Originally posted by SLY
Dude , why haven't we seen the US forcing Saddam to make some political corrections ?
The only thing we've heard was ORDERING Saddam to resign & leave ... And it doesn't make any sense, cuz everybody know he would never take such an action since it would hurt his fu*king ego.
Why haven't we seen demands of democratic elections under UN supervision instead ?
Why do they ONLY speak of war?

A). Actually, the message being sent to Saddam is essentially "Comply with the UN resolutions completely and fully or we WILL kick your hind quarters."
B). Name a single alterior motive for going to war with Iraq that couldn't be attained [u]much[/u] more cheaply IF a peaceful resolution were possible.

And tell me , which is more dangerous on the UN's authority & future , the US attitude or the Iraqi attitude ?
At least , Iraqi officials (I don't mean to defend them of course) show respect to the UN when they speak.

The US is atleast being honest about it's position. Iraq has been telling bald-faced lies all along and still expects the UN to take them seriously. Now THAT is disrespectful.

The sad fact is that in the UN today, there isn't the political will to enforce it's own resolutions, therefore it's made itself irrelivent. France, Germany, and Russia's governments want to hold onto votes so they can stay in power (and keep a few billion dollars in sales of Iraqi oil too), and a lot of other governments resemble Iraq's just enough to make the idea of regime change a scary proposition.