What will/should the UN do if they find that SH is still not abiding by demands set forth in the resolutions passed regarding the issue? Let's try to pretend that the US isn't banging on the door for war.

This link is the Resolution passed in '91 after SH surrender.

UN Resolution 641 (April 1991)

This link is the Resolution passed in Nov 2002 regarding SH's non-compliance with the above resolution.

UN Resolution 1441 (November 2002)

I've tried to read these documnets completely. The only consequences I can find are said something like 'If you don't comply, you will face strict consequences'.

What will the UN do if they have MORE non-compliance? Send SH another letter? Pass another resolution?

Respectfully...

They could always opt to become another League of Nations.

They way they are going, they are getting towards becoming the League of Nations

I find it very interesting that a number of people are commenting about not going to war with Iraq, but no one wants to comment (outside of becoming a League of Nations... ) about what the UN SHOULD actually do with SH and the situation in Iraq...

Hmmmmmmm....

Respectfully...

If a military strike was not an option, then surely only a policy of sanctions and containment would surfice?

(Hello 'A')

no one ever said military strike wasn't an option... I just wanted to take the US out of the picture for a moment... just looking for what the group here thinks are the best options for the UN if SH doesn't comply with the latest resolution...

should the UN recommend force or military action if SH doesn't comply?

Respectfully...

On the flip side of that token Computerguy, nobody ever said that a military strike is an option, either. Its always a good idea when considering war, to exhaust any and all peaceful alternatives before you start shooting people, IMHO. I don't suggest that war is never necessary, but containment is possible in this case without the number of casualties we'd be looking at if we went in with our guns blazing.

Perfect and permanent containment?!

For how long?
Rather than disarm Iraq must we monitor and close of the country and continue sanctions until Saddam is out of power? Who will take up such a responsibility the UN, the US? What about after Saddam do we go in then or what for the next government to try this again?

It is important to understand containment is not a permanent solution, the idea was to contain until Iraq disarmed but since that isn't happening the question is what to do now?

It gets to a point when you are no longer trying out new non-violent options but rather continuing the same process over and over again and expecting different results.
You know what they say about that...

I think the united nations will come to their senses and declare war on the iraqipeople only because their chief weapons inspectors keeps on proclaiming that iraq still hasn't provided enough evidence

Perfect and permanent containment?!

For how long?
Rather than disarm Iraq must we monitor and close of the country and continue sanctions until Saddam is out of power? Who will take up such a responsibility the UN, the US? What about after Saddam do we go in then or what for the next government to try this again?

You act as if this were somehow much harder to do and more expensive then starting a war, and carrying out the occupation, and rebuilding the infrastructure when whe are finished bombing it. How on earth is that better?

What about after Saddam do we go in then or what for the next government to try this again?

And why would we go in after Saddam? How is it our business or responsibility? We were not invited to make war...we are making it ourselves. We have no business there and no say in how they should carry on.

Actually war is a one time thing. War will cost us billions and billions of dollars i agree for that, But watching the country like we have been doing with our military airplanes in the "no fly zone" I think it will be more easier for saddam to again gain weapons. No country can watch saddam 24 hours. Sometimes your left hand dont know what your right is doing. Saddam will use this method of persuaision so he can gain the peoples trust in his country

Howdy folks,

Well I am new here but thought I would jump in and try to swim with ya's.

What will the UN do? Honestly? The UN will do whatever the USA wants them to do. More importantly they will do it and do it with a smile. All this posturing etc. coming from France, Germany and Russia is just blustering so their interests in the area will see them as doing their part to protect them. Some say SH must stay in power or France and Germany lose a few billion in assets and future oil deals. Russia just wants to be sure someone is going to pay her the 10 billion Iraq owes her. Otherwise shes pretty much game for anything.

The UN...it is just a place where small country's can feel like they have a say. When you get right down to it what has the UN ever actually done that wasn't initiated by one of the big 5? Yup you are right NOTHING. The UN was set up by the Big5 after WW2 in the hope of stopping tyrannical powers wherever they arise. Yet today there is as much if not more tyranny on the Earth than ever in it's history.

When has a small country ever influenced a decision the Security council made? Where are the teeth of the UN Dog? The Security council. The 5 permanent members are the teeth. The world needs to get used to the fact that the big 5 now run things. We have for 50+ years now, we will for another couple hundred probably.

So Again I say the UN will do exactly what the USA tells her to do. If Bush says look the other way and complain later that is what they will do. If Bush says, shut up and do your job they will do that. All this other nonsense of evidence etc. is just for show. Just to calm the fears of small nations that the US is on an imperialistic mission. The USA has never practiced imperialism and never will.

Someone said in another forum " It is funny that Europe practiced over 200 years of military colonialism i.e. Imperialism, left half the world in ruins when they couldn't financially support the colony's and pulled out. Then complain about the US trying to clean up their mess. It is almost like the family analogy. Europe represents the aging parents that are beginning to show the signs of senility while their off spring are taking over where they left off and learning from their mistakes. Now it is the children's turn to take care of the doddering old fools in their final days."

Thats statement caused me to stop and think. The UN is a day care center for misguided children of the European parent. We shall not nor should we allow misguided children determine the future of the world...


ok first attempt and I tend to ramble a bit. Mind is like a merry-go round I have to get it typed before it goes by or a new thought is taking over...hehe Doc says there is a name for my condition....Schizophrenia or something like that...

Aahz

Welcome to the board. As a republican i tend to agree with you. And you dont babble or tend to talk alot, we at the boards love it!

I agree no little country has ever inflicted any decision in the war. Of course they has their say and can cause some changes they cant stop a war, the UN is in AMERICA (in NY i think )

That is because, as I will explain, I am.

First of all the problems surrounding security.
It is much more difficult to prevent the spread of weapons with an uncooperative Iraqi government. They have the advantage in that they control the infrastructure and a couple hundred inspectors can't stop them. they were never intended to work with an uncooperative government, it leaves too much up to chance. Short of actually surrounding the entire country (which pretty much guarantees a war anyway) containment cannot be totally successful.
To illustrate the point:
"Missing" Iraqi Weapons
Illegal Weapons Sales
etc.

Second, the benefit of a respectable international law (if the security council can't deal with Iraq, they are delegated to only stopping destruction after it has started rather than preventing it) is not to be over looked Finally there is a conceivable end to rebuilding. Containment merely waits around for a cooperative government. The UN shouldn't hold it's breath.

You act as if this were somehow much harder to do and more expensive then starting a war, and carrying out the occupation, and rebuilding the infrastructure when we are finished bombing it. How on earth is that better?


I can tell you how it is better. In the first place this 'war' will not be a war. It will be an attack and that is all. The only way War will break out is if Saddam either pops a nuke or disperses bio-chem agents against Israel or US/British soldiers. Then there may be a war the likes of which the world will only see once...

But I digress....This will not be like the bombing of Berlin or Dresdin etc. This will be a series of very precise strikes and known targets and then a small invasion force in to capture Saddam much like we did in Panama. Then Saddam goes off to prison until he can be tried by a world court just like Milosvic. There will be very little loss of civilian life in Iraq. The occupation will be no more than a year. Then the UN should be able to handle it with Arab Un peace keeping forces. The new government will be US friendly. The savings on oil and security gained for the next 10 to 12 years will FAR outweigh the temporary cost today.

It seems you do not understand modern warfare very well. WE OWN THE NIGHT!!!

HOOAH!!


And why would we go in after Saddam? How is it our business or responsibility? We were not invited to make war...we are making it ourselves. We have no business there and no say in how they should carry on.

