Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For those of you that think 'War with Iraq' is wrong...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Earlier in this thread China, France and Russia were mentioned as countries that had probably aided Hussein in developing WMD's, to that list one should also add Germany. Now isn't it interesting that the same countries that helped Iraq develop WMD's are also the same countries that are most vehemently opposed to going into Iraq to remove them once and for all.

    For those who think that diplomacy could have worked with someone like Hussein they should take a good look at what happened after Prime Minister Chamberlain returned to Britain declaring, "Peace in our time," while brandishing a treaty he had just signed with Adolph Hitler.

    Personally I believe we should have made sure we had brought Bin Laden to justice before moving on to Iraq, but in time dealing with Hussein was inevitable. By doing so before he began to use the WMD's he has been developing as quickly as possible many lives will have been saved on both sides. Consider that had Hussein managed to fully develop and use WMD's the response of the US would have been in kind. How many innocent Iraqi citizens would have been killed in a nuclear attack? On the balance many many lives have been spared by this current action.

    Comment


    • #32
      Freightdogg, you make an excellent point. You wouldn't believe how happy I am to see someone who finally knows what their talking about.

      But what proof do we have that Germany, France, Russia, and China aided Hussein in the production of WMD's? After all, America allegedly sold Hussein chemical and biological weapons secrets in the 1980s.

      Yeah, I understand that Hussein is a monster. I understand that he may potentially be developing WMD's. But personally, I think that the world should have let the inspections continue their work. He wouldn't dare to try and pull any stunts with inspectors around. Though war may have been inevitable, don't you think that the method should have been "prove first, then fight" rather than "fight first, then prove"?

      It's a tough issue. My major concern is primarily, civilian deaths as a result of this war and terrorist reprisals. It's fair to say these terrorists are crazed and demonic lunatics. These fools have grossly misused the beautiful religion of Islam for their own personal benefit. They may pull some "America is slaughtering our Muslim brothers and sisters" crap. I mean no offense towards Islam, but to the terrorists. As Bush said, fate depends on actions. America must tread with caution, this war could unleash further radical Islamic hatred towards the west and subsequently, more violence.

      Those are just my thoughts. I hope that we can articulate our thoughts peacefully.

      Richard

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by aerpix
        Saddam might be a bastard, probably he is, but what makes it the USA has to extinct him?
        Simple.

        Resolution 667, otherwise known as the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement.

        You see, Peter, the 1991 Gulf War never really ended - it simple went into 'ceasefire' when Saddam surrendered.

        Now that Saddam is in clear violation of the ceasefire, the coalition is on perfectly legal ground to restart the war under Resolution 667, which calls for the destruction of Iraq's WMD programs "through any means necessary," which includes regime change.

        Originally posted by aerpix
        I am against this (and any) war, not against America. Since it is America which started the war, notabene without sanction from the UN, America is committing the very same crimes today that they accuse Saddam of.
        Without UN backing?

        Please.

        There are 17 UN resolutions, including 1441 which was passed unanimously, which call for action against Iraq should it fail to comply.

        A U.N. resolution specifically authorizing the coalition to "blow the hell out of Iraq" is certainly not required.

        Originally posted by aerpix
        If America cared so much about all the other areas of tension on this planet, and would DO something to solve them, then I would certainly admire what the USA are doing. But they don't, they only get involved where they can see profits waiting, but leave their fingers from those areas where real human help is required, but no reward is waiting. That's what upsets billions of people around the world.
        Right, like Yugoslavia.

        Another instance of the U.S. and its close allies going in, removing a madman, the international community bitching about it, then reaping the benefits.

        Please tell me what economic benefits or profits are going to come to the U.S. people from spending $80 billion on a war (and don't say oil -- I'm itching to blow that argument out of the water yet again).

        By the way, Peter, we provide far more international aide and moral support around the world than any other country.

        Originally posted by aerpix
        And probably a couple of million of Americans, around 260 or so, should finally wake up and stop believing what their government is telling them. America has absolutely no interest in freeing Iraq or the Iraqi people. Their only interest is economic, aka oil.
        Maybe you should stop believing when you read in the vastly anti-war Swiss and European press.

        You are right, our sole interest is not freeing the Iraqi people. We are also trying to rid a madman of weapons of mass destruction, which he has been illegally hoarding for the past 12 years in violation of the will of the International Community.

        This man, at the present time, has killed over 5 million people in his 25 years in power, and has the capability to launch weapons with consequences you can't even imagine at Kuwait City, Riyadh, Omman, Tel Aviv, Jeruselem, Dubai, and countless other cities.

        This man has gassed his own people, killing upwards of 2.5 million of his own citizens. He killed another 2.5 million using gas and other chemical and biological weapons during the Iraq-Iran war.

        You need to look past your blind hatred of America and realize that we are not the problem here.

        You are making the whole issue about America (what gives America the right to do this, why doesn't America do that, Americans need to stop believing their government), while in your whole post you fail to mention the madman who has killed 5 million people over the past two and a half decades.

        By the way, your "oil" argument is ludicrous, and has been discounted by virtually everyone involved with judging the economic impact of this war.

        Fact is, Iraq produces less than 3% of the world's oil. An almost insignificant amount.

        Iraqi oil is also much cheaper now, being sold at about 65-70% of market value illegally, than it would be after the war once another government is put in place, the sanctions are lifted, and it's able to be sold at true market prices.

        Also, despite rising gas prices, due to increased security at processing facilities, transportation costs, etc., oil prices are on the way DOWN right now, and did the same during Gulf War I .. hardly a good thing for the oil companies.

        Peter, I see posts like yours, and I honestly wonder what happened to cause you to have such contempt for one nation. I can honestly say that I don't even hold the nation of Iraq and as bad a light as you seem to hold the United States.

        It absolutely boggles my mind.
        Trump is an idiot!
        Vote Democrats!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Chris, I think I have answered most of your questions in my posts in this forum. What therefore should boggle your mind is not my posts, but the obvious blindfoldedness of your fellow-countrymen.

          I am against any war, no matter who drives it. I was against Saddam's war on Kuwait, and found it right that a coalition force came in to help. But now, some 12 years later, there is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, to invade a sovereign country that has not done anything to the USA in recent years. Many posts listed the facts that neither Saddam nor his people in Iraq were involved in any way in the 9/11 events. But that's the point where the official USA is just blind (or wants to be blind).

          There is little or no proof of all the accusations that have beein raised by the USA against Iraq, and therefore this war is entirely unjustified.

          Chris, you will have to ban me, or you will likely read further posts of mine going the same way. I hate war, and see no reason why this war is being conducted. It is illegal, it is war crime, and as that it should be prosecuted. I look forward to see Messrs. Bush and Blair at the Hague tribunal! For those who confess it is 11 years of imprisonment, but for the two gentlemen mentioned, it rather looks like a life-long sentence, as only this will beware the world from these wild cowboys.

          Regards,
          Peter

          Comment


          • #35
            LOL!

            That's the funniest post I've read all day, Peter!

            Firstly, let me state that I'm not going to ban you. I would never consider it. You are entitled to your viewpoint, however misguided, just as I am, however misguided you consider mine to be.

            I do wonder, however, if you even read my previous post.

            There are at least four (4) U.N. resolutions which explicitly authorize the use of force and "whatever means necessary" to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Note that these resolutions are still in effect, by virtue of the fact that Gulf War I was in a 'ceasefire' agreement and never actually ended.

            That does not even take into account the fact that there is no international law whatsoever that requires any military action to have U.N. backing. In fact, the only war in history which had the backing of the United Nations previous to this one was the 1991 Gulf War.

            Other than that point, you attacked not one of the other arguments I made in my previous post.

            You have yet to tell me how this war is about oil, why it is illegal, or give any supporting facts whatsoever to your assertion that this war is about economic gain -- all points which I refuted in my previous post.

            Instead, you bring up completely unrelated points, such as the apparent lack of a connection between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, which if you've followed what led up to this action you'll agree was not even close to being one of the principle reasons behind it.

            You have also not answered the question as to why you make this out to be about the United States of America, when we have 40+ partners engaging in this action against a man who has killed over 5 million human beings during his reign.

            You say there is no proof of the accusations made against Iraq's regime by the U.S. and other countries, and this is where your entire argument fundamentally breaks down.

            Simply put, we are not required to provide proof.

            The proof is that all of these horrible weapons, admittedly, were possessed by the Iraqis at one point.

            12 years later, after having twice expelled weapons inspectors from the country, Iraq cannot, or is unwilling to, provide credible proof that these weapons have been destroyed.

            The burden of proof is on Iraq, not the coalition, to prove that they no longer have these weapons or the capability to produce them.

            As outlined in numerous previous resolutions, it is not the job of weapons inspectors to wander aimlessly around the country on a treasure hunt looking for these weapons. It is up to the Iraqi government to provide full and complete cooperation (read: provide this information) to the inspectors.

            Over 12 years and three attempts at inspections, it hasn't happened. Not once.

            I absolutely, 100% understand your opposition to war. I do not like war either.

            But what do we do after 12 years, when every other possible solution to the problem has been repeatedly tried and failed?

            Do we once again step back and allow this madman to continue sitting with his finger on a button ready to launch these things at a number of major cities in neighboring countries?

            Or do we finally stand up and say "enough is enough" and get rid of this evil, sadistic, murderous regime once and for all?

            I'm proud as hell to know which side I'm on, and I would be genuinely ashamed to support the continued killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, as your side does.
            Trump is an idiot!
            Vote Democrats!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi Chris Kilroy:


              You said:
              You idiot liberals really can't believe anything that doesn't support your position, can you?
              What in hell would cause you to doubt the veracity of any of those quotes?
              It is a commonly known fact that every Iraqi refugee/defector alive believes that Saddam Hussein must go, by any means necessary. This is well documented, and very easily researchable online if you'd like to take the time.
              (Note: I am done researching for idiot liberals to prove my points. They can look it up themselves)

              Chris, I’m a little disappointed in you. I’m not sure why you decided that it is only the “idiot liberals” that support a peaceful resolution to this conflict. This issue, even in the United States, is not about the liberals vs. the conservatives, or the left vs. the right or Democrats vs. the Republicans. It’s about whether people think that America’s reasons for attacking Iraq are justifiable. Yes, generally the further “left” you go the greater the tendency is to oppose war, even in this issue, but the correlation is much lower than it has been with any previous war issue. That’s why we have Tony Blair (who by the way would fall under your “liberal idiot” category) supporting the war, and a relatively conservative President Chirac opposing the war. In fact, many conservatives are against the war. Even in the USA.

              What you probably meant to say was “idiot libertarians”. This is part of a scale that runs perpendicular to “liberal and conservative”. Libertarians are people who put “the people in their country” ahead of “the country itself”. A libertarian would support the phrase “individual rights go ahead of the interests of the country”. Libertarians generally would support a long list of individual rights and freedoms. They are generally less inclined to start wars, because they tend to have more relativist views. Ghandi, for example, would be considered a moderate libertarian. Anarchists are the extreme form of libertarian.

              The opposite of Libertarian is Authoritarian. Authoritarians would agree with the statement “the people must sacrifice themselves for the state”, or at least “the interests of the state outweigh individual rights”. Authoritarians generally prioritise policies that strengthen the overall position of their country, but not necessarily the rights of the individuals. Examples of authoritarians are Stalin and Hitler. These were, of course, the extreme form of authoritarian, also known as fascist.

              I think that you make a mistake in calling those opposed to the war as “idiot liberals”. I was born and raised in a very conservative part of North America, and am myself a social and fiscal conservative. Yes, I’m conservative even by Republican standards. I agree with most points in the Republican agenda, but I am utterly at odds with them when it comes to the Iraq issue. I’m certainly don’t fall into the “idiot liberal” category, yet I’m against the war. The majority of those opposed to this war are not your typical lefty peace activists.

              Also, the Bush administration, after 911 took the nation and made a giant jump toward “authoritarian”. Sadly, for the sake of national security, individual rights and privacy took a beating. Most of the changes were quite subtle. Not at all in accordance with the Spirit of America.

