To: Oldeconomybuyer
The irrelevance of the UN is apparent if you ask the question: Who will enforce any new resolution? If China, Russia, and Framce agree to a new resolution, who will furnish the enforcement? We see now, the advantage of world government in action. Zilch, zero, nada. By far the best approach would be to exit the UN and give them notice to leave our country.
2 posted on
09/21/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by
meenie
To: Oldeconomybuyer
So much for their acceptance of inspectors "without conditions".
3 posted on
09/21/2002 5:35:33 AM PDT by
Timm
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"Here come the planes...
They're American planes,
Made in America.
Smoking?
Or non-smoking..."
4 posted on
09/21/2002 5:40:51 AM PDT by
mhking
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Iraq declares it will not deal with any new resolution that contradicts of what has been agreed upon with the U.N. Secretary General,"
There you have it, Koffe you rat b*stard!
5 posted on
09/21/2002 5:47:28 AM PDT by
tet68
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past," Bush wrote. "We cannot let our enemies strike first."
It is time for action!!!
To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is an Iraqi anticipatory repudiation a 17th U.N. resolution that hasn't even been adopted yet. They are therefore in breach, and the "contract" is cancelled. Now, it's time for a "self help" remedy by the U.S.
7 posted on
09/21/2002 5:55:39 AM PDT by
tomahawk
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Sounds like SH is misreading GWB's appearance before the UN as "proof" that the US cannot act without the UN's permission, and will abide by any vetos from SC members China, Russia, and France.
8 posted on
09/21/2002 5:56:34 AM PDT by
kaylar
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Russia held to its view that threats should be deferred at least until U.N. weapons inspectors take up Saddam's offer to resume work.Don'y you get it Russia. Iraq is never going to allow the UN inspectors to resume work.
10 posted on
09/21/2002 6:40:33 AM PDT by
Mixer
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Please correct me if I'm wrong -- but is there really a need for another resolution? Saddam hasn't abided by the other 16 resolutions -- those should be enforced. Is the 17th resolution the only one stating that non-compliance will result in miltary intervention? Do any of the other resolutions have this wording? Weren't we ready to go to war in 1998 (something the Dems seem to have forgotten -- they were unanimously willing in '98 -- now, with elections and all, they're pussy footing around)?
Seems like a Catch-22 for Saddam (yeah, that Bush, he's not too bright, eh? -- sarcasm off). I'm also amazed at the number of idiots who think that Saddam has somehow complied with President Bush's requests -- I listened to his full speech to the UN at least twice -- heard nothing about weapons inspectors alone. Heard lots about regime change, handing over prisoners, totally and immediately removing any and all chemical, biological and nuclear WMD... What about that wasn't clear to the rest of the world?
12 posted on
09/21/2002 7:43:57 AM PDT by
alethia
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Baghdad will not abide by unfavorable new resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council. Ok, now we have that ploy out of the way. Just gotta wait until the weather moderates a bit...........
To: Oldeconomybuyer
What are the advantages for the US to be a paying member of the UN? Let's see......... We "get" to be the enforcement arm of the UN, we get to pick up over 25% of the tab. We "get" to provide a city where the despotic delegats park their cars without paying, break our laws, bring their filthy habits and disgusting behavior to parade OUR streets with immunity. We also "get" to provide a forum where the rest of the world can be rude and abusive to us under the cloak of multilateralism. Hmmmmmmm. Frankly, I don't see any advantages to being a member of this club. What are they going to do if we leave? Say bad things about us? LOL, they will be just as abusive and obnoxious to us if we don't participate. They will hate us just as much (how can they possibly hate us more), and they will be totally toothless without us. Neither China nor Russia can financially pick up the tab for providing a military arm. The EU would have to raise the taxes on their people to over 70% in order to bring their military up to bare minimum standards, it would cripple their economy.
I keep hearing that the US needs europe more than europe needs the US. I'm not so sure, I'd be willing to find out if they keep up their insults. Frankly, it would be fun to watch what would happen if all the multinational companies all started packing up to come home.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Also posted by MadIvan
HERE, albeit from the BBC source.
LET'S ROLL!
15 posted on
09/21/2002 8:28:33 AM PDT by
justshe
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson