Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

France Vows to Block Resolution on Iraq War

Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 21 January 2003 - 10:44 PM

I  think the reason they are doing this is Saddam has the record that show where the french gave him all this Bio technology. Along with Germany.

Days I think we need to step back and do this the french way and have him murdered. and then smile like the sphinix when asked about it. Then say we do not know who did it but thanks folks.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 07 August 2012 - 03:11 PM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#2 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 03:07 AM

France has an interest in maintaining good (or at least diplomatic) relations with Iraq because Iraq owes them a lot of money. Can't recall the exact figure, but it's a serious wad of dough. Russia is in the same boat. If there's a war and Saddam's regime is toppled, the new government that emerges may or may not decide to honour the old government's obligations.

But regardless of their self-interest, I'm glad France is making it even a little bit harder for the US to declare war on Iraq. (No doubt Bush would go in without UN authorization if he has to, but he'll probably keep trying to swing world opinion first.) There is no persuasive case for going to war with Iraq at this time.

Osama Bin Laden, now there's somebody they should be focusing on. If that buzzard is still alive (as he seems to be), they need to bring him to justice. Every day he spends outside a jail cell is a black day for freedom.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 07 August 2012 - 03:08 PM.

Per aspera ad astra

#3 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 08:32 AM

I think they are looking for him. Hell they have parts of afganistan they cannot back into becasue we sealed the caves up.  Also It is clear we are not the Russians. If we were the youngest child would be murdered and the head delivered to the family while the next youngest was taken and word would be "Give him  to us and nothing more happens to your family."

Day you must admire the bear and how they can get a message across. They know just how to personaliize it just right.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#4 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 06:48 PM

Quote

Kevin Street:  France has an interest in maintaining good (or at least diplomatic) relations with Iraq because Iraq owes them a lot of money. Can't recall the exact figure, but it's a serious wad of dough.

Agreed France is acting as unilateral as anyone else to further their own interests.  Germany is in the same boat as well for having sold material to Iraq.  A portion of this material and equipment was supposedly materials that could be used to further Iraq's WMD programs.  If that's the case it should be about the time to quietly remind those two governments that their bills of sales to Iraq can be made clear to everyone.  That might have the effect of jolting them into reality if their special interests in supporting a murder and tyrant come out for everyone to see.  Though they are being ever so nice to hold up the nail to drive into the UN's coffin to make it even more irrelevant.  

I bet though if France sees they can't stop a military invasion they will be among the first to jump the bandwagon.  With some statement along the lines of "In order to maintain French National Interests I'm authorizing the deployment…"

Quote

Kevin Street: There is no persuasive case for going to war with Iraq at this time.

I really have to question what Saddam has to do for there to be a case?  This guy has spit on several UN resolutions and has no intention of complying once again.  

Quote

Godeskian: They have been looking for him since Sept 11, 2001. They haven't found him yet.

According to recent reports during the Battle for Tora Bora US forces nearly got bin Laden by tracking in on his satellite phone.  The problem is one of his body guards got wise to it and led away the Special Forces in the opposite direction.  Bin Laden might not be dead but his ability to do much of anything is severely limited.  Imagine trying to control a worldwide origination when you can't use any high technology communications without the US getting a whiff of where you are.  Well unless you like a GBU-28 smashing into your cave, Special Forces team dropping by for dinner, or AGM-114 Hellfire through you window.  Suffice it to say wherever Bin Laden is he can't do very much or his head will be on a platter.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#5 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 23 January 2003 - 12:45 PM

CJ AEGIS wrote:

Quote

Though they are being ever so nice to hold up the nail to drive into the UN's coffin to make it even more irrelevant.
 

As a Canadian, I have to believe that the UN  is still relevant. It's full of bickering, and often creates embarassing situations like Libya chairing the Human Rights Committee, but at the end of the day it's all we have standing between us and the tyranny of history. If we ever hope to build a future free of war and inequality, the UN is our best tool to do it.

Quote

I really have to question what Saddam has to do for there to be a case?  This guy has spit on several UN resolutions and has no intention of complying once again.

But why attack him now, when he hasn't done anything since the Gulf War except to his own people? It's this business of the US changing policy to a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes that scares me. Not for what the US might do, but for what other countries might do in reaction to them.

Quote

According to recent reports during the Battle for Tora Bora US forces nearly got bin Laden by tracking in on his satellite phone.  The problem is one of his body guards got wise to it and led away the Special Forces in the opposite direction.

Yeah, I heard that someone in the US government (I think it was the State Department) gave an interview to the media where he revealed that they were listening in on Bin laden's satellite phone. Unfortunately, Al Queda watches the news too, so they found out about it and the advantage was lost.

Quote

Imagine trying to control a worldwide origination when you can't use any high technology communications without the US getting a whiff of where you are.

It must be pretty annoying. :D

There's no doubt that the US hurt Al Queda very badly in Afghanistan (and elsewhere). Their organization probably took a big hit in Tora Bora when most of the leaders died.

uncle side wrote:

Quote

I think that seeming to ignore Osama bin Laden in favor of the Iraqi war might have the effect of perhaps getting him to step out of the shrubbery and try to do something.  If he can be convinced that the attention of the US is elsewhere, he might start taking risks again and then we can nab him.

That would be a good outcome, but I doubt old Osama is ever going to come out of hiding. He's always been more of a figurehead (and a chequebook) than a real leader, and that's more true now than ever, since there's a global manhunt looking for him. He'll probably stay in hiding somewhere, releasing "inspirational" messages in untraceable formats like recopied video tape, and urging the scattered remnants of his organization toward destructive acts. But the downside of that (for him) is that average people will lose interest over time, and forget about him. Unless Al Queda gets lucky and kills a lot of people in the west again.

Or maybe we'll get lucky, and someone will make the breakthrough that leads authorities to his hideout. That's what I'm hoping.

Per aspera ad astra

#6 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 23 January 2003 - 02:01 PM

Sollek, on Jan. 23 2003,18:21, said:

Quote

The thing I don't understand is: Why does the USA want a war? What will you gain from it?

The removal of a tin pot dicator who's regime has left 2 million people dead.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#7 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 02:05 AM

Colin Powell said yesterday that the Iraqi oil fields will be held 'in trust' untill such time as the american goverment deems Iraq ready and able to handle them

you wanted ton know what America gets out of it? How about the Iraqi Oil fields or so says the Secretary of State

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#8 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 04:46 AM

actually Kevin, i agree completely with you

there will always be ways of aquiring terrorist weapons, the only way to kleep the world safe is to stop thinking of military solutions as viable ones.

in absouletley every case, all military action does is get people killed

these days they spark counterattacks too.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#9 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 05:32 AM

Some would say the US would do the same thing, if they attack Iraq without the UN backing it.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#10 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 08:45 AM

Godeskian, on Jan. 24 2003,05:32, said:

Some would say the US would do the same thing, if they attack Iraq without the UN backing it.
Not likely.  Unlike the UN, the US is built on a model that works, not to mention that it doesn't require global cooperation for it to continue to operate.  The US also enforces it's laws to the best of its ability generally, while the UN does not.

Any organization that refuses to back up its own decrees in the face of opposition or setbacks loses the ability to command respect.  Even if the actions of the US are unpopular, no one can say that it does not back up what it says it is going to do.  If the UN continues to back down from its own resolutions, it can be dismissed as a rubber stamp or a useless contrivance that is only good for getting in the way when someone wants to oppose or delay the US.  In the event that the UN becomes a permanent obstacle, a country like the US gains no benefit from being a member.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#11 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 09:16 AM

Quote

And what if it is the decision of the majority of the security council that Iraq has disarmed. that it has satisfied this resolution (i'm not saying they will, but if they do) then, by attacking Iraq, the US wouild be in violation of the security council.

You should know that majority opinions don't matter in the Security Council to begin with.  Any one of five permanent members can veto a resolution.  The US is one, and France is another.  Majorities don't count, so it will never be a matter of that.  

What is also clear at this point is that the inspection programme has already found evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq, as pointed out above.  Sure, they're not completely assembled weapons, but the inspecion teams note that they are in excellent condition.  I don't know why anyone thought that Iraq was just going to have launchers with chemical warheads sitting on them.  That's not what you'd find.  You will find bits and pieces of the weapons, like the warheads, all in good condition and all ready to be reassembled and rearmed at a moment's notice.  If, at this point, the Council voted to absolve Iraq, it would be almost as bad as backing down, it might even be worse.  

Quote

The us being 'the model that works' i think isn't even an issue. Many goverments can claim to have far older models of goverment that 'work' because it's asubjective opinion.

You were making a point in the discussion of te US vs. the UN and I replied to it.  I wasn't talking about other countries.  In comparison to the UN, the US does work significantly better and even if there is a war, the US is unlikely to become irrelevant or fall apart because of it.  On the other hand, the UN has to face that very real possibility if it's sole purpose is to get in the way.

Quote

However if the US and France backing one side of an argument regardless of the UN's final policy is stonewalling, then the US doing the opposite is to.

No, that is not the same thing.  The fact is that the US is referencing UN resolutions that have been on the books for ten years without adequate enforcement.  The French are stonewalling because they want to continue the UN policy that has been status quo for over ten years now and which doesn't work.  Stonewalling is to prevent action, and the US would like the UN to take action, so what the US is doing is most definitely not stonewalling.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#12 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 10:28 AM

Part of the problem with containment is . He's still ing the materials he needs. I'll bet that if there and ID numbers on those shells they will have been built since the embargo started.

Well It may be about Oil. But I seem to remember a place called Koslovo? I do not remember hearing about large oil despoiststhere but I seem to remember hearing about "Ethnic Cleansing" and how the greats states of Europe could not seem to do anything about it. Or want to. In fact France the pargon of Humans rights tried all in it's power to keep out of the mess.

Basically There are problem spots and yes Virgina it seems we need an interest in going into a place.

But do you feel maybe we should drop all the sanctions and leave him alone and hope that the man who has proven to be willing to invade his neighbor and use mustard gas on civilians has learned to live inthe world of civilized nations.

Me I'd go for miliatry force and make a change in government before I'd trust that SOB.

Anything else is mindless claptrap about living in peace and harmony with cannibles

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#13 Sollek

Sollek
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 35 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 03:12 PM

You can't compare the US to the UN. The US is one state, the UN represents the majority of the world. Who are the US to work against them? This "we are right, you are wrong" attitude is stupid. We should work together and not compete. Just because the US has one of the most powerful military forces it can't decide what should happen in the world. Are we back to the time where the strong take what they want and the weaker countries have to cope with it?
To G1223:
The Kosovo is a good example for the current problem. I admit, Europe didn't act but the US also failed. They came, they destroyed cities, villages, important bridges across the danube (that still affects European shipping traffic) and killed many people. And in the middle of all of this they just went away and told the Europeans to deal with it. Suddenly they had to take care of thousands of fugitives and homeless people. Like I said the US mostly just left. The greatest problem of a war isn't the actual fighting but the cleaning up. And that is something the US never did.


#14 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 January 2003 - 05:03 PM

Yeah the one who feared and loathed the Military so much he used it like a club whereever he could. Sending part of it to places half way from any place or support.

Basically Europe failed time and again to deal with a mad man who was killing thousandif not millions of his neighbors. He did this and Europe fiddled itself a cheery tune to screams of woman being raped and murdered.

The UN sent in troops to try and cat as a barrier and then changed the rules so that the peacekeepers were left to be ground into dogfood. This is wise all knowing loving organization that neither saved lives nor ending the suffering it played the Piano in the same cheery tempo as Europe.

That is why France and germany have neither the right to say anything they allowed the murders to take place they sold weapons to Iraq they sold Bioweapons Tech to them and they are wanting the money they are owed before they will do anything to ease the burden on the innocent people.

The UN has proven time and agin to prove the  adage.Elephant: Mouse by commitee. It has so much curruption and politics attached to it. That the mission to save the world from war as been lost.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 25 January 2003 - 12:31 AM

Quote

Godeskian:  
Colin Powell said yesterday that the Iraqi oil fields will be held 'in trust' untill such time as the american goverment deems Iraq ready and able to handle them you wanted ton know what America gets out of it? How about the Iraqi Oil fields or so says the Secretary of State

I suppose we are just supposed to close the oilfields?  More like what the Iraqis get out of it.  Look back at your history and see how the US managed Germany and Japan and rebuilding them.   The profits from the oil fields and a good influx of American capital will be used to rebuild Iraq and get the Iraqi people back on their feet.  Suffice it to say there’s a whole lot less expensive ways to get our hands on oil than what we’ll get invading Iraq.  As I said above only 15% of our oil comes from the Middle East.    


Quote

Kevin Street: Someday there will be dozens of "rogue nations" with ICBMS (and chemical and biological weapons), and US military power will no longer be effective.

That’s why NMD, ABL, and Aegis Tier 3 along with the other ABM systems are so important.

Quote

Uncle Sid: Indeed, I think that NATO is more on track for actually ending problem of warfare than the UN is.

Agreed NATO has a whole lot more potential as a world organization than the United Nations.  As a organization the UN is fast going the way of the League of Nations.  At least when NATO needs to act it isn’t as hamstrung as the UN.  The UN is best left as a forum for discussion rather than one with any real control over nations.  I would rather see a league of like minded democracies working together to secure world peace than a flawed organization that fails to act on it’s own resolutions.  

Quote

Godeskian:
if it's about the 'poor innocent little iraqi civilians' why aren't the US in any of the 40 or so other countries run by peopel just like Saddam Hussein  

Last time I checked there wasn’t any oil in Somalia…  I suppose Task Force Ranger fought the Battle of the Black Sea so the “Evil Empire US ™” could steal the sand reserves of Somalia…  

Quote

Godeskian: If it's about WMD's then why aren't there two carrier groups lying of the coast of Korea with 200,000 troops plus equipment have a mile south of the DMZ in South Korea.  

Last time I checked the 7th Fleet always has a carrier operating within spitting distance of North Korea. Kitty Hawk was doing her carrier qualifications near Iwo Jima and I think Nimitz is due to enter the Pacific in addition, and the Carl Vinson too.  There is also the issue of biting off more than you can chew.  The US military is optimized to fight two major regional conflicts well at least theoretically.  Taking on Iraq and North Korea at the same time would take the US military to the breaking point.  So better to wait and see if negotiations work with N Korea.  We have 10+ years of experience and trying with Saddam to say they don’t work.  Then once Iraq is out of the way and if N Korea is still being disagreeable then the bat should be limned up on them.      


Quote

IF they don't learn that, then when they do conquer Iraq, they will drive a whole generation of young people into the arms of organizations who will prey on the attitude of american arrogance that they see to teach a whole new generation of suicide bombers.

The last time you checked did we have swarms of Japanese suicide bombers coming after us due to our brutal occupation of Japan after World War II…  


Quote

Godeskian
It boggles my mind, that when the UN is looking for a way to do this peacefully, the US, is looking for any reason to go to war and is complaining about the UN getting in the way

The UN isn’t looking for peace or Europe for that matter.  France, Germany, and Russia all have a vested interest in keeping that murder alive.  Iraq owes them billion of dollars that would really have vast detrimental effect of their colonies if the US ousted their murderous little dictator.  Oh and then you have the nice little deal that has come to light about Germany bribing France and giving them control of the EU in the deal.  You have to be registered to go to the article but here goes.        

'Bad Herr Dye'
New York Times Excerpt:

Quote

“Then Schröder, reliant on his militantly antiwar Greens, made Chirac an offer he could not refuse: to permanently assert Franco-German dominance over the 23 other nations of Continental Europe.
In a stunning power play in Brussels, Germany and France moved to change the practice of having a rotating presidency of the European Council, which now gives smaller nations influence, to a system with a long-term president. This Franco-German czar of the European Union would dominate a toothless president of the European Commission, chosen by the European Parliament.
Little guys of Europe hollered bloody murder this week, but will find it hard to resist the Franco-German steamroller. France then had to repay Schröder by double-crossing the U.S. at the U.N. That explains France's startling threat to veto a new U.N. resolution O.K.'ing the invasion of Iraq — a second resolution that France had promised Colin Powell would not be needed. “

Oh and the tidbits in the article about Schröder attacking the freedom of the press in Germany are especially interesting.  I wonder if the UK has figured out what they have gotten themselves into by joining a EU that will soon be dominated by France and Germany.  Suffice it to say if this comes true and the UK doesn’t get out soon; I except to see German and French troops stationed on British soil to “ensure the peace”.  Funny how Europeans are screaming about Bush being a warmonger and out for dominance when Chirac and Schröder are snatching their very sovereignty while they are screaming about the US.  Of course who will get looked at for help when the EU goes sour with Franco-German dominance…

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 25 January 2003 - 08:56 AM

this is rapidly becoming a circular argument.

what happened under Clinton, happened under clinto, not Bush. as for Iraq and her oil fields.

we'll see. Right now, we're all just making predicitons based on our own viewpoints.

once the US stops pretending that it cares about the UN annd actually goes into Iraq we'll see if they honor the current contracts for Iraqi oil or not, or whether they get torn up for contracts with primarily american companies

i don't know. and frankly no one else does either

but i'll remember this topic for when the war is over and the decisions is actually made

enjoy the discussion all

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#17 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 25 January 2003 - 02:28 PM

Quote

Kevin Street: NATO is too regionally bound to be effective as a means to end all war. As a deterrent to war in its North Atlantic region though, it does work pretty well.  Excellent point about organizing nations into larger blocs.  

NATO though is an organization that has rapidly expanded beyond its original mission and is still gaining members.  Just look at the members it has acquired in the former Soviet bloc countries.  

Though with the recent apparently domination plot for the EU by France and Germany even NATO’s days are severely numbered. If those two gain control expect NATO to fall apart to be replaced by a EU military alliance dominated by France and Germany.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see another alliance though arise from NATO featuring the US, Canada, Australia, some former NATO powers, Western Hemisphere, some former Soviet Bloc and Asian powers.  Assuming Great Britain sees the light and gets out of the EU or isn’t totally dominated by France/Germany they’ll be in it for sure.    

Quote

Kevin Street: But the situation with Iraq is improving now, isn't it? The inspectors are there, and they're starting to actually find the hidden weapons. What would a war accomplish at this point?  

The inspectors can’t disarm Iraq unless Iraq is willing to allow them full access and not attempt to block their efforts.  The problem is that chemical and especially biological weapons are very easy to hide.  It’s very easy to hide them in someone’s fridge in a private residence. Just today it was announced that Iraqi scientists who are supposed to talk to UNMOVIC under the resolutions are refusing to cooperate.  Until Iraq is willing to disarm the Inspectors are fighting an uphill battle.    


Quote

Godeskian: once the US stops pretending that it cares about the UN annd actually goes into Iraq we'll see if they honor the current contracts for Iraqi oil or not, or whether they get torn up for contracts with primarily American companies

If those oil contracts are to Germany and France then they should be severed as soon as Saddam Hussein is removed from power.  The governments of those countries have little in the way of concern for the Iraqi citizens.  Their interest is in keeping Saddam in power so they can receive the money that he owes them and to make a pretty profit on the side for any sales they can slip past the sanctions.  The side benefit is they can pull off their hegemony over Europe while the rest of Europe is distracted screaming at the US.      

Once France see that the US isn’t going to back down then they’ll show what hypocrites they are and that their interest is in making a profit.  They’ll be the first to jump the bandwagon to receive the money Iraq owes them.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 January 2003 - 08:38 PM

Washington Post

Quote

"Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions and cooperated very closely with the U.N. team on the ground," Fischer said. "We think things are moving in the right direction, based on the efforts of the inspection team, and [they] should have all the time which is needed."

I guess chemical warheads for artillery and mustard gas are complying with total disarmament.  

Quote

"Iraq has a responsibility now to avoid a conflict, to avoid a war," Powell told reporters. "There is no   question that Iraq continues to misunderstand the seriousness of the position that it's in."  "If the United Nations is going to be relevant," he added, "it has to take a firm stand."

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 02:41 AM

Actually, a political assasination might be the the most expedient way of removing the man from office, no matter how ugly it is

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#20 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 22 January 2003 - 03:14 AM

yes, at the moment it's osama 1, US 0 because they still haven't found him despite having levelled one country all ready

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users