Toronto Escorts

The plot thickens

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Is there some point? Other than that Annan isn't a trustworthy UN leader? I've never liked Annan.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Re: Re: The plot thickens

harleycharley said:
well, the right will have to take it's glee where it can find it. wait till we get to teh bottom of Abu Graib, Halliburton, the Bin-laden/bush families link, the 100,000 dead, guantanamo the phony "democracy" and ultimatelyt the failed illegal war.....

might take a while, but Bush will go down as the most corrupt and stupid president the US ever had the ignorance to elect ..... .or not elect as the case may be.....

So you are saying that by the UN refusing to enforce sanctions, seeminly because of profit and protection of family; an attack would have been a UN led effort and your examples would not have existed?

Works for me too.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Re: Re: Re: Re: The plot thickens

harleycharley said:
no, i was just listing some of the likely crimes of the Bush administration....

i dont believe there should have been an occupation, regardless of who it was led by....

Yet you do not agree that if the UN had not been preoccupied with payola there would have been a UN led force if necessary?? That is to say if one would have been necessary if the UN actually was more interested in the people of Iraq over profit for self, friends and family.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Why would the UN be interested in invading Iraq? They were abiding, more or less, by the sanctions imposed on them with regards to weapons programs.

What's more "the UN" is comprised of diplomats, soldiers, and administrators from nations all over the world. It's not an entirely separate entity in all cases.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ahhhhhhh Hell I did not kill anyone

More or less
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
The plot thins. Can we agree to stop comparing Hitler to, whomever. This is getting a little tiring.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Asterix said:
The plot thins. Can we agree to stop comparing Hitler to, whomever. This is getting a little tiring.
I do agree

Makes these folks look like nutcases
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
The point is:

if the UN would not be so pre-occupied making money on the oil for food program, maybe and just maybe they would have been more serious in enforcing their own resolutions.
People like to forget that those "no ABC weapons program resolutions" been in place since Bush senior.
For over ten years the UN was not able to get a final report. At one point Saddam had kicked out the inspectors.

I am not connecting the invasion to this, that is a seperate issue in my book.
The concern remains that the UN has becone corrupt. The UN after the end of the cold war needs to refocus and define it's purpose.Or it will become a heavy, bloated and corrupt institution.
Kofi Annan should hace the courage to resign and make room for a new start. He has lost his credibility on more than one level.


As for sarasota, thank you for illuminating to the fact, that some of the left deserves the term "wacko" as well.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Langeweile,

I respectfully disagree about the connection to the "invasion".

If the UN was paying attention to the resolutions, the weapons inspection program would have been enforced. The first time the inspectors were blocked the UN should have ordered troops in to enforce the inspections. Instead it appears there was a decided interest in profits. As well as protecting family menbers who may not stand up to investigations.

Papa
 

stainless

Member
Aug 16, 2003
136
0
16
I am not pro Bush, but Sarasota's article is way over the top. Comparing Bush to Hitler ??

Langeweile's story just proves the UN can be like any other political or business body and corruption can and does occur.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
langeweile said:
The point is:

if the UN would not be so pre-occupied making money on the oil for food program, maybe and just maybe they would have been more serious in enforcing their own resolutions.
People like to forget that those "no ABC weapons program resolutions" been in place since Bush senior.
For over ten years the UN was not able to get a final report. At one point Saddam had kicked out the inspectors.

I am not connecting the invasion to this, that is a seperate issue in my book.
The concern remains that the UN has becone corrupt. The UN after the end of the cold war needs to refocus and define it's purpose.Or it will become a heavy, bloated and corrupt institution.
Kofi Annan should hace the courage to resign and make room for a new start. He has lost his credibility on more than one level.


As for sarasota, thank you for illuminating to the fact, that some of the left deserves the term "wacko" as well.
If the UN needs to be "overhauled", perhaps the US could pay its dues and join in.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
papasmerf said:
Langeweile,

I respectfully disagree about the connection to the "invasion".

If the UN was paying attention to the resolutions, the weapons inspection program would have been enforced. The first time the inspectors were blocked the UN should have ordered troops in to enforce the inspections. Instead it appears there was a decided interest in profits. As well as protecting family menbers who may not stand up to investigations.

Papa
Whose troops would they have "ordered in"? Would Saddam have allowed this? Would this have been seen as permitting a UN-sponsored invasion?

Nonsense. This was just Saddam being an ass again. He would have skirted any action the UN appeared to be taking. And the US would have found some other reason for invading - most likely, they would have cooked up more "intelligence" about terrorist concerns.

