Bush's Empty threats

Setanta wrote:

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.

You are now spinning this to be a case of Brandon failing to substantiate his claim, which -- while bogus -- is not reflective of the first position you advanced against his claim.

In THIS POST, rather than merely claiming Brandon had failed to substantiate his allegation, you affirmatively asserted that, "In fact, there wasn't a history of the UN threatening Iraq for years on end." You went on to point out that the only "striking actions" taken against Iraq were the maintenance of the no-fly zones by UK and US, and Clinton's missle attack. You then said: "At no time in that 12 years did the UN threaten Iraq, ..."

But as has been shown -- by you, as a matter of fact -- the UN did threaten Iraq in those 12 years. It threatened it with "serious consequences," even though you are trying to claim that does not constitute a "threat," as if to say it was merely warning Iraq of the "serious consequences" that might befall it if it continued to violate its obligations, as though it was referring to outside consequences not associated with the UN -- in which case one would be left wondering what was the point of the resolution in the first place -- yet all done in the stated context of giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." (SCR 1441, para. 2)

That's as threatening as the UN gets .... it threatens to remain seized of the matter. Which, I believe, was Brandon's point.

0 Replies

Not to put too fine a point on it . . . bullshit.

As i've pointed out, SCR 1441 was engineered by the Shrub and Company after he'd already decided upon an invasion--therefore, appeals to that don't constitute evidence that the UN had threatened Iraq for years and years.

Got any comments pertinent to the topic of the thread--or are you just indulging your penchant for doing a bad job of imitating Perry Mason?

0 Replies

Setanta, when you warn someone of "the severest consequences" for non-compliance, that's a threat. It doesn't matter how much obscuring smoke you create in the thread, that's a threat, and there's simply nothing more to be said about it.

0 Replies

Oh no, you don't get away with that--there is something more to be said, and sadly, it's simply a repetition of what you won't acknowledge. When the nature of the serious consequences isn't specified, it hardly constitutes a threat. Additionally, one swallow does not a swallow make. You wrote: "After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein . . ." A single example of a Resolution in 1998 doesn't support a contention which implies many threats over a period of many years. SCR 1441 doesn't cut it, either, because that resolution was a response of the U.N. to the Shrub's demand for action. Face it, Brandon, you made a contention which you have been unable to substantiate.

Do you have any comment to make on the topic of the thread? Or do you just intend to rest on your laurels for having successfully derailed the discussion?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Got any comments pertinent to the topic of the thread ...

I agree with the claim that what "threats" Bush has made with regard to Iran and NK's nuclear weapons programs thus far, constitute little more than what appear to be empty threats, and are therefore not effective. Threats should not be made if there is no intention, will, or desire to follow through. Saying "we aren't going to live with a nuclear North Korea," is stupid. Of course we're going to live with a nuclear North Korea. Issuing that empty threat diminishes US credibility and makes any threat toward Iran seem hollow. (And as I've stated many times on these fora, I believe threats against Iran should be made, and if necessary acted upon, because we should not permit Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.)

Quote:

... --or are you just indulging your penchant for doing a bad job of imitating Perry Mason?

No, I'm just taking the opportunity to point out all of the spinning you do when you are so obviously wrong.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Oh no, you don't get away with that--there is something more to be said, and sadly, it's simply a repetition of what you won't acknowledge. When the nature of the serious consequences isn't specified, it hardly constitutes a threat. Additionally, one swallow does not a swallow make. You wrote: "After years and years of empty threats and ultimatum's by the UN to Saddam Hussein . . ." A single example of a Resolution in 1998 doesn't support a contention which implies many threats over a period of many years. SCR 1441 doesn't cut it, either, because that resolution was a response of the U.N. to the Shrub's demand for action. Face it, Brandon, you made a contention which you have been unable to substantiate.

Do you have any comment to make on the topic of the thread? Or do you just intend to rest on your laurels for having successfully derailed the discussion?

You may post here that black is white, but it isn't. Warning someone of severe consequences for non-compliance is a threat. A threat need not be specific to be a threat.

As for posting off topic, if someone blames President Bush for making empty threats about several countries' WMD development programs, it is certainly on topic to point out that the criticism is ironic, since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting. And by the way, don't make me laugh. Many of the liberals on A2K post off topic and/or attempt to derail threads all the time. You're merely using a distraction to try to escape from an argument you've lost.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When the nature of the serious consequences isn't specified, it hardly constitutes a threat.

Not to put too fine a point on it ... bullshit.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When the nature of the serious consequences isn't specified, it hardly constitutes a threat.
Quote:

If this is the premise for your argument, it is faulty. Just because the consequences may not be specified doesn't make the warning or threat less of one. Ask any mother who warns/threatens her child with "Just you wait till your father gets home!" or one sibling to another, "I'm telling Mom on you!" - undisclosed or unknown consequences in both cases but still a threat/warning. By the same token, a person commiting a felony could face a host of consequences, depending upon the charges and determination by the judicial system; it doesn't make them any less real.

Whether they're 'empty' is another issue.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're merely using a distraction to try to escape from an argument you've lost.

And it's pretty damn obvious too.

0 Replies

Brandon, where's your evidence that the UN threatened Iraq "for years and years?" You haven't provided that evidence.

As for going off topic, for derailing the thread, Au didn't refer to "several" countries with womd programs, he referred to two. Alleging that ". . . since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting."--is a strawman, because you haven't demonstrated that anyone here has done that. Even if Au or i have criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad for their ham-handed and unjustified invasion of Iraq, you have no basis to allege that either of us has ever agreed that the Shrub did so because he finally tired of the U.N.'s "empty threats." That's the pony you're attempting to ride, you can't hang that one on Au or on me.

You alleged that the Shrub acted after years and years of empty threats from the UN. You have failed to substantiate your allegation.

0 Replies

Since Saddam has been removed why stay in Iraq? Unless there are ulterior motives like O-I-L.

0 Replies

talk72000

talk72000 wrote:

Since Saddam has been removed why stay in Iraq? Unless there are ulterior motives like O-I-L.

It wont be long now. The republicans who have been attacking the democrates who they have labeled as cut and run advocates appear to be moving in that direction.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon, where's your evidence that the UN threatened Iraq "for years and years?" You haven't provided that evidence.

As for going off topic, for derailing the thread, Au didn't refer to "several" countries with womd programs, he referred to two. Alleging that ". . . since Bush's critics have blamed him for finally tiring of the UN's empty threats and acting."--is a strawman, because you haven't demonstrated that anyone here has done that. Even if Au or i have criticized the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad for their ham-handed and unjustified invasion of Iraq, you have no basis to allege that either of us has ever agreed that the Shrub did so because he finally tired of the U.N.'s "empty threats." That's the pony you're attempting to ride, you can't hang that one on Au or on me.

You alleged that the Shrub acted after years and years of empty threats from the UN. You have failed to substantiate your allegation.

In the post that opened the thread, Bush was blamed for making empty threats regarding acquisition of nukes by certain countries. This is a very bizarre criticism to make of him since the greatest single criticism of him by liberals relates to a case in which he finally tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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!

at least Carter knos how to negotiate, sucessfully ornot on every occasion.... bush can't do **** except stand behind the screen door and go nyah nyah when confronted by an opponent that might actually hit back.... the sterotypical bully.....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

Never. They make vague empty threats of serious consequences. For instance, in 1993:

Quote:

The council declared that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the weapons issues "constitutes a material and unacceptable breach" of the gulf war cease-fire terms and it warned of "serious consequences" if Baghdad does not comply.

Source

0 Replies

Bush will probably remembered in history as;

"OLE BLUSTER AND BLUNDER.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

Never. They make vague empty threats of serious consequences. For instance, in 1993:

Quote:
The council declared that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the weapons issues "constitutes a material and unacceptable breach" of the gulf war cease-fire terms and it warned of "serious consequences" if Baghdad does not comply.

Source

Good. So for twelve years the UN has never threatened Iraq with military action, and that's why Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003. Is that a correct representation of your point of view?

0 Replies

The UN has no military with which to threaten military action. The best the UN could do would be to make economic threats and even those were empty of any consequence. Just as they have been with Iran and N. Korea.

0 Replies

McGentrix
The UN has the power to request military action be taken by it's member states. While it's member states do not have the right to institute military action on their own in support of the UN.

0 Replies

Bush's Empty threats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know