[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 04:40:38 05/06/03 Tue
Author: Chris Henry
Author Host/IP: cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa / 212.138.47.20
Subject: It really is pathetic, this demonising of the UN because the Security Council wouldn't support a resolution to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because they didn't believe the evidence on WMD's. That's hardly surprising, since weapons that according to Blair were "45 minutes from being launched", still haven't been found after all this time (and there are no weapons inspectors to blame now). The UN may be "scum", but at least they're not gullible.
In reply to:
William
's message, "Hello, JL! Thank you for the story. I have the Time.com story which covered this incident from a few days ago. For those who are interested, click here, and you will also have access to the Time.com link itself as well as the article, including some of my own comments or quips about the UN." on 13:54:04 05/05/03 Mon
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [> [>
What is pathetic is your weak and dishonest protests. It is not because the so-called Security council did not believe in the WMDs, Chris, and I am almost surprised that you are that dishonest to even try to claim that here. The UN Security council voted 15 - 0, unanimously, in support of UN Resolution 1441, the 18th resolution in 12 years, all 17 prior resolutions flagrantly violated by Saddam. Afterwards some back tracked and did not wish to follow through and support action against Iraq's leadership when they revealed their continued violations. -- William, 06:06:39 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I am unclear why you are accusing me of dishonesty. Is it my assertion that the UN is being demonised because it wouldn't pass the second resolution? Is it my assertion that it wouldn't pass because they didn't buy the WMD allegation? Or is it something else? In other words, what "It" are you referring to? Please clarify. -- Chris Henry, 07:27:12 05/06/03 Tue (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Chris, I think this statement is dishonest: "It really is pathetic, this demonising of the UN because the Security Council wouldn't support a resolution to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because they didn't believe the evidence on WMD's." The UN security council did believe that Iraq had/has WMDs. They showed this belief by voting 15 - 0 in support of resolution 1441. You know that all of them believe it, even France, Germany, Russia, China, Syria, and others all believe/d that Iraq did have WMDs. -- William, 15:19:57 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
You are saying that they opposed the US because the did not believe Iraq had WMDs. That is dishonest. Also, it has been revealed that Russia, France, China, and others, were profiting, illegally also, by dealing with Iraq. The UN is gullible. They believed that more sanctions and more inspections would resolve this issue. They were wrong! -- William, 15:24:08 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Now I understand. However I don't have direct access to UN ambassadors. Therefore what I'm putting forward is an opinion. I'm not putting it forward as a fact, therefore the question of honesty or dishonesty does not arise. An opinion is what I sincerely believe, but if I'm proved to be wrong, that doesn't make me a dishonest, just mistaken. The same applies to your opinions, I think they're wrong, but I'm not calling you dishonest. I don't think it's an appropriate word for a civilised discussion group. -- Chris Henry, 09:13:07 05/07/03 Wed (cache7-1.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.17)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Many of us here have wanted the U.N. to be expelled for over 20 years. This new crew with Annan at the helm only serves to intensify our belief. It has little to do with recent events. They are merely more of the same. The only difference is that the U.S. public is starting to pay attention. France should have just voted and shut up, but they didn't realize so many were paying attention. -- SurveyGuy, 12:08:19 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Among those were countries or states which were already involved in deceitful acts with Saddam. This is what has come to light. The French, Chinese, Russian, Syrians, and others have been complicit in supporting Saddam and contributing to the abuse of the Iraqi people, all while making like they were peace makers. Their hypocrisy has been revealed but you choose to ignore these and live in a fantasy land. -- William, 06:07:48 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Let's talk about support for Saddam Hussein. In a Fantasy Land, long ago, in 1983 and 1984, Iran was our enemy. Iran was fighting Iraq. Therefore Iraq was our friend. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad twice to meet our new friend the President of Iraq, and this led to the resumption of diplomatic relations. -- Chris Henry, 07:46:37 05/06/03 Tue (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
