Members can act when they want to even if the UNSC does not authorize it. That’s why Kofi Anan said Bush’s invasion of Iraq was illegal. So why did you write in one of your Obama dissing arguments that Bush had UN support for the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003?
Does there really have to be such a statement in the Syria Resolution. Israel and Turkey are member states… if Syria’s CW are used against them during this dismantling they can act against Syria to defend against an imminent threat.
What threat was Iraq to anyone when Bush decided to invade?
because the line added to the resolution expressly sanctioned it and that’s why it was added in the first place. Kofi’s full of shit.
Other than attacking Kurds to the North and Shia’s to the South and Kuwait to the East and the occasional war with Iran. Maybe you’re too young to remember he used CW’s.
And I’ll just keep repeating that Bush had all the support he asked for and Obama had none at the time he drew his line and he still has none.
All that’s been accomplished the past two weeks with regard to Syria and Russia is wholly credited to Obama then because as you say he had no support.
Thank you for recognizing the historical importance of Obama’s profile in courage to take the tough road alone in order to make the world safer for all mankind.
You know you needed to drop the Obama had no support diss line the moment Putin told Kerry that Russia was ready to do what Obama wanted.
That line does not work anymore. You needed Putin to stand firm thus putting pressure on Obama to see what trouble he’d get into at home if he struck Syria without Congress and popular backing.
But Putin caved. Drop the line. It makes no sense now.
Whoa, steady up, there, big fella. That just isn’t possible. As much as I sympathize with your side of this, ah, “argument” that just can’t be. We have to at least credit one or two other players here with not doing anything incredibly stupid.
And while it may well be that Obama has a lot of popularity in other countries, I don’t thing anybody has that much! Dial it back down to ten.
Can we get away from snippet vs snippet discussions? Pulling one statement I made without tying to what I was responding to.
Here’s what I was responding to:
And then Elucidator cuts the following words off the end of my sentence.
“… then because as you say he had no support.”
Here’s the entire statement that Elucdator chose to butcher and toss out the meaningful part:
“All that’s been accomplished the past two weeks with regard to Syria and Russia is wholly credited to Obama then because as you say he had no support.”
Perhaps it was late and I needed to explain it using primary school grammar.
Magiver says Obama had ‘no’ support, that is zero support, that is nobody else in the entire world supported Obama’s intent to launch punitive strikes agsinst Assad’s regime.
Now hold that thought.
Now add this to that one:
Magiver says that GW Bush had all the support from the world he asked for to invade and occupy Iraq.
Now here is where it apparently got tricky for Elicidator and Werekoala.
I used the word ‘then’ which links those to statements they needed to hold in memory to understand my response.
You see ‘then’ can mean stuff like 'if those two statements are true, ‘then’ this would be the case and also be true.
So what you need to do boys and girls is keep the entire thought tied to such complicated words as ‘if’ as in ‘if true’ and ‘then’ as in ‘if that is true then thus would be true’.
Do you all understand how that work Good. Then we can proceed with much better understanding of how language works and what people mean when they use the word ‘then’ and ‘if’.
And you must have entirely missed the point I am making to Magiver’s unfounded and bigus impression that Obama had no support at all to put a red line out there and then follow up when it was crossed.
That point being that what Obama intended to do was indeed unpopular I think you would agree. So my point did not have anything to do with whether Obama himself was popular or not. It was about a leader doing an unpopular thing and for that when the results of doing something against the will of the majority works out as well as this crisis being resolved over the next 18 months (knock on wood) looks like where we are headed, then much of the credit rightfully goes to the one leader that led the very unpopular charge.
But of course what Magiver claims is factually challenged because many have stood with Obama and I have mentioned them here.
Cameron, the French President, Netanyahu, and I have credited Republican leaders like Cantor and Boehner for their support. They all get credit for the results we are seeing.
Again where does 1441 mention anything that could be interpreted that a majority of UNSC members that ‘sanctioned’ Bush’s bombing and ground invasion of Iraq. You have misread and misinterpreted the two words ‘not constrain’ and use that error of reason and judgment to call Kofi Annan full of shit.
We do not constrain you and you do not constrain yourself from being wrong, but that does not mean anyone who can read 1441’s language, supports or approves or sanctions you and your error.
I cited the relevant passage that allowed military intervention. Your sentence structure makes no sense but it appears to be an attempt to move the goal posts.
Your original statement was that the UNSC ‘authorized’ Bush to kick the inspectors out and bomb and invade Iraq in March 2003. Your new replacement word for ‘not constrain’ is shifty but not accurate.
You ignore the language that precedes the ‘not constrain’ language in the paragraphs you cited in order to falsly claim that the UNSC authorized the war. Your cite clearly stated that 1441 contains no hidden trigger and no automaticity for war, but you cannot admit that your cite is accurate.
You won’t read and accept as a fact what is written in your original cite. Therefore you need to find a new cite that makes it clear that the UNSC ‘authorized’ the US invasion of Iraq.
You said authorized so let’s have a cite that says war was authorized by the UNSC although Kofi Annan clearly says it was not, just like everbody else who knows what they are talking about.
What are the inspectors looking at then Magiver. You claimed to know that there was no list. Was your source wrong? You need to find better sources.
‘Information provided’ sounds like the list exists or does your source tell you that OPCW officials are also full of shit like you say Kofi Annan is?
[QUOTE]
. The United States threatened military action in response, accusing forces loyal to Assad of deliberately killing hundreds of civilians with rocket-delivered nerve agents.
Syria denied the allegations, but agreed to relinquish its chemical arsenal, effectively heading off a strike, under a US-Russian deal which was enshrined in the landmark UN resolution.
“At this point, we have absolutely no reason to doubt the information provided by the Syrian regime,” an OPCW official said on Sunday.
What are the inspectors looking at then Magiver. You claimed to know that there was no list. Was your source wrong? You need to find better sources.
‘Information provided’ sounds like the list exists or does your source tell you that OPCW officials are also full of shit like you say Kofi Annan is?
Lets review the current situation. Putin, the supplier of weapons for Assad who is his puppet in the region, has agreed to remove the weapons based on a list provided by… Assad. the UN resolution that Putin pushed through does not allow for military action if this does not go as planned. Putin is in charge of the chicken coop.
Best case scenario, he sells more conventional weapons to Assad than CW’s in the future and the circle of death continues.