around President Bush and accepted his call for war with Iraq as the only practical way to remove Saddam Hussein and end the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted last night.

Seven in 10 said they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations unless Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.

An equally large majority believe that Bush has done enough to win support from other nations. More than two in three said his policies on Iraq are the right ones, although fewer than half are strongly convinced.
Poll: Support for Bush, War Grows

Of course, that's probably the "blind" and "ignorant" 7/10 of our population, so it doesn't matter. :wink: Shocked Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 06:07 pm
No, I don't believe so. Nothing more can be drawn from this than a closing of the ranks.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 06:15 pm
We, the US, are guilty of grave simplistic utterances. It has impacted upon us, and the world, and come home to roost.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 06:17 pm
Each American wishing to keep any future credibility must protest Bush' policy.

NOW.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2003 06:22 pm
That is what some of us have been doing for three months, wolf.
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 10/01/2024 at 08:27:40