Cite that from Russia after the unanimous vote yesterday.
I’m citing Lavrov. Who do you have Terr?
Or do you have private council with Lavrov and he gives you what they really will do?
Not, I fear you are hopelessly hindered by a dependence on facts, your arguments lack imagination, a resource your opponent has in abundance.
Reuters then. Always glad to shove a little humor your way.
I cited the resolution along with Congressional approval and public support for President Bush. Obama has none of that.
OK, precisely what “punch” was beaten? Putin met with him? Well, whoopity fuck a doo. What transpired there that should add such twists to our knickers? Russia and Iran have had a relationship for quite some time now, is there anything shocking in any of this? Or are you trying to inflate a Japanese condom into the Hindenburg?
I have Lavrov - you know, the guy you love to selectively quote?
“The resolution does not fall under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter and does not authorize the automatic use of measures of compulsion. It reaffirms the agreement reached at the Russian-US meeting in Geneva to make a breach of its provisions and the use of chemical weapons by any side a subject of thorough investigation at the UN Security Council, which will be prepared to act under Chapter 7 of the Charter. Naturally, [it will act] proportionately to the severity of violations, which must be proven to be 100% true,” he said.
…
and we can see what their attitude toward military intervention is and will be:
Applying the principle of outside military intervention to the Syrian situation is ‘devoid of sense and also very dangerous’, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, speaking to the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations.
“Unfortunately, many argue that although banned by the UN Charter, the use of force and threats to use force are potent methods to solve conflicts between states.”
“At the same time, past experience shows that outside military intervention is senseless, useless and only makes matters worse. Forceful intervention is fraught with eroding the world order and destroying the safeguards against the proliferation of dangerous weapon systems.”
As George and Dick’s Excellent Military Adventure proved, he has a point.
How’s come “no hidden trigger” or “automaticity” with respect to the “use of force” for Bush on Iraq meant that Resolution 1441 had teeth, but the same language in the Syria resolution means that it ‘has no teeth’?
How do you reconcile that contradiction in your mind - Magiver and Terr?
Well, GeeDubya said it gave him all the authority he needed, just after he said it didn’t. So, who you gonna believe, a man of proven honesty and integrity of your own damn lyin’ eyes?
I am still waiting for your cite (you do have the language of 1441, right?) for your claim that “language in 1441 says no automatic trigger for sanctions or war”. Can you give me that exact language from the resolution please?
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
That’s fucking hilarious. The thread was started as an Obama doodle doo in an attempt to make his political blunder into something else. But for the handout Putin gave him he’d still be standing in front of Congress holding the ball wondering why nobody wants to run his plays.
Not an answer to the question. The question has to do with why we should take any special notice of the Putin meeting. Your answer is that we are all a bunch of poopyheads. Hardly definitive, however typical.
You were the person who posted a cite regarding Obama’s phone overture to Iran as if it meant something.
Language in 1441, specifically inserted into it, provided direct recourse against against Iraq absent a UN response (this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security). No such language exists in the Syrian resolution.
Magiver provided it a while back:
Here it is again:
There’s nothing hidden about it. It states outright that members could act against Iraq if the UN did not. No such statement exists in the Syrian resolution.
That’s not the language in the resolution. You claimed:
“Language in 1441 says no automatic trigger for sanctions or war”
Back it up (for once). You have access to full language of 1441. Quote the portion that “says no automatic trigger for sanctions of war”.
I stand corrected. It says “use of force” instead of “war”. So now explain how 1441 has teeth but the Syrian Resolution does not?
I asked you for the language of the resolution, like you claimed. You can’t find it in the resolution, can you? And can’t admit you fibbed either.
explained in post 314. And again, Bush had 1441, approval from Congress, international support, international cooperation, and public support.
Obama has none of this. It was all a case of foot-in-mouth disease that a rookie politician wouldn’t normally make. You don’t draw lines unless you have the political capital to back them up. He shot his mouth off just like he did as a Senator about the Iraqi troop withdrawal timeline of 2008. And that’s fine when you’re not the man in charge. It’s just bullshit for public consumption.