The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > General SVX Babble

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 03-21-2003, 07:10 AM
benebob's Avatar
benebob benebob is offline
Have a poncho I can borrow?
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 6,561
What's wrong with the security council

There is nothing wrong with the Security Council. Did France or Russia or Germany (who even though they oppose the action have troops manning missle batteries in Kuwait and Turkey- actually more than Spain and Port combined) ever say that Iraq was under full compliance? NO THEY DID NOT, Did they every say that they would never support action against Iraq? NO THEY DID NOT.

The failure lies with the Bush admin. for failing to pass the 1st resolution giving a time table for when compliance was required. Without that foresight of course each country will decide on its own based on its populations will when there has been enough time passed. Does anyone honestly think that a Government official should publicly make derogatory comments about another government or its people? Does anyone honestly think that comments like this will help to bring a concensus on the UN Security Council?

By going through the UN Bush gave the organiziation and its structure legitimatacy. By then sideskirting the UN when he didn't get things his way when he wanted them he is by his own legal team on very "shakey" ground in terms of International Law. Now the real test for the UN is what the Hague is going to do in response.
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-21-2003, 08:45 AM
Uncamitzi's Avatar
Uncamitzi Uncamitzi is offline
Member #447
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,902
Send a message via MSN to Uncamitzi Send a message via Yahoo to Uncamitzi Send a message via Skype™ to Uncamitzi
Registered SVX
Re: What's wrong with the security council

Quote:
Originally posted by benebob
There is nothing wrong with the Security Council. Did France or Russia or Germany (who even though they oppose the action have troops manning missle batteries in Kuwait and Turkey- actually more than Spain and Port combined) ever say that Iraq was under full compliance? NO THEY DID NOT, Did they every say that they would never support action against Iraq? NO THEY DID NOT.

The failure lies with the Bush admin. for failing to pass the 1st resolution giving a time table for when compliance was required. Without that foresight of course each country will decide on its own based on its populations will when there has been enough time passed. Does anyone honestly think that a Government official should publicly make derogatory comments about another government or its people? Does anyone honestly think that comments like this will help to bring a concensus on the UN Security Council?

By going through the UN Bush gave the organiziation and its structure legitimatacy. By then sideskirting the UN when he didn't get things his way when he wanted them he is by his own legal team on very "shakey" ground in terms of International Law. Now the real test for the UN is what the Hague is going to do in response.
The United States (US) did go through the UN! The original UN Resolution was (761?) past right after the 1991 war and demanded "Immediate" disarmament. 11 years later, after Iraq did absolutely nothing to disarm, the UN past 1441.....again calling for "Immediate" disarmament....... 3 months (4?) past and nothing was resolved again...... were we going to wait for Saddam to die of old age and have his TWO son's (who by all accounts are as ruthless and despicable as the father) inherit the country, kill more Kurds... make more WMD's? Perhaps Start WWIII ? No, we reserved the right after the first war.. which never really ended... to go in and continue the disarmament of a despot.... Our Administration has exercised that duty... when the rest of the world abdicated their responsibility...
With these idiot demonstrators getting violent... I would bet that more people are hurt and killed by and because of the "peace niks" than will be killed by the war.... sad.. that's what is sad..
__________________
Mitch Hansen
"uncamitzi"
This is a Dark Ride
92 Teal SVX LS-L 128K tranny swap with 4.11's
Well.. my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle .
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-21-2003, 08:56 AM
Mr. Pockets's Avatar
Mr. Pockets Mr. Pockets is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 6,916
Send a message via ICQ to Mr. Pockets
Registered SVX
Re: Re: What's wrong with the security council

