Riddle me this

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Seems that taking a stand is unpopular even when the outcome is favorable. This makes no sense.

Respondents in the nations asserted that U.S. foreign policy had more of a negative effect on them than a positive one - with only the British evenly divided. All of them opposed taking part in a war to end Saddam Hussein's rule, even though most believed that the Middle East would be more stable after an American-led invasion.
Click to expand...

Bad Americans poll
 
Getting rid of Saddam: Good
Christian soldiers running around shooting muslims :Bad
US picking and choosing who runs what: Bad.
US ignoring the UN :Bad.

What part makes no sense?
 
As for them being christian, I know that. You know that. But as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the US is a christian theocracy. Didn't your president go in TV last night and spout on and on about God this, and God that? Doesn't your own money cry religion? Your justice system require a pledge to God?

I know this is exagerated. But people who don't speak english tend to get their views of America filtered through translation. And TV tends to amplify all stereotypes.

US ignoring the UN.

That's what all this is really all about. The US doesn't consider what it's doing illegal. But, if 1441 had all the authority they're vesting it with, why did they apply for another resolution? And aren't they, right now, skirting international law? They don't like the rules when they're made to follow them, so they're gonna take their ball and go play by themselves?
 
Professur said:
But, if 1441 had all the authority they're vesting it with, why did they apply for another resolution? And aren't they, right now, skirting international law?
Click to expand...

It sounds like we had the votes for the last, unresolved, resolution but France was going to veto it whether it was 9-6 or 14-1. Powell wanted the UNs vote. It was a measure to back up 1441. Since France said they'd kill it no matter what, there's no point in taking a chance.

Skirting Int'l law? I don't have a clue. They voted 15-0 on 1441 which authorized force & he was found in non-compliance at least twice. That's a lawyers wet dream.
 
Gonz said:
It sounds like we had the votes for the last, unresolved, resolution but France was going to veto it whether it was 9-6 or 14-1. Powell wanted the UNs vote. It was a measure to back up 1441. Since France said they'd kill it no matter what, there's no point in taking a chance.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what a veto is for? And maybe we have different news sources, but from where I get my news, they didn't have enough votes, regardless of what France did. If France had wavered, maybe, just maybe others would have swayed. But with France guaranteeing a veto, many countries voted their concience and were going no. If Powell had enough votes, he'd have put it to the vote and forced France's hand. And then held France responsible for everything that happens from then on in.

Gonz said:
Skirting Int'l law? I don't have a clue. They voted 15-0 on 1441 which authorized force & he was found in non-compliance at least twice. That's a lawyers wet dream.
Click to expand...

I don't recall it authorizing any such thing. I definitely don't recall it authorizing a forced change of administration. As for his non-compliance ... Quebec is in violation of UN regs too. I'll meet your soldiers at the border to guide them in.
 
It can be diplospeak for whatever it wants. It doesn't say anything about invasion, removal of elected officials, incarceration, murder, theft or confiscation of property, destruction of national property, buildings or artifacts.

Serious consequences could be read as "we're gonna cut off all food and oil shipments. Learn to eat petroleum."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top