Again, as has been PROVEN, the Iraqis had no WMD programs. They'd been dismantled, following the first Gulf War. The US was roughly aware of this, and merely used this as a pretext to invade.

WMDs had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Terrorist had NOTHING to do with Iraq. The US administration lied.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ranger68 said:
Whose troops would they have "ordered in"? Would Saddam have allowed this? Would this have been seen as permitting a UN-sponsored invasion?

Nonsense. This was just Saddam being an ass again. He would have skirted any action the UN appeared to be taking. And the US would have found some other reason for invading - most likely, they would have cooked up more "intelligence" about terrorist concerns.

Again, as has been PROVEN, the Iraqis had no WMD programs. They'd been dismantled, following the first Gulf War. The US was roughly aware of this, and merely used this as a pretext to invade.

WMDs had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Terrorist had NOTHING to do with Iraq. The US administration lied.


Were there no WMD, sadam would have been more willing to allow inspections. You fail to realize the ammount of time Sadam had to deconstruct weapons and move them from the region. Your implication the entire country has been checked is eronious and misleading. You also imply that sudam had none or did not have any moved them to a different nation.

As for whose troop would have been sent in, I thought the original resolution covered that.

As for the inteleegence as facts unfold I dare say any intel is only as up to date as the most recent reports from operatives.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Wow:

"As the oil-for-food scandal has unfolded, it has become clear that U.N. secrecy and lack of accountability evolved, in effect, into complicity with Saddam's scams and influence-buying. By now, between congressional and other investigations, there are allegations that Saddam, on Mr. Annan's watch, under U.N. sanctions and oil-for-food supervision, scammed and smuggled some $17.3 billion in oil money meant for relief, using some of that money to fund terrorism, import weapons, and buy influence with Security Council members France, Russia, and China."

Perhaps it's time we stop making our payments again until they open their books, that or reposes the NYC property and send them a property tax bill.

So Annan lectures the US about the invasion after allowing Saddam to buy votes on the UNSC?

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
papasmerf said:
Were there no WMD, sadam would have been more willing to allow inspections. You fail to realize the ammount of time Sadam had to deconstruct weapons and move them from the region. Your implication the entire country has been checked is eronious and misleading. You also imply that sudam had none or did not have any moved them to a different nation.

As for whose troop would have been sent in, I thought the original resolution covered that.

As for the inteleegence as facts unfold I dare say any intel is only as up to date as the most recent reports from operatives.
First off, you're wrong. There WERE no WMD, and Saddam was just being the ass he always was and trying to make a name for himself by standing up to the international community. Your conclusion is clearly false. You've obviously TOTALLY bought in to the US WMD scam, even when they themselves are beginning to admit that they had false intelligence. Free your mind.

Also, you obviously haven't read the resolutions pertaining to these inspections, or you wouldn't be so obtuse. *Whose troops* would be sent in? The UN's? Oh, sorry - I didn't know the UN fielded a non-national private army. :rolleyes: ALL UN military operations run with DONATIONS from MEMBER STATES - money, equipment, troops. Again, whose troops would have been sent in? Who was going to authorize this, then donate troops?

Operatives? I daresay that damn little of the US' intelligence comes from humint. It comes from analysts poring over satellites and EM decrypts.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
onthebottom said:
Wow:

"As the oil-for-food scandal has unfolded, it has become clear that U.N. secrecy and lack of accountability evolved, in effect, into complicity with Saddam's scams and influence-buying. By now, between congressional and other investigations, there are allegations that Saddam, on Mr. Annan's watch, under U.N. sanctions and oil-for-food supervision, scammed and smuggled some $17.3 billion in oil money meant for relief, using some of that money to fund terrorism, import weapons, and buy influence with Security Council members France, Russia, and China."

Perhaps it's time we stop making our payments again until they open their books, that or reposes the NYC property and send them a property tax bill.

So Annan lectures the US about the invasion after allowing Saddam to buy votes on the UNSC?

OTB
What terrorism? What weapons?

Yeah, Saddam *bought* votes on the UNSC.

Keep spinning.

Final analysis - the US invasion was wrong and illegal, violating treaties which the US had signed and participated in for many decades. In doing so, they alienated many of their long-time allies around the globe, many of which were not on the UNSC to have had their votes bought.

Period.

That the UN is as corrupt as any of its member governments should come as no surprise to anyone. Nor should it cloud anyone's judgment of the real issues.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Damn ranger

Are you so bent aginst the US that you refuse to even consider sudam as the man he is?
 
Toronto Escorts