WIll we believe him again?
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, August 22, 2005 08:56
VIEWED: 11093
PAGE 7 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Who is to blame for that ?
Last time going into Iraq, the US and its supporter Britain had one interpretation of the resolution against Iraq, and the rest of the security council had another...
Oh, that is an easy one.
Clearly, the most culpable parties in undermining the UN are the French, followed closely by the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese. Their double dealing with the Iraqis and the outright corruption with the Oil-For-Food scandal irrepairably discredited the UN. Their treachery in that institution has done more to damage it than anyone else ever could.
Andrew Lynch
I would disagree, All the countrys you listed wanted to lift the sanctions at a much earlier point and were prevented only by the security council veto of the US and Britain. If a majority vote had decided things ( as it should be ) the UN would have been functional and crisis ( created by false intell funished by the US ) would have been averted... no war.
But instead, the US using the resolution ( which the countrys listed above felt were suffiently complied with ) justified a war which failed to meet its primary aim ( find the WMD which did not exist ).
So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...
by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, we colonials like to be cantankerous. The guy I was referring to is Livingstone. One of the reports from the Senate committee does implicate him in the OOF scandal. I sincerely apologize if my earlier post came across as a smear of the UK! That was definitely not my intention. We recently visited the UK and had a great time.
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni
So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...
by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?
If you are talking about UN sanctions, then no. The UN is not a signatory to the NAFTA treaty. It doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the US is violating a provision of the NAFTA treaty, then it depends on what dispute resolution / sanction procedures are written into the treaty. If any country in NAFTA finds that unsatifcatory, they can always pull out.
I guess to the other part of your post it would be impolite of me to point out that the reason the other countries wanted to lift sanctions is that Saddam had bought their vote...
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni
So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...
by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?
If you are talking about UN sanctions, then no. The UN is not a signatory to the NAFTA treaty. It doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the US is violating a provision of the NAFTA treaty, then it depends on what dispute resolution / sanction procedures are written into the treaty. If any country in NAFTA finds that unsatifcatory, they can always pull out.
I guess to the other part of your post it would be impolite of me to point out that the reason the other countries wanted to lift sanctions is that Saddam had bought their vote...
Fivver
I was more refering to a statement AJ made :
" So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution "
I wanted to use the NAFTA example to point out the US often flouts treatys it signs, and ask if they should be held to the same standard.
As for NAFTA, I say pull out now, put a %40 duty on any oil and gas sales South of the border, and enter into negotiations with India and China to buy our oil and gas. As we are the largest supplier of oil to the US, I will misquote a local politician " Let the bastards freeze in the dark "
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni
So, what do you have to say about the US violating its NAFTA commitments...
by your previous arguement, are sanctions pending ?
If you are talking about UN sanctions, then no. The UN is not a signatory to the NAFTA treaty. It doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the US is violating a provision of the NAFTA treaty, then it depends on what dispute resolution / sanction procedures are written into the treaty. If any country in NAFTA finds that unsatifcatory, they can always pull out.
I guess to the other part of your post it would be impolite of me to point out that the reason the other countries wanted to lift sanctions is that Saddam had bought their vote...
Fivver
I was more refering to a statement AJ made :
" So President Bush has done *absolutely nothing* against Iran except for state the obvious -- being if Iran flouts its international agreements (ie, treaties it has willingly signed) and pursues nuclear arms it will be subject to UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolution "
I wanted to use the NAFTA example to point out the US often flouts treatys it signs, and ask if they should be held to the same standard.
As for NAFTA, I say pull out now, put a %40 duty on any oil and gas sales South of the border, and enter into negotiations with India and China to buy our oil and gas. As we are the largest supplier of oil to the US, I will misquote a local politician " Let the bastards freeze in the dark "
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn Colonists! My god we should support King George in any action he sees as appropriate! What, oh dear lord, the frogs are getting upperty again!
Erm I mean *Ahem* Ken Livingstone? Was he actually indicted, I think I heard something like that awhile back, but I had other more pressing issues on my own life at the time, so...
Or do you mean another Livingstone? I'm just interested is there a link you can post?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My bad, it's George Galloway - Livingstone has been in the news lately. Here's the link:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Subcommittees.Home&Subcom
mitteeID=11&Initials=PSI
Just scroll down to the related files section.
Upperty frogs huh? Years ago Art Buchwald wrote a column that had a great idea. It was back in the depths of the cold war and he proposed an arms treaty between the US and the USSR where there would be 10 missle bases in each country with Russian (higher throw weight) rockets and US (lighter and more accurate) warheads. The silos would be jointly manned and when the terrible day came, all the missles would be launched. At France. That would have solved both sides problems.
Fivver
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As mayor or London (largest city in the world fellas!) Livingstone is often in the news 
.
Just thought I'd missed something is all...
Your comment made me smile... as a staunch anti Frenchist (the people are fine, I've been to France on a number of occations! As a Brit France is a cheap holiday... but when they club together as a nation...) it did amuse me...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Oh, I can answer the question, I just won't. HK's question is based on a bogus premise and I won't play his game.
Please bring the thread back on topic. How about this: What hard evidence do you have to support the implication that President Bush has some plan to attack Iran?
Andrew Lynch
Good for you AJ! Don't fall for those sneaky liberal traps.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, rightwingers don't need to justify themselves, they are always right after all, and nothing bad has ever come from rightwing politics has it...
I love it that conservatives only require hard evidence when it suits them. Double standards are great aren't they?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME