Speaking at a hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Burns said US officials expect the Security Council to consider a statement of condemnation from the council president against Iran.
He said, however, the Bush administration would like to go "beyond that to entertain the possibility of a resolution to isolate and hopefully influence (Iran’s) behaviour."
If Iran doesn’t respond to words and resolutions, “then we believe that the world community should entertain the possibility of sanctions against Iran,” Burns said."
I’m confused. (have a ball with that hawks)
Why is the Security Council’s opinion important to this admininistration now? Didn’t we go it alone during our big invasion? We accept a UN opinion as long as we agree with the opinion?:We’re the USA and we do what we want (sometimes).
Are you suggesting that using a big stick against Iran is not appropriate? How should the US handle the Iran situation differently than it is doing right now-- what should we be doing with the UN that we aren’t doing?
Bush bungled the Iraq deal. So far, he’s been doing the right things wrt Iran. I can undertand a Bush-bash over Iraq. I can understand a hundred Bush-bashes over Iraq. It makes no sense to bash him over Iran.
Are we running up to another fucking war? Look, the administration has blown its load. The country is very, very limp for war. I know it can be said that Iran is a bigger threat, but it’s too late. No way the public will get behind another invasion. Perhaps if we hadn’t invaded Iraq on the flimsiest bullshit basis, we could entertain the idea of using our big ol’ stick on Iran.
And before anyone says that we’re not talking about war (yet,) I’m betting Bush and Cheney have most definitely broached the subject internally.
IOW, you can’t think of anything wrong with the way Bush has been handling Iran either. I was going to say “nice try, though” but it wasn’t even that. It wasn’t a nice try, it was just another one of your contentless posts. Par for the course.
I’m sure you can quote it, right, John? I said that the USA was going to invade Iraq. Probably in this thread.
You asked why people weren’t all wet-loined at the thought of Diefic Dubya going to the U.N. as any good world leader should. After all, he’s doing it RIGHT, the way a LEADER should, right? Obviously anyone rolling their eyes or unconvinced by the sheer magnanimousosity of our Great Leader in going to the U.N. is nothing but an uncompromising Bush Basher.
Certainly it has nothing to do with it being a COMPLETE FUCKING FARCE. Certianly not. It’s all the EVIL LIBRULS OUT TO DISCREDIT OUR MOST HUMBLE AND HONORABLE CEO. It can’t be the fact that the farce is being played out a second time. Sadly for them, of course, that they blew it so badly on the first one that they don’t get to start another ground war.
“Gosh”, says Dubya, “We just love ourselves some U.N. It goes real good with potato salad and a nice ribeye steak. I don’t know why Libruls feel that I don’t have a use for the U.N. unless they’re doing what I say.”
The only reason any attention will be paid to the U.N. now is because Dubya’s cronies are such a fabulous bunch of fuckups that they can’t do anything decisive in Iran.
So instead they get to do something indecisive.
Based on past behavior I assume that there’ll be much “FEAR! DEATH! NUCLEAR ANTHRAX! TERRORISTS! TERRORISTS WITH NUCLEAR ANTHRAX! MUSROOOOOM CLOOOOOOOUDS!” followed by demands for sanctions.
Once the U.N. doesn’t bend over for them much “We tried…[wipes away imaginary tear]…they just wouldn’t believe us as to the magnitude of the threat. Therefore [stands up, puffs out manly chest] we must act in the best interests of the rest of the world, even though the U.N. tries to hold us back.”
Whether or not airstrikes follow depends on whether Dubya demands from Iran things that actually, you know, EXIST. Considering how impressive our intelligence services have been so far, I expect very little positive to be accomplished.
John, your newest kick seems to be to try finding non-existant distinctions. I hope it’s fun, because its sure turning your posts into irritating loads of shit.
you were responding to the statement “Why is the Security Council’s opinion important to this admininistration now? Didn’t we go it alone during our big invasion?” and I believe that the poster was correct, that “we” the US administration did not have the sanction of the UN Security Council. the phrase “going it alone” was misleading and a tad inaccurate due to, of course, the coalition of the willing, who mainly consisted of the Brits, and several other nations, several of which have since dropped out.
So, I’d say both your response and the post you were responding to contained misleading information - you fail to acknowledge the lack of official UN participation/ sanction for the US sponsored invasion of Iraq, and the other poster failed to acknowledge that there were several other countries involved (though, of course, the greatest, by far, participation, the main driving force was of course the US).
That’s exactly what I was responding to. “Go it alone” means, with little doubt, alone, singly. The US did not do what it did re this matter singly.
Irrelevant in regard to the assertion that the US is involved in Iraq alone.
It’s not a tad misleading. It’s 100% inaccurate. And it doesn’t matter if those other entities dropped out after the initial involvement. At the time of the initial involvement, the US was not “going it alone.”
I’d say the other poster’s assertion was inaccurate and I simply pointed out the error. I did not post misleading information. Now, you may feel different, but I feel safe in my appraisal of these posts.
Monty you absolutely ignored the first part of the poster’s statement, which was not irrelevant. you quoted his entire post. had you merely quoted the second part, your “actually, no” would have been accurate. As it stood, the “actually no” seemed to also refer to the first part of his statement, and was, thus, wrong.