Saddam & Protests

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 110
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    gelding:



    For the 1000th time.



    Iraq needs to be forcibly disarmed because they will not do it themselves. They are in violation of resolution after resolution and they have broken the cease-fire agreement that stopped Persian Gulf 1.0.



    Keep ignoring it, though.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 102 of 110
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by zKillah:

    <strong>



    I think the administration tried very hard, and is still trying very hard, to do this "properly". But that shouldn?t dissuade them from getting this done, should secretary Powell?s diplomatic efforts fail to bear fruit. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I've been mostly embarassed by what I consider the Bush Administration's 'strong-arm' tactics in foreign policy. It could be going more smoothly.



    Realistically the U.N. ultimately will bend to the US under most circumstances. It's not now because we haven't earned it (IMHO.) And this needs to be done with the U.N. to help it grow. If it'll ever be 'perfect' the U.N. needs the support of the US, not our disdain. If the world is ever going to grow up safely, it needs a mature U.N.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 103 of 110
    so g'rat, the UN is spending billions to move thousands of troops and equipement around iraq because it is not in compliance with the UN resolution that ended the UN action in the Iraqi-Kuwaitt aggression of 1991???



    oh, no, it's not the UN doing this but the US...i don't think the Iraqi have broken a resolution with the USA, have they?? just trying to get this straight as you have to tell me so many times....



    g



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 104 of 110
    [quote]Originally posted by thegelding:

    <strong> they are not a threat to the US....they have not attacked nor threatened the US...they did not bomb the twin towers...they did not bomb the federal office in Oklahoma...we are getting our oil from other countries...they don't have the ability to wage war against any country around them (hell, kuwaitt would kick their ass this time)...so why again???.....g



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Oh yes, we are back to the "...but Iraq has no WMD's" argument again. Square 1, as it seems... Anybody wonder if it is roundabout discussions just like this that happen in the UN as an explanation as to why nothing useful is ever accomplished there? Fine. You want to believe there is absolutely no WMD's in Iraq, go right ahead. It's your right to free thought, afterall.



    Regarding the justification for US build-up in the Gulf, it is clearly evident that the UN hasn't the fortitude to enforce its own sanctions, so a "new" sheriff has just stepped into town. The 1441 resolution has played its course, and it is time to act under its completion with or without the UN as a matter of principle. You may not find comfort in this departure from formality (UN resolution, US coalition action), but somebody who can respond will step up to the plate this time. The redtape rhetoric isn't going to fly this time (but maybe the UN could pass another supportless resolution that they officially don't like to be "shown up" by the US; or maybe 50 of them, yeah 50 ought to satisfactory; maybe also print-up some UN Disney dollars if they have the free time).



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 105 of 110
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    " as a matter of principle. You may not find comfort in this departure from formality (UN resolution, US coalition action), but somebody who can respond will step up........ "



    This is why we shouldn't. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 106 of 110
    [quote]Originally posted by thegelding:

    <strong>they are not a threat to the US....they have not attacked nor threatened the US...they did not bomb the twin towers...they did not bomb the federal office in Oklahoma...we are getting our oil from other countries...they don't have the ability to wage war against any country around them...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The one really really really important reason we have to stop not only Iraq but countries like North Korea, Syria, etc. is that they might not directly attack the US, but what do you think happens to all those weapons if someone waves some money in front of them? Iraq's weapons are a threat, and that's reason enough in my book that if all other channels for disarmament fail(notice that this does not oncflict with France's, Russia's or China's stance towards the situation), we have to take military action to not merely destroy the weaponry, but account for all of it first of all, find out what happened to all of it, and make sure no one else can get a hold of it, and whether anyone has yet.



    Terrorists want to detonate large bombs and weapons against us. They will use the path of least resistance to get these weapons. It's easier to buy them than to make your own. This is so fundamentally simple, and a lot of people are missing this point entirely.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 107 of 110
    [quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

    <strong>" as a matter of principle. You may not find comfort in this departure from formality (UN resolution, US coalition action), but somebody who can respond will step up........ "



    This is why we shouldn't. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    ...says you...but we aren't following "jimmac's book of world rules", fortunately.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 108 of 110
    [quote]Terrorists want to detonate large bombs and weapons against us. They will use the path of least resistance to get these weapons. It's easier to buy them than to make your own. This is so fundamentally simple, and a lot of people are missing this point entirely.<hr></blockquote>If that is the crux of the issue, then Pakistan, North Korea, the ex-Soviet Republics and whatever is left of Yugoslavia pose a much larger problem. Before Yugoslavia imploded it had the 4th largest Armed Forces and was a leading exporter of communist weapons technology. Semtex is a Yugoslavian Armed Forces gift to the world.



    <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.marash.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.marash.html</a>;



    Some fun for everyone who cares to read.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 109 of 110
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>If that is the crux of the issue, then Pakistan, North Korea, the ex-Soviet Republics and whatever is left of Yugoslavia pose a much larger problem. Before Yugoslavia imploded it had the 4th largest Armed Forces and was a leading exporter of communist weapons technology. Semtex is a Yugoslavian Armed Forces gift to the world.



    <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.marash.html"; target="_blank">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.marash.html</a>;

    Some fun for everyone who cares to read.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</strong><hr></blockquote>And let us not forget that Ygoslavia, when still communist, relied very heavily on American advisors . . . as they didn't want a 'Prague Spring' to happen to them . . .



    Don't believe me?!?!? My father was one of those advisors . . . even met Tito





    so, once again, America with fingers in the pie



    but not of so much consequence that time.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 110 of 110
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by cowerd:

    <strong>If that is the crux of the issue, then Pakistan, North Korea, the ex-Soviet Republics and whatever is left of Yugoslavia pose a much larger problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, not a larger problem, just more problems. I already said that these places were trouble. I'm not denying that these governments and places are trouble. That doesn't change the argument at all though.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.