Diva, a great post that gives a very good understanding of the timeline. The only issue I have isn't with you but with the author of the list and their use of the term "unilateral" . I understand this is a favored term but no where in the Iraq conflict is it applicable according to it's definition.

Bush...Bush...Bush...this whole world just revolves around his little pinkie, don't it?!?!

IF NOT, then why, oh why, are there so many topics concerning Bush? This topic has been previously discussed and indirectly gone over....but yet people find the means and ability to keep bringing up BUSH!

Go figure.....crap getting heavily old!

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by astrocreep
Diva, a great post that gives a very good understanding of the timeline. The only issue I have isn't with you but with the author of the list and their use of the term "unilateral" . I understand this is a favored term but no where in the Iraq conflict is it applicable according to it's definition.

Before the state of the union adress, he says that "Iraq must disarm or the international community will act, because he's a threat to world peace" and after it it's more "America will attack Iraq, no matter what happens, no matter what other countries say, because America's security is being menaced directly by Mesopotamia with WMD". There's the difference imho.

In the first case, he consults with allies and agrees on a program and modality : if the inspections work and Saddam disarms, good for everyone. If not, we'll rip his ass. That multilateralism.

In the second case, as soon as it turned out that inspections _were_ working and Saddam _was_ disarming, he breaks, unilaterally, the former agreement with his friends and decides to send his bombers.



[Edited on 11-7-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by astrocreep
Diva, a great post that gives a very good understanding of the timeline. The only issue I have isn't with you but with the author of the list and their use of the term "unilateral" . I understand this is a favored term but no where in the Iraq conflict is it applicable according to it's definition.

Before the state of the union adress, he says that "Iraq must disarm or the international community will act, because he's a threat to world peace" and after it it's more "America will attack Iraq, no matter what happens, no matter what other countries say, because America's security is being menaced directly by Mesopotamia with WMD". There's the difference imho.

In the first case, he consults with allies and agrees on a program and modality : if the inspections work and Saddam disarms, good for everyone. If not, we'll rip his ass. That multilateralism.

In the second case, as soon as it turned out that inspections _were_ working and Saddam _was_ disarming, he breaks, unilaterally, the former agreement with his friends and decides to send his bombers.
[Edited on 11-7-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Whether you want to admit it or not, it was not a "unilateral" campaign. Preach your politics all you want but the definition of a word doesn't change because you think it sounds threatening in political arguments. The US and allied forces did not break from the UN resolution.

Originally posted by astrocreep
The US and allied forces did not break from the UN resolution.

You can pray that phrase as often as you want, it's not going to change the last sentence of the UN resolution "The security council decides to remain seized of the matter"

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by astrocreep
The US and allied forces did not break from the UN resolution.

You can pray that phrase as often as you want, it's not going to change the last sentence of the UN resolution "The security council decides to remain seized of the matter"

I'm sure the counsel has remained "seized of the matter". Its just too bad they didn't see fit to follow their own rules which showed them as spineless and insignificant as they really are. Thats a phrase I think I can stay with. It was one thing when they had the US to run here and there cleaning up all their little messes that they couldn't but it was quite another when we faced a threat. Going to the UN was nothing more than a common courtesy..and an undeserving one at that.

Yopu can "pray" your hate phrases all you want but I doubt they will ever bring you Saddam back. Sorry..so sad.