I havn't made a post on TMF in a couple of weeks. I have seen the posts about September 11, 2001. A day of demise and tragedy. I seen this country come together from the East to the West. I seen tradgedy in the United States's friends like Britian. One thing after I had stopped being in shock was seeeing our president George W. Bush. I seen him do some good things like bomb Afghanistan. The Taliban regime is gone. Thank God. His recent talks about bombing Iraq has made me wonder. He publicly annouced our secret plan to assassinate Sadam Houseein. Ok after he did that I was like "Why did he do that?" because why would you announce a plan like that. Now hes talking about bombing Iraq even if the UN disapproves. My first reaction was to get authority from the United Nations before we make an attack like that. Every other country wants us to get UN approval. Britian's prime minister Tony Blair wants us to go through the UN. I could keep naming the countries. So my real question is should we bomb Iraq unconditionally or have UN approval.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Unconditional War or UN approval
- Thread starter jhop220
- Start date
Making references to assassinations,whether real or not,gives Hussein
more to worry about and prepare for.It might not be a viable option,
but it also might be,and it will have to be considered as a threat,
and Iraq will be forced to expend resources to combat it.
Concerning UN approval,I've posted my thoughts on this before.We are a sovereign nation,not a UN puppet state.We do not need the approval
of ANY other nation or nations to defend ourselves or attack an enemy.This is especially true of the UN,which is mostly third world
nations with little to offer anyone but their "approval".It is not a secret that many of the member nations have sympathies toward the peoples we are at odds with,so how would asking their approval make any sense?Of course,there is also the shining record of the UN as one of the most inept governmental organizations going.They have no authority over us,and deserve no consideration such as us asking their permission to attack an enemy.
On a VERY simple level,consider this:...You and a neighbor have a problem,and your option is to file a lawsuit.Are you going to ask the rest of your neighborhood for permission?It is a highly simplistic example,but still has a similar theme.
Screw the UN.....do what we have to.
more to worry about and prepare for.It might not be a viable option,
but it also might be,and it will have to be considered as a threat,
and Iraq will be forced to expend resources to combat it.
Concerning UN approval,I've posted my thoughts on this before.We are a sovereign nation,not a UN puppet state.We do not need the approval
of ANY other nation or nations to defend ourselves or attack an enemy.This is especially true of the UN,which is mostly third world
nations with little to offer anyone but their "approval".It is not a secret that many of the member nations have sympathies toward the peoples we are at odds with,so how would asking their approval make any sense?Of course,there is also the shining record of the UN as one of the most inept governmental organizations going.They have no authority over us,and deserve no consideration such as us asking their permission to attack an enemy.
On a VERY simple level,consider this:...You and a neighbor have a problem,and your option is to file a lawsuit.Are you going to ask the rest of your neighborhood for permission?It is a highly simplistic example,but still has a similar theme.
Screw the UN.....do what we have to.
ShiningIce
3rd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,720
- Points
- 38
It never occurs to anyone that we might be biting off more than we can chew...........well at least not without gagging anyway.
The UN is a pain in the arse organisation, that loves nothing better than screwing the US over. Get the forces in there and let's blow the living (and dead!) shit out of ANYONE, not just Maddass Hussein, who harbour Taliban operatives so they can threaten our countries.
LET'S ROLL!
LET'S ROLL!
Chewing?
lemme see...we've increased the relative strength of our military significantly since 1991, and the Iraqis' has degraded approximately 30% more from their poor showing at that time.....we've developed new technology and field tested it in battle in Afghanistan, and they've...had no military exercises at all. Our morale and state of readiness is nearly at an all time high, and they have the elite Republican Guard, who fought to the very end in 1991...the end consisting of a time when they actually confronted an opposing force. Worlds best Air Force, versus one that can't get off a shot against an F-16, much less a stealth equipped next generation type....hmmm. Great naval support and weaponry, bolstered by Britains state of the art ships, which while not as numerous as they might like, are certainly effective and motivated.
Agreed, at some point we're going to have put the boots on the ground, but if anyone doubts the worth of our Marines, or even grunt infantry, I'd be willing to bet on them in any fair fight, and I doubt we'll leave them uncovered by air support at any time. May whatever gods you worship have mercy on whoever they face......
It is NEVER a good option to wage war on the enemies homeland, but IF they won't cooperate enough to assure the world that they are not a hive of terrorism, what other options are left?