We were invited to War the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war is not over. Do you know what a cease fire agreement means? This isn't even technically a cease fire because those coward Iraqis quit shooting back and gave up as fast as they could. I believe it is on the books as a "Cessation of hostilities". Which just means WE decided to stop. This also means WE have no real need for anyone to approve an attack on Iraq. We told Saddam if he disarmed himself of WMD he could stay in power and we would not take him out. He has not lived up to his part of the bargain. Having that yellow livered Clinton in office for 8 years let Saddam gain even more power.

We did not start this war he did. We just wanna get it over with so we can stop spending money everyday watching this jerk. You wanna talk about cost what do you think we spend everyday just patrolling the no fly zones? We cant stop though or the Kurds are doomed. As are the Sheites etc.

Should we just let Saddam practice genocide? Did you learn nothing from the worlds experience with Hitler? Saddam Idolizes Stalin of all people. One of the biggest mass murders in history. Think about it ok...just think it through without emotion just logic. You will see the light I promise..

[quote=Aahz,Feb 3 2003, 04:44 PM] [QUOTE=Danya,Feb 3 2003, 11:51 PM]
It seems you do not understand modern warfare very well. WE OWN THE NIGHT!!!

HOOAH!!
We were invited to War the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. That war is not over. [/quote]
Believe me, I do understand and it makes me sick. But what you fail to take into consideration, and what will be the undoing of all of these plans, is that the rest of the world will not tolerate our new naked agression. Nor should they.

We will be called on it and if North Korea doesn't step up some other country that truly is a threat will eventually.

And the only ones who think the Gulf War isn't over are the ones trying to justify going to war even when it isn't necessary.

You just went on emotionally for quite a bit and backed it up with no sources. Interesting debate tactic.

Check out this thread, too

Howdy,

jaime I see no emmotion in my post....lots of opinion based on fairly good knowledge of our capabilities. being I am former military I do have a decent idea about our tactics in a situation of this nature. We are after a man this time not a country. The man is well guarded yes but not well enough. WHat sources need I state to support opinion? In America I am allowed to state same with or without support if I choose yes?


Danya,

It makes you sick that American forces can hot only what they want? It makes you sick that we have gone to the trouble and expense to develop the most precise weapons sytems the world has ever known? Why? Why do you reckon we have spent so much money etc? Could it be because we care about human life so much we will spend millions to only hit what we have to?

When one looks at war on an emotional level it is an ugly thing. To ad lib a great man, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing is worth war is much worse.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance at freedom unless made an kept so by men better than himself. HOOAH!! and Amen...

GBYA

Aahz

Don't give me that in America stuff. You know what I meant. In this forum we tend to give more credence to people who support what they say with credible links or life experiences. I appreciate you sharing with us that you were in the military. That helps.

hehe Roger that Ma'am...

Will keep that in mind when speaking of non military matters keep references at hand...


GBYA

Aahz

Now you get it (Welcome - it's great to have you here, btw)

should the UN recommend force or military action if SH doesn't comply?

I would say so. Without the backing of force there is no law right? But I think that all avenues should be looked into before we resort to war, after all, a lot of people are set to die, and is it worth so many deaths to bring down Saddam Hussein?

Personally I would say yes, and I would say so if I were to be fighting. BUT if I had to make the decision on behalf of others, I would want more than just the comfort of my convictions! I would require firm legal backing and the assurance of minimal civilian casualties.

Aahz,

I also have a military background, although not in the USA. In my experience, new weapons are not made to reduce civilian casualties, but to kill with greater efficiency. The idea that a smart bomb or a guided missile is some how safer for civilians is a mistake. No matter how 'smart' a munitions piece is, it is not capable of making a decision... at least not yet.

So I would have to say that the manufacture of more advanced weaponry is not a sound argument against war fare.
In any event, as General Schwartkopf is quoted as saying in another thread on this site, wars are not won by high tech weapons or aeroplanes, but by soldiers on the ground, so any consideration about civilian deaths will be made by the ordinary ground troops.

Thankfully, I believe we can agree that no soldiers are more likely to be cautious of inflicted unnecessary casualties on the Iraqi population, than the American and British troops. In that respect, the Iraqi's are indeed fortunate.

I will not presume to suggest that you do not understand modern warfare as you are clearly one of the leading military strategists of the new millennium. On the off chance that you are open to any opinions which are not your own, you might wanna check out this thread. I'd be interested in your take on the real situation. While I concede that both Panama and Iraq are "Not America", it might surprise you to find that there are marginal differences between them. For the reasons outlined in the above link, I suspect that the UN will be reluctant to indulge in any kind of military engagement with Iraq. I further suspect (like you, perhaps) that they won't even have to consider it - the US will be there well ahead of them.


Your editorial WE WE WE-ing all the way home is a bit beside the point. The war to which you refer is over. The yellow livered George H.W. Bush ended our involvement. That's what "cessation" means: it was not a "hiatus of hostilities". The only unresolved issues arising from that conflict surround the treaty between the UN and Iraq - which has nothing whatsoever to do with the US, despite your unilateralist fantasia. That would be the point of discussing the UN's options here.


I give up. So we can take out aspirin factories with such alacrity? Or bomb Chinese embassies with such precision??


Wow, your posts should come with a soundtrack! I'm a little confused here, though, Aahz. Is this Hussein guy some Stalinist monster stalking about the Middle East starting wars of conquest, practicing genocide, and threatening the doom of Kurds and Shiites - or is he some miserable creature, as yellow livered as a US President, seeking only to save his own pathetic skin? OR is he some figurehead of "evil" who can be molded to fit whatever is demanded by your current paragraph?

I have responded to the above because you seemed to preface all of your remarks by suggesting that the UN is a virtual irrelevancy and that it will do whatever the US tells it to do. If you are dismissing the United Nations out of hand and wish instead to discuss what the United States will/should do, then we should probably continue this in a different thread - perhaps the one I referenced above.


Welcome to the board, btw. I had a lover several years ago who used to go "HOOAH!!" every time he, er... reached a climax. While I found it fairly silly (and a bit unnerving after the first few times), you nevertheless bring back a few fond memories.

Wertz....TMI bro.

Darcaine

Moif,

It is funny how a man can bat .989 for every game of the year but one. All anyone remembers is the one game he struck out.

Actually smart weapons were part of what I worked on in the military. They are designed to take out specific targets. In fact some are designed to penetrate a target before detonation. The purpose was two fold. To lessen collateral damage and to reduce the number of aircraft required to destroy a target.

My reference was more to these folks that keep whining about the thousands of Iraqis that will be killed. I very seriously doubt that.

Also on another note we do actually have weapons that can almost make decisions on their own. Well kinda.. The pilot back on the ground can make a decision to or not to fire from a predator drone. Push button warfare bro it is just around the corner.

The most precise munition in our arsenal is the laser guided (fixed point) munition. For that to work properly a team of men must be on the ground and within line of sight of the target. However this munition has never missed to my knowledge.

GPS guided munitions on the other hand can and do miss on occasion.

Now a Cruise missile is capable of digital mapping which means it can actually match the terrain as well as a digital picture of the target building. Thus we hit exactly what we aim at.

When we say we can fly a missile through your bedroom window if we choose. We are quite serious...

This by default sir limits collateral damage. By default it limits civilian damage. That was my case..



Now for whats his name...Wertz yeah thats it...Howdy.


Leading military strategist? Nope just a tactician myself. Strategy is for the officers tactics was what we were all about..


No Iraq is not Panama congrats on learning your geography
The differences in the military objective between the two are minute at best. We are after a man not an army or country. I think (presumedly that is still allowed on this board) that Rummy has a snatch and scoot plan in mind for Saddam Hussein. Naturally it will fail if anyone else in the world knows it. Hitting a few radar bases on the way in then dropping in a small special forces crew should work as long as we know where he is. Snatch up Hussein and then let the UN set up a new government.


