• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rules of Engagement

R

RavnShield

Member
I am confused about rules of engagement and declaration of war, maybe someone can clarify. Since saddam didn't directly instigate this conflict, how can we declare war and attack? I thought we are not able to attack unless we are attacked upon, ex: Pearl harbor, etc. Isn't this one of the reasons that we avoided all the cr@p in the cold war? Does the security of US supersede the rules of engagement? Someone enlighten me
 
I disagree with your statement that Iraq did not directly cause this conflict. Does the invading of Kuwait sound like a passive action on their part? Yes, this is still related to that action of his 10+ years ago.. they have no fullfilled their end of the ceasefire agreements after the Gulf War..
 
We're not going to declare war on them. We are going to attacked based on UN Resolution 1441 that gives us the authority to attack if they don't comply with inspectors. Which they haven't done.
 
Originally posted by: TheBDB
We're not going to declare war on them. We are going to attacked based on UN Resolution 1441 that gives us the authority to attack if they don't comply with inspectors. Which they haven't done.
Click to expand...

No, the resolution does not give us the authority to attack. It delegates that authority back to the UN security council, at which time the UN council will decide on a course of action.
 
Ok, if the UN decides, how can we justify our actions of going alone? I know we have backup form other nations but even if we didn't, we said we wouldn't stop
 
No rules of engagement. All options are on the table including armor-piercing rubberbands.
how can we justify our actions of going alone?
Click to expand...
It won't be done alone. Bush as bought out several nations and others have been tempted with the lucrative promise of future oil contracts. A few, of course, believe an Iraqi conquest is the "right thing to do".

A multinational consensus is preferred because it makes everyone feel better about doing something pretty bad.
 
Originally posted by: RavnShield
I dont get it, if we are making decisions independent of the UN council, why the he!! are we in it?
Click to expand...

Because the UN is full of idiots. But that doesn't mean we should just leave. The UN does a lot of good things and is sometimes useful.
 
Originally posted by: RavnShield
Since saddam didn't directly instigate this conflict, how can we declare war and attack?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you haven't been paying attention, or you're a new arrival here, on planet Earth.

Under U.N. Resolution 1441, Iraq was found to be in material breach of previous U.N. resolutions regarding disarmament. It warns that continuing these breaches of previous resolutions, or to violate the terms of the current one, will result in "serious consequenses." It does not require further action by the U.N., or the Security Council, for a member to take such action.

That said, before we start shooting, I think the Bush administration has to lay out convincing evidence why such action is required, now. It has nothing to do with whether we're right or wrong under the terms of the various U.N. resolutions. It has everything to do with having American citizens and the majority of the world with us if we do it. Otherwise, justified or not, we face continued strong anti-American sentiment and lack of any cooperation, politically as well as financially, in the aftermath.

As a final comment, I don't think Bush did himself any favors by authorizing any first use of nuclear weapons.
 
It is not the job of the UN to ensure the national security of any one country, including the U.S. (and UN supporters would be the first to acknowledge as much). Indeed, the goal of many UN members is exactly the opposite: to degrade American power and fill the resulting vacuum themselves.

Asking the UN to safeguard U.S. interests is like the quarterback of a football team asking the opposing defense to call plays for him. That is not sound foreign policy, it is madness.

 
Real good movie. SLJ owns. As far as Iraq is concerned, the above posts seem to have covered it. let's talk about the movie!
 
Thx for the insightful post...and to others, thx for the input to clear things up for me.
Haven't seen the movie, but read the book, very good!
 
Originally posted by: RavnShield
I dont get it, if we are making decisions independent of the UN council, why the he!! are we in it?
Click to expand...
Being IN the UN does NOT preclude the US from making decisions and taking action INDEPENDENT of the UN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top