What RIGHT do we have to do "nation building in the arab world?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
?We?? Who are those you are calling ?we??
As for the right to do ?nation building in the Arab world?:
The same right that victory and history had bestowed upon the Allies (mainly the USofA, in this case) to redo Nippon and Western Yoorp after 1945, and they did quite a good job at that I might add.
[quote]<strong>Who the hell do we think we are?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as mentioned above, it depends on whom, according to you, ?we? are.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>Of course they want war. Not for war's sake, but because they want to get rid of Sodom. They'd prefer that, at this point, Sodom doesn't cooperate.
<strong>I think that's cynical. No way do they want to send people off to die. Nor do they want to hear the inevitable "baby killer" rants from the media.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think it's cynical too. Oh wait, do you mean me and not them?
I think they (Rumsfeld and the other hawks in the admin.) made a judgment a long time ago that he needs to be taken out. I think they're right. I just think it's naive to believe that the goal of this diplomatic maneuvering going on right now is to "get Sodom to comply." That POV sounds like them peace protestors or them French. The Bushies believe Sodom has already lost his chance. The goal is to build support for the war, period.
Note that it's just in the last couple of weeks (since the Feb. 15 peace protests if I'm not mistaken) that they've been using this "no one wants war" and "war is always a last resort" and "we hope he complies" rhetoric.
Here's the text of the new resolution. It seems to be worded in such a way that it's not saying "now we're going to war," but it's saying "Iraq has failed to follow 1441." It seems to me to be a war resolution without really being a war resolution. [quote]"The Security Council:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,
"Recalling that in its Resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
"Recalling that its Resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,
"Recalling that in its Resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution would constitute a further material breach,
"Noting, in that context, that in its Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,
"Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its Resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,
"Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,
"Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
"Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
"Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
"Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002),
"Decides to remain seized of the matter."<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>Geldman,
What RIGHT do we have to do "nation building in the arab world?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
?We?? Who are those you are calling ?we??
As for the right to do ?nation building in the Arab world?:
The same right that victory and history had bestowed upon the Allies (mainly the USofA, in this case) to redo Nippon and Western Yoorp after 1945, and they did quite a good job at that I might add.
[quote]<strong>Who the hell do we think we are?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, as mentioned above, it depends on whom, according to you, ?we? are.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>Of course they want war. Not for war's sake, but because they want to get rid of Sodom. They'd prefer that, at this point, Sodom doesn't cooperate.
<strong> They'd prefer that, at this point, Sodom doesn't cooperate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's cynical. No way do they want to send people off to die. Nor do they want to hear the inevitable "baby killer" rants from the media.
Regarding the thread title:
"What will the UN do if....." the answer should be
d*ck.
Which is exactly what they've been able to do up until this point.
<strong>I think that's cynical. No way do they want to send people off to die. Nor do they want to hear the inevitable "baby killer" rants from the media.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think it's cynical too. Oh wait, do you mean me and not them?
I think they (Rumsfeld and the other hawks in the admin.) made a judgment a long time ago that he needs to be taken out. I think they're right. I just think it's naive to believe that the goal of this diplomatic maneuvering going on right now is to "get Sodom to comply." That POV sounds like them peace protestors or them French. The Bushies believe Sodom has already lost his chance. The goal is to build support for the war, period.
Note that it's just in the last couple of weeks (since the Feb. 15 peace protests if I'm not mistaken) that they've been using this "no one wants war" and "war is always a last resort" and "we hope he complies" rhetoric.
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,
"Recalling that in its Resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
"Recalling that its Resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,
"Recalling that in its Resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution would constitute a further material breach,
"Noting, in that context, that in its Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,
"Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its Resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,
"Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,
"Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
"Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
"Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
"Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002),
"Decides to remain seized of the matter."<hr></blockquote>