The UN is irrelevant. They have made themselves irrelevant. They do not back up their own resolutions. What power do they have if a little tyrant like Saddam Hussein can laugh in their face and do what he chooses?
You explain to me please just what relevance they have. Why should any nation listen to the UN?

What real purpose do they serve other than giving the small nations somewhere to complain? What have they ever done besides slow down aid and action on a global scale?

Very cute word play but it dont play here. You see I understand the language. Cessation of hostilities doesn't mean we are leaving, it doesn't mean the war is over, it doesn't mean anything other that we are going to cease forward progression of our troops. It just means a cessation to hostile action within certain parameters.

We did not sign a peace agreement or treaty or anything of those other things. Saddam didn't surrender obviously so it is a de' taunt. So like I said play your word games somewhere else. Most folks understand what the term means.

If the only problem is with the UN then why are American and British planes patrolling the no fly zone set up by the UN?


Ya know the UN would have squat for enforcement if it wasn't for the US and England. It would be funny as hell to watch the Un try to stop any military action in the world if the US and Britain sat out. LOL

See above....to Moif. Why speak about one miss and one obvious lie and ignore the hundreds if not thousands of successes? Just more liberal spin...come on that game has been played to death. I would say the hit rate for precision munitions is amazing. Yet the libs say it isn't good enough. Funny how virtually every war we have ever been in was during a democrats reign. Yet we republicans get labeled as warmongers. Strange that...

No don't be silly the quote was for folks like YOU!!! It is men like me that will spill their blood to keep people like you free. So that you can spit on our uniforms as we walk by, so that you can spout your liberal drivel from the highest treetops with impunity. Yes sir that quote is the solid truth about better men keeping you free.

Have you ever considered how a soldier feels? Have you ever thought about what it is like to lay there in a ditch with bullets whizzing over your head? Then asked your self WHY? Why do they do it? Sure for a few it is a job, an only hope for a career. For the vast majority it is something more. For the vast majority it is knowing that by laying there in that ditch some child somewhere will get a chance to grow up free. By laying there risking his life waiting for a break to advance, he will help a father achieve a life long goal of freedom for his family from oppression and torture. But most of all, most of all he does it because he knows if he doesn't hundreds or thousands, even just one American may die and for that he will give his life this day but he will take his enemy with him.

WE OWN THE NIGHT....HOOAH!!! (uhoh ggghguujonna nnnnnnnnnheed a newwww keeyyyyboarddd hehe)


GBYA

Aahz

Asprin Factory: ask Clinton about that one. He felt it was a threat

Chinese Embassy: That's what you get with out-dated maps.

Bad Info

Talk about silly. All these blanket statements about liberals directed to moif and moif has not declared himself as such, nor a democrat, nor an American for that matter.

Please avoid such blanket statements here. They detract from the real issues and an otherwise well argued post.

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance at freedom unless made an kept so by men better than himself.

That was soooo touching.

Who is the coward here? Not me. I'm not the one running around like a chicken with my head cut off...piling up all my weapons and shrieking we must kill Iraqi's right now before the 'mushroom cloud' hits. (That mushroom cloud thing was awfully dramatic don't you think? Condi Rice, Cheney, et al. were repeating that one for a week!)

You, my friend, are the coward in this instance by going to war with people who do not want it and can not defend themselves against us. Wooh go usa. BFD. Do you really think victory there will impress anyone?

I never said I was against war at all costs. I would fight to the death for my freedom to not sit still silently while my country murders people that have never done a thing to us.

Edited by Aahz...oh yeah it already says that huh?...um well ok then never mind.

Aahz

if you were watching Fox News Channel tonight, you would have seen part of the Republican Guards' parade & a particular video image of 2 republican guard soldiers with a Bazooka mounted on a jeep

Also, i wonder what those EMPTY chemical warheads were going to be used for....flowerpots?



How about fighting for the rights of the Iraqi people?

Don't push me*

Avoid blanket statements and this would not be an issue.

Let's gets back on topic:



*Edited to add that I prefer to deal with questions regarding the rules and guidelines to be shared in PMs so as to not derail topics

No I do not call anyone a coward unless their actions show them to be so.

I merely repeated what I found to be indeed a touching comment.

Calling me a coward would of course be kind of silly too..

Calling Bush a coward is certainly a stretch. Has it occurred to you that building up forces in the gulf is the only thing that will make Saddam Hussein comply to Un resolutions?

I suppose you don't trust Hans Blix or the other UN inspectors either right? We should do what just quit the sanctions bring everybody home and let Saddam do whatever he wants? Who in the area can stop him? He does possess bio-chem weapons. Call them what you want but released on Tel Aviv thousands will die. We KNOW he has these weapons. We KNOW he has used them. We KNOW he will use them again. The whole world knows these things no one denies them but Hussein.


Why do people want to repeat history? England, France, USA, Russia all ignored Hitler. They all just turned their heads and pretended he wasn't there. Then one day the BlitzKreig started.

Is it your idea to wait until there are thousands of dead Israelis? Jordainians? Iranians, Saudi's? Or what if Al Queda bought these chemicals from Hussein with a promise to release them in L.A. would it then be ok to go in and take down Hussein? Or what do we then sit around a camp fire and hold hands hoping the bad guys go away?

Give us a break listen to the case tomorrow, listen to Hans Blix, listen to the UN Nuclear agency. Stop listening to France. They have a whole lot more financial interest in Iraq than humane.

GBYA

Aahz

What will / should the UN do if they find that SH is still not abiding by demands set forth in the resolutions passed regarding the issue?

My thinking is that if the UN finds evidence, or is given evidence by Colin Powel that Iraq has violated the UN mandate then a military strike should be authorized.
But given the recent info from the British intelligence service, as well as the many doubts shared around the world about the need for military action, then I would imagine the UN needs far more than just a few empty shell casings as evidence on non compliance.

For me, the UN is the only body which carries the authority to issue such a strike. Should America go it alone and defy the UN, then I would look upon America as acting illegally.

I understand that many Americans are frustrated by the UN, and I am sorry they feel about it like that. But making the distinctions between 'us' and 'them' is neither accurate or wise. America is not divorced from the United Nations, but is in fact a key component and driving force of the UN. So claiming that 'they' (the UN) are not doing what they should, and America will go it alone if it has to, is tantamount to an international lynch mob mentality which I believe is far more of a threat to world stability than Saddam Hussein is.

Or in other words. Bringing down Saddam Hussein is not worth destroying the UN over.

But to return to the original question, then I believe that as long as Saddam Hussein is playing cat and mouse with the UN then he obviously has something to hide, so although I am in favour of giving the UN inspectors more time, I do not think they should only be given more than a month or so extra.

In all honesty, I do not believe Saddam Hussein is going to co operate now, or ever. He will continue to play for time, just as he always has. A deadline should be made.

Aahz,

There is no way of knowing what the future holds. For the British and French in the 1920's and 30's it was all but inconceivable that Germany would really wish to repeat the massacres of the first world war.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to say that they (the Brits and the French) made a mistake, but if you advocate that we attack every dictator who comes along, we would be in a state of continued warfare.
For example; should the rest of Europe also have attacked Franco? How could we know whether or not he was planning to invade France?

Now this is pure spectualtion but i believe that the unite nations should not involve itself in the affairs of the israeli-vs-palestine because it is not their cause. But if something major happened like a bomb in the capital i think the UN should occupy the country and force peace no matter the cause c

From Aahz Why do people want to repeat history? England, France, USA, Russia all ignored Hitler. They all just turned their heads and pretended he wasn't there. Then one day the BlitzKreig started.

History has more than one lesson. We already stopped Hussein aggression and therefore avoided repeating the lessons of Munich. However World WAr I was caused because not enough people thought through how devastating war could be. Many people thought it would actually be good for the economy and society yet it turned out to destroy the European economy and change the political structure of the continent. War = destruction. Engage in it only as a last resort. That is the moral of WWI.

From listening to the council so far, it sounds as they are becoming staunch defenders of the United State's evidence.

We will see what happens from here..

Sleeper

At this point they have a very basic right to live without fear of American bombs dropping on their homes, hospitals, schools, kids, etc.

YOU ARE NOT A HERO by bombing Iraq. Stop pretending this is for the good of Iraqi people because it insults my intelligence.

Sorry if I insulted you.

Who can stop him? From doing what exactly?

And if Israel in danger perhaps they should be the ones trying to attack Iraq. Then maybe they will stop killing Palestinians for awhile.

WOW... didn't think I'd have this many posts to catch up on readin in this thread... pretty good discussion...


Let me throw this in.... and then I'll offer my opinion.

Just setting a scenario, here...

Let's say the UN inspectors are given all the time they need, and continue to find chemical warheads (empty of course), and even find some things that have no doubt to their purpose (i.e. used in chemical and biological weapons) despite a reported "uncooperative" leadership by Iraq.

What is the UN's next step? And how long should the inspectors continue to find more "items" before SOMETHING is done. (Keep in mind that "SOMETHING" is not necessarily defined as "war") Should they pass another resolution stating that SH has not complied with the resolution passed in November? Should they recommend a "UN Alliance" to use force against Iraq to remove SH from power? Should they back out and let SH run his country as he see's fit?

My opinion is this...

According to UN documents, SH has not fully complied and has been "uncooperative" regarding weapons inspectors. He has not proven that he has disarmed in accordance with UN Resolutions.

If inspectors continue to "inspect" and continue to find what SH says he doesn't have that continues to prove that SH hasn't complied with resolutions, I feel that the UN should lead an alliance to remove SH from power.

My POINT is this...

If the UN allows SH to play games with them, in my opinion, they lose all credibility as a managing power of the world. (If they haven't lost their credibilty already.)

There ya have it, short and sweet.

Respectfully...

Now come on Danya Saddam Hussein has a record of invasion and atrocity. See Iran Iraq war, see Kuwait invasion. Why cant you see this? Are you just so anti American that you disagree with the entire world just so you can slam the USA?

Even France claims Hussein is a monster. Even his neighbors are afraid for their safety or they wouldn't have US bases there. Qtar for instance begged us to put a base there from fear of Iraq.

It amazes me how shallow many people that think like yourself are. You cannot look beyond what is right in front of you. "What has Iraq ever done to us?" That is one of the more childish things I have heard that side of the argument say.

It is folks like that which allowed Hitler to take most of Europe. It is folks that think this way that allow monsters like Stalin, Hitler and Hussein to exist.

Saddam hussein has killed more innocent Muslims than any other person in Human history. In fact Hussein has killed more Muslim's than died during the crusades by some estimates.

Yet you and your ilk just want us to let him be. Just let him gas the kurds and shi'ites etc. Just let him starve out those that dont claim to love him and praise him in the streets.

This is how the world should react to such things?

Did you see Colin Powell at the UN today? Let me guess to you it was all propaganda and we shouldn't believe it right?

Give us a break huh...the man is evil to the core. He has deliberately misled the inspectors and hidden things from them.

For the security of the world he must go. Exile is fine with us. dead is better either way he must go...


GBYA

Aahz

I love how you don't actually answer any of the questions, you just fling insults.

I have never in my life been Anti - American but thank you for insinuating that I was. I am simply able to look at us and see the truth in what we are doing and the truth is we are wrong.

I'd like it if you could provide a further explanation of what you mean by this if you have the chance - in the appropriate thread, of course, which is here: Anti-American, what's it mean?

Thanks Jaime.. I was going to quietly mention that this was a thread regarding how the UN should handle the situation with Iraq to both Aahz and Danya...

From what I've read, Aahz has made some very good points, points from a different perspective... points that I mostly agree with... just need to get them in the appropriate discussion..

Danya:


I'm not saying you fling insults Danya.. but I'm not sure that you have answered any questions with specifics other than stating something to the fact that US attacking Iraq is wrong.....

Respectfully...

There is no way of knowing what the future holds. For the British and French in the 1920's and 30's it was all but inconceivable that Germany would really wish to repeat the massacres of the first world war.


Well now isnt that exactly the point? Britain and France were so arrogant and sure of themselves they ignored all the evidence from Churchill etc.? Only to find themselves faced with virtual annihilation. Are not now France and Germany being just as arrogant and sure of them selves ignoring the warnings of Britain and the USA? Think it through man those who forget/ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The very formation of the UN was to stop such things from getting to this level. Yet the UN has done nothing without being dragged kicking and screaming to the table.

No we have no crystal ball. What we do have is the preponderance of evidence presented. He attacked Iran, He attacked and invaded Kuwait. He has been developing and hiding a WMD program waiting for the world to forget about him.

Rarely does the world get involved in Civil war. Only when that Civil war exceeds the boundaries of a nation or threatens a particular race, religion or people. Then and only then the world takes notice.

Had Hussein never invaded the smaller nation of Kuwait he would be the most powerful nation in the region bar none. Most likely the first and only nuclear power in the area.

Can you honestly say the world would be a safer place under such circumstances? Because if we do not do something very soon that is exactly what we will have.


GBYA

Aahz

Are you sure? What a first for this!

We ARE NOT planning to drop bombs on HOSPITALS & SCHOOLS. Maybe Saddam gets a kick out of doing that, but WE don't

As of today the UN should send a message to Saddam Hussein.

Dear Saddam,

We have tried to protect you now for 12 years. Unfortunately we can no longer support your regime. We would like to suggest that you take your family and relocate to another part of the world no later than Mid night Feb. 8 2003. Please see to it that the French and German oil deals are handed down to your successor before you leave. Also please deposit 10 billion US dollars in a Swiss bank account and forward the account number to Putin of Russia.
The USA has agreed to let you leave the country un touched if you will complete the aforementioned tasks as quickly as possible. Khadafi has offered you sanctuary however we do not feel it is your best interest to live there. The Muslim world is pretty upset with you Sadam. We suggest you avoid anywhere with a high Muslim population. The Hindus as well have expressed their opinion that you are not welcome in any of the Hindu Counties. The Christians of Europe will not allow you sanctuary either because they are afraid of the terrorist attacks you may bring with you and they had a bad experience or two with tyrants in the past they prefer not to repeat. So well Sadam as it turns out the only nation on Earth you are free to migrate to would be the USof A. We have included 5 one way tickets to New York City along with this note we hope you enjoy your brief stay...err I mean ummm your new life in America and do stay in touch.


Sincerely,
Gen. Sec., Amin




GBYA

Aahz

Danya...chill its all good....it is only my opinion you sound anti American. It is obviously not your opinion and since your opinion is much more important to you than mine why get upset?...

Words carry only the weight the reader chooses to give them. After all they are only words....

Is Saddam Hussein protecting the Iraqi people? Somebody has to, and we are doing it. We aren't bombing civilians purposely, geeze, you make it seem like we're aiming for them. When the war is over and you see American flags in parades being carried by Iraqi people, you'll know who to thank, George dubya. Not the UN the UN is only good for humanitarian aid, now that terrorism has evolved. The UN can't do what the US and most of Europe can.

CP

Regarding what the UN should do...they should do whatever is necessary to make sure war is justified before agreeing to it.

It *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off that while I spent my day off watching the UN reps give their speeches and listening to the reports Bush thought so little of it all that he decided to have lunch with Cheney rather than watch. Or so he says.