We can continue to issue edicts and UN sanctions, but that hasn't worked in over 10 years. Diplomacy? Their idea of it is to stall as long as possible while chucking some mud about oil interests and revenge. Shall we wait for another 3000, or 300,000 to die before acting? Do we have the "right" to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this and still proclaim ourselves as defenders of freedom?
It's going to be messy, but it needs to be done, imo. I'll volunteer my creaky carcass for computer support and communications if they'll take it. I'm too old for the front line, but I can sure as hell run the camp right behind it. I make a mean field ration...lol. Q
lemme see...we've increased the relative strength of our military significantly since 1991, and the Iraqis' has degraded approximately 30% more from their poor showing at that time.....we've developed new technology and field tested it in battle in Afghanistan, and they've...had no military exercises at all. Our morale and state of readiness is nearly at an all time high, and they have the elite Republican Guard, who fought to the very end in 1991...the end consisting of a time when they actually confronted an opposing force. Worlds best Air Force, versus one that can't get off a shot against an F-16, much less a stealth equipped next generation type....hmmm. Great naval support and weaponry, bolstered by Britains state of the art ships, which while not as numerous as they might like, are certainly effective and motivated.
Agreed, at some point we're going to have put the boots on the ground, but if anyone doubts the worth of our Marines, or even grunt infantry, I'd be willing to bet on them in any fair fight, and I doubt we'll leave them uncovered by air support at any time. May whatever gods you worship have mercy on whoever they face......
It is NEVER a good option to wage war on the enemies homeland, but IF they won't cooperate enough to assure the world that they are not a hive of terrorism, what other options are left?
We can continue to issue edicts and UN sanctions, but that hasn't worked in over 10 years. Diplomacy? Their idea of it is to stall as long as possible while chucking some mud about oil interests and revenge. Shall we wait for another 3000, or 300,000 to die before acting? Do we have the "right" to do this? Can we afford NOT to do this and still proclaim ourselves as defenders of freedom?
It's going to be messy, but it needs to be done, imo. I'll volunteer my creaky carcass for computer support and communications if they'll take it. I'm too old for the front line, but I can sure as hell run the camp right behind it. I make a mean field ration...lol. Q
My Opinion
I think that we should get approval from the United Nations and other countries because if we don't we will have more than just Arab nations hating us. Iraq may not have the military we do or the strength. Think of it this way....the permanent members of the UN being United States, Britian, Russia, and France. If we get all of them to support us we will not have to worry about other nations attacking us. We were made tot hink that the United States is invinsible. Thats not true . I think if other countries came together and attacked us The US would be defeated. UN approval would get us the advantage over just unconditional war. I think Bush Sr. should've killed Houseein back in 1991 but now we must rely on Bush Jr.
I think that we should get approval from the United Nations and other countries because if we don't we will have more than just Arab nations hating us. Iraq may not have the military we do or the strength. Think of it this way....the permanent members of the UN being United States, Britian, Russia, and France. If we get all of them to support us we will not have to worry about other nations attacking us. We were made tot hink that the United States is invinsible. Thats not true . I think if other countries came together and attacked us The US would be defeated. UN approval would get us the advantage over just unconditional war. I think Bush Sr. should've killed Houseein back in 1991 but now we must rely on Bush Jr.
Admiral Trouser
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 513
- Points
- 0
Sorry, but this kind of talk really makes me angry.I feel like its really hard for anyone to criticise the US on this matter, because it just gets thrown back in your face and you're accused of taking the side of the terrorists. I cant shake off the impression that the US is using the TT attacks to write themselves a blank cheque and do whatever they have to do in order to revenge those killed, regardless of the consequences to the wider world, or what they have to say about it. The lawsuit/neighberhood comparison just doesn't fit here, because filing that lawsuit wont affect you're neighbours prosperity. Going to war with another country, though, might just have very negative effects on every one else around you. Does America really need to make any more enemies here? I think not.
On the one hand, we have Bush calling on the wider world to help in the fight against terror, claiming that it can only be won if everyone does there bit. But on the other hand, we have Bush giving the wider world an up-yours when they start asking questions about his actions...for instance, just what proof does Bush have that Iraq was linked to the TT attacks and Al Quada? If he has it, and apparantly he does, why hasn't it been released? Thats the sort of question that the UN is asking, among others, and sorry, but I think they need to be answered before anything happens at all.
Furthermore: By my understanding, it isn't the UN as such thats the problem here, its Russia. France and Britain are for strikes on Iraq, Germany is staying neutral (probably) but wont vote no, but the US needs Russia's concent to start kicking off against a country it has many ties with.
As to whether bombing Iraq is a viable option at all, I'd say no. Using conventional military forces on a country that knows it cant win in a straight fight is simply going to make it play dirty...and I do beleive that Iraq has some pretty nasty weapons stockpiled somewhere, so forcing to use them in a desperate revenge attack is not a good idea, but a very likely scenario. To me, forced inspections are the best way forward. Remove the 'weapons of mass destruction' and Iraq is left impotent. Which is how they should be.
No doubt I have offended people here with these views. For that, I apologise here and now. But these are my views, and I've thought about them carefully. I just thought I'd offer this thread an alternative opinion, please respect that...
On the one hand, we have Bush calling on the wider world to help in the fight against terror, claiming that it can only be won if everyone does there bit. But on the other hand, we have Bush giving the wider world an up-yours when they start asking questions about his actions...for instance, just what proof does Bush have that Iraq was linked to the TT attacks and Al Quada? If he has it, and apparantly he does, why hasn't it been released? Thats the sort of question that the UN is asking, among others, and sorry, but I think they need to be answered before anything happens at all.
Furthermore: By my understanding, it isn't the UN as such thats the problem here, its Russia. France and Britain are for strikes on Iraq, Germany is staying neutral (probably) but wont vote no, but the US needs Russia's concent to start kicking off against a country it has many ties with.
As to whether bombing Iraq is a viable option at all, I'd say no. Using conventional military forces on a country that knows it cant win in a straight fight is simply going to make it play dirty...and I do beleive that Iraq has some pretty nasty weapons stockpiled somewhere, so forcing to use them in a desperate revenge attack is not a good idea, but a very likely scenario. To me, forced inspections are the best way forward. Remove the 'weapons of mass destruction' and Iraq is left impotent. Which is how they should be.
No doubt I have offended people here with these views. For that, I apologise here and now. But these are my views, and I've thought about them carefully. I just thought I'd offer this thread an alternative opinion, please respect that...
Alternate Viewpoints...
..are what make up a discussion. You presented your opinion/view, and although many here may indeed disagree, I doubt you'll be drummed out of the TMF for it, despite some other threads opinions on that subject to the contrary! 😉
Not sure what sort of "blank check" you're referring to in your statement though. We resolved to attack terrorism and those who harbor it...period. It was a clearcut definitive response to the attack made upon the USA, which has been called an "event", a "tragedy", and a "fateful action"...it's not...it's an ATTACK.
There are things that one can do, as either an organization or a country to prevent the USA from attacking you, but to make believe that there aren't still incredibly active cells and adherents to these acts of terrorism perpetrated upon many locales throughout the world would be shortsighted and invite more problems. The consequences you refer to in your post are uppermost in many of the minds of those who wish to remove and/or reduce the number of rogue nations and leaders in the owrld...we just disagree about what methods are going to be most effective.
I think the bigger question at stake here, that you also touched upon, is whether or not ANY nation has the right to launch what seems to be a pre-emptive strike, based on past actions and intelligence information.
President Bush tried to address that issue a bit, stating that their information leads them to believe that time is dwindling rapidly, and that being wrong would be too high a price to pay in terms of loss of lives throughout the world should they be correct...basically, he adopts a "better safe than sorry" mentality.
You neglected to mention China, a major player in this drama, perhaps even more so then the broken empire of Russia. Our diplomats are working hard to get both these countries to abstain from using the veto in the security council meeting that's coming up, which allows them to save face and yet doesn't kill the motion. The stakes here are very high, and I wish there was less of this "posturing" going on, and a lot more meaningful dialogue...this IS a dangerous precedent we're about to embark upon, and the future policies of the USA may be shifting based on the implementation of this action......scary future if we start de-isolating ourselves and becoming more imperialistic.
Militarily, the collective 'world" might indeed be able to defeat the USA, but organizing such an effort would be cumbersome beyond belief, and i doubt you'd ever get Canada, Mexico, Britain and others to cross that line....make a good novel though. Q
..are what make up a discussion. You presented your opinion/view, and although many here may indeed disagree, I doubt you'll be drummed out of the TMF for it, despite some other threads opinions on that subject to the contrary! 😉
Not sure what sort of "blank check" you're referring to in your statement though. We resolved to attack terrorism and those who harbor it...period. It was a clearcut definitive response to the attack made upon the USA, which has been called an "event", a "tragedy", and a "fateful action"...it's not...it's an ATTACK.
There are things that one can do, as either an organization or a country to prevent the USA from attacking you, but to make believe that there aren't still incredibly active cells and adherents to these acts of terrorism perpetrated upon many locales throughout the world would be shortsighted and invite more problems. The consequences you refer to in your post are uppermost in many of the minds of those who wish to remove and/or reduce the number of rogue nations and leaders in the owrld...we just disagree about what methods are going to be most effective.
I think the bigger question at stake here, that you also touched upon, is whether or not ANY nation has the right to launch what seems to be a pre-emptive strike, based on past actions and intelligence information.
President Bush tried to address that issue a bit, stating that their information leads them to believe that time is dwindling rapidly, and that being wrong would be too high a price to pay in terms of loss of lives throughout the world should they be correct...basically, he adopts a "better safe than sorry" mentality.
You neglected to mention China, a major player in this drama, perhaps even more so then the broken empire of Russia. Our diplomats are working hard to get both these countries to abstain from using the veto in the security council meeting that's coming up, which allows them to save face and yet doesn't kill the motion. The stakes here are very high, and I wish there was less of this "posturing" going on, and a lot more meaningful dialogue...this IS a dangerous precedent we're about to embark upon, and the future policies of the USA may be shifting based on the implementation of this action......scary future if we start de-isolating ourselves and becoming more imperialistic.
Militarily, the collective 'world" might indeed be able to defeat the USA, but organizing such an effort would be cumbersome beyond belief, and i doubt you'd ever get Canada, Mexico, Britain and others to cross that line....make a good novel though. Q
Admiral Trouser
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 513
- Points
- 0
Tom Clancy has it in the works as we speak.
As for the definitave statement that America issued in response to the attacks...I'm not sure that it's so clear cut. In fact, the phrase 'attack terrorism and those who harbour it' is somewhat subjective: Just what exactly is America doing right now to stop Mugabe terrorising white farmers off there land? Just how exactly is a terrorist defined, and how does that definition apply to Iraq, when there is no solid proof that it harbours terrorists, Al Quada or otherwise?
What I'm trying to get at here is that America has the best intentions here, although some cynics world claim that Bush is using this opportunity to end some unfinished bussiness that his father left behind, and even though a year is a long time for some, especially those directly affected by the attacks, that year is no were near a sufficient amount of time to prepare for the sort of action that is now being proposed. This kind of endevoure requires the consent of the wider world, and therefore the UN at least, not because such a task needs to be rubber-stamped, but because it's only going to work if the rest of the world gets behind it.
As for the definitave statement that America issued in response to the attacks...I'm not sure that it's so clear cut. In fact, the phrase 'attack terrorism and those who harbour it' is somewhat subjective: Just what exactly is America doing right now to stop Mugabe terrorising white farmers off there land? Just how exactly is a terrorist defined, and how does that definition apply to Iraq, when there is no solid proof that it harbours terrorists, Al Quada or otherwise?
What I'm trying to get at here is that America has the best intentions here, although some cynics world claim that Bush is using this opportunity to end some unfinished bussiness that his father left behind, and even though a year is a long time for some, especially those directly affected by the attacks, that year is no were near a sufficient amount of time to prepare for the sort of action that is now being proposed. This kind of endevoure requires the consent of the wider world, and therefore the UN at least, not because such a task needs to be rubber-stamped, but because it's only going to work if the rest of the world gets behind it.
Priorities...
Hey, I'm sure we're working our way around to the Mugabe, but I guess you need to start with making sure that you eliminate the biggest "hives" first, and work your way to them.
Apparently, all intelligence information DOES agree that there are AQ terrorists either being sheltered or sponsored by Iraq. Obviously you then need to trust the agencies involved, but at this time, I'm certainly inclined to give them the proverbial benefit of the doubt. We've been expending tremendous resources on just this project, upgrading our intelligence network, so when the result is this clearcut, I think you have to place confidence in their data. Iraqs' record on this subject is horrible, to say the least, so they themselves lend credence to the theory that they have become the latest gathering place for our avowed enemies.