Quote:
Originally posted by Uncamitzi


The United States (US) did go through the UN! The original UN Resolution was (761?) past right after the 1991 war and demanded "Immediate" disarmament. 11 years later, after Iraq did absolutely nothing to disarm, the UN past 1441.....again calling for "Immediate" disarmament....... 3 months (4?) past and nothing was resolved again...... were we going to wait for Saddam to die of old age and have his TWO son's (who by all accounts are as ruthless and despicable as the father) inherit the country, kill more Kurds... make more WMD's? Perhaps Start WWIII ? No, we reserved the right after the first war.. which never really ended... to go in and continue the disarmament of a despot.... Our Administration has exercised that duty... when the rest of the world abdicated their responsibility...
With these idiot demonstrators getting violent... I would bet that more people are hurt and killed by and because of the "peace niks" than will be killed by the war.... sad.. that's what is sad..
Well said. I can certainly relate to and agree with your frustration. I didn't want this war to happen, either, but at some point the 'last resort' really becomes the 'last resort.' People (in this country as well as others) calling us trigger-happy war-mongers don't seem to remmeber or realize that the issue of Iraqi disarmament is not a new one. We didn't give diplomacy a half-hearted attempt over a few months - we tried for 12 years to get the job done.
__________________


2005 RX-8 Grand Touring
2005 Outback
2002 Mercedes-Benz E320 wagon

END OF LINE
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:26 AM
benebob's Avatar
benebob benebob is offline
Have a poncho I can borrow?
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 6,561
Charles Colson commentary on UN

Hmmmmm.. Like I said there was no date in the resolution it says immediate disarmerment you quote it yourself. You would've just made some prosecutor very happy. Immediate has no date and is open for EACH SECURITY COUNCIL COUNTRY'S interpretation. The fact that some would then act on their own violating the agression laws of the UN (which have been signed by the U.S.) would then open those countries up to sactions and appropriate action that could include formal charges against that county's leadership. I know many here do not understand such legal talk nor do I expect them to but international law is tricky. That is why I said these actions by the Bush's Admin own admission are on shaky legal ground.

I said nothing to anyone regarding my own feelings regarding action so assuming that I am against action is just that, your assumption unsupported by facts. If it makes you feel better to say that I am, I hope you sleep better at night. This is the only reason why I am against this action: As a civilized nation who strives itself as a nation of fair and equitable laws to break International laws simply b/c the timetable did not meet your leadership's idea of immediate when all along your leaders felt compelled to make it an issue for the UN knowing that legally it should be is just appalling to me. If you cannot stand behind your law then you will have nothing to stand behind. I am embarrassed by my administration not because I think the removal of Saddam is wrong but b/c they broke their own laws to do it. I know many Americans still live by a Lynch Mob Mentality, however, for our government to act in the same manner sickens me.

The ends do not always justify the means. For those who argue that Saddam has had 12 years to disarm that also means that American if it felt this was an major issue had those 12 years to continually pressure him to do so (which we did not, in fact just the opposite for most of those 12 years).

If anyone would like to discuss the actions of the US this week in a legal sense I would love to hear from you (PM preferred because this is a very touchy subject for those of us who have family serving) but for those who are simply stating their legally unfounded comments you will get no reply from me. It is not worth my time.

God speed the safe return of our loved ones and may they act in a manner that will make all Americans proud until the time they return.
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:41 AM
Uncamitzi's Avatar
Uncamitzi Uncamitzi is offline
Member #447
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,902
Send a message via MSN to Uncamitzi Send a message via Yahoo to Uncamitzi Send a message via Skype™ to Uncamitzi
Registered SVX
Question Re: Charles Colson commentary on UN

Quote:
Originally posted by benebob
Hmmmmm.. Like I said there was no date in the resolution it says immediate disarmerment you quote it yourself. You would've just made some prosecutor very happy. Immediate has no date and is open for EACH SECURITY COUNCIL COUNTRY'S interpretation. The fact that some would then act on their own violating the agression laws of the UN (which have been signed by the U.S.) would then open those countries up to sactions and appropriate action that could include formal charges against that county's leadership. I know many here do not understand such legal talk nor do I expect them to but international law is tricky. That is why I said these actions by the Bush's Admin own admission are on shaky legal ground.

I said nothing to anyone regarding my own feelings regarding action so assuming that I am against action is just that, your assumption unsupported by facts. If it makes you feel better to say that I am, I hope you sleep better at night. This is the only reason why I am against this action: As a civilized nation who strives itself as a nation of fair and equitable laws to break International laws simply b/c the timetable did not meet your leadership's idea of immediate when all along your leaders felt compelled to make it an issue for the UN knowing that legally it should be is just appalling to me. If you cannot stand behind your law then you will have nothing to stand behind. I am embarrassed by my administration not because I think the removal of Saddam is wrong but b/c they broke their own laws to do it. I know many Americans still live by a Lynch Mob Mentality, however, for our government to act in the same manner sickens me.

The ends do not always justify the means. For those who argue that Saddam has had 12 years to disarm that also means that American if it felt this was an major issue had those 12 years to continually pressure him to do so (which we did not, in fact just the opposite for most of those 12 years).

If anyone would like to discuss the actions of the US this week in a legal sense I would love to hear from you (PM preferred because this is a very touchy subject for those of us who have family serving) but for those who are simply stating their legally unfounded comments you will get no reply from me. It is not worth my time.

God speed the safe return of our loved ones and may they act in a manner that will make all Americans proud until the time they return.
I reread my statement... and I don't see where I inferred anything personal toward anyone except the despot Saddam (and that against his administration) My back ground is in law enforcement and I have always admired those who can twist wording to fit their needs..... to me (MHO) immediate is just that... now or sooner.... nebulous?... I guess, but still only on a geologic scale can 12 years be termed immediate......

Not wanting to make any personal attacks toward anyone on my part...

I wish the war wasn't happening, but I think I see some idealistic reasons for it to happen....

We all hope for a speedy and safe return for all of our men and women in harms way!
__________________
Mitch Hansen
"uncamitzi"
This is a Dark Ride
92 Teal SVX LS-L 128K tranny swap with 4.11's
Well.. my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle .
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-21-2003, 10:59 AM
benebob's Avatar
benebob benebob is offline
Have a poncho I can borrow?
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 6,561
Commentary

Nothing personal at all from me Mitch . One question though. Where are you getting 12 years from. The immedate clause came in November or face "serious consequences". Nothing about you have 4 months to meet ALL of our demands or you will be invaded. You and I see that as clear but can you speak for everyone who voted on that agreement? Why do you think that the President did not force a vote? Had he done that the shaky ground would simply crumble!

As someone with some legal backing you'll also understand that a true test of a law is for it to keep loopholes to a minimum and that the only way that something can be twisted to free a guilty person is on the basis of misconduct. I do not believe I have twisted nor did I ever attempt to twist my words to fit any other needs other than stating the legal fact that our country has broken the laws that it has signed regarding agrression towards another UN memeber. I just felt that it was something that everyone else should know.
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-21-2003, 12:01 PM
Mr. Pockets's Avatar
Mr. Pockets Mr. Pockets is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 6,916
Send a message via ICQ to Mr. Pockets
Registered SVX
Bob, I hope I didn't in any way offend you, either. I noticed that you didn't give your own opinion, and I didn't mean for my comments to address you directly.

Thank you very much for your posts. The legal grounds, under international law, for this 'war' are exactly the reason I was against it for a long time myself. I still don't like the idea of international vigilantism. I have my own thoughts on what we should do about that, but I've said enough on this issue in three or four different threads. I'm tired and I'm going to get back to work.
__________________


2005 RX-8 Grand Touring
2005 Outback
2002 Mercedes-Benz E320 wagon

END OF LINE
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-21-2003, 12:20 PM
benebob's Avatar
benebob benebob is offline
Have a poncho I can borrow?
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 6,561
Commentary

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
Bob, I hope I didn't in any way offend you, either. I noticed that you didn't give your own opinion, and I didn't mean for my comments to address you directly.

Thank you very much for your posts. The legal grounds, under international law, for this 'war' are exactly the reason I was against it for a long time myself. I still don't like the idea of international vigilantism. I have my own thoughts on what we should do about that, but I've said enough on this issue in three or four different threads. I'm tired and I'm going to get back to work.

Not in the least I'm not one who is ever offended by anyone who listens as much as they talk . Work on a Friday. I'm long past that point.
__________________
British vehicles are my last ditch attempt to keep the nasty Italian thoughts in my mind at bay. So far its working.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122