Politics As Usual - Page 28

SlaveNoMore · 05-21-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know why you think that. It is bizarre to me. We would not surrender control to the UN. But if we would, I think it would have stepped in.

They aint exactly stepping up to the plate in Sudan right now.

ltl/fb · 05-21-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
But, Powell said, because of Americans' desire "for different kinds of automobiles" — a reference to the huge gas-guzzlers that many Americans drive — the United States is importing close to 58 percent of its petroleum needs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r/powell_kerry

It is so hot when guys talk about fuel economy.

SlaveNoMore · 05-21-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Slave was advocating it yesterday.

Nice spin on what I said

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 05-21-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It is so hot when guys talk about fuel economy.

27 mpg highway. Wanna fuck?

ltl/fb · 05-21-2004, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
27 mpg highway. Wanna fuck?

Can you get it up to 30?

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 05-21-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can you get it up to 30?

30? Too many.

Whore.

(Cross-board reference post!)

Say_hello_for_me · 05-21-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think you are on crack. Other countries wanted the UN to take the lead. The administration didn't want to give up any power, and it didn't. ...

("Most European countries, including Britain, the main U.S. ally in Iraq, want the United Nations to take command in Iraq once the war is over.") or this or any number of pieces that you can find with your own Google search.

I think his position has some merit. Visit the Korean monument, and you'll see the names of dozens of countries that joined the one and only UN war in history. Even then, it was our people who were mostly getting killed (aside, of course, from the Koreans and Chinese).

The UN would love to take the lead, as long as they don't have to provide the followers.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-21-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They aint exactly stepping up to the plate in Sudan right now.

Nor in Massachusetts, but so?

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-21-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I think his position has some merit. Visit the Korean monument, and you'll see the names of dozens of countries that joined the one and only UN war in history. Even then, it was our people who were mostly getting killed (aside, of course, from the Koreans and Chinese).

The UN would love to take the lead, as long as they don't have to provide the followers.

A lot of Turks got killed.

During the Cold War, the fact that both the Soviet Union and we had vetos kept the UN on the sidelines in most conflicts. Korea was an exception because the Soviet Union had walked out in protest over something stupid.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-21-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Nice spin on what I said

Thanks. Close enough for government work, right?

Say_hello_for_me · 05-21-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A lot of Turks got killed.

During the Cold War, the fact that both the Soviet Union and we had vetos kept the UN on the sidelines in most conflicts. Korea was an exception because the Soviet Union had walked out in protest over something stupid.

I've read that others were killed, so I wasn't saying that no Turks or British or Australians or whatever were killed. Just mostly us, cept for the Koreans and Chinese.

Your response also conveniently overlooks France and China. Korea was also an exception because Taiwan had the Chinese vote back then. But the fact that such a confluence of coincidences had to occur to get the one and only UN war is exactly the reason why the Security Council etc. should not have word one to say about the wars we fight.

Tyrone Slothrop · 05-21-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But the fact that such a confluence of coincidences had to occur to get the one and only UN war is exactly the reason why the Security Council etc. should not have word one to say about the wars we fight.

That's at least two steps removed from the argument we're having. Club was saying that the UN didn't want to run Iraq, and I said he was on crack.

We have gone to war since Korea without the UN's say-so under both Democratic and Republican presidents. No one thinks the UN should have a veto power over our military.

Atticus Grinch · 05-21-2004, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But the fact that such a confluence of coincidences had to occur to get the one and only UN war is exactly the reason why the Security Council etc. should not have word one to say about the wars we fight.

Should they have anything to say about the wars that others fight? Just checking.

ltl/fb · 05-21-2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Should they have anything to say about the wars that others fight? Just checking.

I think that's for us to say, not the UN.

Say_hello_for_me · 05-21-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Should they have anything to say about the wars that others fight? Just checking.

Well, I like things the way they are. If all 5 UN security council members ever agree that a war should be fought, then I'll agree that the war should probably be fought. With you and me in the trenches too.

But the idea that we would lay our defense in the hands of a group that has never seen a war worth fighting is appalling. Is that JFK flying that black helicopter?

Summary: They agree on a Yes, then Yes. They don't agree on a Yes, then the [insert cute name with the word "coalition" in it here] is just fine. They agree on a No, then No.