              As far as the accuracy of those quotes are concerned, I think that we should all be sceptical of information provided to us by certain sources. Need I remind you that the Bush administration was caught, on two occasions in the past moths, trying to pass off fabricated documents as evidence against Iraq. They literally lied to their “allies” in the UN. They also bugged and installed wire taps into the rooms of their Western allies. This type of dishonest behaviour is unacceptable. Imagine what the States would have done if they would have caught others lying to them. That alone would have been unthinkable, and grounds for serious repercussions, had it been any other country. This behaviour certainly does not promote credibility, instead it breeds scepticism.



              The U.S. did sell weapons to Iraq.
              Fortunately enough for our position, they were sold to Iraq 23 years ago during the Iraq/Iran war, and certainly would not be used during any altercation today (again, very researchable and documented).

              Furthermore, the weapons sold to Iraq by the U.S. were nothing that could be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, etc.). They were standard, short range, vintage 1980 munitions, which, if you'd bother to do some research, Iraq is still allowed to have for its own defense.

              Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction have been manufactured by Saddam Hussein's regime over the period of about the last 20 years, since the end of the Iran/Iraq war. There is speculation that some of them may have come from France, Russia, and China -- but that will have to wait to be proven/refuted until the end of the current campaign.

              The fact that these weapons were sold to Iraq over 20 years ago does not change the fact that the USA supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient. Mr. Hussein wasn’t any better back then than he is today, yet the USA needed someone to fight against Iran. Saddam served a purpose for the USA, so he was supported.

              You said that he’s been building up his WMD over the past 20 years. Your sources must be vastly superior to those of the CIA and the Israeli Defense Ministry, who both stated in the past year and a half, that Iraq does not pose a threat to it’s neighbours both in terms of it’s weapons arsenal and in terms of it’s aggressiveness. By the way, if Israel wasn’t concerned about Iraq, then we can rest assured that there was no threat.

              The balance:
              1. CIA says no danger posed by Iraq (as recently as 18 months ago)
              2. Israel says no threat posed by Iraq
              3. USA unable to supply the UN Security Council with any credible proof
              4. The USA essentially lying by presenting fabricated information to the nations represented in the UN
              5. All other arguments provided by the USA would justify a war against a number of other countries, including Israel.



              The fact is, a madman who has killed over 2.5 million of his own citizens has large quantities of Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of 17 United Nations Resolutions. Many of these are weapons more horrible than you could ever imagine.

              Chris, it is known that 5,000 Kurds were killed by Iraqi forces. I’m not sure where you came up with the figure of 2.5 million. You must be factoring in children who died as a result of the sanctions, or something.
              Israel’s current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was responsible for the killing at least 3,000 innocent refugees in Lebanon in the early 80’s. Israel has Weapons of Mass Destruction INCLUDING over 500(!) nuclear warheads (supplied by the USA in direct violation of UN). Israel has attacked more neighbouring countries than any other country in the Middle East over the past 40 years. Israel is in violation of over 30 UN Resolutions. So Chris, why aren’t you insisting that the priority should be to attack and disarm Israel first? Or at least next?


              That is a problem, and a big one at that. If the French and their friends, along with a select group of pacifist American pussies who seem to be genuinely convinced …..

              I don’t really understand why you need to refer to Americans who happen to be of a different opinion, like that. I hardly think that they are pussies. I think that it takes a lot of balls to stand up to flag waving authoritarian patriots and tell them that they are making a mistake. What ever happened to “the land of the free”? Or is it now “the land of the free, as long as you agree with me”?


              Maybe you should stop believing when you read in the vastly anti-war Swiss and European press.

              I certainly hope that we are ALL anti-war. Even those in favour of liberating Iraq are supposed to be anti-war, remember? Even Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell consider themselves anti-war. But they say war is a necessary evil in this case. You make it sound like being anti-war is a bad thing, Chris.


