juanesky 0 #26 November 11, 2004 But Grant, don't you know it's the victims fault, they should be able to run, according to his theory."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #27 November 11, 2004 QuoteAnd what about Gaddaffi? Our new friend, once a sworn enemy..... I think some one once said "Keep your friends close and your enemys even closer" Bush is no mans fool. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #28 November 12, 2004 I wasn't making a strong comparison, BUT, since you brought it up bro... Replace Cote d'Ivoire and all its variations with Iraq, French with American, and "Zone of Confidence" with "No Fly Zone"... then re-read your quoted articles. You can also replace, in your own part of the post, "cease fire agreement" with "unlimited access to weapons sites"... then the only difference is that the UN didn't have the gumption to back up their own security council resolution for good ol' Saddam.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #29 November 12, 2004 QuoteI don't think France has too much financial interest in the Middle East Guess you never heard of the oil for kickbacks program the un scam Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #30 November 12, 2004 QuoteGuess you never heard of the oil for kickbacks program the un scam Guess you never noticed the UN is not in Iraq at the moment. A couple of things have happened in the past few months. Hence my use of the present, not the past tense. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #31 November 12, 2004 Quotethen the only difference is that the UN didn't have the gumption to back up their own security council resolution for good ol' Saddam. Trent, there were American Peacekeepers killed too, and there is unfortunately a big difference between a cease fire agreement and access to weapons sites, and Iraq and Cote d'Ivoire. The UN inspectors in Iraq reported that SH was allowing access to the weapons sites, and that there was no evidence of weapons programs... their conclusions are what the council based it's decisions on. You can't argue that the cease fire agreement in Cote d'Ivoire wasn't broken, and that because of that the country is going into major civil unrest, and that a huge blowout in an already volatile region of the world is apparent. That plus the killing of UN Peace keeping officers, UN staff and humanitarian workers justifies the response by the UN council to use whatever means necessary to enforce the cease fire agreement. Again, they're not invading a country, they're enforcing the cease fire agreement. Again, I see you train of thought here, but have to disagree with your comparision to Iraq. 2 totally different parts of the world with 2 totally different histories, and social, economic, and political situations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #32 November 12, 2004 QuoteThe UN inspectors in Iraq reported that SH was allowing access to the weapons sites, and that there was no evidence of weapons programs... their conclusions are what the council based it's decisions on. You sure? I thought the UN agreed that he wasn't fully compliant with the inspectors, so the UN issued a mandate saying there would be serious consequences if he didn't comply. The UN gave them Oil-For-Food instead of consequneces of non-compliance. QuoteYou can't argue that the cease fire agreement in Cote d'Ivoire wasn't broken, and that because of that the country is going into major civil unrest, and that a huge blowout in an already volatile region of the world is apparent. I wasn't arguing that, just like you can't argue that Saddam's forces didn't fire on US and UN aircraft in the No Fly Zones. Both are violations. Quotethere were American Peacekeepers killed too... That plus the killing of UN Peace keeping officers, UN staff and humanitarian workers justifies the response by the UN council to use whatever means necessary to enforce the cease fire agreement. So it's only okay to sort things out when someone has already killed people that you like? And now the UN has given themselves the right to use any means necessary to quell the fighting. Sounds like it could get harsh. QuoteAgain, they're not invading a country, they're enforcing the cease fire agreement. How will they enforce a cease-fire agreement without being IN the country? They're just as much invaders as the coalition is in Iraq. I agree with people defending their own, I just think its strange that the UN basically gave free reign in this case, when they basically ignored the fact that Saddam was one of the most despicable dictators in recent history. But who can figure out the UN?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #33 November 12, 2004 QuoteBut who can figure out the UN? I have to agree with you on that one... I think pretty soon we'll be talking about China in relation to the Nuclear facilities in Iran. Another day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
