dagmaraka wrote:I will only say this: the situation the UN is in now is due to the U.S. and its allies- my honest opinion.
And I would contend that the US and its allies merely attempted to goad, chide and cajole the rest into acting upon and following through with the resolutions those others all signed. Those who refused to put a spine in the UNs back are ultimately responsible for the implosion of its credibility. Not those who had a spine and had to stand without the UN.
See, that's where we perhaps will not ever agree. From my point of view (and that of UN's as I read it) the resolutions are being followed through by the UN, and not by the U.S. and co.. It has been much publicized, the UN position is clear, and you can find the weapon inspectors reports, the UN debates in the GA, press releases and lots of other information on
www.un.org ,under the 'Situation in Iraq' heading. I have naturally read the official U.S. and British releases and statements, otherwise I would not dare to formulate my opinion out here. This is where I stand after considering all information I have taken in so far.
Yes, fbaezer -- well done noting the origins of that "American exceptionalism" stuff. I would love to find myself among a group of committed fellow Americans who seek to change the present administration and to bolster the UN and our participation -- as equal members -- in it.
I would also "bold" Abrams, Bauer, Bennett, Decter. Libby, Weber and Wolfowitz.. It's a chilling group. I was thinking this morning about the cold, sieg heil nature of many of these people some of who are also vocal, charming, and take no prisoners. These are like people who, in cleaning the house (a reasonable project), kill the inhabitants who are live there and are therefore the ones who "dirty" the house. Like obviously. If you want to keep the house clean...
You could read this piece of news several ways. Wow! Top secret! Or, Go away...We've already destroyed them. There's no evidence. You'll just have to believe us... Hmmm....
U.S. Mobile Labs Are Poised to Hunt Iraqi Armsambitious top-secret effort to rapidly find, secure and ultimately destroy the caches of chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons the administration asserts President Saddam Hussein is hiding....http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/international/middleeast/19WEAP.html
Snood,
Read the several postings by Tartarin on the Iraq Threads.
To disagree with the policies that have led us to this grave moment is expected in a pluralist society. It is quite different to "hope" that the war goes badly for the Allies. Tartarin also seems to think that it would be better to sacrafice a 1,000 American lives in a revolt against the government, than equal number lost to the Iraq Army. Check it out.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:09 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry guys (I'm a she, by the way), I stick to my principles here. I want withdrawal of our troops, first. Since that doesn't seem to be about to happen, my reason dictates that mush Bush fail in this attack, not fail so that Iraqi citizens are slaughtered or troops put at any more risk than necessary (OBVIOUSLY) but fail so that the US finally wakes up to this horrific, lethal agitprop the administration has indulged itself in. Bush is the murderer guys, not me.
I think you may half realize this. You aim your attacks at me personally which you wouldn't do if you weren't affected by the demonization which Bush very much wants you to be affected by.
¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤
"That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation..." George W. Bush, quoted by Bob Woodward
Must I make time to dig up more, snood?
Kara
Nothing must shut you up, certainly not the errors of others
Kara, did you not read my post of 3:36. It immediately preceeeds your own. Note the red text.
Kara, I have never asked you to shut up. You have no need to be defensive over this response.
I have just returned from the talk of Juliette Kayyem at Harvard, she is one of the U.S. leading specialists on terrorism and I believe I can sum up her opinion as one that suggests that the war that is on the way has very little to do with fighting terrorism, which still gets largely overlooked. Hm, something to think about.
Err, can I intervene? Could personal grievances be settled via private messages? If you feel it is necessary to include a personal response to clarify what you have said, by all means, but when it turns into an exchange of word-dissecting and hurt feelings, perhaps it is more efficiently settled in a one-on-one conversation. that way the rest of us can continue following the thread.
Quote:Bush Scheduled To Address Nation
Mar 19, 2003
Stratfor sources in Washington, D.C., say U.S. President George W. Bush is tentatively scheduled to address the nation at 9 p.m. EST March 19 (0200 GMT March 20).
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said earlier March 19 that Bush would address the nation after he gives the order to begin an invasion of Iraq.
Stratfor indicates no verification has been made, and calls attention the word "tentatively". This may mean nothing. The Networks do not seem to be saying anything about it at the moment.
Then again, it may not. "The Deadline" has passed. The Attack is on. Whenever it comes, I would expect there to be an Oval Office Address within the first hour.
dagmaraka wrote:Err, can I intervene? Could personal grievances be settled via private messages? If you feel it is necessary to include a personal response to clarify what you have said, by all means, but when it turns into an exchange of word-dissecting and hurt feelings, perhaps it is more efficiently settled in a one-on-one conversation. that way the rest of us can continue following the thread.
Gawwwwsh ... I'm sorta gettin' ta like that dagmaraka
You tell 'em, kid.
Hey, Listen up out there, OK?
Thanks. :wink:
