The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The United Nations was addressed today by President Bush a year and a day after the 9/11 attacks.
I'm not repeating the whole thing hear, all news sites have transcipts up.
In one speech he has effectively placed the future of the UN in the UN's own hands.
The speech clearly laid out how Iraq has violated every single UN resolution and the conditions set out in 1991. The Dutch Prime Minister, currently head of the EU, stated earlier today that non compliance with UN resolutions would mean military action did not require a new UN resolution.
All those who have sided with Iraq now have evidence in front of them, evidence of complete disregard for the United Nations and its members.
You say America cannot act alone or be the world's policeman. Fair enough. Then, what right does Iraq have to ignore UN resolutions that were set by the UN as a whole, not just America ? It has no right.
Bush's speech was clear. Iraq now knows what it must actually do, not promise or negotiate for, what it must do to avoid military action against it. Again, these conditions are laid out in the text of the speech - highlights include the case of 600 Gulf War priosoners who we're never returned, summary executions rapes beating and torture of political opponents and their families, using food money for military use, oh enough anthrax to kill every person in the Uk is unaccounted for as well.... - . Each condition listed by Bush is one that goes against a UN resolution. By not actually complying with these demands Iraq continues to break UN resolutions, the result of which is military action.
The United Nations now has a choice. It swiftly makes Iraq comply with the resolutions all it's members agreed upon, that Iraq is - admitted by Kofi Annan - breaking at this moment, or the UN passes a resolution authorising military force to remove the Iraqi regime.
If the UN continues to let one member continue to break every resolution that effects it then it sends the message the UN is powerless. At this stage the UN may as well be disolved as it will have failed to back up it's own resolutions.
If Iraq complies there will be no military action.
If Iraq does not comply then there will be military action with or without UN involvement.
With UN backing will restore credibility and send the message the UN is not the paper tiger that many assume it to be.
Without UN backing will be possible but it will destroy the UN.
Today is a turning point. The UN acts now, or faces it's end. The free world either acts now, or waits for more innocent people to be killed by terrorist acts.
Whatever your opinon, history is in the making today and in the coming months.
~~Belldandy~~
PS Before everyone rips this apart, amke sure you actually look at the speech instead of repeating the usual boring cliche anti capitalist arguments.....
I'm not repeating the whole thing hear, all news sites have transcipts up.
In one speech he has effectively placed the future of the UN in the UN's own hands.
The speech clearly laid out how Iraq has violated every single UN resolution and the conditions set out in 1991. The Dutch Prime Minister, currently head of the EU, stated earlier today that non compliance with UN resolutions would mean military action did not require a new UN resolution.
All those who have sided with Iraq now have evidence in front of them, evidence of complete disregard for the United Nations and its members.
You say America cannot act alone or be the world's policeman. Fair enough. Then, what right does Iraq have to ignore UN resolutions that were set by the UN as a whole, not just America ? It has no right.
Bush's speech was clear. Iraq now knows what it must actually do, not promise or negotiate for, what it must do to avoid military action against it. Again, these conditions are laid out in the text of the speech - highlights include the case of 600 Gulf War priosoners who we're never returned, summary executions rapes beating and torture of political opponents and their families, using food money for military use, oh enough anthrax to kill every person in the Uk is unaccounted for as well.... - . Each condition listed by Bush is one that goes against a UN resolution. By not actually complying with these demands Iraq continues to break UN resolutions, the result of which is military action.
The United Nations now has a choice. It swiftly makes Iraq comply with the resolutions all it's members agreed upon, that Iraq is - admitted by Kofi Annan - breaking at this moment, or the UN passes a resolution authorising military force to remove the Iraqi regime.
If the UN continues to let one member continue to break every resolution that effects it then it sends the message the UN is powerless. At this stage the UN may as well be disolved as it will have failed to back up it's own resolutions.
If Iraq complies there will be no military action.
If Iraq does not comply then there will be military action with or without UN involvement.
With UN backing will restore credibility and send the message the UN is not the paper tiger that many assume it to be.
Without UN backing will be possible but it will destroy the UN.
Today is a turning point. The UN acts now, or faces it's end. The free world either acts now, or waits for more innocent people to be killed by terrorist acts.
Whatever your opinon, history is in the making today and in the coming months.
~~Belldandy~~
PS Before everyone rips this apart, amke sure you actually look at the speech instead of repeating the usual boring cliche anti capitalist arguments.....
I listened to the speech today too.
Have to admit, it was pretty pursuasive, now that we're focusing on a couple of new angles.
When looking at conditions within Iraq, and to an extent that hasn't been apparent in anything else i've read, i consider that to justify intervention.
While still undecided (having not yet had an inside view of the evidence of the threat) on whether the risk of Saddam taking action against the rest of the world is sufficient reason to act, i also still resent the gun-ho attitude Bush and co seem to present.
Also, there still remains the question of how Bush can speak about the conditions within Iraq so vehemently when Saddam's regiem has been engaging in the same kinds of activities for so very long without Bush or anyone else giving a toss.
Still, you could say the same thing about our taking issue with it now. Sometimes it just takes something to bring your attention to it.
However, i'd question how accurately this really applies, i think his timing shows Bush's agenda to consist exclusively of protecting his own (country's) backside and keeping the 'war on terror' a ratings winner, rather than an embarassing void of activity.
Of course, i could be wrong though.
At least i'm off the fence on whether to act :^)
Have to admit, it was pretty pursuasive, now that we're focusing on a couple of new angles.