At the same time, the UN (no less) was reporting Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran. Our Ambassador at the time to the UN said "“We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.” Tut, tut, boys will be boys. The US did not issue a call to arms - how could it, when Rumsfeld was glad-handing it with the Butcher of Baghdad. How about that for hypocrisy? -- Chris Henry, 07:48:00 05/06/03 Tue (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Yes, the UN, as it has been recently, has been scum, or worse. The nations who supported Iraq's sadistic leader and demonized the United States, is more useless as road kill, and they are gullible. How do you think they went along with Saddam, France, Germany, et al? How do you think that they actually believed that UN Inspectors would be of any use in Iraq? They were so gullible that they actually believed that Iraq would comply with UN Inspectors after he did not for 12 years and he did not comply this time either. -- William, 06:13:28 05/06/03 Tue (cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com/152.163.189.98)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Iraq said they didn't have any weapons, and the inspectors didn't find any. Does that make them useless? Only if the weapons are there, hidden. Now the coalition forces are there, but they haven't found any either. So are they equally useless? Maybe they will find some, but time is running out. Don't expect the "scum" nations to keep quiet when the so-called Iraqi WMD accusation turn out to be the Lie of the Century. -- Chris Henry, 07:59:57 05/06/03 Tue (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Chris, how can you possibly claim "... but time is running out ... " (for finding WMDs)? It has been 12 years. Then several months more after resolution 1441. With the war people were screaming that it is taking too long and we are getting bogged down, things are not going well, after only ONE WEEK!!!! The US and coalition forces took Iraq in three weeks and people were impatient and crying "Quagmire" after only a week! What impatience!Patience, Chris! I know you want the US to fail but be patient! -- William, 16:21:41 05/06/03 Tue (cache-dl03.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.39)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm prepared to wait until the end of the year. I don't wat the US to fail, it will be a matter of great personal shame if my country is shown to have misled the world. However the world will not wait forever, time is definitely running out. -- Chris Henry, 02:55:27 05/07/03 Wed (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I disagree. The world WILL wait forever. What will they do -- pass a resolution?! They are already on record as not enforcing anything. By "the world" you refer to the UN, I assume. Look how long they waited for Saddam to comply with so many resolutions that they all voted for. They will whine and complain to be sure, but only to voice anti-US sentiments. Kick them ALL out of NY. Put the real estate to better use. -- SurveyGuy (anti-UN for decades. Waiting for them to show some integrity.), 18:44:28 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
So this compartmentalized vehicle just found in northern Iraq was for ice cream? Inspectors had 6 months. The Unfits wanted to give them 6 MORE months. You are bellyaching because the U.S. military (whose job is NOT to search for WMD's) has not found them in 6 weeks? Your statements are ludicrous. Nothing personal. -- JL, 20:25:13 05/06/03 Tue (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
If it's not the job of the Coalition military to look for WMD's, given that they are the sole power in that country, then I am curious whom you expect to do it. Presumably not the UN. Your statements are baffling. Nothing personal. -- Chris Henry, 03:05:24 05/07/03 Wed (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We have sent/are sending our own teams in to do the dirty work. Some of them are military, but others are experts in their particular fields. And Guess What??? Some of them are even Iraqis and Iraqi ex-pats. It is the 'job' of our miltary to protect them and assist them if possible, not to BE them. -- JL, 19:24:02 05/08/03 Thu (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
So if this vehicle had been used to manufacture weapons, wouldn't you expect these weapons to have been issued to some of the Iraqi forces, and even used on occasion, and therefore discovered as their positions were overrun? What more urgent need would there be than to use them against a Western invasion? And so if none were found, isn't there just the smallest possibility that they don't actually exist? -- Chris Henry, 05:24:33 05/08/03 Thu (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
...and please don't tell me it was because of the threat of retaliation. That would only explain why they were not used, but not why they were not issued to units and stockpiled. -- Chris Henry, 05:26:53 05/08/03 Thu (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
My guess would be that they were so busy hiding them, focussing on the UN inspectors, there was no time to deploy and train their troops in the use. Given where we found other items, in schools, drums weighted down in the Euphates and underground, I expect some nasty stuff to be uncovered. The accessories that have been found seem to indicate the existence. -- SurveyGuy (I predict it will take about 6 months to uncover some hidden WNDs), 09:31:07 05/09/03 Fri (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
The uselessness of the Unfit Nothings has been exercised countless times. The 'Security Council' (sic) position on our action in Iraq was but a qualifier. Think not that this started with their laming post 1441. -- JL, 20:14:41 05/06/03 Tue (pcp01376707pcs.selrsv01.pa.comcast.net/68.80.69.241)
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
