Out of the Blue [Mar 20, 2003, 06:57 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
| Play Time: | Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden. |
| Links of the Day: | Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us. |
| Stories of the Day: | Smothers Brother's son is porn star.
Thanks Chuck! A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez. Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez. |
| Wild Science: | Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'.
Thanks crazy0ne. Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez. |
| Weird Science: | Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James. |
| Images of the Day: | Bubbacomp.
Thanks Mike Martinez. Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003. |
IMO there was still one more round of negotiations that could've taken place at the UN instead of restorting to war.
America thought so too and was prepared to introduce new resolutions to the United Nations. However, France made clear that it would veto any new resolutions even prior to hearing them. So much for diplomacy.
It would've been better to get a full international support...
Agreed.
...because with the behavior shown by US and allies they're weakening a regulatory peacekeeping institution like the UN.
How about the behavior of those countries that helped pass the original U.N. resolutions? These were resolutions that made provisions for using force against Iraq yet these same countries now choose to ignore those resolutions.
What prevents any other country, let's take for example North Korea, from disregarding the UN
Nothing, as it's the effectiveness of the U.N. that is in question. It is the U.N. that is incapable of following through on the promises that were made over 4 months ago in resolution 1441.
What will happen if they don't find these WOMD in Iraq?
The opposite question can just as easily be asked. What will happen if and when WOMD are found in Iraq? Only time will answer that question and it will be very interesting to learn the answer.
Don't you think that there should be a more international consensus (UN) when a country's sovereignity (sp?) is to be breached (in this case Iraq's)?
Again, I agree with you on this point. There should be an international consensus. The lack of one is not neccessarily an indication, however, that we are doing the wrong thing. The majority is not always right.
What would you do if it's your country?
Well, if my country was Iraq, I would welcome the regime change. As the article you linked to pointed out, Saddam "gassed 60,000 of his own people" and has sacrificed "nearly a million Iraqis", "killing or wounding more than a million Iranians" and "flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years". I believe time will prove we are doing the right thing and the proof will come from the Iraqi people themselves.
I do believe though that US intentions are not those of "liberating" Iraq, but rather oil reserves, restart their economy, increase their influence in the Middle East, etc
You are free to believe that just as I am free to believe we are simply doing what is right. I believe the majority of the people of Iraq feel what we are doing is right. They are not provided the same freedoms as you and I that allows them to speak out against their government.
It also seems like Bush's continuing his father's doings in a sense.
Why should anyone be surprised that George Bush shares the same view regarding Iraq as his father? Just rember, the American public put Bush Jr into office and I'm quite sure they were aware of similarities beween father and son. Saddam's son Uday is generally regarded as being next in line to rule Iraq and you can be sure that it is not the will of the Iraqi people that would put him there. Now, do you honestly believe that there would be a significant difference in the political views between Saddam and Uday? The difference is that Uday would become president because that is what Saddam wants. George Bush became president because that is what the American people wanted.
America thought so too and was prepared to introduce new resolutions to the United Nations. However, France made clear that it would veto any new resolutions even prior to hearing them. So much for diplomacy.
It would've been better to get a full international support...
Agreed.
...because with the behavior shown by US and allies they're weakening a regulatory peacekeeping institution like the UN.
How about the behavior of those countries that helped pass the original U.N. resolutions? These were resolutions that made provisions for using force against Iraq yet these same countries now choose to ignore those resolutions.
What prevents any other country, let's take for example North Korea, from disregarding the UN
Nothing, as it's the effectiveness of the U.N. that is in question. It is the U.N. that is incapable of following through on the promises that were made over 4 months ago in resolution 1441.
What will happen if they don't find these WOMD in Iraq?
The opposite question can just as easily be asked. What will happen if and when WOMD are found in Iraq? Only time will answer that question and it will be very interesting to learn the answer.
Don't you think that there should be a more international consensus (UN) when a country's sovereignity (sp?) is to be breached (in this case Iraq's)?
Again, I agree with you on this point. There should be an international consensus. The lack of one is not neccessarily an indication, however, that we are doing the wrong thing. The majority is not always right.
What would you do if it's your country?
Well, if my country was Iraq, I would welcome the regime change. As the article you linked to pointed out, Saddam "gassed 60,000 of his own people" and has sacrificed "nearly a million Iraqis", "killing or wounding more than a million Iranians" and "flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years". I believe time will prove we are doing the right thing and the proof will come from the Iraqi people themselves.
I do believe though that US intentions are not those of "liberating" Iraq, but rather oil reserves, restart their economy, increase their influence in the Middle East, etc
You are free to believe that just as I am free to believe we are simply doing what is right. I believe the majority of the people of Iraq feel what we are doing is right. They are not provided the same freedoms as you and I that allows them to speak out against their government.
It also seems like Bush's continuing his father's doings in a sense.
Why should anyone be surprised that George Bush shares the same view regarding Iraq as his father? Just rember, the American public put Bush Jr into office and I'm quite sure they were aware of similarities beween father and son. Saddam's son Uday is generally regarded as being next in line to rule Iraq and you can be sure that it is not the will of the Iraqi people that would put him there. Now, do you honestly believe that there would be a significant difference in the political views between Saddam and Uday? The difference is that Uday would become president because that is what Saddam wants. George Bush became president because that is what the American people wanted.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 16 July 2025, 01:36.