Printable View
Erm, I don't think Sadaam couldn't have been tried for war crimes without an invasion. Do you honestly think he would have surrended to the United Nations to be put on trial for anything? I'm surprised he even let UN weapons inspectors in. The only way to get rid of Sadaam once and for all was to either launch a stealth attack and take him out (extremely difficult, especially given the number of doubles and sons/generals etc. he has), or to invade the country and hunt him until he was caught.
Let's all have a singsong?
"Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord,
As he treads across the Vinyard where the Grapes of wrath are stored"
Happy new year and God Bless you all
Johnno
My last post in this thread.
pwaring brings up a good point. If he had nothing to hide then why did he limit the places that the U.N Inspectors could go? Why did he say you can't go here today you have to wait a couple days?
Just think about that.
No matter what president runs this country or what this country gets itself into I will always be proud to be an American!!
What would Bush do?
If the Kyoto treaty had passed and the UN said it had to make inspections in the US?
If it was discovered that the US imports weapons to other countries and the UN said we had to stop and they were going to inspect?
The UN has no soveriengty (I know i spelled that wrong) over any country. If the US has had carte blanche to develop weapons of mass destruction, who are we to dictate to anyone about WMD?
Saddam was evil. He tortured his own people. He played mind games with the world and overplayed his hand. We had to invade because Saddam had insulted Papa Bush and Baby Bush had to make it "right". (Almost sounds like Haiti) Let me guess that WMD's will be found two weeks before the elections.
LOL i was thinking the same thing. Well just have to wait and see. I dont know if the white house would have the balls for that though, that would make alot of people wonder. Especially finding them two weeks before election.Quote:
Originally posted here by fourdc
Let me guess that WMD's will be found two weeks before the elections.
The UN doesnt have any power unless we let it. Look in to the US's history of conflict with the UN and you will understand. Maybe invasion would have been inevitable but we could have at least attempted to work with the rest of the world first when they suggested as trying him as a war criminal before just rushing in with 100,000 soldiers. War should always be the last option, not the first. And maybe Iraq did have WMD but what the **** could they have done with them if they did? How many could they have had without us knowing, especially with our advanced military intelligence? I would imagine it takes alot of work to hide all that **** especially from the US. And all that for what? What would they have done? Where is the evidence showing that Iraq had any reason or anything to gain by attacking the US?
foudc, you are saying every soverign nation has the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons? To take maniacal egomania to the shores of other nationalities? That the non-proliferation treaties around the world should be eradicated? For once I am glad to live in the middle of the US, the coastal areas would make easier targets. :)
edit/ I think I missed the part where "they" the rest of the world was going to place Saddam on trial for war crimes without our intervention.
RoadClosed,
Does the US have Nuclear Weapons? YES! Does the US have Chemical Weapons? YES? Does the US have Biological Weapons? YES! Have we eradicated our supplies of WMD? NO
Who are we to stand in the "Bully Pulpit" and tell anybody that they have to get rid of theirs?
Though Saddam was evil and hopefully will get the justice he deserves, I cannot fault him for his thumbing his nose at the UN when our own "W" launched his invasion without the blessing of the Security Council.
I am not in support of WMD, I love this planet and most living things. But the reality is the US is in no position to dictate to any country.
If additional states didn't seek power for their dictator greed and personal gain then I would agree with you. The united states has a series of locations across the globe with a single purpose to detect anomolys. It's not anyone's place to explain how but they are often activated several times a year. Boom.
Most of those station's were built or commissioned while we were running our defense policy of Mutual Assured Destruction with the former Soviet Union. I remember the "hide under your desk drills" in school. I remember all of the milk being taken off of the shelves in grocery stores due to fallout from China's Nuke tests.
If a nation doesn't sign a treaty, it isn't bound to it. The anti-nuke proliferation treaty, like the Kyoto treaty only binds nation's that agree to it. Once again, the UN has no sovereignty over any nation whether it be a dictator or a constitutional republic.
But until the "Inspectors" come up with Saddam's WMDs this is a moot argument.
Well one point I agree on is the UN is useless outside of relief efforts but then again I think the Red Cross does a better job. The stations were indeed built to enforce testing, proliferation, etc. but they are still active and reporting events. They were active before INF and a little after the Non-proliferation treaty. I think that was 1970 for the later and now those countries are saying f@ck it. To lay waste to our own WMD while others develop them is silly. To let nations develop them who lack systematic controls such as a stable government that can keep radicals out, is also silly. To ignore the world political landscape as it is and not as you would like it to be is also silly.
Even nations who have signed the treaty think its crap now. The difference between them and the Soviets of old is, they don't care if they die. They would strike first and praise god while doing it. They aren't making them out of a sense of peace. They are making them to spit in the UN's face and elevate their negative power and influence among neighboring countries. I hope someone continues to stand against them so a suitcase doesn't level downtown Manhattan or L.A. Ok, they can take LA but time square is too cool. Korea is a member of the treaty, or was. So were others of recent events.
The United Nation motto is “Peace and Security through Disarmament” There is no sovereign nation involved in the UN but they do have policing powers. Those white tanks I saw in Sarajevo are not a lack of power. In fact our own military units have fought UNDER their banner and UNDER their commanders. To my distaste as I add a personal note. The UN through member nations has granted “disarmament” powers in fact I have read documents that emphasize that the United States bears more responsibility than other member nations to ensure the process is upheld and rogue nations DO NOT achieve nuclear status. It is our business. Of course if you don’t recognize the United Nations, INF, or Non-proliferation treaties then indeed this argument is moot. The fact that 3 nations have come out from under their rocks and declared nuclear status in the last year or two is a signal that the process is under attack and the control mechanism is fallible. At this point enforcement is impossible without full scale conflict that would make Iraq look like a tennis match on Sunday… sleepy. Treaty’s do not work if they can’t be enforced through pressure or action, and if they can’t be enforced what is the point of having one outside of rhetoric and red tape. Another thing we agree on.