Comments on: Wolfowitz Slips Us the Tongue http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:27:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: roger http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29606 roger Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:21:19 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29606 Mark - Truthfully, France may be able to build up a good case for attacking us. I sincerely hope they do. That would be FAR easier than Iraq. A few Boy Scout troops could probably take France with nothing more than their Archery merit badges. When a resolution prescribes a military solution, if necessary, to a problem, and repeated violations of said resolution occur, then it is reasonable to expect that military action will occur. We simply enforced the resolutions that the UN was bold enough to agree upon, yet too wimpy to enforce. Although the worthless UN is highly proficient when it comes to writing resolutions, I highly doubt that they will be bold enough to draft some type of Resolution against us that carries a military strike as a penalty for non-compliance. The little guy NEVER starts a fight with the biggest, strongest guy in the bar. That is generally a bad idea, unless you really like pain and death. Mark -

Truthfully, France may be able to build up a good case for attacking us.

I sincerely hope they do. That would be FAR easier than Iraq. A few Boy Scout troops could probably take France with nothing more than their Archery merit badges.

When a resolution prescribes a military solution, if necessary, to a problem, and repeated violations of said resolution occur, then it is reasonable to expect that military action will occur. We simply enforced the resolutions that the UN was bold enough to agree upon, yet too wimpy to enforce.

Although the worthless UN is highly proficient when it comes to writing resolutions, I highly doubt that they will be bold enough to draft some type of Resolution against us that carries a military strike as a penalty for non-compliance. The little guy NEVER starts a fight with the biggest, strongest guy in the bar. That is generally a bad idea, unless you really like pain and death.

]]> By: Mark Fulwiler http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29605 Mark Fulwiler Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:26:18 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29605 If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. has ignored U.N. "resolutions" in the past. Does Roger think France would be justified in attacking us for violating a U.N. resolution? If I’m not mistaken, the U.S. has ignored U.N. “resolutions” in the past. Does Roger think France would be justified in attacking us for violating a U.N. resolution?

]]> By: roger http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29604 roger Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:38:21 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29604 I am among the 30% of Americans that DON'T think Saddam was involved in 9-11-01, yet I still believe we were right in waging war against him. The comments by Wolfowitz are troubling, though. I'm becoming increasingly wary of attempts to justify the war with a Saddam-9/11 link. The sad thing is, we didn't even need such a link to go after Saddam. He still had to go, if for no other reason than his repeated violations of several UN resolutions. The UN was unwilling to back-up its resolutions with the necessary action, so we were forced to do it ourselves. That's always been reason enough for me. I am among the 30% of Americans that DON’T think Saddam was involved in 9-11-01, yet I still believe we were right in waging war against him. The comments by Wolfowitz are troubling, though. I’m becoming increasingly wary of attempts to justify the war with a Saddam-9/11 link.

The sad thing is, we didn’t even need such a link to go after Saddam. He still had to go, if for no other reason than his repeated violations of several UN resolutions. The UN was unwilling to back-up its resolutions with the necessary action, so we were forced to do it ourselves. That’s always been reason enough for me.

]]> By: Michael http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29603 Michael Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:28:03 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29603 I remember that getting reported on near the end of the "official war", but it didn't have the legs to stay in the media. That said, I would put my money down that they were fraudulent docs or something of the sort. Otherwise, the admin. would have been all over it, and would have had it in our face 24/7. But, say they are official docs, it was a meeting in 1998, which implies a possibility of collusion, but stops short of difinitely linking Iraq to 9/11. So to answer your question, yes there could be truth to it, but it's far from proof... I remember that getting reported on near the end of the “official war”, but it didn’t have the legs to stay in the media. That said, I would put my money down that they were fraudulent docs or something of the sort. Otherwise, the admin. would have been all over it, and would have had it in our face 24/7. But, say they are official docs, it was a meeting in 1998, which implies a possibility of collusion, but stops short of difinitely linking Iraq to 9/11. So to answer your question, yes there could be truth to it, but it’s far from proof…

]]> By: Drake http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29602 Drake Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:05:58 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29602 Is there no truth to this article? <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml</a> Is there no truth to this article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml

]]> By: Bobby http://www.theagitator.com/2003/09/13/wolfowitz-slips-us-the-tongue/comment-page-1/#comment-29601 Bobby Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:49:56 +0000 http://dev.theagitator.com/?p=3081#comment-29601 Good points on 1&2. Number two is especially troubling. Even if there was no Iraq-9/11 connection how could he not expect questions about Iraq no matter what the forum? Also, even if he wasn't expecting these questions shouldn't he be prepared to answer correctly any questions that might arise. Isn't Iraq the bulk of what he is working on right now? Shouldn't he know more than almost anyone about the current conditions there? Very troubling! Good points on 1&2. Number two is especially troubling. Even if there was no Iraq-9/11 connection how could he not expect questions about Iraq no matter what the forum? Also, even if he wasn’t expecting these questions shouldn’t he be prepared to answer correctly any questions that might arise. Isn’t Iraq the bulk of what he is working on right now? Shouldn’t he know more than almost anyone about the current conditions there?

Very troubling!

]]>