It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Sublime620
 


The secretary general is a spokesman. He doesn't make or set policy.


Exactly. He's a spokesman. Your words man, not mine.


1. a person who speaks for another or for a group.
A man who speaks on behalf of another or others. See Usage Note at man.


dictionary.reference.com...

He speaks for the UN. It's not his policy, it's the UN's, and he was speaking for the UN when he made that comment.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]




posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


Since when are we to give the enemy a head start before we bomb them??

Nah, sorry, Xbox boy. No UAVs here. Something totally different. Since it's an AFSOC thing, you wouldn't understand.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Funny... that's what we did in Afghanistan with Usama. Hmm, you'd think striking the FBI's #1 most wanted terrorist would follow the same rules as you just stated.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


You do understand that the UN has votes to decide policy, and that the Secretary General doesn't make policy on his/her own accord.

www.un.org...

"Equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO, the Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them. "



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Hey, if you want to change subjects that's fine. If you want to critique the UN, that's fine also.

Just so long as you give up your futile argument that the UN Secretary's statements are only opinion and hold no importance.

If you are so willing to dig into the UN Secretary's reasons for being against the war, why are you so willing to discuss the US's reasons for going to the war?

There in lies the difference, in no way would I defend or lie to cover the UN Secretary General's mistakes.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


So the rest of the UN had taken a vote on the legality of our actions, and Kofi Annan merely said what the results were?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


He speaks for the UN. The UN voted and decided that the US broke the charter when the went to war. The UN warned the US and the coalition of this before they went to war. A resolution to make this war legal was declined - by vote also.

He is a spokesperson.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Sublime620
 


So the rest of the UN had taken a vote on the legality of our actions, and Kofi Annan merely said what the results were?


Yes! The security cousil makes the votes, he speaks.

Also, there is a charter - the UN's Constitution per se. We broke that charter.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


He's just upset that the consequences that UNR 1441 weren't voted on with regards to specificity. The post Desert Storm Resolutions + UNR 1441 + the vote of the US Congress gave us all the authority we needed. We didn't need Ghana's approval.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


No, we need the UN's approval. He's the spokesman, as you so eloquently put it.

We didn't get it. The reason he warned us, and not a bunch of guys from the UN, is because he's the spokesperson.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


If I recall UNR 1441 was a 15 to 0 vote.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Not impressed and dont care sunshine.Have fun in your theatre while I have more fun in mine.

Lol just seen on TV here that monkey bush was a cheerleader!Has to edit this photo link in to show your your war chief!

politicalhumor.about.com...




[edit on 23-1-2008 by noangels]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Geez,
2 pages just to prove a well known fact, that had been addressed more than adequately earlier on.

But hey blueraja, carry on if you want - I'll be a points tart and just keep lapping them up


One of the reasons that people don't like the UN is they see it as a toothless organisation, and one of the reasons for this is that bush/blair totally ignored them and did exactly as THEY wanted, for their own nefarious reasons.

Bush/Blair were always quoting UN charters to Iraq - but when the time came for them to abide by majority opinion they ignored them.

I should be used to this kind of hypocrisy by now, but it still annoys me.

Do you think it's OK to say to someone "You're not allowed to smoke in here" and then light a cigar?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


You're confusing UN approval with legality. All UN approval does is add credibility. The President and Congress swore allegiance to the US Constitution and Flag, not to the UN. There is no higher authority.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Bush/Blair were always quoting UN charters to Iraq - but when the time came for them to abide by majority opinion they ignored them.


Excellent point. I will remember that for later use.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


They broke the UN Charter... that's the law of the UN. How's that legal?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You're confusing sanctions with approval authority. It's one thing if you have a majority vote that says Country X is being bad, so we're not going to do business with them, or allow them to do business with others. It's quite another to have an expectation that a sovereign nation has to get UN approval for every foreign policy decision.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Speaking of dud rates- you do know that newer cluster bombs use submunitions that disarm after a set period-.....


They even had them during Vietnam. I think it was stuff called, "gravel". It would self-destruct after it thawed out.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Honestly mate, I think you are the one with some confusion here.

Or do you for some reason think that bush/blair don't have to follow he same rules as everyone else.

and BTW this wasn't a foreign policy decision - this was an act of aggression without sanction under international law with no evidence of any crime.

Perhaps russia should invade the US because of voting irregularities in the last election - same principle.



[edit on 23/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


And that picture is suppose to make me mad or something?? Get real!

Well, you keep believing your lies. Until you spend time in a CAOC or a TOC, you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to airstrikes.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join