He did do what he said he would, as corroborated by inspectors in 1998. By that line of reasoning, we should be invading Israel anyday now. They have committed more overt UN violations than any other country in the alliance since 1968 (32).
Quote by Red: History repeats itself in Iraq. We have already won the war, so cannot lose it. Neither can we lose or win this occupation. Occupations are inherently unwinnable. In time we will simply quit because it is in our best interest to do so. Better sooner than later, I say. If we learned any lessons from Vietnam it was to either go in with everything you've got and win it quickly with overwheming force (Kuwait, Panama, Grenada) or you pound them hard with airpower and never get your ground troops entangled (Libya, Kosovo, Afghanistan). The recipe for disaster is to send in an inadequate force limited in what they are allowed to do, fight the enemy's preferred guerrilla war instead of our high-tech AirLand war doctrine, and order them to occupy a country where the population hates us and doesn't want us there (Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq). ------------------------------------------------------------------- ??? Does this apply to Germany and Japan in WWII? Occupations are unwinnable? If you quit whatever it is you quit you are not a winner, ever! I have no problem with overwelming force, I think we should be bombing and killing plenty in the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran and Syria. I think we are way too nice to these countries, also our neighbors to the north and south, borders and policies of that sort. Recipe for disaster? Ok, so we have an inadequate force in Iraq with an Iraqi population who hates us. I didn't know you have a military background to access the situation. I've heard you say we needed more troops there and now you always want to bring them home? Just one Question, Since the Iraqi population hates us and doesn't want us there, Where in the heck are the Iraqi armies and police force coming from that we are training. Is that like a few good men or something? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaos, Your comment about Isreal and their UN Violations, I think its rediculous! Isreal hasn't used chemical or nuclear weapons on their neighbors, also they should be able to defend themselves since their Arab neighbors want them dead. They haven't shown any aggression against their neighbors, they always are attacked and have to defend themselves. Are you a UN fish or nut who believes it? Is the UN the law of the land? I say in the case of Isreal and the USA, no, In the case of Iraq, yes, any countries that are a threat to their neighbors or who attack for selfish gain should obey some kind of law to maintain some kind of law in the world. I will admit that it isn't perfect but neither is the world we live in including you and me! Your comment on Saddam, if you are correct then why did he continuously kick out the inspectors after 1998?
Terrible logic. You're flip-flopping back and forth between WMD's and UN violations. The bottom line is, if you think that UN violations by themselves are enough justification to invade, it's useless rhetoric to dismiss those committed by other nations. Wow. You can't just pick and choose which cases the UN may or may not be valid. That is simply self-serving nonsense. It's either valid, or it ain't. Not 'sometimes' and 'sometimes not'. That reasoning threatens the integrity of any assertion that you claim is supported by the UN. Beats me. Ask him. But the inspectors claim that he was in substantial compliance with UN Resolution 686 by that time.
pay attention. read closely, i said: "we stopped fighting because saddam agreed to obey them, i expect them to be obeyed." the key phrase is "stopped fighting" if we "stopped fighting" with israel because they agreed to behave, then yes i would support war with israel. i dont really care about un violations. i care that we want saddam to do things and he doesnt do them. so screw him, he is dead. over and over i am saying this: we should have taken baghdad in 91, we didnt, and we made saddam promise to be good. he wasnt. instead, he paid suicide bomber's families. " To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. " - bush whether the "commitments" saddam agreed to were thought up by the UN or by your mom is of no relevance. he agreed to them to save himself, and i think we should hold him to it.
i am happy to pick and choose which un mandates i care about. some are stupid, some are not. if the us agrees with some actions the un takes, then fine, and if others are stupid, so what? if the un passes a resolution that says murdering children is bad, that is great, i support that. but if they pass some stupid resolution that says the united states cant do whatever they want, i dont support that. where is the problem. so it is "sometimes" and "sometimes not". if it wasnt, we might as well be the united states of the UN.
I've been through this 'cease-fire' nonsense probably a half a dozen times with you already. I'm not doing it again. If you need a refresher, just re-read the first thread about the DSM. Thanks for illustrating my point; that is, your UN crutch is little more than self-serving rhetoric, and is, therefore, shaky justification at best. If you denounce the entire orginization, you cannot select which rules you would like to acknowledge that only fit your agenda without being a bonafide flip-flopper. Wrong. If it is 'sometimes' and 'sometimes not', then it is 'the united states of the UN'. If we can pick and choose which resolutions that we want to enforce, then it would seem that we are claiming that the UN is subservient to us.
sure, i guess i am a flip flopper in the sense that i dont always agree with the UN. do you, or are you a flip flopper like me? right, the UN should be subservient to us. we know what is best for the world, they don't. we are better than every other member of the un, and much better than them as a group.
It's not simply 'don't agree with the UN'. It's about you only agreeing with them when it's convenient for you, while simultaneously calling for the total destruction of the entire institution. Your mouth has two sides and you've successfully managed to speak out of both at once.
if you say so, but it seems perfectly normal for a person to agree with some things and not others. i guess that is convenient for me. we can even put "convenient" in quotes if you would like. as a libertarian, i would expect you agree with me that the UN is stupid and we should quit dealing with it entirely. here, read what your precious party says: http://www.lp.org/media/article_102.shtml but because i am a flip flopper i have agreed with a few things the un has done. as you can imagine, my being a flip flopper is sarcastically "convenient" and i feel quite bad about it. i have a friend who lives near the UN, he really likes the neighborhood. the UN agrees and likes the neighborhood too. but the weird thing is my friend and the UN agree on almost nothing else. i shall call him "'convenient' flip flopper". i am a moron.