              You need to look past your blind hatred of America and realize that we are not the problem here

              Blind hatred for America? I’d be hating myself! I love America, I just resent the war. I think that several Americans may have a problem differentiating this. It seems that they can’t be criticised without thinking that they are hated by others. Sure there are some who hate America (think of 9-11), but certainly most Europeans don’t hate America. They just don’t agree with the USA on this issue. Actions speak louder than words: don’t forget many Americans are boycotting French and German products, but the French and Germans aren’t boycotting American products. Why you ask? Because Europeans don’t see why they should boycott a country’s products just because there’s a difference in opinion. Many Americans are a little overly sensitive in that respect. Chris, this isn’t about “us versus them”. 50 years of good relations can’t be undermined by disagreeing on this one issue. At least that’s how France and Germany see it, even if they are critical of the USA on this one issue.


              By the way, your "oil" argument is ludicrous, and has been discounted by virtually everyone involved with judging the economic impact of this war.
              Yeah, there are factors besides oil involved here, but oil nonetheless plays a significant role. Let’s not forget that the post-Hussein oil contracts went to American and British oil companies before the war even began! Secondly, did you notice which areas were first to be secured by the American and British forces? Yep, you guessed it: the oil fields in various parts of the country.


              Fact is, Iraq produces less than 3% of the world's oil. An almost insignificant amount.
              What, are you trying to mislead everyone here? Yes, Iraq only produces a few percent of the world’s oil supply, but way more importantly, their reserves make up over 10% of the total world reserves! Second only to Saudi Arabia.


              Iraqi oil is also much cheaper now, being sold at about 65-70% of market value illegally, than it would be after the war once another government is put in place, the sanctions are lifted, and it's able to be sold at true market prices.

              Illegal only if you’re an OPEC member. But only “idiot liberals” would support market regulation and price fixing, right Chris?


              Talk to you tomorrow, I’m sure.

              Comment


              • #37
                Emoticon check...

                :P

                Comment


                • #38
                  *
                  * *
                  * * *
                  * * *
                  * * *
                  *
                  *
                  *
                  Idiot Liberal or french....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    RE

                    Better yet a German
                    Cory Klimko
                    KSNA Photography

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      AC A340-500, that was an excellent post. That's the most articulate and comprehensive post I've seen by far.

                      I agree with what you said.

                      Others may simply crack jokes about it-But then again, they probably didn't read it properly.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yes, ..Nice "cut and paste" !

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Chris, I still owe you an answer to your posts, well here you go:

                          Originally posted by Chris Kilroy
                          LOL!

                          That's the funniest post I've read all day, Peter!
                          You're welcome, Chris, I am happy that I could bring some fun to you.

                          Firstly, let me state that I'm not going to ban you. I would never consider it. You are entitled to your viewpoint, however misguided, just as I am, however misguided you consider mine to be.
                          Having different oppinions is perfectly legal, and has nothing to do with being misguided, for both sides.

                          I do wonder, however, if you even read my previous post.
                          Yes, I did read it, in fact I read both posts of you, they are highly interesting and contain a lot of facts that so far most other posts did not carry.

                          There are at least four (4) U.N. resolutions which explicitly authorize the use of force and "whatever means necessary" to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Note that these resolutions are still in effect, by virtue of the fact that Gulf War I was in a 'ceasefire' agreement and never actually ended.

                          That does not even take into account the fact that there is no international law whatsoever that requires any military action to have U.N. backing. In fact, the only war in history which had the backing of the United Nations previous to this one was the 1991 Gulf War.[/b]
                          I am not aware of the exact wording of any of the UN resolutions in question, but always thought that it is the UN as a body, and not one of its members, even if it is its biggest and most important member, that is going to decide upon any action to be taken when one ore several resolutions are not being followed by anyone or all parties involved.

                          Other than that point, you attacked not one of the other arguments I made in my previous post.

                          You have yet to tell me how this war is about oil, why it is illegal, or give any supporting facts whatsoever to your assertion that this war is about economic gain -- all points which I refuted in my previous post.
                          This war is illegal because the USA started it without the express consent of the United Nations, who were still involved in diplomacy. Their weapons inspectors were engaged in the search for the WMDs, and requested proof from Saddam that they were destroyed. We will probably never get to see the answer, as the USA started war before the UN had finished its duty. Without an okay from the United Nations, the unilateral start of a war is a war crime, and would basically have to be prosecuted by the International War Tribunal. International Law has clearly been violated by the unilateal proceeding of the USA.

                          Instead, you bring up completely unrelated points, such as the apparent lack of a connection between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, which if you've followed what led up to this action you'll agree was not even close to being one of the principle reasons behind it.
                          Iraq is considered to be a danger to the USA, and for this reason, war was started. There is no proof, whatsoever, that Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, were involved in any way in the 9/11 events. Likewise there is no definite proof that Iraq or its dictator have had any ties to Al Qaida or Osama bin Laden. Both, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, can not really be called friends, and it is highly unlikely that there were any such ties that led to the 9/11 events in the USA. There is no proof of any such ties alltogether.

                          You have also not answered the question as to why you make this out to be about the United States of America, when we have 40+ partners engaging in this action against a man who has killed over 5 million human beings during his reign.
                          He may have killed over 5 million human beings during his term but probably not one of them was an American citizen. Therefore it can not be America alone who decides about peace and war on this planet. The 40+ partners, as you call them - most are just morale partners that justify the war but do not do anything - stand against 140 other nations of the UN that are against this war. This is a 1:3.5 ratio against war.

                          You say there is no proof of the accusations made against Iraq's regime by the U.S. and other countries, and this is where your entire argument fundamentally breaks down.
                          There is no proof that
                          - Iraq has any WMDs left
                          - Iraq has in any way anything to do with the 9/11 events
                          - Iraq is a threat to the USA (7,000 miles away)
                          As we all know the USA's assumptions were partially based on outdated documents, some dating back from the last Gulf War.

                          Simply put, we are not required to provide proof.

                          The proof is that all of these horrible weapons, admittedly, were possessed by the Iraqis at one point.

                          12 years later, after having twice expelled weapons inspectors from the country, Iraq cannot, or is unwilling to, provide credible proof that these weapons have been destroyed.

                          The burden of proof is on Iraq, not the coalition, to prove that they no longer have these weapons or the capability to produce them.
                          Yes, it is, but then give the time to let them come up with proof.

                          As outlined in numerous previous resolutions, it is not the job of weapons inspectors to wander aimlessly around the country on a treasure hunt looking for these weapons. It is up to the Iraqi government to provide full and complete cooperation (read: provide this information) to the inspectors.

                          Over 12 years and three attempts at inspections, it hasn't happened. Not once.
                          Yet, but this still is a UN matter, not a US matter.

                          I absolutely, 100% understand your opposition to war. I do not like war either.

                          But what do we do after 12 years, when every other possible solution to the problem has been repeatedly tried and failed?

                          Do we once again step back and allow this madman to continue sitting with his finger on a button ready to launch these things at a number of major cities in neighboring countries?

                          Or do we finally stand up and say "enough is enough" and get rid of this evil, sadistic, murderous regime once and for all?

                          I'm proud as hell to know which side I'm on, and I would be genuinely ashamed to support the continued killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, as your side does.
                          What you should do is comply to the United Nations, and let them decide. If they decide on war, then all is fine, but could not decide. They were simply overridden by your unilateral advance.

                          I would not be proud to be on the war driving side these days, but I am also not proud of the UN failing to its duty. But then again, the chance of suceeding was taken away from the UN by the rush into the war.

                          Now, Chris, as you are reading the above you may realize that I have said all that before in various other posts in this forum. It is therefore not correct to blame me on not attacking your posts.

