No matter what the outcome of the UN resolution voting, the fact remains that taking no action will indeed prove to be worse than to fight. While the so called united nations beat the dead horse of diplmoacy, Saddam is and will continue to emass his WMD's. I cannot believe that the world will again let such atrocities as in <a href="http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle"; target="_blank">WWII</a> happen again before action is taken. President Bush was correct in saying that Saddam's regime is a cancer, there are no if's and's or but's about it. The sooner he is removed, the sooner we can all move forward.
I also wanted to comment on those, primarily democrats, who are so overly concerned with the economic costs such a war would bring upon us. Again, the cost should be a moot point, our economy will recover no matter what. However, the untold costs of leaving things as they are may prove to be unrecoverable.
If the US is as irresponsible in Iraq as we were in Afghanistan, then yes people have a reason to be worried. Not only does our chicken-shit afraid of the politics of war military nature kill more civilians than it should, it's so inefficient that it lets people like, oh, Osama Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora.
With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.
<strong>If the US is as irresponsible in Iraq as we were in Afghanistan, then yes people have a reason to be worried. Not only does our chicken-shit afraid of the politics of war military nature kill more civilians than it should, it's so inefficient that it lets people like, oh, Osama Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, Afghanistan is a lot worse off now than it was before we took out the Taliban!
Oh wait, it's better now. Bunge make things up to back a point he consantly loses? NEVER!
[quote]<strong>With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Accidents happen and Saddam being exiled is a good way to avoid war.
<strong>If the US is as irresponsible in Iraq as we were in Afghanistan, then yes people have a reason to be worried. Not only does our chicken-shit afraid of the politics of war military nature kill more civilians than it should, it's so inefficient that it lets people like, oh, Osama Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora.
With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's outragegous. No other country in the world makes the efforts we do in terms of preventing civilian casualties.
Now we are into condemning the military? Desperate, bunge.
In only three out of 26 shooting wars involving U.N. member nations has use of force been authorized by the United Nations -- the Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 conflict in Afghanistan, according to the council.
In all three instances, the United States sought U.N. backing for military action that it led.
Only 3 of 26 "shooting wars" have been sanctioned by the UN. All 3 of those were brought up by American presidents named Bush.
Now we are into condemning the military? </strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean the military that tortures captured enemies? Nah, I wouldn't condemn them....
We did a poor job in Afghanistan because we're afraid of fighting. So instead, we lob indiscriminate bombs that kill more civilians than we would if we put discriminating troops on the ground instead.
The U.S. is afraid. That's why we drop bombs. It's not the best way to preserve civilian life.
In only three out of 26 shooting wars involving U.N. member nations has use of force been authorized by the United Nations -- the Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 conflict in Afghanistan, according to the council.
In all three instances, the United States sought U.N. backing for military action that it led.
Only 3 of 26 "shooting wars" have been sanctioned by the UN. All 3 of those were brought up by American presidents named Bush.
Arrogant and unilateral indeed. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I was too young for the korean war, i supported at 100 % the 1991 gulf war, but i have more problems with the today management of Iraq. Bush admin claim too much , that he will go to war before asking his opinion to UN : it looks unilateral.
When Chirac said some warning to countries like poland it appears as a joke, but when US said something, because it is the only superpower of earth, it does not sound the same way. Thus each wording coming from the US are very important, and others countries and public opinion are very sensitive about it. Perhaps it's stupid it's like that.
When America asks for international support and UN sanctions it looks unilateral? Do you think that's a problem more related to perception than reality?
When America asks for international support and UN sanctions it looks unilateral? Do you think that's a problem more related to perception than reality?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's more a problem of perception. There is nothing wrong to ask for international support and UN sanctions. But when you give the impression (false? ) that whatever the UN will say that you go to war it looks unilateral.
Would you also say that France putting pressure on many other nations to agree with its stance is unilateral as well?
Chirac telling Eastern Europe to "shut up", actively trying to get African nations on his side and saying that they will "under no circumstances" support force?
Is this not unilateral as well using the definition applied to Bush?
Perception? When you conduct yourself in such a way that so many of your traditional allies - governments and especially the citizens - dislike you so much that they want you to fail, that's a reality. If we had a competent president this current disaster (and anyone who says it's not a disaster has their head in the sand) never would have happened.
Comments
THEY WANT TO KILL BABIES!
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>They want to kill babies, Scott, didn't you hear?
THEY WANT TO KILL BABIES!
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh yea and the fluffy puppies too.
-general 'buck' turgidson
I also wanted to comment on those, primarily democrats, who are so overly concerned with the economic costs such a war would bring upon us. Again, the cost should be a moot point, our economy will recover no matter what. However, the untold costs of leaving things as they are may prove to be unrecoverable.
With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.
<strong>I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
-general 'buck' turgidson</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, you can't fight in here... this is the War room!
<strong>If the US is as irresponsible in Iraq as we were in Afghanistan, then yes people have a reason to be worried. Not only does our chicken-shit afraid of the politics of war military nature kill more civilians than it should, it's so inefficient that it lets people like, oh, Osama Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, Afghanistan is a lot worse off now than it was before we took out the Taliban!
Oh wait, it's better now. Bunge make things up to back a point he consantly loses? NEVER!
[quote]<strong>With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Accidents happen and Saddam being exiled is a good way to avoid war.
<strong>If the US is as irresponsible in Iraq as we were in Afghanistan, then yes people have a reason to be worried. Not only does our chicken-shit afraid of the politics of war military nature kill more civilians than it should, it's so inefficient that it lets people like, oh, Osama Bin Laden get away from Tora Bora.
With our recent history I wouldn't be surprised to find us accidentally bombing schools while Saddam rides out his final years in luxury on the coasts of North Korea.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's outragegous. No other country in the world makes the efforts we do in terms of preventing civilian casualties.
Now we are into condemning the military? Desperate, bunge.
In only three out of 26 shooting wars involving U.N. member nations has use of force been authorized by the United Nations -- the Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 conflict in Afghanistan, according to the council.
In all three instances, the United States sought U.N. backing for military action that it led.
Only 3 of 26 "shooting wars" have been sanctioned by the UN. All 3 of those were brought up by American presidents named Bush.
Arrogant and unilateral indeed.
<strong>
Yeah, Afghanistan is a lot worse off now than it was before we took out the Taliban!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What the hell are you talking about?
<strong>
Now we are into condemning the military? </strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean the military that tortures captured enemies? Nah, I wouldn't condemn them....
We did a poor job in Afghanistan because we're afraid of fighting. So instead, we lob indiscriminate bombs that kill more civilians than we would if we put discriminating troops on the ground instead.
The U.S. is afraid. That's why we drop bombs. It's not the best way to preserve civilian life.
<strong>
Accidents happen....</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might be the most irrelevant, childish thing I've read in AppleOutsider/Fireside Chat.
<strong><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/sprj.irq.un/"; target="_blank">America the Unilateral</a>?
In only three out of 26 shooting wars involving U.N. member nations has use of force been authorized by the United Nations -- the Korean War, the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 conflict in Afghanistan, according to the council.
In all three instances, the United States sought U.N. backing for military action that it led.
Only 3 of 26 "shooting wars" have been sanctioned by the UN. All 3 of those were brought up by American presidents named Bush.
Arrogant and unilateral indeed.
I was too young for the korean war, i supported at 100 % the 1991 gulf war, but i have more problems with the today management of Iraq. Bush admin claim too much , that he will go to war before asking his opinion to UN : it looks unilateral.
When Chirac said some warning to countries like poland it appears as a joke, but when US said something, because it is the only superpower of earth, it does not sound the same way. Thus each wording coming from the US are very important, and others countries and public opinion are very sensitive about it. Perhaps it's stupid it's like that.
When America asks for international support and UN sanctions it looks unilateral? Do you think that's a problem more related to perception than reality?
<strong>powerdoc:
When America asks for international support and UN sanctions it looks unilateral? Do you think that's a problem more related to perception than reality?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's more a problem of perception. There is nothing wrong to ask for international support and UN sanctions. But when you give the impression (false? ) that whatever the UN will say that you go to war it looks unilateral.
Chirac telling Eastern Europe to "shut up", actively trying to get African nations on his side and saying that they will "under no circumstances" support force?
Is this not unilateral as well using the definition applied to Bush?
<strong>
But when you give the impression (false? ) that whatever the UN will say that you go to war it looks unilateral. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately I don't think it's a false impression. I do believe Bush will go to war with or without the U.N.