This theory that George W is "finishing Daddys business" is a bit far fetched. I don't really give a fig about going in to where my Dad retired and making sure his legacy is being carried forward, do you? The fact that we are in the same profession is nice, but I don't base my decisions on his past projects, ya know, and I doubt that W has done more than consult with Pa on the the "best way to get a good coalition going"...
The circumstantial reasoning here is sufficient for my peace of mind, but I'm not sure of the overall principle being in line with our countries past attitudes and policies towards global expansion. We tend to work economically, conquering through denim jeans, pop music and MacDonalds rather than our military might. It IS a bit worrisome that we may be wandering down a path that may lead us towards becoming the very nation we feared Russia was not so long ago.....once Iraq falls, and it will, fairly easily, where else might we turn our attention towards, with, as you stated, a "blank check" mentality in hand and a sense of moral justice pervading the countries pysche. Is it possible the next presidential election would swing to the far right/Moral Majority type candidate? Would we be at the brink of conducting our own crusade/jihad that will have become couched in terms of "justice" and "security" and be palatable to the country?
Does anyone else read Allen Drury? Wish he could be around to crank out a few possible scenarios for this situation. We were so worried about the other SuperPowers that we forgot to watch the bottom dwellers as they pulled themselves up and positioned their faction to inflict harm. I have the distinct feeling we're at a turning point, and we need to be careful.... Q
Hey, I'm sure we're working our way around to the Mugabe, but I guess you need to start with making sure that you eliminate the biggest "hives" first, and work your way to them.
Apparently, all intelligence information DOES agree that there are AQ terrorists either being sheltered or sponsored by Iraq. Obviously you then need to trust the agencies involved, but at this time, I'm certainly inclined to give them the proverbial benefit of the doubt. We've been expending tremendous resources on just this project, upgrading our intelligence network, so when the result is this clearcut, I think you have to place confidence in their data. Iraqs' record on this subject is horrible, to say the least, so they themselves lend credence to the theory that they have become the latest gathering place for our avowed enemies.
This theory that George W is "finishing Daddys business" is a bit far fetched. I don't really give a fig about going in to where my Dad retired and making sure his legacy is being carried forward, do you? The fact that we are in the same profession is nice, but I don't base my decisions on his past projects, ya know, and I doubt that W has done more than consult with Pa on the the "best way to get a good coalition going"...
The circumstantial reasoning here is sufficient for my peace of mind, but I'm not sure of the overall principle being in line with our countries past attitudes and policies towards global expansion. We tend to work economically, conquering through denim jeans, pop music and MacDonalds rather than our military might. It IS a bit worrisome that we may be wandering down a path that may lead us towards becoming the very nation we feared Russia was not so long ago.....once Iraq falls, and it will, fairly easily, where else might we turn our attention towards, with, as you stated, a "blank check" mentality in hand and a sense of moral justice pervading the countries pysche. Is it possible the next presidential election would swing to the far right/Moral Majority type candidate? Would we be at the brink of conducting our own crusade/jihad that will have become couched in terms of "justice" and "security" and be palatable to the country?
Does anyone else read Allen Drury? Wish he could be around to crank out a few possible scenarios for this situation. We were so worried about the other SuperPowers that we forgot to watch the bottom dwellers as they pulled themselves up and positioned their faction to inflict harm. I have the distinct feeling we're at a turning point, and we need to be careful.... Q
Biggles of 266
1st Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,126
- Points
- 36
Admiral Trouser said:
Did you know Tom doesn't even write his own novels anymore? He's got a team of ghostwriters who pump out the Uber Alles stuff for him.
He writes the Jack Ryan novels, but everything else is mass produced under his name. All the Op Centre ones are not his actual writing.
