IRAQ BUSH KOREA

[BlckJck]

Should we go with or without UN support?

What are your thoughts.... Is it piss on the UN and bomb the hell out of them. With that looking like the big kid on the block using terrorism to cover our oil interests. Or is it fear of a true attack, get it and take out the threat and a major supporter of multiple terrorist org.'s.

With us focusing on IRAQ, are we missing the bigger gun with Korea, or do we maintaine focus and let China keep talking, hopeing to pinch the fuse thats buring.

If we ignore the UN and attack Iraq, does this leave a sour taste with other countries that later might not want to help if there is a conflict with Korea, or would our 'allias' see past that and treat them as 2 different issues.

By a narrow margin, Bush would loose an election right now. That would lead to the assumption that he does not have the large majority in stateside support. Does that leave us in a Vietnam looking position regarding an Iraq war.

What do you think?

[eadz]

Well,
I don't trust either of these men :

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983 (
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm )

you should be doing what you can to stop bush atacking iraq.

[mabhatter]

Other than the fact that a war serves no one but ourselves, and that we have no business being "world police", I feel the main thing lost in all this is that it is about the rule of law.

It's like if your spouse was murdered and the suspect was on trial. You have no rights to kill or otherwise injure that person. The law is handling it. We trust the law.

In the case of Iraq, they broke a resolution of the Security Council. We are a permanent member of that board as well as Russia, China, France, Germany, Brittan and I think several others. The Council has handed down their judgement to Saddam. They are awaiting his compliance. It doesn't matter what Bush thinks, it's not his choice. If he believed in democracy at all, he would understand this (of course he's rich and from Texas--not exactly rule followers) . He also gained his position directly as account of the due process system!

As a member of the council we should voulantarily abide by their decisions. What Bush is pulling, especially what's not on american news, is downright wrong! They are supposed to be our peers, and we have tried to harass or threaten each of them into giving us what blood we want.

I maintain that if we are the "best" [i'll use it loosely] democracy, we should act like it. While we don't have to abide by the Security Council, neither technically does Saddam! The power only comes from following their will --even if our prez doesn't like it. This is typical American politics. Russia, China, France, and Germany know this. We have slapped in their faces for years, and now they are probably enjoying the turn of events! Still, we should follow the council's vote if We expect them to be taken seriouslly. That's the point of democracy, that the majority makes the best decisons and then we all follow that path. It's time we bit the bullet and showed them how it's done. Even if we don't like it!

Besides, the Securtiy Council already gave us blood once over Afganaistan for Osama's actions. It's time for the witchhunts to end and get back to normal. These other countries have terror attacks all the time, they have learned to live with it. It's time we learned to play fair and stop letting our politicians and corperation make us so many enemies! Then there would be at least a few less terrorists.

[Lando]

Should we go with or without UN support?

A truly explosive topic, but this is a moot point since a UN resolution passed back in November already set a deadline for Iraq to disclose and disarm (which has long since passed), or face military action. Interestingly enough, France and Germany both voted in favor of this resolution, which they now seem to have forgotten.

Here's the link to the text: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/