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. -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ 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):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:06:39 05/06/03 Tue
Author: William
Author Host/IP: cache-rl02.proxy.aol.com / 152.163.189.98
Subject: 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.
In reply to: Chris Henry 's message, "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." on 04:40:38 05/06/03 Tue

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> 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 ]