"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


What? I didn't post an article. I want to see a link for the article you posted. I have a link but it is to my blog: http://www.glomar.net

I went there

Welcome to my all new website, that I created on my own.

brilliant

[Giancarlo]

Hey AH, what site did you go to? If you used your head for a minute, you would realize the old site is not important. Go to the blog.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
So when will the USA enforce the UN resolutions against Israel by military force?

Oh yeah - that's different

That's the beauty of the UN. The great powers get to pick and choose to their hearts content and it is all perfectly legal. That's the way the UN has always worked and the is how it will always work.

[Alexander's Horse]

lame answer - Israel can thumb its nose at the international community because the US protects it.

And guess which ME country really has got WMD? Not going to do anything about that?

[Jon Miller]

you can't actually do something about a country that really has WMD

Jon Miller

[techumseh]

Send in the inspectors!

[Geronimo]

There are a lot of countries that I couldn't care less about having WMD because I can't picture them selling them or handing them to any non state entity. This includes pretty much all of the declared nuclear powers including India and certainly Israel is a country that I would never expect to export it's WMD in any manner.


It would be a huge waste of resources to invade isreal to secure it's wmd. On the other hand if Iraq under saddam really had had WMD and if he had kicked out the inspectors again and if we had everything wrapped up in afghanistan certainly it would have made sense to invade Iraq to secure those WMD. Does anybody really think WMD would have been as safe in Saddam's hands as in isreals?


I don't see why governments can't pick and choose who they trust with WMD in the same way.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


If John Kerry got elected there would of been dozens of terrorist attacks because he insists on being weak minded, as yourself.

BS

[Kuciwalker]

Odin, you're hardly one to talk.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Does anybody really think WMD would have been as safe in Saddam's hands as in isreals?

It depends on wheather you're an Arab or an Israeli, now doesn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, it depends on whether your a poor, melodromatic troll or a reasonable person who understands the likelihood that the Israelis will launch their nukes, or give them to people who will launch the nukes, compared to the likelihood that Saddam would do so.

[techumseh]

Do you really think that the Arab "man on the street" feels more comfortable that Israel has the bomb than IF Saddam did?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Having read the actual resolution, sorry, but no. Authorization was given to remove Iraq from kuwait, certainly-but regime change in Iraq? NO. The fact is the UN can't authorize such an action anyways.

So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by techumseh
Do you really think that the Arab "man on the street" feels more comfortable that Israel has the bomb than IF Saddam did?

Do you really I care about what the "men on the street" think, or believe that to be an accurate evaluation of reality?

[Berzerker]

So, the UN couldn't authorise a regime change in Pol Pot's Cambodia? How quaint. How... useless.

And people go on and on and onnnnn about how the UN, or the UN's rules, are the end of discussion. End of discussion in what rose coloured world?

The UN Charter is an international treaty dealing with international affairs. The treaty's ratifiers including the US didn't want the UN to have the power to meddle in intranational affairs.