Skip to comments.
Bush Won't Take Yes For An Answer
King Features Syndicate ^
| 2002
| Charley Reese
Posted on 10/11/2002 11:44:30 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: LibertarianInExile
There have been resolutions in effect since 1991. Saddam has violated those resolutions for more than a decade, whipsawing us back and forth with promises that "this time", he will abide by them.
Those resolutions have not worked. Why? Because they have no enforcement mechanism. A new resolution with a self-contained enforcement clause is essential because otherwise, the Iraqis will continue the whipsaw pattern of the last decade.
21
posted on
10/11/2002 12:17:36 PM PDT
by
XJarhead
To: dighton; aculeus; general_re
More bilge from "retired columnist" Charley Reese, brought to you by "new FReeper" LibertarianInExile.Primed and ready to go.
22
posted on
10/11/2002 12:17:45 PM PDT
by
Orual
To: LibertarianInExile
Too scared to post under your own alias, eh?
...and you are calling us cowardly.
It is a computer - I am not going to reach through and grab you!
I am in Texas.
From what I have heard, the servers for this board are in Kalifornia.
You are...someplace else, safely anonymous, whether you use your normal handle or create a throw-away handle to post this.
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
To: LibertarianInExile
The UN has fiddled for 10 years. They have proven themselves incapable of disarming Saddam, and they have proven themselves irrelevant. The only reason they have roused themselves from slumber, and the only reason Saddam is anxious to have them come back, is to thwart the US.
Make no mistake about this. The UN and the inspectors are incapable of any long term change in the course of Iraq's march toward further war and further slaughter. They can only delay it until the time of Saddam's choosing.
Sooner or later, the inspectors must finish and go home. On the day they do, having certified him as "in compliance", we will be left with Saddam, fully out of his box.
This means that the UN is not merely acting as appeasers, they are actually complicit in the Saddamist war to come. This is not an exaggeration. His primary appeasers, France and Germany, are also his primary accomplices in evading the sanctions and in building his war machine.
His accomplices believe themselves to be immune from prosecution, controlling as they do the ICC, but once Saddam emerges fully formed even his stooges will be in mortal danger.
25
posted on
10/11/2002 12:20:39 PM PDT
by
marron
To: hobbes1; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
ROFLMAO
26
posted on
10/11/2002 12:23:25 PM PDT
by
P7M13
To: LibertarianInExile
That's why we have a nation using the Constitution to wipe John Ashcroft's butt and giving up our fundamental rights to liberty, and abrogating our only civic duty, that is, to keep the hell out of other people's business if they don't bug us.
Bug us? You ignorant POS, where have you been for the last year other than face down in Noam Chomksy's lap? No wonder leftists like you have to spout this crap where you can remain nearly anonymous - in public you'd probably run into the butt kicking you really need or something like this (at least around here):
Wildey .475 Mag Pin Gun
27
posted on
10/11/2002 12:27:50 PM PDT
by
11B3
To: LibertarianInExile
Neither you nor the author have even a hint as to what is planned for Iraq.
It is really cool to set up worse case straw dogs, then tear them down with glib Constitutional and pseudo Conservative arguments.
If all of this noise is bothering the little Globalist minds such as the author and, I guess, yourself, can you imagine it's effect on Iraq and others?
To: LibertarianInExile
to keep the hell out of other peoples business... don't bug us Yeah, how many types of deadly BUGS do you think saddam has. And do you think he is having those BMD(Bugs of Mass Destruction) just to cuddle around in his palaces?
To: LibertarianInExile
For too long the United States has bullied the United Nations, using blackmail and threats in order to win votes from little countries. We have used the United Nations when it suited our purposes and ignored it when it didn't. I, too, hope the United Nations shows some backbone and tells Mr. Bush: "Either obey international law or take a hike. And by the way, pay your back dues on the way out." The author is delusional. The U.S. has, in fact, been on the receiving end of bullying from the "small nations" in the UN - recall the recent brouhaha over the Human Rights committee - and has done little in retaliation but decline to pay its dues for a time. The UN has no backbone, basically, or it wouldn't have allowed Saddam to flout its demands for inspection (16 at last count), and certainly telling the U.S. both to leave and to pay back dues would be not an act of chutzpah, it would be an act of high comedy.
In Iraq the U.S. is doing the UN's dirtywork for it and will absorb the criticism that might better be directed that way. This isn't, of course, altruistic, inasmuch as the U.S. will be the principal target of whatever Saddam gains as a result of the failure of the UN to back up its resolutions.
Personally, I'm getting a little impatient with the attitudes the author articulates here. I wouldn't cry if Bush told them to pound sand, told Saddam he could do whatever he liked to any of his neighbors or to the EU, but face nuclear annihilation if he is even suspected of falling afoul of U.S., not world, interests, and let it all go. If the globally self-righteous don't wish to deal with that "evil madman" Bush let them have their preference and deal with the real thing.
To: Cyber Liberty
Charley had too many REESE peanut butter cups, and it has all gone to his head.
To: hobbes1; P7M13
Hobbes ------ I've never seen that before..... ROFL...
P7M13 - thanks for the ping.......
To: LibertarianInExile
Charlie Reese produces lining for many bird cages...here is another wasted paper product used for him. Most libertarians would best be used to clear mine fields along with their leftist comrades.
To: LibertarianInExile
I hope you are enjoying your "exile" in France.
34
posted on
10/11/2002 12:54:28 PM PDT
by
ohioman
To: LibertarianInExile
Without a majority on the Security Council, the United States cannot stop the inspectors from returning to Iraq. Getting a majority on the Security Council isn't the big deal Reese thinks it is.
These votes are for sale. Russia wants support for its war against the Chechens, and repayment of Iraq's debt, and a share of the oil concessions. They have said this explicitly. France wants a share of the oil concessions. China wants our previous support for the Chinese Turks withdrawn. And so on. UN approval does not represent moral authority.
Quite the opposite. Not going to the UN means not having to bribe the Security Council, meaning that unilateral action is inherently, potentially, more moral. To get UN approval we have to mortgage Iraq's future income to the hyenas. If we go in alone, Iraq is free to make its own deals and starts with a clean slate.
But don't worry, we'll go with the UN, and everyone will get their cut.
And by the way, pay your back dues on the way out
If we pay our back dues, and then bill the UN for the cost of executing UN mandates (a decade sitting on Iraq, 7 years occupying Bosnia) I think the UN owes us money. Hey, if we get UN authorization, we can even bill the UN for the cost of overthrowing Saddam. Sweet.
35
posted on
10/11/2002 1:02:33 PM PDT
by
marron
To: FrustratedCitizen; All
Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.A lot of people here seem to be hearing impaired and oblivious to the events of the past few weeks. The above words are straight from the president's mouth. Bush is not going half-cocked into battle. The president has appealed to the UN and there has been a debate in Congress. The Iraq issue has been thrashed out in every mainstream and non-mainstream media outlet in this country. This whine that there has been no debate or no inclusion of our allies is a pure fallacy.
To: LibertarianInExile
Up to 35 replies and not one from you except #1.
Go way, kid. You bug me.
To: Admin Moderator
I don't know how to do it, but can you put some kind of "idoitic prattle or puke warning" on this one? Thanks. What a load of drivel.
To: Admin Moderator
Did he not use the same title the author did?
39
posted on
10/11/2002 1:45:05 PM PDT
by
Zon
To: LibertarianInExile
It's an even finer thing when so-called libertarians show up, mumble about civil liberties, quote Bile Maher ("Say what you will about the 9/11 hijackers, they were not cowards, bla bla bla"), and then advocate total war as a more rational choice.
Somewhere there is a bridge missing its troll. In the future, please slander some other political and ethical system with your mindless socialist drivel.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson