isn't this an attack based on "nothing"????? you still obviously don't get it do you? everyone that disagrees with you is brainwashed. that is still your position. you MIGHT be "right" about some things...but you don't demonstrate that you are right by calling everyone else brainwashed, you present FACTS. if you think cutting and pasting a few newspaper columns that support your opinion is posting facts, then you are more ignorant than even i thought. by the way buddy, people on et might not agree with me too often, but the times when i post serious posts, they are backed with HARD EVIDENCE. factual matters don't require majority consent.
Why do some people believe the UN to be the be all and the end all concerning international matters? I've already mentioned in detail the example of Yugoslavia where the UN did nothing while thousands of innocent people died because of a madman named Milosovic. Finally the US and Canada stepped in (NATO) and stopped him. If we had waited for the UN we would still be waiting. And thousands of people would still be dying there in ethnic cleansing -- otherwise known as genocide. The UN is not a perfect body and even Kofi Anan has acknowledged its shortcoming in acting quickly. Can we please understand that the UN is not the perfect way to accomplish international objectives of peace and tranquility? that sometimes it is better for countries to act alone or outside of that body? I can't for the life of me understand why there is this fetish that the UN must approve any international move. ----------------- For the record both Italy and Spain have said they back the US. Both those country's media/people are also behind the US. So the US is far from being alone on this.
traderfut, you post the same crap over and over again, as if we didn't read it the first time. You are the one responsible for the repetition. You don't have an argument. You are an arab, and you are against the attack of any arab country, even if they have an insane dictator. You need to take a close look at your own racial preferences and see your bias. If we were about to attack a white european country or north korea you would not have a care in the world. Wake up !!!! stop defending Sadam Hussein, it only shows your bias.
right on babak. the un is basically just a bunch of hamstrung fogies who ROUTINELY sit back and do nothing in the face of far more greivous international incidents than what US attacking Iraq would be.. (Traderfut, i take it you were hitting the streets in protest at Turkey's invasion of cyprus in '74 then, right?)
Madison, I totally understand you requiring proof. I don't have links right now but I did read that it was so. I'll try and find it. I do know that Spain and especially Aznar bristles at the mere mention of terrorism because it is a topic that they have had to deal with for decades. Aznar has had a few attempts at his life, so he and his party are especially sensitive to terrorism. Sheesh, I've become a windbag! I'll try to find the links.
IMO, the UN has all the faults of any government, the lust for absolute power, the grandstanding, the bureaucracy, and the comical chattering about hyper-PC causes. However, it's the mechanism for global governance available now. The theory is that cooperation and negotiation of disputes is ultimately more beneficial than isolationism and warfare, and that if a country wishes to benefit from having a system of global governance that country should participate in it, even if inconvenient for some special interest groups. As an aside, this is what seems so shocking about the Bush adminstration's stance - it essentially requires one to dismiss as irrelevant the entire non-US world. They have stated publicly that they will proceed independent of what anyone else thinks, and they will kill whomever they please, because based on secret evidence they feel justified in doing so. yes - I know: Saddam is a ruthless, maniacal dictator, he commits atrocities satan himself never imagined, etc. - we have heard it all. But even the patently guilty criminal defendant is guaranteed a trial in the US -- and for very good reason. The purpose of a trial is to require the prosecution to prove guilt, in an open venue -- what proof requiring war have we seen here, besides the ranting of politicians? If the case is so strong, is every single non-US country somehow blind to it? What Bush is proposing is that the US is above the law followed by everyone else - and as Candle said, it should not surprise us if everyone else is severely offended by that.
Actually, what Bush said was basically this: "Look we've tried reasoning with Iraq for 11 years. They don't respond to any UN resolutions. If the UN doesn't give him consequences for his belligerence, then it means that it is irrelevant. And in that scenario the US will act." The US will only proceed if the UN continues to prove itself incompetent, impotent and irrelevant. And in that case it is fully justified to do so. Actually personally I think the US doesn't need to do that (just as it didn't with Milosovic in Yugoslavia). But the Bush administration has decided to go down the diplomatic road.
For clarification, I'm FAR from pro-Saddam - If the proper evidence is presented, then I'd support Saddam's removal completely - and I assume most of the world would, as they did in Gulf I. But until we get more than clumsy Bush speeches and grim predictions from parties with vested interests, I will remain skeptical...
Madison, you won't have to wait long. Blair is putting together a dossier of intelligence reports by the end of the month (I believe). Unless you believe he has made up that evidence it will be crystal clear.