                          Regards,
                          Peter

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Chris, are you still there?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The United nations as a body has become inneffective. their "weapons inspectors" always seem to be looking in the wrong places, and seem to just be having a good old time wandering about the desert on someone else's bill. if the UN was serious about this then they should have worded the resolutions to say that Iraq allow an unobstructed search of their country, and all records, or face the consequenses of military action. This is perfectly legal in most nations that recognise due process of law, as it pertains to search and seizure procedures (it is in effect a search warrant). But, alas, the United Nations chose to pussy-foot around the issue. The world knows, and especially Saddam Hussein, that the United Nations has no teeth, and cannot effectively enforce it's will, mainly because the United Nations has no military arm of its own. You can put a child in a corner for being bad, but will that make them change their behavior? As the Father of three, I say usually not. There must be some consequence, and the United Nations has blown enough smoke Their Resolutions have stated over and over that Iraq must comply or face military action, and after 12 years, I think that they have had enough time. A deadline was set by the United Nations for March 17th. Now I don't know where y'all work, but if my boss says this must be done by such and such a time, and I don't do it, I'm out looking for a new job..
                              the deadline came, and Iraq didn't deliver, so Saddam is gonna be unemployed real soon. If the United Nations didn't want military action just yet, then why set a firm date and relay it as an ultimatum?



                              And BTW.. we found his stash.. got'em by the balls.. and "see we told ya so"

                              just had to go there

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                raldrich wrote:
                                The United nations as a body has become inneffective. their "weapons inspectors" always seem to be looking in the wrong places, and seem to just be having a good old time wandering about the desert on someone else's bill.
                                Well I suppose you would have known exactly where to look, right? The USA, who insisted that they had "proof", had plenty of opportunity to provide the inspectors with the actual locations of the weapons and weapons factorys. This could have led the inspectors to those weapons (assuming they exist). Well the USA didn't provide the UN with any locations, even though they indicated a few months back that they wanted to. All that Powell managed to provide the UN with was 2 fabricated documents. I don't think that anyone took the Bush administration's claims seriously after those stunts (except Tony Blair, who at that point was probably wishing that he was someone else instead).



                                if the UN was serious about this then they should have worded the resolutions to say that Iraq allow an unobstructed search of their country, and all records, or face the consequenses of military action. This is perfectly legal in most nations that recognise due process of law, as it pertains to search and seizure procedures (it is in effect a search warrant). But, alas, the United Nations chose to pussy-foot around the issue.
                                You are oversimplifying things. The resolution is being interpreted differently by the US than it is by most other countries. Yes, it should have been worded more clearly, but don't forget that the USA played a major role in the wording of 1441. I also don't think that most of the Security Council members were expecting the US to be so gung-ho on going to war.


                                The world knows, and especially Saddam Hussein, that the United Nations has no teeth, and cannot effectively enforce it's will, mainly because the United Nations has no military arm of its own.

                                Do I need to remind you that the UN gave the go-ahead for the Gulf War in 1991. The UN gave the signal, and most of it's members responded by taking part in Desert Storm. Of course the UN can enforce it's will. They do however, try to use military action only as a last resort.


                                You can put a child in a corner for being bad, but will that make them change their behavior? As the Father of three, I say usually not.
                                Hope for the sake of your children that you never try to talk them into taking part in such a foolish war.

                                There must be some consequence, and the United Nations has blown enough smoke. Their Resolutions have stated over and over that Iraq must comply or face military action, and after 12 years, I think that they have had enough time. A deadline was set by the United Nations for March 17th.
                                That's just it. Most Security Council members agreed that the progress was good. No one says that the progress was perfect, but the situation in the opinion of most members certainly didn't merit military action. Add the inability of the USA to provide the UN with any concrete proof, and it's no surprise that no one wanted to go with the USA. Let's not forget, the Bush admin proceded to lie to the UN on two occasions.


                                And BTW.. we found his stash..
                                I certainly hope you're not referring to the alleged chemicals plant. That story was started by the Jerusalem Post and has not been substanciated by anyone since (including the Pentagon, I might add). That story has pretty much disappeared from pretty much all news providers, after it was shown to be unsubstanciated.

                                After seeing video of those poor demoralized American soldiers and engineers caught by the Iraqis, not to mention the pictures of the unfortunate Americans that have lost their lives, I certainly wouldn't say "got em by the balls". This is the worst scenario for the US militay since Viet Nam. I pray that it doesn't get any worse, but it will, seeing as that all of the urban warfare still lies ahead of them. Pray for peace, man. I don't want anyone to die, regardless if they drink Budweiser or smoke from the Shisha pipe.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X