When looking at conditions within Iraq, and to an extent that hasn't been apparent in anything else i've read, i consider that to justify intervention.
While still undecided (having not yet had an inside view of the evidence of the threat) on whether the risk of Saddam taking action against the rest of the world is sufficient reason to act, i also still resent the gun-ho attitude Bush and co seem to present.
Also, there still remains the question of how Bush can speak about the conditions within Iraq so vehemently when Saddam's regiem has been engaging in the same kinds of activities for so very long without Bush or anyone else giving a toss.
Still, you could say the same thing about our taking issue with it now. Sometimes it just takes something to bring your attention to it.
However, i'd question how accurately this really applies, i think his timing shows Bush's agenda to consist exclusively of protecting his own (country's) backside and keeping the 'war on terror' a ratings winner, rather than an embarassing void of activity.
Of course, i could be wrong though.
At least i'm off the fence on whether to act :^)
I do agree with the Americans on this for one reason. Evertone is talking about how Iraqi should be given a chance and more time. The problem is that they havent co-operated at all in 4 years so why will they start now? I believe the current US/UK stance is the correct one.
The United Nations was addressed today by President Bush a year and a day after the 9/11 attacks.
I'm not repeating the whole thing hear, all news sites have transcipts up.
In one speech he has effectively placed the future of the UN in the UN's own hands.
The speech clearly laid out how Iraq has violated every single UN resolution and the conditions set out in 1991. The Dutch Prime Minister, currently head of the EU, stated earlier today that non compliance with UN resolutions would mean military action did not require a new UN resolution.
All those who have sided with Iraq now have evidence in front of them, evidence of complete disregard for the United Nations and its members.
You say America cannot act alone or be the world's policeman. Fair enough. Then, what right does Iraq have to ignore UN resolutions that were set by the UN as a whole, not just America ? It has no right.
Bush's speech was clear. Iraq now knows what it must actually do, not promise or negotiate for, what it must do to avoid military action against it. Again, these conditions are laid out in the text of the speech - highlights include the case of 600 Gulf War priosoners who we're never returned, summary executions rapes beating and torture of political opponents and their families, using food money for military use, oh enough anthrax to kill every person in the Uk is unaccounted for as well.... - . Each condition listed by Bush is one that goes against a UN resolution. By not actually complying with these demands Iraq continues to break UN resolutions, the result of which is military action.
The United Nations now has a choice. It swiftly makes Iraq comply with the resolutions all it's members agreed upon, that Iraq is - admitted by Kofi Annan - breaking at this moment, or the UN passes a resolution authorising military force to remove the Iraqi regime.
If the UN continues to let one member continue to break every resolution that effects it then it sends the message the UN is powerless. At this stage the UN may as well be disolved as it will have failed to back up it's own resolutions.
If Iraq complies there will be no military action.
If Iraq does not comply then there will be military action with or without UN involvement.
With UN backing will restore credibility and send the message the UN is not the paper tiger that many assume it to be.
Without UN backing will be possible but it will destroy the UN.
Today is a turning point. The UN acts now, or faces it's end. The free world either acts now, or waits for more innocent people to be killed by terrorist acts.
Whatever your opinon, history is in the making today and in the coming months.
~~Belldandy~~
PS Before everyone rips this apart, amke sure you actually look at the speech instead of repeating the usual boring cliche anti capitalist arguments.....
I'm not repeating the whole thing hear, all news sites have transcipts up.
In one speech he has effectively placed the future of the UN in the UN's own hands.
The speech clearly laid out how Iraq has violated every single UN resolution and the conditions set out in 1991. The Dutch Prime Minister, currently head of the EU, stated earlier today that non compliance with UN resolutions would mean military action did not require a new UN resolution.
All those who have sided with Iraq now have evidence in front of them, evidence of complete disregard for the United Nations and its members.
You say America cannot act alone or be the world's policeman. Fair enough. Then, what right does Iraq have to ignore UN resolutions that were set by the UN as a whole, not just America ? It has no right.
Bush's speech was clear. Iraq now knows what it must actually do, not promise or negotiate for, what it must do to avoid military action against it. Again, these conditions are laid out in the text of the speech - highlights include the case of 600 Gulf War priosoners who we're never returned, summary executions rapes beating and torture of political opponents and their families, using food money for military use, oh enough anthrax to kill every person in the Uk is unaccounted for as well.... - . Each condition listed by Bush is one that goes against a UN resolution. By not actually complying with these demands Iraq continues to break UN resolutions, the result of which is military action.
The United Nations now has a choice. It swiftly makes Iraq comply with the resolutions all it's members agreed upon, that Iraq is - admitted by Kofi Annan - breaking at this moment, or the UN passes a resolution authorising military force to remove the Iraqi regime.
If the UN continues to let one member continue to break every resolution that effects it then it sends the message the UN is powerless. At this stage the UN may as well be disolved as it will have failed to back up it's own resolutions.
If Iraq complies there will be no military action.
If Iraq does not comply then there will be military action with or without UN involvement.
With UN backing will restore credibility and send the message the UN is not the paper tiger that many assume it to be.
Without UN backing will be possible but it will destroy the UN.
Today is a turning point. The UN acts now, or faces it's end. The free world either acts now, or waits for more innocent people to be killed by terrorist acts.
Whatever your opinon, history is in the making today and in the coming months.
~~Belldandy~~
PS Before everyone rips this apart, amke sure you actually look at the speech instead of repeating the usual boring cliche anti capitalist arguments.....