Resistance against US War on Iraqi is on the rise

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I am not defending the administrations "drive to war".

Yes, I'm just supporting the administration's threat of war. haha haaaa

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ah, the only iffy one was the attack on Afganistan, as by the time we attacked, there was no current agression from theat country. Oh well, too bad for them.

Iraq would be the poster boy for the problem of defining aggression.

We can even throw in the preemptive assaults Israel has done over the years.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"What's your opinion straw man?"

You created him. Argue with him yourself.

I think straw man is a good nickname for you. I'm just asking you to clarify your position. Can't do it, can ya?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Administration has made noises about attacking Iraq inspite of that, even if Iraq fully complies.

Anyway, Bush isn't calling the UN's bluff. He's calling Hussein's.

They are both bluffing. Just like Clinton did when he threatened force against Haiti. Sadam has already said he would comply with UN demands. It seems like the ball is in his court. However you look at it Saddam agreed to let the inspectors in as soon as Bush threatened force. Let's hope that the threat is all that is necessary.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I am not defending the administrations "drive to war". I am defending the administrations drive to call the bluff of the UN. And that is what Bush has done. If Saddam yeilds like he said he would then there will be no war.

As ever Lincln, the US is not asking just for the return of weapons inspectors wthout condition, but also of a host of other demands, whih include things like liberalizing the government and stopping the oppression of different ethinc groups and so forth and so on, so, what powell says notwithstanding, jst letting inspectors in won't resolve the issue.

As for 'calling the UN's bluff', the UN is already punishing Iraq for non-complience with the UN resoltions: its caled the sactions regime. The argument Bush makes is that somehow iraq has become a 'imminent', or at least, 'mmininent enough' threat to demand military action upon it, not just sactions. That is an argument i don't buy one bit, but that's the argument for going to war that the prez makes. The less imminent iraq becomes in the news, the less support the prez. gets, though most americans wil still jus shut up and do as told.

[Lincoln]

You can have your flame war without me Tandy.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Correct, just like every other country in the world. Every signatory to the UN agrees only to use force in international relations to stop foreign aggression, only. Israel's terrorism problem results from its refusing to deal fairly with the native inhabitants of its land.

I'm glad you agree that you think Israel can defend itself against foreign powers, including Syria, Iraq and the PA. Well maybe not he PA just yet.


I think what all this has done is finally prove the UN as being a sham. I hope that all those here that still believed in the UN can now bury it. Because it means nothing and is apparently a waste of our money if all the resolutions mean nothing.

[Sprayber]

Is it me or are many of those that have blasted the UN sactions in the past now saying that they must be allowed time to work. Now we must spend more time starving the Iraqies instead of getting rid of the source of the whole problem.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by GePap


As ever Lincln, the US is not asking just for the return of weapons inspectors wthout condition, but also of a host of other demands, whih include things like liberalizing the government and stopping the oppression of different ethinc groups and so forth and so on, so, what powell says notwithstanding, jst letting inspectors in won't resolve the issue.

As for 'calling the UN's bluff', the UN is already punishing Iraq for non-complience with the UN resoltions: its caled the sactions regime. The argument Bush makes is that somehow iraq has become a 'imminent', or at least, 'mmininent enough' threat to demand military action upon it, not just sactions. That is an argument i don't buy one bit, but that's the argument for going to war that the prez makes. The less imminent iraq becomes in the news, the less support the prez. gets, though most americans wil still jus shut up and do as told.

Do you think that the minority ethnic groups should be oppressed? And the UN "punishments" are a joke and I might say cruel because they cause unending suffering to the people of Iraq. But I agree that the threat is probably not imminent.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You can have your flame war without me Tandy.

And you can continue to find silly ways to ignore and evade my questions... straw man...

[chequita guevara]

One of the purposes of the UN is to prevent war between the superpowers. Of course, there is only one superpower at the moment, but both Europe and China could easily become superpowers if they put they mind to it (and China is).

The UN also does a lot of good through its NGOs in alleviating suffering in the 3rd world, through food distribution, medical programs, and education. Also, a lot of trade agreements are worked on in the UN. It isn't merely a debating room and Security Council. And as GePap points out, the UNSC is enforcing its will upon Iraq through sanctions.

Also, the PA is not a foreign power to Israel. It is an internal opposition. Anyway, the PA isn't the one carrying out terroracts against Israel. That would be the formerly Israeli-funded organization of Hamas and occassionally Islamic Jihad.

[orange]

i almost went to this, but my alarm didn't go off and I overslept. I'm kicking myself for it now.

[GePap]

The UN works just as it is intended, and Americans should know that better than anyone else:

The UN is a group for states, with state sovereignty being the primary aim: That this contradicts with other modern beliefs, like individual rights, is meaningless to the Un mission. The fact that great powers can slow the porcess for thir won benefit was also put in be design: Otherwise israel woul have long ago faced greater consequences for ignoring UN resolutions.

The UN does great work around the world- since most of that work happens in poor states not mentioned everyday in the newschanenls is why people get such a distorted view of the organization. The UN has done more on international disease, hunger, poverty, family planning, whic would have never gotten done without it. The UN is meant to exist to avoid war- not to avoid proliferation or enforce human rights. thus, its wrking right now, to stop war between the US and iraq, unless something trully appalling happens.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Is it me or are many of those that have blasted the UN sactions in the past now saying that they must be allowed time to work. Now we must spend more time starving the Iraqies instead of getting rid of the source of the whole problem.

No, what he's saying is that the UN is already punishing Iraq. I don't know what GePap's stance is, but I am opposed to sanctions.

Here's what I think would be a good idea. Turn control over all Iraqi ports of entry over to the UN. Let the UN handle customs, and remove the sanctions.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anyway, the PA isn't the one carrying out terroracts against Israel.

Actually, they are one of the groups conducting attacks on Israel.