Do you think the new US sponsored UN resolution will pass? And what do you think Pres Bushy will do if it doesn't?

[KK]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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.

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?

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...

I think a leader should lead. Sometimes it isn't going with public opinion because most of the time public opinion is not relevent as they do not get the information that the government is getting. I can see where france's lack of commitment is coming from, I don't agree with it, but it's their right.

KK

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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.

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?

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.

Ok, so we're back to the start again huh... well, sure, it's all about the oil, for the ones who oppose the US of course, not for the US, no, the US is doing it all for the poor irakis...

Do you think that there could be another reason for their unwillingness to support a war? What you see as being used as a tool could very well be said about both French and Germany if they would bend over for the US, instead of doing so they took a stand, it didn't even matter that the US said that they are no longer allies if they oppose them...

I think they are showing strenght and guts, unlike so many other countries who simply jump when the US asks them to jump, they actually represent the people that voted for them...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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.

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?

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...

I think a leader should lead. Sometimes it isn't going with public opinion because most of the time public opinion is not relevent as they do not get the information that the government is getting. I can see where france's lack of commitment is coming from, I don't agree with it, but it's their right.

KK

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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.

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?

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.

Ok, so we're back to the start again huh... well, sure, it's all about the oil, for the ones who oppose the US of course, not for the US, no, the US is doing it all for the poor irakis...

Do you think that there could be another reason for their unwillingness to support a war? What you see as being used as a tool could very well be said about both French and Germany if they would bend over for the US, instead of doing so they took a stand, it didn't even matter that the US said that they are no longer allies if they oppose them...

I think they are showing strenght and guts, unlike so many other countries who simply jump when the US asks them to jump, they actually represent the people that voted for them...

I never claimed oil was not an issue. It is an issue, but not the only one. If it was only oil, we would invade canada, venuzuala and drill in ANWR.

Lets take a close look at the playing field.

Russia - Iraq owes russina more than $40 billion. Russia oil contracts with Iraq. Russia would also like sell oil the US. However, Iraqi crude is better and closer than Russian crude. Russia is probably also interested in US oil company developement in russia. Russia could have a lot to lose by changing of goverment in Iraq.

France - Currently has oil interests in Iraq. Has been the key player increasing the oil for food program. Also wants the EU to be as powerful as the US(but lacks the economy and military to back it up)

Germany - Also has much economic dealing with Iraq. Like France, it wants the EU to key player on the world stage.

China- no longer gets to sell weapons systems that are bombed once a week.

US - Removal of a tyrant that should been removed 12 years ago, but we listened to the UN and did not. Removal of this tyrant will allow us to remove our troops from saudi and kuwait and stop wasting billions every year in keeping them safe. This is a big step to a stable middle east. A stable middle east is good for a world that is dependant on oil. Putting a Democracy in Iraq will also greatly increase pressure for political reform in Saudi as well.

The world has a lot to gain from the removal of Saddam, and no one will miss him when he is gone.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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.

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?

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...

I think a leader should lead. Sometimes it isn't going with public opinion because most of the time public opinion is not relevent as they do not get the information that the government is getting. I can see where france's lack of commitment is coming from, I don't agree with it, but it's their right.

KK

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

Sometimes leading is going against the will of the people. Doing what the people want is not always the right thing. France and Germany are currently willing to do right the right of protecting a tyrant at the cost of the UN and NATO. The UN and NATO are far more important organizations that Iraq.

They will make their decisions and they will pay the price of what they think is the right thing.

 

[SuperTool]

NATO has outlived its usefulness, and UN is on the way there.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

And who decides what they should think is right or wrong? the us or themselves?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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?

Is it ok, or is it possible? Two different questions.

Those who can, do...
Those who can't, talk about it...

The United States has the miltary might to invade just about anyone. The most other nations can do about it is whine about it. For all the debates about what is legal and what is "right", the point being missed is that Bush does not need, nor does he require "permission" from the world to attack anyone.

It is better for politics and diplomacy for him to get it, so that is why he has asked and gone through the UN for all this stuff. But he can attack anyway without their consent.

Hopper

 

[SnapIT]

Charrison - this is pointless, what was once a discussion has turned into a "the US is right, everyone who opposes the US must therefore be wrong and doing it for shady reasons" argument from your side...

I have had this discussion with both you and others so many times before, it's boring and it never leads anywhere...

So... i'm out...

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

And who decides what they should think is right or wrong? the us or themselves?

Common sense would prevail.

KK

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Well, what i think is that a leader is a poor leader if he doesn't listen to the people he is supposed to represent... i think that both France and Germany believe that they are doing the right thing...

A poor leader is one who does not know right from wrong, and thus portrays these same views onto the people. In all seriousness, the france leadership is leading the blind just as saddam is. I guess you can say the same for the US too though, but I would rather be lead in a republic than in a dictatorship.

KK

And who decides what they should think is right or wrong? the us or themselves?

Common sense would prevail.

KK

Common sense would be that you should not go to war if it can be avoided... There are people who believe it can be avoided...

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Charrison - this is pointless, what was once a discussion has turned into a "the US is right, everyone who opposes the US must therefore be wrong and doing it for shady reasons" argument from your side...

I have had this discussion with both you and others so many times before, it's boring and it never leads anywhere...

So... i'm out...

Oh come on now, what else do you have to do?

Let's go back to the basics here, just the facts.

1 Iraq invades Kuwait
2 We push Iraq back and institute UN resolutions demanding that they disarm.
3 They agree, all aggression ends.
4 Iraq backs out of agreement
5 Pressure was place on them, inspectors back in country with new resolution saying they will cooperate.
6 They are not fully cooperating.

What should happen now?

KK

 

[TNTrulez]

won't pass but bush will go ahead and bomb

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Charrison - this is pointless, what was once a discussion has turned into a "the US is right, everyone who opposes the US must therefore be wrong and doing it for shady reasons" argument from your side...

I have had this discussion with both you and others so many times before, it's boring and it never leads anywhere...

So... i'm out...

Oh come on now, what else do you have to do?

Let's go back to the basics here, just the facts.

1 Iraq invades Kuwait
2 We push Iraq back and institute UN resolutions demanding that they disarm.
3 They agree, all aggression ends.
4 Iraq backs out of agreement
5 Pressure was place on them, inspectors back in country with new resolution saying they will cooperate.
6 They are not fully cooperating.

What should happen now?

KK

The UN should agree on something... a war against Irak or another solution....

I'm not even against the war if it is supported by the UN... If it isn't, well then, what stops other countries from doing the same thing?

I think that if the US goes to war without the UN, it will create a very dangerous situation, where any country can decide to wage war against another country that they percieve as a threat, without support from the UN... It is one step closer to chaos and more people will view the US as an arrogant bully...

 

[SnapIT]

Okey, now it's 9.30 am and i have to do some work...

SYL...

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Charrison - this is pointless, what was once a discussion has turned into a "the US is right, everyone who opposes the US must therefore be wrong and doing it for shady reasons" argument from your side...

I have had this discussion with both you and others so many times before, it's boring and it never leads anywhere...

So... i'm out...

Oh come on now, what else do you have to do?

Let's go back to the basics here, just the facts.

1 Iraq invades Kuwait
2 We push Iraq back and institute UN resolutions demanding that they disarm.
3 They agree, all aggression ends.
4 Iraq backs out of agreement
5 Pressure was place on them, inspectors back in country with new resolution saying they will cooperate.
6 They are not fully cooperating.

What should happen now?

KK

The UN should agree on something... a war against Irak or another solution....

I'm not even against the war if it is supported by the UN... If it isn't, well then, what stops other countries from doing the same thing?

I think that if the US goes to war without the UN, it will create a very dangerous situation, where any country can decide to wage war against another country that they percieve as a threat, without support from the UN... It is one step closer to chaos and more people will view the US as an arrogant bully...

I thought the UN agreed on something like 17 resolutions on this Iraq issue prior. Should we keep counting up to 100. I'm sure that would be fine to the countries opposed to war. Nobody likes war, but sometimes it's necessary. I would not mind if the UN would be dissolved, as they can't seem to enforce anything. What good are they if they are not respected? Have to ever heard the story about crying wolf? You start spouting off resolutions one right after the other without any substance to them, no one is going to abide by them.

KK

 

[B00ne]

Since the US is the only country in the world backing (Iam talking about ppl here not governments) a war at this point Bush will not go ahead and attack Iraq now. Even he will not dare to give other nations with territorial wishes the "go ahead" sign, since that would be what he would be doing by using his illegal attack first doctrine.

If Saddam will not destroy his samuk(sp?) missiles, the resolution will pass and the fireworks will start in about 2 weeks - when that happens I think I support it too, although with a heavy heart

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT
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....

China would need a serious navy to invade, but i guess you missed that part.

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 the US is doing that, Saddam on the other hand is using the UN to extend his time here

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: everman
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?

No, the consequenses are pretty clear... if the UN does not take that statement from Saddam seriously, they are stupid... We'll see...

 

[Moonbeam]

Makes no difference who you are
We'll blow you to yonder star
All we want is war war war
Got to have our war

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Makes no difference who you are
We'll blow you to yonder star
All we want is war war war
Got to have our war

Roses are reddish
Violets are bluish
If it wasn't for Jesus
We'd all be Jewish

 

[Jeff7]

I don't know if it'll pass, but I don't think Bush really cares what the UN says. If the UN suits his purposes, it's good. If not, he'll just go ahead without their approval.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I don't know if it'll pass, but I don't think Bush really cares what the UN says. If the UN suits his purposes, it's good. If not, he'll just go ahead without their approval.

The UN became irrelevant to the US as soon as Bush came to office. Bush is only going for a second resolution to help out Tony Blair who is seriously f%$^ if one is not obtained.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bush is fully prepared for a resolution to fail, and it won't make a bit of difference to him either way. This is not a resolution aimed at Saddam, but rather at uncooperative members of the UN.

Grasshopper had a point in saying the US could invade just about anyone it liked. Bush ought to understand what that means and how to use the power of the US in ways other than military. The now infamous axis of evil speech is a good example of what not to say. Oh, it played well at home, but Kim Jong is at least in part concerned about it, and I believe is one of the reason he is acting in such an asinine way. Iran too was making overtures towards the US, and if you recall, was one of the few countries there which had demonstrations in support of us after the WTC attack. Bush threw away a rare opportunity to reach out to people in the middle east in favor of a club. Several Iranians I have met since 9/11 wonder why Bush calls them evil when they wanted to support the US. Now they are re-evaluating just what America is and what it stands for. Not good, but that is what Bush asked for. Yes we can kick their ass, but uprisings against our empire (because if we are about kicking ass then that is what we would be in practice if not in name) will not help domestically. Bush's attitude is going to be responsible for several things, most of which are not good.

1) Countries are going to seek insurance in the form of nuclear weapons. Iran is a case in point. NOT against Saddam, but the US.

2) I see a day of 3 superpowers. The US, Euro/Russia, and China. Cowboy antics on the part of Bush (and people who like this and urge him on as many do here) will accelerate that process, particularly Europe and Russia. Europe has what it never did before. Common currency. That irrevocably binds them. Russia will eventually become tied to them too, simply for geographical and economic reasons. Russia has a lot of it's oil that will come on line over the next decade, and Europe could be it's best customer. China will quitely grow. China does not have to be loud mouthed, like the (to them) ephemeral US. As far as they are concerned, China always was and always will be.

Where does that put the US? In a more (not less) hostile world. Less secure. In the long run less free, because many will look to the Ashcrofts of the world as our saviors after a next serious attack. Chirac said the right thing but to the wrong person. He should have told Bush to shut up.