WayneTN

This would possibly make it look like the U.S. is out to conquer the world and we're not. But, I agree. I would like for other countries to be free and decide their own ways to operate. Hopefully, they can then reach a stable situation.

The U.S. may seem stable, but it's only been inexistence for a little over 200 years. That's not very long in the scheme of things and not very long compared to lots of other countries. Let's give it 1,000 or 1,500 and see how things are going.........

WayneTN

WayneTN

Bete lapin! Les trix sont por les enfants!

spextar

What an ignorant f**k comment. What makes you think USA can just go ahead do it? Force??

spextar

How about the fact that about 15% of the ground transportation fleet in USA is manufactured by Renault (MACK Trucks)?? Should we stop buying things that were transported in a MACK truck?

Vlad

Ahem... so now, when USA says f**k you to UN and all...

Can India go and "bring freedom" to Pakistan? Mean bomb it to hell... Because they don't like Pakistan at all...

Can Russia take Baltic republicks back? Because it's in strategic interests of Russia?

And can Egypt take Israel? Because they are so much bigger...

I don't really see why not... They'll be able to refer to US example afterwards...

kakey

The thing that will amuse me is that all the people supporting the US in this action on this forum will be the same people ranting when another country does it because it is OK for the US but when County_02 does it, it will be an aggressive act of war!

Don't get me wrong, I personally think it needs to be done and wholehearted agree with it ... I would however prefer that people drag their heads out of the sand and see the action for what it is.

Does it need to be done? I beleive it does.

Is the US giving the UN the finger and doing what it wants anyway? Yes it is.

Does the US have any right to dis other countries that are not willing to give the UN the finger and join the US? No

Why? Because a few months ago the US was telling everyone they had to toe the line cause the UN said so.

If you are going to break the rules then take responsibility for doing it, do not pretend you are not and for pities sake do not get pissy at the rest of the people that are actually obeying the rules.

Regards,
Kevin

Kraigman

What rules? The UN doesn't enforce any set of rules. As an entity, it has no power. It is only as strong as its collective ability to rise above partisan politics. It is for the most part incapable of doing so.

By the way, the 'rules' associated with the cease-fire signed by Iraq in 1991 were repeatedly broken and followed by utter inaction. The truth of the matter is that the UN is utterly ineffective in enforcing its own mandates EXCEPT when the US calls for and leads a coalition.

According to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, this war is entirely 'legal.'

How would the world have reacted had we gone to war with Iraq following Saddam's attempted assassination of George Bush Sr.? Is that a 'reasonable' provocation?

"No War For Oil" - bah! Then the French and Russians should be carrying signs that read "Peace For Oil." The rhetoric spewed by the leaders of countries which oppose this action make statements by the American adminstration pale in comparison.

I respect your right to oppose this war. The boundaries between right and wrong become somewhat vague when one is attempting to measure intent verses an actual physical action. The outcome and repercussions of this war are still an unknown.

I, for one, however, do not wish to wait for a "smoking gun" - in the form of an outbreak of anthrax or smallpox in New York City, or a nuclear blast over Tel Aviv.

Now despite all of this, I am still very uneasy. I do not consider myself to be 'pro-war.' I feel that, unfortunately, this war is inevitable. Be it now or a decade from now. I am in agreement with George W. regarding this belief.

Why should we wait for Saddam to acquire a greater capability to wage war? His intent to do so has already been proven by his actions. He has invaded two sovereign nations in the last two decades. AND his inactions. He has completely and brazenly ignored the terms and conditions set forth on the battlefield in 1991. The conditions which allowed for the continued existence of an Iraq under his dominion.

Funny how some folks in some of these so-called enlightened European nations are portraying America as the villain here - and poor little Saddam as the innocent un-deserving victim.

I, for one, don't believe the world should wait for a WoMD to be unleashed on an unsuspecting city in a time of so-called peace before taking action. I'm not sure that a war is the 'proper' way to 'disarm' a perceived threat.

I also feel that perhaps we should ask the Iraqi's what they think once they are in a position to answer truthfully without fearing for their lives?

To me, this is one of those events that will be judged by history. In the meantime, I am holding my breath...

Zspot

-Well thought out post Kraigman-

jplvr

It took 3 pages, but someone finally posted my basic thoughts.

I refrain from talking about politics further until I've been here a little longer.