Did the UN fail?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of whether the UN failed, doesn't anyone find it totally remarkable that Saddam deliberately chose to fight the United States rather than capitulated to 1441 or to our last minute ultimatum?

Oh Please Ned, the US was the one who never believed anything the Iraqis did, whatever step the Iraqis took to disarm the US dissmissed it like that with no proof to the contrary. The Iraquis weren't stupid, they knew that whatever they did the US was going to attack them so why give in when they were to fight anyway?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Don't be naive.

I'm the naive person now? Please tell me what communist party you were referring to, plain and simple. Be specific please. You have no idea what you are talking about, just blasting out whatever excuse you have to counter arguments you know you can't deal with.

[GePap]

Ned: opur last minute ultimatum was for him to leave power..that for him was worse than death. Why would he ever have done it?

As for not doing what he was asked to do in 1441.... we will see just how much he could actually have done.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Gsmoove, the day I see UN membership removed or suspended when a nation fails certain minimum standards of democracy or human rights is the day I stand up and cheer for the UN.

And why not kick out a country which has installed dictatorships? That is not a good reason for kicking a country out?

[Kramerman]

Syria became his ally. Turkey was and is a NATO ally. Jordan was also his friend and ally. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were enemies

I know this

Saddam's problem was US protection of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He therefor directed his diplomacy, such as it was, in trying to get us to leave. Once we were gone and our relations with these two countries were at a very low levels, you can be assured that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would become part of greater Iraq.

The US would always be protecting them, it was just a matter of Saddam obtaining enough WoMD to hold the US and another coalition at bay, so he could conquer and occupy his neighbors with virtual impunity.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


I'm the naive person now? Please tell me what communist party you were referring to, plain and simple. Be specific please. You have no idea what you are talking about, just blasting out whatever excuse you have to counter arguments you know you can't deal with.

As someone said here before, Che will inform us of the details in due course. Let's ask him. He is proud of the achievements of the communist party.

Just a note: You raised the issue about protests without attribution.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
Regardless of whether the UN failed, doesn't anyone find it totally remarkable that Saddam deliberately chose to fight the United States rather than capitulated to 1441 or to our last minute ultimatum?

It is totally remarkable, not to mention a good reason for the arab street to see him as a hero. Standing up to the US to the very end while most arab governments seem spineless in their eyes.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen


And why not kick out a country which has installed dictatorships? That is not a good reason for kicking a country out?

I reiterate:

What you are doing is simply ignoring all that the UN has done well, and just mentioning it's failures.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Syria became his ally. Turkey was and is a NATO ally. Jordan was also his friend and ally. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were enemies.

Actually, Syria and Iraq under Baath rule never liked each other, which is why Syria backed Iran during its 8 year war with Iraq, and sent troops to oust Saddam from kuwait.

Kuwait and SA were Saddam's biggest bankers during the war with Iran, since both saw Saddam as thier shiled against Iranian revolution. You don;t lend tens of billions of dollars to your enemies.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kramerman
The US would always be protecting them, it was just a matter of Saddam obtaining enough WoMD to hold the US and another coalition at bay, so he could conquer and occupy his neighbors with virtual impunity.

Again, you are assuming things which haven't happened. N Korea presumably has nukes yet hasn't used them to conquer its southern neighbour which according to your argument is what crazy unstable dictatorships do right? Nuclear armed Israel has also failed to blast its neighbors either.

Sorry pal, that argument just doesn't hold ground.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Oh Please Ned, the US was the one who never believed anything the Iraqis did, whatever step the Iraqis took to disarm the US dissmissed it like that with no proof to the contrary. The Iraquis weren't stupid, they knew that whatever they did the US was going to attack them so why give in when they were to fight anyway?

MZ, but Saddam never really cooperated. All he had to do is demonstrate how he had destroyed his WoMD or produce the scientists for interviews outside of Iraq. He knew what he had to do - we laid it out in the five points that the UN SC failed to adopt as a compromise solution.

But still he persisted.

Then the ultimatum.

He could have left the country and left a functioning government fairly well intact. He could have preserved all of the army and all of the infrastructure we destroyed. But he chose to fight instead. He must have known that he would be killed or be force to flee in the end.

This is what I find remarkable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, Syria and Iraq under Baath rule never liked each other, which is why Syria backed Iran during its 8 year war with Iraq, and sent troops to oust Saddam from kuwait.

Kuwait and SA were Saddam's biggest bankers during the war with Iran, since both saw Saddam as thier shiled against Iranian revolution. You don;t lend tens of billions of dollars to your enemies.

That was then, this is now. Clearly in 2003, the diplomatic landscape is pretty much as I described it.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Again, you are assuming things which haven't happened. N Korea presumably has nukes yet hasn't used them to conquer its southern neighbour which according to your argument is what crazy unstable dictatorships do right? Nuclear armed Israel has also failed to blast its neighbors either.

Sorry pal, that argument just doesn't hold ground.

Comparing NK to Iraq is comparing apples to oranges. Saddam has many time showed his willingness to invade his neighbors and to use wepaons of mass destruction... north korea has invaded no one in 50 years, and has never used its WoMD.

Also, they merely are suspected of having 2 nukes... hardly a deterent. Same reason for Saddam, several tons of chemical agents and anthrax (which our troops are immunized against) isnt gonna cut it against a coalition with the aim of removing you form occupation, such as in '91. Given time to build up its WoMD, NK very well could develope itself a 'shield' of deterance.

Israel isnt an expansionist nation... its only expanded in the past as a result of invasions against it...

[GePap]

Saudi Arabi was always against this war, and if you have forgotten, the saudis never called for Saddam to step down. They also allowed visit by high ranking members of the Iraqi regime for talks.

And let us not forget that Syria voted for resolution 1441.

The diplomatic realities are far more complex than just"ally, enemy".

[Kramerman]

which according to your argument is what crazy unstable dictatorships do right?

no, its what saddam COULD do if he had enough WoMD to serve as a deterant against any coalition reprisal for any invasions Saddam my undertake.