Skip to comments.
Three big powers tell US it's wrong on Iraq
Herald ^
| September 30, 2002
| Caroline Overington
Posted on 09/29/2002 12:50:10 PM PDT by Torie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
1
posted on
09/29/2002 12:50:10 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
I was not aware that the American people lived under Russia, China, or France.
WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.
VOTE THE RATS
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
Donate here by secure server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
3
posted on
09/29/2002 12:56:53 PM PDT
by
terilyn
To: Torie
United Nations=League of Nations
4
posted on
09/29/2002 1:00:20 PM PDT
by
11B3
To: roses of sharon
I was not aware that the American people lived under Russia, China, or France. No, but I am aware at how skittish the administration gets when dealing with China, or have we already forgotten the Orion incident already? Incidentally, did we ever get our plane back?
5
posted on
09/29/2002 1:04:05 PM PDT
by
SBeck
To: Torie
Ok. They choose to be irrelevant. Russia, don't come crying when that $42 billion contract to develop Iraqi oil fields gets cancelled by the next Iraqi government and goes to American oil companies.
6
posted on
09/29/2002 1:04:35 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: Torie
The US revealed at the weekend that it wanted to give the Iraqi leader 30 days to open his borders to weapons inspectors under new, strict conditions, or face a military strike. Anyone that opposes the above resolution is an aider and abetter of a sociopath intent on trying to gain time to achieve a splashy and catastrophic final exit. I really believe that is Saddam's goal, and the legacy he is intent on leaving us.
7
posted on
09/29/2002 1:05:22 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
As the Frogs say, c'est la vie.
8
posted on
09/29/2002 1:05:50 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: Torie
The United States was last night considering the implications of leading an attack on Iraq without the support of Russia, France and China, after all three rejected a US draft plan for dealing with President Saddam Hussein.
Look at the company they keep:Iraq defiantly rejected a U.S.-British plan Saturday for the United Nations to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm and open his palaces for weapons searches, warning the Baghdad would stage a fierce defense if the allies attacked.
Iraq Rejects Disarmament Plan
You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!
To: Torie
As McLaughlin would say: WRONG! Saddam is the ultimate survivalist and would rather eat his kids than pull off a dramatic ending.
10
posted on
09/29/2002 1:08:21 PM PDT
by
SBeck
To: SBeck
No, he knows he is going to exit, and wants to be able to do it in style.
11
posted on
09/29/2002 1:09:09 PM PDT
by
Torie
To: Torie
Does anyone know how far from Baghdad Saddam's palaces are located? I'm sure quite a few are in the immediate area, but was wondering if any were isolated and could be taken by force and inspected during our initial assault.
If we did find ANYTHING incriminating, the rest of the cowering, socialist world would have to clam up about our actions, whatever they might be from that point on.
Nam Vet
12
posted on
09/29/2002 1:10:10 PM PDT
by
Nam Vet
To: Torie
Heck, lets just evaluate this programatically:
Russia+China+France != United States
Sheesh, you'd think these pitiful countries would understand the cold, hard logic of our utter superiority by now.
13
posted on
09/29/2002 1:11:36 PM PDT
by
egarvue
To: Torie
Russia, China and France? And we should care what they think why?????????????????
To: Torie
Three big powers? I only counted one and two-thirds.
To: Nam Vet
Does anyone know how far from Baghdad Saddam's palaces are located.No, but I heard today that his 12 palaces occupy a total of 11 square miles. That's quite a bit of space.
George Will said that the way to get the allies to go along is to just go.
And we're already doing that, with the increased bombings in the no-fly zone, positioning troops.
This war has started, and it will become more evident as time goes on.
16
posted on
09/29/2002 1:18:36 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: Torie
Russia, France and China
Not that anymore need be said, but these three have some pretty obvious motives for saying we're wrong.
To: struwwelpeter
"Three big powers? I only counted one and two-thirds.
Yeah, but he's got France factorial... ;-)
To: Torie
They just want "deal's".
Russia wants the $40B Iraq owes to them.
China wants a free (or more free) hand to deal with Taiwan and their "economic zone".
France wants to keep making money from Iraqi oil and to needle the US.
I think we can give Russia what they want - after an Iraqi occupation, a % of the Iraqi oil sales go to pay off Russia.
France will continue to make money after Iraq is occupied. They will continue to needle us, also.
China is the more problematic issue. We can make them promises...but at what cost?
So, I am sure the State dept. will try to get them all to agree. There is a time frame. If they don't - then screw 'em, the US goes it alone and the UN becomes the League of Nations. They don't want that to happen as the Security Council gives them a forum. So there is pressure on them, also.
To: All
My next door neighbor has a GUN...
We have had arguments in the past...
I need to kill him before he kills me...DUH...!!!???
Can any of you relate to that..???
20
posted on
09/29/2002 1:30:24 PM PDT
by
freddy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson