Bush's Empty threats

Why don't you try to keep up--one two accounts.

The first is that you've completely failed to demonstrate that the United Nations threatened Iraq.

The second, and more important, is that this thread is not about Iraq and your goofy personal paranoias.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why don't you try to keep up--one two accounts.

The first is that you've completely failed to demonstrate that the United Nations threatened Iraq.

The second, and more important, is that this thread is not about Iraq and your goofy personal paranoias.

I quoted a UN document which stated that the Security Council had repeatedly warned Iraq about serious consequences. As to being on or off topic:

1. The thread opener was criticizing the president for making empty threats about a couple of countries' WMD. I pointed out that the poster represented a political viewpoint which had often criticized Bush for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and doing something. This is on topic.

2. The A2K liberals ought to take out a patent on posting off topic.

0 Replies

1. You have failed to demonstrate that the United Nations had a history of making empty threats against Iraq.

2. You are the King of making the topic you and your goofy paranoid and ill-informed opinions--you'd absolutely slay the opposition in a patent suit about going off topic.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote

Quote:

1. The thread opener was criticizing the president for making empty threats about a couple of countries' WMD. I pointed out that the poster represented a political viewpoint which had often criticized Bush for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and doing something. This is on topic.

In what way and by whom was the US authorized to take offensive action against Iraq in the name of the UN? Is it your opinion that Bush's frustration listening to the UN'S empty threats authorization?????

0 Replies

So, what should the US do? Ignore lil'Kim? Send Carter over to negotiate with him? Let the Chinese handle the situation?

This appears to be nothing more then another whiner thread complaining about US foreign policy.

Whoopee!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

1. You have failed to demonstrate that the United Nations had a history of making empty threats against Iraq.

Who are you trying to kid? You made his case for him in THIS POST (which Brandon pointed out in THIS POST).

You claim that Brandon has "completely failed to demonstrate that the United Nations threatened Iraq," yet you've already acknowledged that "the UN threatened to convene the Security Council and "think about it" if Iraq did not comply." (I think we all -- at least the lucid among us -- ought to be able to agree that such is an "empty threat.) And the provisions of SCR 1441 -- which you quoted -- specifically indicate that the council did so, "repeatedly."

0 Replies

McGentrix

Quote:

So, what should the US do? Ignore lil'Kim? Send Carter over to negotiate with him? Let the Chinese handle the situation?

This appears to be nothing more then another whiner thread complaining about US foreign policy.

Whoopee!

When did empty threats become the foreign policy of the US.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

McGentrix

Quote:
So, what should the US do? Ignore lil'Kim? Send Carter over to negotiate with him? Let the Chinese handle the situation?

This appears to be nothing more then another whiner thread complaining about US foreign policy.

Whoopee!

When did empty threats become the foreign policy of the US.

It's your decision to call them "empty threats", you tell me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

au1929 wrote:
McGentrix

Quote:
So, what should the US do? Ignore lil'Kim? Send Carter over to negotiate with him? Let the Chinese handle the situation?

This appears to be nothing more then another whiner thread complaining about US foreign policy.

Whoopee!

When did empty threats become the foreign policy of the US.

It's your decision to call them "empty threats", you tell me.

Um, they are empty threats. Everyone knows that we aren't invading North Korea any time soon, same for Iran. We can barely hold Iraq together...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

For those who are a little slow on the uptake (which seems to be predominantly the right wing), Security Council Resolution 1441 was the best which the Shrub and Company could wangle out of the United Nations when they attempted to get that body to threaten Iraq. It does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of a history of empty threats by the United Nations against Iraq in the twelve year period 1991-2003. Brandon's initial post contended that that the Shurb acted, and i quote: "After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein . . ."

SCR 1441, engineered by the Shrub and Company and failed of its objective, does not constitute evidence to support Brandon's allegation.

For those who are equally slow on the uptake with nuances of language, claiming that the United Nations Security Council "threatened" to convene and think about it was an exercise in sarcasm.

0 Replies

Given the issue of spheres of influence, letting China deal with the situation makes the most sense to me. They're the only ones who have had any success in getting North Korea to negotiate during the latest brouhaha.

0 Replies

Finally, for those with limited langauge skills, repeatedly warning someone of serious consequences is not necessarily evidence of "threats," empty or otherwise.

