Originally posted by kingdavidOriginally posted by Raskolnikov
...The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action)...
Then why don't you quit the UN,since it's not serving your interests and there's no point in being in an organization that doesn't serve your interests?
And don't tell me it's coz you pay 25% of the UN's budget and it wouldn't survive without you.
I don't advocate leaving the UN, but a powerless world body serves nobody at all. If Iraq is allowed to ignore the UN, than anybody is allowed to ignore the UN by default as the UN has destroyed it's own authority.
[b]Have you ever noticed that the second the US tries to stop "throwing our weight around" we're accused of being "isolationists" and not "pulling our weight in the international community."
Oh,so you go to war so as not to be seen as being isolationist?Get real.
So the world [u]says[/u] you're isolationist?So ****ing what?
The point is that you can't make everybody happy, no matter what. For that reason, one (or a nation) should always do what one feels is right.
Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume."
The gulf war was not about Iraq having WMD.It also wasn't about terrorism.It was primarily about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait,the gulf wouldn't have happened.
Stop trying to connect things that are unrelated and make it look like it was the deal all along.
They are completely connected. Listen; the terms ending the Gulf War were that Iraq had to disarm itself of Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons and weapons programs, submit unconditionally to weapons inspections, and PROVE that it has no such weapons. How has Iraq come even close to this? It hasn't. Hans Blix, a UN apointed, non-American, has said as much.
You know I found it a bit funny when some time last year CNN started talking about "The Unfinished war".How come they never talked about any unfinished anything between the time the gulf war ended andlast year.
Cheap propaganda trick that even an international relations novice like me can see through.
A). CNN's main focus is selling advertising. To do this they have to get ratings, and to get ratings you have to show programming that people are interested in. If you see that as sinister, then so is virtually all television and radio programming.
B). They've been reporting on Iraq steadily since Iraq invaded Kuwait, I've been skimming the TV channels for quite a while now, I know.
Osama bin Laden (as far as anybody knows) never had any WMDs and Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure (thanks to the Soviets and decades of civil war). There was never any reason to use nukes in Afghanistan. Iraq has infrastructure, and therefore nuclear weapons may be an effective deterant. Remember when I said "I don't know how smart an idea this works out to be, but that's probably what Bush is thinking"? That's why. Or are you just skimming and nitpicking where you think you have a leg to stand on?
The point I was trying to counter was your basically trying to imply that nukes will make Saddam wet his pants.
They won't.
I didn't say they would, I said that's what Bush hopes.
[qote]What they'll do is hurt the already very hurting Iraqis.And Saddam doesn't care about those.[/quote]
So tell me again why you're defending him?
Maybe you're fine with the idea of a half million Iraqis dead due to sanctions and a negligent murderer as a leader,I am not.
Now that's a below the belt punch you're taking.
I'm not fine with the idea of even one person starving(and aside:the world today is producing enough food to feed everyone.The distribution is the problem.But that's another issue).
Without Saddam and without sanctions Iraq would have plenty of oil wealth with which to buy food. The point is that while the international community does nothing to remove him people suffer and die. In this instance, inaction is murder.
Your removing Saddam from power is not a guarantee that the people of Iraqi will be fed and free.How free are the people of Saudi Arabia?
Are the people of Germany, Japan, and the Philippines free? Yes. Has the US invaded Saudi Arabia, removed one government and put another in place? Nope. "Apples to oranges."
But you don't see those people starving out your window, so I guess it's a matter of "out of site, out of mind."
Like I said,cheap shot.
To accuse you of being racist or "Anti-American" would have been a cheap shot, I'm trying to remind you that while the world does nothing, people are dieing.
Originally posted by kingdavid
[b]War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.
Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.
And I'm very proud to be like that.
Just like Gandhi.
And Mandela.[/QUOTE]
Gandhi and Mandela faced different power balances and ethical questions. For instance, the Palistinians need to apply these tactics, in the context of Saddam Hussein, inaction plays into his plan perfectly.
Raskolnikov
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
Guitar Tricks Moderator
Careful what you wish for friend
I've been to Hell and now I'm back again
www.GuitarTricks.com - Home of Online Guitar Lessons
