Skip to comments.
One Vote Away From 2nd Resolution
CNN
| Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Posted: 9:42 AM EST (1442 GMT)
Posted on 03/12/2003 6:59:49 AM PST by maquiladora
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 next last
To: maquiladora
Then how did "Latin America" get the name latin?
81
posted on
03/12/2003 8:08:51 AM PST
by
dead
To: nmh
The only reason we're doing this is for Blair.
To: Kevin Curry
He wants the illegals here to be given special treatment.
Sounds like he's not getting it.
83
posted on
03/12/2003 8:09:44 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Only UNamericans put the UN before America!)
To: dead
Latin America comprises those countries of the Americas that developed from the colonies of Spain, Portugal, and France. Because these European powers used languages derived from Latin, the term Latin America was devised to designate the parts of the New World that they colonized
thats..
To: SierraWasp
We have guinea pigs. We call them fatty pigs. They tend to squeak at unusual hours. But they are much more loyal than these bureaucrats.
To: thinktwice
Waiting for the UN now is BS. The UN is proven irrelevant, and America needs to get it on with the enemy.
This is not about the US waiting for the UN. This is about providing cover for Blair. He has been a tremendous ally over the last 18 months and this is the right thing to do. That being said, Bush has also told him that he'd understand if he had to pull out of Iraq as we will need him for bigger fish down the line: Iran and North Korea.
To: dead
Italy, Spain and to an extent France and Portugal are sometimes called the Latin Nations becuase of cultural and language ties to the old Roman Empire and the Latin language. Those nations (particularly Spain) colonized much of Central and South America, and the cultural tagging stuck there too.
Interesting trivia - scholars who specialize in language studies beleive the form of Spanish spoken in central and eastern Spain is quite close to the later forms of Latin spoken thoughout the Western Roman Empire. Apparently those areas retained a lot of Roman culture fom the fall of the Empire up until the Moorish Conquest. There are Arabic influences in Spanish, but the scholars feel the vocabulary and pronunciation in those areas is close to the late Empire more so than the Italian langauge is.
87
posted on
03/12/2003 8:20:59 AM PST
by
AzSteven
To: nmh
I agree that we dont need another resolution, but... if we get one that only strengthens our case.
Wether we like it or not, Blair has been a true friend in all of this, and if he needs it, it is the least we can do.
I personally dont want to wait, but lets face it, I was on this board after 9-11 listening to everyone (me included) complain that it was taking too long to invade Afghanistan. That all worked out ok.
I would love to know if anyone remembers the "national mood" in 1991 during those 6 months of military build-up. I don't quite remember if we were told when the build up started that we would be going in soon, or 6 months later?
Did we all complain everyday about how long it was taking?
I realize that we may have a weather factor here, but can 10 days really hurt? This is all contigent on the fact that the new resolution says, that at the end of 10 days, if Sadaam doesn't do XYZ (etc.) that we will be taking military action.
If it is a strong resolution, does it hurt us?
I think Freepers are a little anxious,(myself included), but mid-America is ok to wait a few more days.
I would love to hear others opinions.
88
posted on
03/12/2003 8:21:26 AM PST
by
codercpc
To: what i think
OK. Thanks. I thought it was something like that, but wasn't sure.
89
posted on
03/12/2003 8:21:34 AM PST
by
dead
To: AzSteven
Thank you too. Interesting stuff. (from the latin "stuvius")
90
posted on
03/12/2003 8:22:42 AM PST
by
dead
To: Texan5
Remember that the only army that Mexico ever defeated was the French. I don't think that says much for either of them.
91
posted on
03/12/2003 8:23:58 AM PST
by
ChipShot
To: maquiladora
92
posted on
03/12/2003 8:24:49 AM PST
by
mhking
(Fasten your seatbelts....We're goin' in!)
To: mhking
John Pike has changed that clock more times than I've changed socks! :-)
But I think he's right, as long as this March 17th deadline is still the one that will be voted on, then it sounds right.
Of course, if France veto, this makes the deadline worthless, and it's likely that Bush will deliver a U.S. deadline instead, which may very well be the same date, we shall see.
To: maquiladora
John Pike has changed that clock more times than I've changed socks![sigh] I know, but I think this time, it's for real (that is unless, W gets fed up with the Security Council tomorrow and says the heck with it, let's go now).
94
posted on
03/12/2003 8:31:12 AM PST
by
mhking
(Fasten your seatbelts....We're goin' in!)
To: Kevin Curry
Mexico is holding out? For what? Perhaps, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, ?
To: steveegg
"Mexico is holding out? For what?
For US commonwealth status? "
Maybe we could give them back California for their vote.
To: cinFLA
I hope so...But the whole MS thing has been bothering me for all this time since the event. Especially since when WJC's signing of the document was looked at more closely, it was learned that as a 'charter', the US is legally bound by the Chief Executive's signature alone , and the approval of congress is not needed (as would be the case for a treaty, like Kyoto or the ICC). That does concern me...Why would they go to all the trouble of creating the stupid thing and getting hundreds of signatures on it if there was no desire to put it into effect? The only way it could be put into effect is if there was no way to veto it, and we've been hearing so much the last week or so re: the obsolescence of the SC and veto that I cannot but wonder if there's not more going on than we can see at this time.
Hopefully, though, this will end with the UN (and the ICC) mortally wounded though perhaps lingering for a few years before fading away, and France disgraced by discoveries in Iraq's arsenal.
97
posted on
03/12/2003 8:35:24 AM PST
by
kaylar
To: mhking
Yeah, I think we're in a clear phase where the action is close. Gen Franks is gone to the Gulf and has no date of return, the B-52's have been moved to RAF Fairford, the B-2 crews flew out to DG yesterday. USNS Comfort has been fulled staffed. Units have moved from camps to jumping off areas along the border. The 101st is ready for action as of today, and the number of UN inspectors in Iraq is mysteriously dropping....
To: Busywhiskers
Maybe we could give them back California for their vote. That's a good idea, though we'd need to move FR's servers.
99
posted on
03/12/2003 8:36:42 AM PST
by
steveegg
(Clinton and Blair didn't get UN authorization to launch Operation Desert (Kill Impeachment) Fox)
To: Ingtar
I think it would destroy the UN more quickly to get 9 or 10 yes votes, and a French veto. I think so to...if nothing else, it destory's the idea france is any friend or ally and isolates them. Helps destory the UN in general pop as well...if it happens. I won't hold my breath.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-128 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