Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Grant you don't really expect Obama to make a decision or take a stand do you?
I am more concerned about pakistan having nukes at the moment.
Absolutely. Their current stockpile of nuclear weapons and related facilities has to be considered at risk given the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and the country’s problematic security system. Added to that you have internal instability and differing political views. Yikes.
But, when that four months pases we'll give them four more months, then four more months, then four more months, then four more and so on. It's not hard to do the math.
we Negotiate while Iran builds Nukes........what part of t hat do you not understand???????????
So what's your plan NP? Stop negotiations then what?
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
Of course I would have let them stay to finish their job. When complete, their report would have mooted the need for war with Iraq, 4,500 US service personel would still be with us, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens that have died in the course of a decade or better, wouldn't have, we'd have an extra trillion or so dollars in our wallet as well as far more global credibility. It's amazing you guys still defend Iraq. Only the cost prohibits me from laughing.
BERKELEY – Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
What the poster said was true.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
I would not go with you there. The inspectors had been trying to inspect for a long time. The SC had issued the resolution that was being blatantly rejected. The ultimatum had been made and the dictator relied on the backing of principally three countries to protect him. The invasion was fully justified and made sense at the time.
Whether it would have been smarter for Bush to resist getting played into the corner by Putin and Schröder is another matter.
Well of course you won't. You're going down with the ship on it. Nevertheless, Hans Blix was the boots on the ground, not George Bush, and he testified that he had the access this time that he was denied in 1991. There was no WMD, he knew it, and he left a pissed off badger and wrote a scathing report highly critical of Bush and his insistence on attacking Iraq, absent the threat used to justify the invasion. Many ardent Bush supporters at the time have acknowledge the folly and repented of their position, many of them are participants of this board. But there remain the stubborn, perhaps incapable or just too embarrassed so they press on belligerently defending the indefensible.
I would not go with you there. The inspectors had been trying to inspect for a long time. The SC had issued the resolution that was being blatantly rejected. The ultimatum had been made and the dictator relied on the backing of principally three countries to protect him. The invasion was fully justified and made sense at the time.
Whether it would have been smarter for Bush to resist getting played into the corner by Putin and Schröder is another matter.
Always read the reports. But they aren't enough as far as I am informed. You would want free roaming inspectors on the ground continuously and permanently. Anything less is too little. It might be understandable, if Iran had technology that could be stolen like in the Cold War, that they should refuse. As it is though, the only unemotional explanation for the secrecy is that they have something to hide.
Ahh, Blix. He also told Blair at that time he could not guarantee that there where no wmd in the country. But it was that guarantee that was his job to give, if Saddam was to be believed and the resolution considered filled. What he knew is of no consequence, though, if he knew and withheld the guarantee, he would have deliberately caused the invasion. Is that what you are implying?
In the context of international law the US had no legal justification for the invasion, and in fact violated the UN Charter in doing so given that the UNSC never authorized an invasion. The invasion was illegal.
In the context of international law the US had no legal justification for the invasion, and in fact violated the UN Charter in doing so given that the UNSC never authorized an invasion. The invasion was illegal.
lol I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Every country has something to hide. Every country has national secrets. There is nothing abnormal about that.
No, there is nothing abnormal about countries having secrets.
The problem here is that a large number of countries voted to make sure Iran was not building an atomic weapon and the inspectors have found a number of indications of a weapons program. A number of the findings seem impossible to explain, if the Iranians are not conducting such a program and their government has not been able or willing to explain.
Why is extending talks a bad thing?
No it wasn't and Blix with great frustration pointed out, you can not prove a negative, as I can't prove to you that there is no tennis ball in this room. Failed critical thinking is what Blix accused both Bush and Blair of.
In the context of international law the US had no legal justification for the invasion, and in fact violated the UN Charter in doing so given that the UNSC never authorized an invasion. The invasion was illegal.
The pity is that that was what the UN demanded. And, when you think about it, the demand was not as absurd as you would like it to seem. Had the inspectors been able to roam free instead of being block over and over again, the statistical proof would have sufficed. With inspectors roaming the country Bush would never have been able to invade. Not a chance and you know that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?