Stretched in Iraq, US may return to UN

[PLATO]

Master Zen, I to have argued the resolution extensively as well as provided links many times. The resolution says NOWHERE in its contents that another resolution would be required for any reason. It DOES SAY that should Iraq be judged in breach, then serious consequrnces would follow. Now many of the diplomats after the resolution said that another resolution would be needed, but The Resolution DOES NOT SAY THAT ANYWHERE IN ITS CONTENTS. BTW, in "special" diplomatic speak, "serious consequences" is almost universally interpreted as military action.
Your second point about the new resolution establishing the occupying forces as sanction in no way implies that their presence was illigitimate before then. That is a horsesh1t argument and you know better.

Your third point that the UN is poorly structured is well taken and highly accurate. I have expressed my views there in many threads. I'm sure your familiar with them.
It is incorrect that the US blasts the US for being powerless...they blast the UN for the ineffective way it weilds the power it does have.

Lastly, Freedom in America does not mean blindly following a single world vision. What peace loving democratic country have you seen the "iron fist" used on? Or are you just feeling a little sorry fo murderous dictatorships today?

[Master Zen]

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Nope. Face serious consequences does not mean immediate war. The diplomatic lingo for war is "by all means necessary", phrasing which was not used in this resolution but was included in the draft resultion that the US/UK/Spain wished to be passed early in the year.

Seriously, do you think these three countries would be making a draft resolution over something so supposedly obvious? nope.

I'm not feeling sorry for murderous dictatorships. I am no fan of dictatorships dispite that seems to be the argument of the right-wingers towards the left. Simply put, I am not in favor of unilateral action on a certain dictatorship where there are dozens others screwing up with their countries that the world community, including the US, doesn't give a damn about. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. A heartless brutal dictatorship if there ever was one, yet one that receives billions in US military aid for the sole reason it is the largest country in the middle east which has no qualms in kissing the US's behind in all matters of middle east geo-strategy.

[DinoDoc]

I somewhat amazed that you would be willing to put the lives of the Iraqi people at risk just so you can prove some sort of esoteric point, Master Zen.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I somewhat amazed that you would be willing to put the lives of the Iraqi people at risk just so you can prove some sort of esoteric point, Master Zen.

He has proven that he wanted to put the lives of Afghani people at risk in the other thread. He really is too arrogant to talk with.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I somewhat amazed that you would be willing to put the lives of the Iraqi people at risk just so you can prove some sort of esoteric point, Master Zen.

And you, as usual, fail to address the point. BTW. it's not like I expect anything less...

(cya trolls )

/me disappears from the OTF

[DinoDoc]

You had a point?

[Kramerman]

his only points are to deliberately miss and dodge yours...

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why?

* DinoDoc is estatic someone remembers the original topic

Actually, I don't care enough about the issue to have formed any real opinion on it, but I was just trying to end the 10 page threadjack. It has been partly successful.