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
no offence ment to our non-american tmf members
but i don't care a fig what the rest of the world thinks! in fact most of the rest of the world doesn't think!
they attacked us. our government says it has info showing iraq helped, it was good enough for tony blaire (sp).
we didn't kill hussaine in '91 cause our good arab allies said not to! now we have to do it right. if the arabs don't like it, TOUGH!
as for rhodisia; it was the brits who spear headed the drive to let the communists take over there. with some stupid support from jimmy carter in america, the poor rhodisians we're sold down the river! now we see some of the end result.
world opinion be damned, paris didn't get a plane loaded with it's citizens crashed into a building.
steve
but i don't care a fig what the rest of the world thinks! in fact most of the rest of the world doesn't think!
they attacked us. our government says it has info showing iraq helped, it was good enough for tony blaire (sp).
we didn't kill hussaine in '91 cause our good arab allies said not to! now we have to do it right. if the arabs don't like it, TOUGH!
as for rhodisia; it was the brits who spear headed the drive to let the communists take over there. with some stupid support from jimmy carter in america, the poor rhodisians we're sold down the river! now we see some of the end result.
world opinion be damned, paris didn't get a plane loaded with it's citizens crashed into a building.
steve
ShiningIce
3rd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,720
- Points
- 38
We live on a planet called EARTH. Not the US!!! Damning the world opinion and making enemies is what caused 9/11 in the first place!! World opinion must always be considered.
ShiningIce said:
A very cogent point SI. However it's not only about that, but people trying to use the "divide and conquer" tactic. The more they divide the communities in the world, the less chance they have of being friendly with each other. That makes for easy times in keeping us all frightened and looking to someone else to protect us.
What caused 9-11..
isn't us ignoring "world" opinion, it's the evil desire of a small sect to intimidate a nation through terror. Disagreeing with another nations way of life isn't justification for anything....it's an excuse that justifies the actions of madmen who have no role in a sane society or place in a world forum. Dignifying it with a rational "explanation" is a diservice to legitimate efforts to find collective answers to the differences that exist throughout the world. Q
isn't us ignoring "world" opinion, it's the evil desire of a small sect to intimidate a nation through terror. Disagreeing with another nations way of life isn't justification for anything....it's an excuse that justifies the actions of madmen who have no role in a sane society or place in a world forum. Dignifying it with a rational "explanation" is a diservice to legitimate efforts to find collective answers to the differences that exist throughout the world. Q
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
bravo Q
damn son, that was good!
steve
damn son, that was good!
steve
Re: What caused 9-11..
Amen Q. I truly don't think people go out of their way to accomodate others philosophies and be tolerant to them. If everyone did that, then there'd be a lot less heartache in the world.
qjakal said:
Amen Q. I truly don't think people go out of their way to accomodate others philosophies and be tolerant to them. If everyone did that, then there'd be a lot less heartache in the world.
Admiral...First off,i did say the neighborhood scenario was simplistic.However,if you don't think this type of situation can cause financial problems,try some "projects" that cost thousands of dollars or conduct that jeopardizes another neighbor's property or safety.You'll find out fast how expensive it gets.
Concerning the UN's consent,what if they said no,then another terrorist attack,that would have been stopped by today's action,occurs? How many here think the UN would bust their asses to get things straightened out?Their past history speaks volumes.They regard the US as a parasite regards its host.
Flatly asking,what gives the UN ANY level of knowledge,authority, ability,or credibility, that any country needs their approval to protect themselves? Preemptive strikes ARE defending oneself,and that is provided one considers a move on Iraq as such.I see it as round 2.
Mugabe? The world bitches when we don't get involved (Mugabe), then bitches more when we do (Iraq). With this background, explain why we should bother asking at all.
Any country that is an ally of the US and can't see their way to at least staying clear isn't much of an ally. They can just forget about crying to us when they have problems of their own.
Concerning the UN's consent,what if they said no,then another terrorist attack,that would have been stopped by today's action,occurs? How many here think the UN would bust their asses to get things straightened out?Their past history speaks volumes.They regard the US as a parasite regards its host.
Flatly asking,what gives the UN ANY level of knowledge,authority, ability,or credibility, that any country needs their approval to protect themselves? Preemptive strikes ARE defending oneself,and that is provided one considers a move on Iraq as such.I see it as round 2.
Mugabe? The world bitches when we don't get involved (Mugabe), then bitches more when we do (Iraq). With this background, explain why we should bother asking at all.
Any country that is an ally of the US and can't see their way to at least staying clear isn't much of an ally. They can just forget about crying to us when they have problems of their own.
shark said:
True Shark, I don't think the US has much interest in Zimbabwe. My only reason for mentioning the man's name was because of his "keep your pink noses out of Zimbabwe's business!" line. Personally, I think the UN is a wet lettuce. It never does anything but get on America's tits, so bugger them all.
