Bush's Empty threats

Are you seriously advocating a war with Iran and North Korea at this time?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn

No! I am suggesting that Bush stop making empty threats. Threats that can not or will not be backed up.

0 Replies

haha okay, that's more like what I think as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Bush's Empty threats

au1929 wrote:

Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it

After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.

0 Replies

....and a brilliant move that was huh Brandon.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

....and a brilliant move that was huh Brandon.

You're apparently someone who can't understand that just because a penny came up heads, it's still true that before the coin toss, it might well have come up tails. You repeat over and over again, "How stupid of you to think that it could have landed showing tails. Everyone can see that it was heads," indicating nothing other than that you don't understand the situation.

0 Replies

Please don't tell me that you are drawing an analogy between Saddam's alleged WMD cache and a coin toss.
A coin may or may not come up tails. It's a game of chance. Do it enough times and it's a game of odds.
Saddam's WMD were know to be non existent before the invasion. No chance, no odds.
This has been backed up countless times before Brandon.

0 Replies

Re: Bush's Empty threats

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it

Brandon wrote
After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.

You seemed to forget that the genius attacked at a time when Saddam was complying with the mandate of the UN. Inspectors were in place.
What than is your explanation for the preemptive attack. Mental illness perhaps?

0 Replies

KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!!! KILL THOSE GOOK BASTARDS! BLOW THEM UP!!!!!

Sorry. Had a Bush moment.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Please don't tell me that you are drawing an analogy between Saddam's alleged WMD cache and a coin toss.
A coin may or may not come up tails. It's a game of chance. Do it enough times and it's a game of odds.
Saddam's WMD were know to be non existent before the invasion. No chance, no odds.
This has been backed up countless times before Brandon.

No, that's a bullshit statement candidone.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

Please don't tell me that you are drawing an analogy between Saddam's alleged WMD cache and a coin toss.
A coin may or may not come up tails. It's a game of chance. Do it enough times and it's a game of odds.
Saddam's WMD were know to be non existent before the invasion. No chance, no odds.
This has been backed up countless times before Brandon.

Well, since this has been "backed up countless times," then I guess you can post a link to such proof. I challenge you to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein's WMD (and also development programs to create WMD) were known to be non-existent. It seems to me that this wasn't known at all. The UN wouldn't have kept demanding that Iraq comply with inspections, the Senate wouldn't have granted the president the authority it did with respect to Iraq, and numerous people wouldn't have made the statements they did, if this had been known.

0 Replies

Re: Bush's Empty threats

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Every day it would seem our "beloved " president and Condi Rice issue warnings to No. Korea and Iran regarding their nuclear programs. Warnings or rhetoric that no one listens to, are promptly ignored and further we are in no position to back up. It would seem that being born with that golden spoon in his mouth Bush never heard or has he had to put up or shut up. Is it not passed time for Bush to stop issuing empty threats?

Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it

Brandon wrote
After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein, telling him that his actions would result in serious consequences, with the UN showing no sign of backing up the threats with anything other than more empty threats, president Bush finally acted, incurring the wrath of fools like you.

You seemed to forget that the genius attacked at a time when Saddam was complying with the mandate of the UN. Inspectors were in place.
What than is your explanation for the preemptive attack. Mental illness perhaps?

After 12 years, during which time Iraq had blatantly obstructed inspectors many times, Saddam Hussein had still not fulfilled his promise to furnish clear proof that weapons had been destroyed and programs shut down. Had Iraq still been concealing WMD programs, then there might have been a finite time window before it succeeded in creating weapons so powerful that one use of one could obliterate hundreds of thousands of people.

0 Replies

In fact, there wasn't a history of the UN threatening Iraq for years on end. From 1991 to 2003, the only striking actions with regard to Iraq were the maintainance of the "no-fly" zones by England and the United States, and the cruise-missle attacks during the Clinton administration. At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq, and nothing more was done than to implement and administer the "oil-for-food" program on the basis of SCRs 707 and 712 (SC Resolution 707 was based on SCR 687, 1991, calling for Iraq to comply with an inspections regime with regard to womd).

As usual, Brandon makes it up as he goes along. None of the Security Council Resolutions subsequent to SCR 660 in 1990 authorized any member state to take military action if Iraq were to fail to comply with an inspections regime. SCR 678 authorized member states to " . . . use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." In other words, it left member states of the United Nations free to take military action against Iraq if Iraqi troops did not evacuate Kuwait by January 15, 1991--which, of course, they did not.

It is upon an interpretation of the implications of SCR 687 that the Shrub's administration invaded Iraq. SCR 687 reads, in part: "Decides that, as a condition of a cease-fire, Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities, as well as all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities, and that a Special Commission shall carry out on-site inspection of any locations in Iraq." Therefore, so the administation reasoning went, Iraq had not complied with the cease-fire terms, and therefore, a state of war continued to exist between Iraq and the United States.

*******************************************

None of that, of course, has anything to do with Au's thread. Au has correctly pointed out that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad have been engaged in sabre-rattling in an attempt to intimidate Pyong-Yang and Teheran--and that it hasn't produced the desired results.

I am in complete agreement with Au.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:

...By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

UN

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:
...By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

UN

The serious consequences to which you refer do not specify the nature of said serious consequences. What do you allege the threat to be, Brandon?

Here ya go, Brandon, i'll make it easy for ya--this is paragraph 12 in the list of actions decided upon by the Security Council in SCR 1441:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

They go on in the final two paragraphs to recall and decide the following:

13. Recalls, in that context, taht the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

So Brandon, the UN threatened to convene the Security Council and "think about it" if Iraq did not comply. However, as Candidone has pointed out, Iraq was complying with the inspections regime at the time of the invasion.

0 Replies

By the way, it is important to recall that a great many people were making money had over fist with the oil for food program at that time--and that overwhelmingly, those making themselves rich with that program were Americans. So, until the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad decided to implement the Neo-con agenda of PNAC, there was plenty of good reason for Americans with an interest in the oil for food program not to want any action taken against Iraq.

**************************************************

None of which has anything to do with Au's topic. As always, Brandon thinks it's all about him and his goofy, ill- or un-informed opinions.

I agree completely with Au, the Shrub's empty threats create problems, and solve none.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:
...By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

UN

The serious consequences to which you refer do not specify the nature of said serious consequences. What do you allege the threat to be, Brandon?

Here ya go, Brandon, i'll make it easy for ya--this is paragraph 12 in the list of actions decided upon by the Security Council in SCR 1441:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

They go on in the final two paragraphs to recall and decide the following:

13. Recalls, in that context, taht the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

So Brandon, the UN threatened to convene the Security Council and "think about it" if Iraq did not comply. However, as Candidone has pointed out, Iraq was complying with the inspections regime at the time of the invasion.

In the order in which they were posted in this thread:

Brandon9000 wrote:

After years and years of empty threats and ultimatums by the UN.....

Setanta wrote:

...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:

...It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

I said that the UN had made a lot of empty threats, and I was exactly correct. You said that the UN had made no threats, and you were wrong. Go write another 10 pages to try and obfucate the issue.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:
...By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

UN

When did the UN council request or authorize the US to enforrce it's resolutions?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Setanta wrote:
...At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq...

Quote:
...By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations....

UN

When did the UN council request or authorize the US to enforrce it's resolutions?

Never, which is just exactly what I posted. I said that they had made a lot of empty threats. Try and keep up, okay?

0 Replies

Bush's Empty threats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know