Do you think the new US sponsored UN resolution will pass? And what do you think Pres Bushy will do if it doesn't?
- Thread starter JEDI
- Start date
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Why shouldn't the new one pass, it's basically the same as 1441 from what I heard. But it won't pass, hopefully saddam will not destroy those missiles, we'll call france and germany idiots on our way to removing saddam, the world except for france, germany, and russia will rejoice. That is how I see it unfolding basically. Bush Sr. won the first gulf war and still didn't win re-election, so to say this is a election campaign is just as moronic as your post.
KK
KK
It will not pass, the US will go ahead without UN support and no KK, most of the world will NOT rejoice as an overwhelming majority of the world is against a war with Irak at this point...
Next up is China invading Taiwan because they percieve them as a threat (possible links to whatever), UN support is no longer needed so it's all cool....
Next up is China invading Taiwan because they percieve them as a threat (possible links to whatever), UN support is no longer needed so it's all cool....
The US/UK resolution is an interesting trick. If the security council does not agree to it, it means those previous resolutions mean nothing and the UN is a joke. If they do sign, it means they agree Iraq must be dealt serious consequences(Force).
The German/French/Russian resolution asks for more time, but one only has to look at pass resolutions to see broken deadlines.
And today, Saddam might have killed support from france after they declared they will not destroy those illegal missles.
The German/French/Russian resolution asks for more time, but one only has to look at pass resolutions to see broken deadlines.
And today, Saddam might have killed support from france after they declared they will not destroy those illegal missles.
I think you got my point anyway, you do not seem all that stupid...
But i will change that to "Next up is China going to war against Taiwan because they percieve them as a threat (possible links to whatever), UN support is no longer needed so it's all cool...."
Sorry the UN has officially become a toothless debating club. Saddam is using the UN as a tool on the world stage.
No, actually he isn't... It will take time to convince the world (and it should) that the only way to disarm Saddam is a war...
The UN is worthless? Okey, you usually ask for solutions, so i ask you, what would be better? Is it ok for any nation to wage war on any other nation because they can and THINK it is necessary? Or is that up to the US and the US alone?
The UN in its current form is worthless. I agree there needs to be a forum for nations to discuss issues. But when such an organization cant back up its own statements, it becomes worthless. Quite frankly after 12 years and 17 resolutions, iraq should not be an issue. I firmly beleive that if the UN security council stood together, Iraq would be disarming peacefully right now. However, Iraq has been able to to split the council, and the UN becomes his tool.
A couple major problems with the UN.
1. Funding. The US provides 25% of the UN budget, plus the UN building itself. This gives the US much leverage on its issues that it thinks important. If the US were to leave the UN(a real possiblity right now), the UN would be very by this.
2. Military. Pretty much the same as above, except the US provides about 75% of the military force.
Until more equitable solutions are found in funding and enforcement of resolutions, the UN will remain toothless.
KK
Lifer
- Jan 2, 2001
- 15,903
- 4
- 81
Once Saddam is out with minimum casualities, do you not think that would be good? I know there will still be alot of people against what happened but if they protest they surely would look the fool. We needed to do the job right the first time long time ago, we didn't, and now we are paying for it. But I believe that this will all work out for the good in the end.
And what the hell is up with these human shields that went into Iraq, do they think that we are going to bomb around them. All I can say is nice not knowing you.
KK
And what the hell is up with these human shields that went into Iraq, do they think that we are going to bomb around them. All I can say is nice not knowing you.
KK
Just today Saddam has stated he will not destroy the missiles which the U.N. has deemed illegal. I might be going out on a limb there but I bet that's against the resolution and falls under the terms of consequences for not following the rules. What are those consequences? Bury iraq in paperwork?
We did not do it 12 years ago because we listened to the world and the UN. We will not make the same mistake twice.
1. What is the solution, a different way to pay for it? A percentage of the BNP is probably as just as it gets, almost all world funding is made this way...
2. Well, i cannot disagree there, but are really 75% of all UN soldiers American? or are they in fact US soldiers?
What you are basically saying is that there are enough countries who do not agree with eachother and therfore the US must act alone... that is pretty much like saying that the only way for the UN to become less toothless would be if everyone always agreed with the US, that is not going to happen...
Think about it for a second, if you were the leader of France or Germany, an overwhelming majority of the population don't want war, what would you do?
No, the consequenses are pretty clear... if the UN does not take that statement from Saddam seriously, they are stupid... We'll see...
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,787
- 6,347
- 126
One of the reasons it wasn't done "right" the first time was that the end result wasn't too attractive. That would be, who leads? There are 3 groups within Iraq: Shia Muslims(friendly with Iran), the Kurds(big headache for Turkey), and the tribe that Saddam is the head of(name eludes me).
1. Not sure what is better way to fund, but funding is an issue.
2. The US does all the heavy lifting for UN military actions, but very few wear blue shirts. The US does not like having our soldiers under command of the UN. I prefer this distinction.
If I were germany or france, I think I would be forced to vote along with the US,vote no or abstain. A veto only undermines the security councils ability to deal with nations such as Iraq.
There is a reason for the veto, but i somewhat agree, NO nation should have a veto, the only problem would be that a bunch of very small countries could easily get majority if the only way to count is the number, and if it is the population, china would be extremely powerful... there is no easy way around it...
So if you were the leader, you would rather do as you were told by another nation than to do what the people you are supposed to represent wants? If there wasn't such an overwhelming majority maybe, but as there is, i really don't think they have much of a choice...
Given a choice between being used a tool on the world stage by a 3rd world dictator and representing my country. I would have to vote for severe consequences against iraq non compliance. This would not be a matter of doing what the US wants, this would be a matter of doing the right thing. Doing the right thing keeps the UN a relevent organization. Taking oil contracts from iraq in exchage for a veto vote only makes the UN look foolish.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter