what will the UN do if......
what if Iraq starts destroying missiles, but only if the UN agrees to protect them from attack since iraq will be detroying what they call "defensive" weapons??
so, iraq (if they are smart) starts destroying missiles, the UN does not sanction attacks saying iraq is working to follow UN resolutions, the US and Britian attack anyway without a UN resolution, Iraq asks for UN protection from hostile attack.....
what does the UN do???
just a what if....i A) don't think Iraq is smart enough to go this route....B) don't think we are dumb enough to attack if Iraq starts destroying missiles....
i could be wrong about A or B....
iraq could be smart enough to destroy the weapons, but would they be smart enough to ask for UN protection??
i think we just may attack no matter what
[quote] President Bush said on Saturday that it would take more than the destruction of the missiles to persuade him that Iraq was moving sincerely and reliably to disarm. <hr></blockquote>
again...i hope i am wrong...but smarter people than myself are running the show, so we will see....g
so, iraq (if they are smart) starts destroying missiles, the UN does not sanction attacks saying iraq is working to follow UN resolutions, the US and Britian attack anyway without a UN resolution, Iraq asks for UN protection from hostile attack.....
what does the UN do???
just a what if....i A) don't think Iraq is smart enough to go this route....B) don't think we are dumb enough to attack if Iraq starts destroying missiles....
i could be wrong about A or B....
iraq could be smart enough to destroy the weapons, but would they be smart enough to ask for UN protection??
i think we just may attack no matter what
[quote] President Bush said on Saturday that it would take more than the destruction of the missiles to persuade him that Iraq was moving sincerely and reliably to disarm. <hr></blockquote>
again...i hope i am wrong...but smarter people than myself are running the show, so we will see....g
Comments
<strong>what if Iraq starts destroying missiles, but only if the UN agrees to protect them from attack since iraq will be detroying what they call "defensive" weapons??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iraq is in no position to set terms for their own compliance.
[quote]<strong>so, iraq (if they are smart) starts destroying missiles, the UN does not sanction attacks saying iraq is working to follow UN resolutions, the US and Britian attack anyway without a UN resolution, Iraq asks for UN protection from hostile attack.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would hope the U.S. will pull out of the U.N. entirely before any non-UN action against Iraq.
g
[edit]
This will go down as a UN action. War is coming to Iraq and it's going to be under the UN flag.
[ 02-23-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
really??
on a side note...what if Iraq destroys missiles and asks russia for protection??
<strong>but if they are destroying them at the demand of the UN and are still attacked by the US without UN approval, can Iraq ask for UN protection?? and will the UN give it?
g</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm sorry, but <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Yeah, I'm sure the UN is going to go to war against the US. Come on, we're going to attack in less than a month, with or without a new resolution, and no matter what Iraq does at this point. All the troops are there. The case has already been made.
I'm just curious as to what the UN does - I thought a few weeks ago that we'd have a majority for sure, but I don't think so anymore. It looks to me like the Security Council isn't going to approve a war, but we'll have a kind of in-between resolution proposed by the US next week. It could be pretty dramatic, especially if we propose a resolution without knowing for sure if it will get approval. It would be a poor precedent to have a resolution voted down but go to war anyway. It would be better to just do it without any new resolutions.
Can we just blow everyone into the Stone Age and start over?
<strong>g'rat....you think the US should pull out of the UN??
really??
on a side note...what if Iraq destroys missiles and asks russia for protection??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even though Russia has oil interests in Iraq, US had already promised that Russian interest will be kept safe. Russia would not want to anger the US as it still relys heavily on US for aid and trade.
<strong>g'rat....you think the US should pull out of the UN??</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not as a general rule, no. I am not of the "We should pull out of the UN now!" crowd.
I think we should before we go to war without U.N. sanction. Perhaps I will change my mind about this, a few people have said it isn't necessary and I will listen to their argument when that time comes. For now I think we should pull out or at least threaten to.
[quote]<strong>on a side note...what if Iraq destroys missiles and asks russia for protection??</strong><hr></blockquote>
No nation on this Earth is a match for the United States. The Russians are not that stupid. They are decimated and we have only grown stronger. They are not so stupid. I pray they are not so stupid.
<strong>If the US attacks without the UN, I would hope the UN would attempt to protect them. The US having a veto would obviously make that difficult, but that's just more support for the idea that no country should have a veto.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would require the UN to do something. Other than pass a resolution.
g'rat, if we pull out of the UN, do we come back in after the war?? do we still have veto power??
russia's not gonna get involved....i know that...but speculation is fun.....suppose saddam offered russia half their oil rights for protection....russia is much weaker than the US, but they are also much closer...and have tons and tons of nukes....hell, we won't fight north korea and they probably have less than 10 nukes max....russia has how many thousand??
anyways...we will go it...we will kick ass...rah rah rah...go team...
i am serious when i say this: when we go i hope the iraq people roll over, i hope few die on their side and none die on ours....
g
No one (from the West, at least) wants war. Anyone who thinks Bush or Cheney are just bloodthirsty has a messed up worldview. Peace is always best if it can be had.
sniff sniff...i love you guys....
g
Concerning the missiles, Iraq has to destroy them, the range exceeded the limit by 20 miles approximately. Saddam has no choice : he has to destroy it, or he will proove at the eyes of the world, that the inspectors are inneficient. In other way, he would demonstrate that under pressure, the inspectors have some results for disarming Iraq.
Personnaly i will prefer that Saddam start to disarm efficiently in order to save his ass (even if he merit to be sent to hell). I have no doubt that US will win easily this war, but i fear that all the muslims people will feel this victory has an humiliation. This will lead to more terrorism and to anti US-hate among these countries.
but i agree with you
nation building will be tough in the arab world
g
<strong>powerdoc, you are ruining my hug.....
but i agree with you
nation building will be tough in the arab world
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Geldman,
What RIGHT do we have to do "nation building in the arab world?"
Who the hell do we think we are?