If i warn you not to cross the street without looking both ways, do you consider that a threat?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn

It is indeed frustrating talking to an empty vessel,is it not. However, it should be expected since he is a disciple of the empty vessel in the oval office

0 Replies

It is evident you are desperate to not be seen as having "lost" an argument to Brandon. Laughing

Setanta wrote:

For those who are a little slow on the uptake (which seems to be predominantly the right wing), Security Council Resolution 1441 was the best which the Shrub and Company could wangle out of the United Nations when they attempted to get that body to threaten Iraq. It does not, in and of itself, constitute evidence of a history of empty threats by the United Nations against Iraq in the twelve year period 1991-2003. Brandon's initial post contended that that the Shurb acted, and i quote: "After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein . . ."

It seems you are focusing on the word "history" in order for you to parse out some distinction that will allow you to continue to insist you are correct. (After all, repeatedly warning Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations need not automatically constitute a "history" of making empty threats, right?)

Quote:

SCR 1441, engineered by the Shrub and Company and failed of its objective, does not constitute evidence to support Brandon's allegation.

The only way it doesn't is if: (1) you insist that "repeatedly warning Iraq that it will face serious consequences" do not constitute "threats," (2) you believe the threats it refers to therein to NOT be "empty," or (3) you assert the Security Council is lying when it claims it has repeatedly made such threats. Please advise which of these you believe to be the case.

Quote:

For those who are equally slow on the uptake with nuances of language, claiming that the United Nations Security Council "threatened" to convene and think about it was an exercise in sarcasm.

And a wonderful example of sarcasm it was, Set. But as sarcastic as you were trying to be, you cannot evade the fact that the Security Council's threat was as empty as you sarcastically phrased it. We ought to all be able to agree that UN threats are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. They are "empty," because the UN is a paper tiger, nothing more. And issuing empty threats is what the UN seems to do best. And it has a history of doing so, whether you are going to be honest enough to admit it or not -- and I'm betting not.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Finally, for those with limited langauge skills, repeatedly warning someone of serious consequences is not necessarily evidence of "threats," empty or otherwise.

If i warn you not to cross the street without looking both ways, do you consider that a threat?

Ahh. Your level of desperation is rising.

0 Replies

Since the atmosphere here is apparently very dense . . . allow me to once again quote Brandon: . . . "After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein . . ."

Brandon has failed to substantiate his allegation.

0 Replies

Quote:

...3. Stresses that compliance by the Government of Iraq with its obligations, repeated again in the memorandum of understanding, to accord immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to the Special Commission and the IAEA in conformity with the relevant resolutions is necessary for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991), but that any violation would have severest consequences for Iraq...

UN Resolution 1154 in 1998

0 Replies

SCR 1154 doesn't specify what those severe consequence would be Brandon. Upon what basis do you contend that constitutes a threat?

0 Replies

I've got a language assignment for you, Brandon. Look up the conditional mood in grammar. So long as the Security Council talks about what it would do, what it could do, what it should do--it is not talking about what it will do, what it can do or what it shall do.

Combined with a complete lack of specificity as to what consitutes severe consequenses, your references to SCR Resolutions and Iraq fail utterly to sustain your contention that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad acted only after years and years of empty threats from the United Nations. In effect, the United Nations have not acted at all except in response to American prodding.

I do hate, though, to think that you are wearing yourself to a frazzle, running all over looking for Security Council Resolutions.

This page at Global-Security-dot-org lists all of the relevant Security Council Resolutions, in reverse date order, with links to the texts of the Resolutions (cautionary note: the texts of the Resolutions are usually in PDF format).

0 Replies

I am more than happy, by the way, to acknowledge that the United Nations is a paper tiger--both because it is not well-supported by Russia, China and the United States, and because the majority of the world community has no interest in supporting an American agenda--which is what conservative whining is really all about.

I am also willing to acknowledge that the Shrub's threats in that particular case had the salutary effect of causing Hussein to allow the inspectors back into Iraq, and to cooperate. The IAEA and Blix both confirmed that Hussein was cooperating--but we invaded anyway, because that was the PNAC agenda, and the Shrub was determined to carry out the plan, with or without UN support.

All of which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. That is that the Shrub's sabre-rattling against Iran and North Korea has been ineffective, and likely is only making the situation worse.

I agree with Au on that point.

0 Replies

Bush's Empty threats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know