Osama Bin Laden vs. the Red States

[Scuffer]

If the UN doesn't take action to stop attacks on American planes than the responsibility naturally falls on the US to do so.

I thought they did that by destroying the missile bases that fired on them?

 

[carlosMM]

If the UN doesn't take action to stop attacks on American planes than the responsibility naturally falls on the US to do so.

Quit wrong - if the police fails to catch the theif you can't go shooting him.

Also, the UN did take action - after all there was a constant stream of bombs and HARM missiles dropped on Iraqi air defences - which is why so few planes were hit.


Don't go twisting historic facts here.

 

[EzInKy]

Because France (and all other nations) were smart enough to see the future - which might soon have harboured a reason to attack.

Also, why forbid something that is forbidden anyways? Wars of aggression are forbidden under the Geneva Convention, which the US signed long ago.
You don't make a new law forbidding murder every day or for every person born, right?

An existing resolution stated "serious consequences" and the US clearly told the world what it interpreted those consequences to be when it massed troops on Iraqs border. Why then didn't "the world" step up and offer a resolution stating that "serious consequences" didn't mean intervention?

 

[EzInKy]

Quit wrong - if the police fails to catch the theif you can't go shooting him.

The police certainly can shoot him if he is firing at them.

Also, the UN did take action - after all there was a constant stream of bombs and HARM missiles dropped on Iraqi air defences - which is why so few planes were hit.

Don't go twisting historic facts here.

A case of "police" shooting the theif? You just said above they can't do that. As far as twisting historical facts, I'm not. Fact, the UN issued a resolution stating "serious consequences". Fact, the US massed troops on Iraqs border making it clear how it interpreted "serious consequences". Fact, the UN did not rescind its resolution nor state that "serious consequences" did not mean invasion.

 

[carlosMM]

The police certainly can shoot him if he is firing at them.

duh, rererad the discussion - it don't matter what the police may or may not do.

A case of "police" shooting the theif? You just said above they can't do that. As far as twisting historical facts, I'm not. Fact, the UN issued a resolution stating "serious consequences".

Doh, you were claiming the UN did nothing about iraq shooting at the UN planes - false.


Also, the UN said 'serious consequences'. it is not for the US to interpret that! It is only for the UN to decide that. What you here describe is lynch justice, nothing else.

Fact, the US massed troops on Iraqs border making it clear how it interpreted "serious consequences". Fact, the UN did not rescind its resolution nor state that "serious consequences" did not mean invasion.

Why should the UN state what it NOT meant? The UN had never ever stated that 'serious consequences' was to mean unauthorized invasion. The US acted on thei own here, in total violation of the Geneva Convention and international law.

To give an example: if a law is passed that makes speeding illegal and says that those in violation will be punished appropriately (which means the court decides from case to case) - does that allow YOU to decide?

obviously, no!

 

[ZiP!]

a bit back on topic...

Then you know why Ben Laden has always supported Bush to be re-elected. It's 100% in Al-Qaeda's interests. I challenge anyone to give me one single reason why Ben Laden would have wanted Kerry to win. One single !

And the point is, this also works in the other way : Bush definatly wants a threat so he can stay at the white house...
It's like bringing "Anthrax" to a UN security assembly (or was some other assembly?)
I'm not saying Al-Quaeda and the Rep's are allies, not at all, but just that they benefit from their mutual presence on the field...

Simply put : fearful people are easy to manipulate

cheers

ZiP!

 

[Steph]

An existing resolution stated "serious consequences" and the US clearly told the world what it interpreted those consequences to be when it massed troops on Iraqs border. Why then didn't "the world" step up and offer a resolution stating that "serious consequences" didn't mean intervention?

Serious consequences IF Iraq didn't cooperate with inspectors or WMD were found.
Where are the WMD now?

The pb was the US would have been satisfied with Iraq cooperation only if they gave proof there were no WMD. But how do you prove that you don't have something?
Stop living in a fantasy world, and just admit the US wouldn't have accepted anything, and had decided to invade anyway.

 

[superm]

The sad thing is that now we have to bomb Iran.And all of you know that they are preparing nukes.

 

[Dell19]

Strange name choice...

 

[superm]

I wanted to be called americanman.

But it was taken so then I picked this name

Cromwell was a barbaric nut job!

 

[Dell19]

You know that there are English posters here?

 

[superm]

Cromwell burned catholic churches to the groung in Ireland.

 

[carlosMM]

nation bash user name reported; everyone please ignore idiot troll.

 

[Scuffer]

Cromwell's long dead.

 

[superm]

It's all good fun.I'm going on vacation there soon.Alot of people here bash america and Bush and I haven't called them nation bashing trolls.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

It's all good fun.I'm going on vacation there soon.Alot of people here bash america and Bush and I haven't called them nation bashing trolls.

That's becuase they don't have a user name that says "America sucks"