Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush,Blair, Aznar- "Monday is last day of diplomacy"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Come on, MtG, the Democrats are gung on on submitting US foreign policy to the UN. But now that the French have show us their cards, I can hardly imagine anyone making a case to the America people that we have to get UN approval in the future because we all know that France will intentionally obstruct US policy.

    During the cold war, no one, Democrat or Republican, ever argued that we would have to get critical decisions approved by the SC knowing that all that would mean would be a Russian and probably a Chinese veto. No, we knew we had to act through NATO or other alliances.

    Now that France has revealed her true anti-American intentions, we cannot go to the UN SC for anything. France will block us.

    The Democrats must know this.

    So, what are they saying about the UN? I have heard nary a word from any Democrat in the last few weeks.
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

    Comment


    • #47
      I think it's ok to protest war during the war if you feel that it's the right thing to do. The protesters during the Vietnam War had a long term effect on US foreign policy. I think we became a little less aggresive because of their actions. If there is significant protests again then warmongering presidents will think twice next time. .... maybe.
      "When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
      "All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
      "Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Ned
        Now that France has revealed her true anti-American intentions, we cannot go to the UN SC for anything. France will block us.
        Not that the US has been blocking resolutions not favorable to itself
        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

        Comment


        • #49
          Shi Huangdi is correct, any vote of no-confidence would not work.

          Even the vast majority of anti-war Labour MP's know they are there due to Tony, and they won't drop him until they feel there is a credible threat, and a credible alternative.

          Remember, a vote of no-confidence would bring the government down, not Tony .. and the vast majority of MP's are not going to put their job on the line.

          A Leadership challenge (as with M.Thatcher) is possible, but just too early. Again, who is the credible alternative ??? Gordon Brown supports the war .. infact, all of the majour hitters do, apart from Robin Cook and Clair Short, and neither of them have it in them to be a PM.

          Blair will get through this war .. and by the next election, will return as Prime Minister for a 3rd term .. The only things i can see that will stop this are :-

          1)Tories dumping IDS and getting Kenneth Clarke in (and not squabling .. which may not be possible)

          2) Massive Economic downturn in wake of war.

          3) War goes dreadfully wrong, and thousands of Brits/Americans are killed (even US casualties would be bad for Blair, as if the US public turn against the war, he will find it harder and harder to justify).

          my bets on 3rd term currently.
          "Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Urban Ranger


            Not that the US has been blocking resolutions not favorable to itself
            UR, what does this have to do with anything. Why do all you extreme lefties always try to change the subject and attack the US?

            Example: Saddam is a dictator that should be removed:
            Lefties: The US has supported many a dictator in the past.

            Example: Saddam has violated X UN resolutions.
            Lefties: Israel has violated more.

            Example: Saddam has WoMD and is a threat.
            Lefties: Israel has nukes and is a threat.

            Never address the issue. Simply attack the US and Israel.
            http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Ned



              Example: Saddam is a dictator that should be removed:
              Lefties: The US has supported many a dictator in the past.

              Example: Saddam has violated X UN resolutions.
              Lefties: Israel has violated more.

              Example: Saddam has WoMD and is a threat.
              Lefties: Israel has nukes and is a threat.
              If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE is a dictator you imply that EVERY dictator should be removed.

              If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE he has violated X UN resolutions you imply that EVERY country violating UN resolution should be punished.


              This is LOGIC and it's not a matter of opinion.

              Comment


              • #52
                And another step closer....

                Now the inspectors have been "urged" to leave Iraq. Clear the decks... here we come...

                I really hope civilian casualties can be kept to a minimum. The Iraqi people have suffered enough.
                "Stuie has the right idea" - Japher
                "I trust Stuie and all involved." - SlowwHand
                "Stuie is right...." - Guynemer

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Sloth


                  If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE is a dictator you imply that EVERY dictator should be removed.

                  If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE he has violated X UN resolutions you imply that EVERY country violating UN resolution should be punished.


                  This is LOGIC and it's not a matter of opinion.
                  The reponse tends to be dissecting the issues though.

                  Its not just that Saddam is a dictator, its not just that he has defied resolutions, its not just that he has WoMD, its not just that he has previously invaded another country and then defied the ceasefire terms etc... It is all these things combined.

                  You have got to argue the sum of the parts, not the individual parts.
                  One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Oerdin
                    Chirac said maybe 60 days, maybe 30 days, but not before the Inspectors have nothing left which they can possibly inspect in Iraq. In other words he isn't offering any compromise; he wants to continue the failed policies of the last 12 years no matter what.
                    When the 30 days are finished Chirak will ask for 30 more days...
                    "Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
                    "A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                      Wow, we just watched the destruction of the political future of the British and Spanish heads-of-state.
                      I disagree. We watched the construction of the future of the British and the Spanish.
                      "Never trust a man who puts your profit before his own profit." - Grand Nagus Zek, Star Trek Deep Space Nine, episode 11
                      "A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin. An anticommunist is someone who has understood Marx and Lenin." - Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        "Monday is last day of diplomacy"


                        It is also, probably, the last day of peace.
                        "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          If you add up a sufficient number of attributes and say that only taken togher justify your action.... you can justify just about everything or, at least, you must limit yourself to discuss particular cases and not "generals".
                          In your line of thinking Saddam could have justified the invasion of Kuwait saying that in that "particular case" the invasion was "right". And I would have been in great pain to argue that without saying "invading another country (IN GENERAL) in wrong".

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            It is also, probably, the last day of peace.
                            Well, wouldn´t there be those 48 - 72 hours to get all inspectors out of the country before the war starts?

                            I know they were urged to leave today, but I thought only those from the IAEO so far?

                            Edit: I see, the UNMOVIC guys too

                            But it is not officially confirmed from the UN side yet (which will of course be soon the case)
                            Blah

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sloth
                              If you add up a sufficient number of attributes and say that only taken togher justify your action.... you can justify just about everything or, at least, you must limit yourself to discuss particular cases and not "generals".
                              In your line of thinking Saddam could have justified the invasion of Kuwait saying that in that "particular case" the invasion was "right". And I would have been in great pain to argue that without saying "invading another country (IN GENERAL) in wrong".
                              You can argue specifics, but you can not discount an argument of specifics with one at a time comparisons.
                              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE is a dictator you imply that EVERY dictator should be removed.

                                If you mean: Saddam shoul be removed BECAUSE he has violated X UN resolutions you imply that EVERY country violating UN resolution should be punished.


                                This is LOGIC and it's not a matter of opinion.



                                Individually those two may not be enough to convince a person of a need for action. Combined they are compelling.

                                To then dissect the issues is to ignore the sum of their parts. By such arguing you can say that a rapist, murderer & burglar, is not worse than a murderer because we are taking each of those crimes independently.
                                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X