Well according some people on this board, apparently Sadam isn't that bad, it's the evil Bush trying to take over the world that we should watch out for.
You seem to have a problem arguing actual points. Instead, you attack with a broad brush, which is actually just another form of personal attack.
I am kinda ambivalent on this issue, though not because I am a peacenik. Saddam has forced this issue and it is far past time for the UN to invade and depose him. I am for a war against Iraq. However, I do not like the idea of operating outside the UN as it sets a precedence that not only undermines the UN's power but may lead to its fall. Regardless of the bodies internal politics, the UN has been a useful machanism in regulating international relations. While we can argue about its past effectiveness, the thing that concerns me is that if the US acts alone, outside of the UN, which country will be next to follow our lead? Will China just decide: "Aw, hell let's just take Taiwan back. The UN ain't sh*t" regardless of international opinion?
If the UN falls, the rest of the World will have to answer the US. It's called "The New World Order."
Look who's talking! Hey, did you ever uncover any of those accusations of me calling anti-war demonstrators "unamerican?"
Yeah but you're apparently too dumb to comprehend your saying that protest is okay but turning your back on the flag is un-American within the context of talking about a girl protesting by turning her back on the flag. You pretty much wasted my time so I know better not to bother now, thanks.
Anybody know how the U.N. is supposed to react to a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Will they be forced to consider a reaction against the U.S. (even tho we know that will never be approved?) And if they did consider action, could you envision that vote. What would France do? How would they vote. Nobody in their right mind would want to form a resolution or vote on a resoluation against us.
Good post, my feelings are very similar. I agree that it has long been time to ouster Saddam, but should the US risk alienating the UN to accomplish the goal? I think so, as the security of US citizens should be #1 on the President's checklist, not allowing Europe to potentially compromise that security by allowing Saddam to remain in power. I am not as staunchly supportive of an invasion of Iraq as I once was, but still feel that it is rapidly becoming our only choice. This brings up an interesting point also. If your hypothetical situation occurred, who do you think the world (including our good friends Germany and France) would turn to to liberate an invaded country? I'll give you two guesses, but you'll only need one. That's right, the world's biggest villain and warmongerer, the good old USA.
Something else to consider is a domino effect. Essentially we have liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. How many other countires could fall next. And if they do, is there a concern from our opposition to contain it.
If China conquered Taiwan, the US is the only country in the world that could possibly liberate it again. And I doubt even they could. Then again, I doubt France and Germany care very much if Taiwan is part of China or not.
I'm sure that the US could take any piece of land in the world if needed. I'm not sure what shape that land would be in when we were done, but it would be taken. I'm sure treeman and Lynus could vouch for that.
I hear you. But what if opposing the UN would end up doing more damage to US citizens in the long run (by turning much of the industrialized world against us) than what Saddam could ever do? As China's economy keeps capitalizing, we wouldn't be able to exert the same economic or military dominance over other nations as we can today. I know other nations fear the US (our nukes and economic dominance), but that fear won't be around for ever. What would the US do about it? Nuke em? They can nuke us too. We can apply sanctions, but, heck, China is estabishing economic ties with other nations ( not involving the US). Those other nations may not want to support action against Chaina because it wouldn't be in their economic interests to do so. All China has to do is wait until it has enough influence in the world economy and UN (like we do) before it takes such action. It would take a world effort (United Nations) to deal with this in a non-nuclear manner (even if the US led the effort) and we may be in the proccess of alienating/fracturing that union. My thing is all we have to do is present the convincing evidence to the UN and the resolution is as good as approved. We say we have it, so why can't we do that?
Now I usually don't get into name calling on a BBS, but in the case of ignorant jackasses like.... oh never mind... Stop right there... Correct. March, cheer, chain yourself to a tree... I do not care if you protest. Burn a flag, turn your back or sit during the National Anthem, I have a problem with that. It is not the war protest. Steve and Cat jacking around during the National Anthem, it is disrespectful and un-American to not honor our Flag and the National Anthem. A wise man once (maybe even 3-4 times) said "I am not calling her anti-war, anti-Bush protest an un-American act, I do see turning on your Flag as un-American." Translation, protesting is fine, protesting in that manner is not. What the waste of time was you making a false statement and trying to prove it to no avail. If you would have simply listened the first time when I told you I NEVER implied protesting was as you stated "unamerican," you could have saved yourself all that precious little time - - ing
