What right does the US have to go to war with Iraq?

No, not necessarily. I usually think conspiracy theorists are loonies. And since you think Bush is starting a war to get oil and make money, and that he is prolonging wars just so he can get re-elected, then I think you fit in nicely.

 

I think North Korea is now. Not necessarily an invasion, but we are considering out options. And they don't have oil, yet we are still concerned with what North Korea is doing? How strange!

 

No, France is.

 

How is acting with the support and cooperation of Britain, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and others acting unilaterally?

 

How much ya offering?

 

all the soda and candy you can consume!!! plus a lifetime supply of turtle wax.

 

If those countries change their mind, the US will still invade. Bush has said as much.

 

North Korea is now? We've already essentially ruled out the use of force. The administration might occasionally make noises, but there's absolutely no serious consideration of an invasion there. Bush is fond of saying that North Korea is a new threat, whereas Iraq has been a threat for 10 years.

Depending on how you look at it, North Korea has been a threat for more than 50 years. They've certainly jeopardized American interests more directly in the past than Iraq. They've sponsored terrorism and assassinations. They're much further advanced with ICBM's than Iraq. Yet we're not really interested in an invasion, there.

One could say it's because Clinton actually seemed to make real progress with NK a few years back. We really had a chance to make a lasting peace in the area. Unfortunately, Clinton waffled on the treaty, and Bush mostly abandoned it all together. We're very fond of saying that NK broke the treaty... but how dare we? We broke it first by failing to supply the aid that was promised.

So, perhaps North Korea is a greater threat. Perhaps they're not. But they're certainly not so far out of alignment with the fact scenario w/Iraq as to justify the remarkably different sentiments directed at them by the Bush administration.

Oh, and on DaDakota's original question:

Our use of international law is farcical. We back international law whenever it's convenient, then openly violate it and cry for national sovereignty rights when it's not. Not entirely our fault: no state is ever going to obey international law w/o a believable coercive threat against them. And right now, there is no viable threat that the US fears on the international stage that supports UN resolutions.

So, sorry UN. When the US agrees with you, international law actually matters. That is to say, when there's an independent reason for the US acting on such law .

The only way this actually bothers me is that it undermines the future viability of the international framework when such laws will be essential.

 

again!!! what is said and what is done are two entirely different things!!! it's called negotiations...it's called bluffing...it's called strategery!! if the threat of force is enough to cause change, then it was worth it. and hopefully no bullets have to be fired...

you're judging bush not for what he's done but by what he has said he might do.

 

Riiiiight, but those countries have (although we keep getting mixed signals from Ankara) pledged their support regardless of the situation in the U.N. Again, how is that acting unilaterally? How can the U.S. government be acting unilaterally when the possibility of us acting alone, with or without U.N. support, is zero?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we halt oil shipments after we, through the CIA, had credible evidence that they had never ceased their nuclear program?

 

Whether we disagree or agree with the current circumstance in Iraq I think we can all agree that if another terrorist attack were to occur on American soil the backlash against Bush is going to be ugly. I don't understand why he would abandon the war on terror risking the Whitehouse in 04' and another catastrophic terror attack. Lets not be ignorant of the man's own ability to use common sense.

 

Buck Turgidson:

I believe that you're wrong. It's possible that the US actually abided by its share of the bargain, but if it did... then it was either Japan or South Korea that failed to assist adequately.

The reactor that was promised was far behind schedule, and the aid shipments were always delayed when they were even sent.

The treaty was violated by either the US, Japan, or SK. I did a case study on the damned thing my junior year in undergrad, but it's on my ****ty old desktop and my memory is failing .

 

Haven,

I'm not so sure that the sentiments Bush is directing to Iraq and North Korea are all that hard to figure out. If you remember, when news of nulcear weapons in North Korea first surfaces, Bush's response was to not talk to them. He wanted to freeze them out. He is negotiating now, but Bush in no way wants a rogue nation like North Korea to ever get normalized relations. Now that they have nuclear weapons, a war is not really a good alternative.

And the US, in the early 90's, did feel that Saddam was worth negotiating with, which is why Saddam was not taking out in the first Gulf War. The second Bush seems to think that is a mistake- due to 9/11, due to growing terrorism around the world, due to Saddam's continued violations.

As far as international law, that is a valid concern, and Bush did back off the "pre-emption" doctrine. But I am also concerned about anti-American sentiment in the UN, and the fact that more countries are going against American interests for politcal gain.

 

If you're right it's the first time I've heard it. I'll have to look it up, though I'm pretty sure NK violated the agrement.

 

Mr. Clutch:

Poland, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria,( you've got to be kidding me on our old ally Bulgaria!).. Didn't cost too much to get Bulgaria's "support" I bet.

Doesn't appear to be any any troops from anyone else, but Britain.

Turkey and Kuwait have expressed numerous reservations.

Britiain? EIGHTY-one per cent of people are against attacking Iraq without UN approval. Just 10 per cent now agree military action should go ahead in the absence of a United Nations Security Council say-so. An ICM poll for today's Guardian newspaper said overall support for a strike on Baghdad has fallen to its lowest level yet.

Vast majority oppose in UK

Hell if I were the leader of a poor country like Haiti I would be asking how much $$$ do I get if I just say I support, but don't have to send any troops?

 

Glynch, I didn't write that.

 

Mr. Clutch. I guess you are relieved not to be stuck with that one!. My apologies.

The credit should go to Buck Turgidson.

 

Yep, fuel shipments went as planned, but there were big delays in the agreed building of a light water reactor as dictated by the Agreed Framework.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007248179x/student_view0/chapter8/a_further_note_1.html

Rogue nations don't get normalized relations? Of course they do. They just have to be powerful enough. See China.

Clinton felt like negotiating . And we didn't take out Saddam because Bush feared casualties. "Taking out" opposing world leaders is a good way to encourage terrorism. You can never kill everyone who has so little hope that they'll resort to terrorism... because such actions only produce more such people.

I'm indifferent to current international law. I merely think our position should be consistent: we should either back it, or not. But I oppose waffling depending on who international law favors in any given instance. It makes both us and the UN look terrible.

And as for opposition ot the US in the UN... simple power politics. Tis the way it's always been, and always will be, on the world stage. Nations want their way. They strive to achieve policy goals. Often, that's through opposition and sedition against the reigning power. The French, I agree, are particularly annoying .

 

1. on britain -- you are aware of the concept of representative govt, right? unless the UK switched to a direct democracy under my nose, i don't think the same people polled will be those that vote on action in iraq

2. turkey has reservations only because of their concern about immigrant refugees at their borders...let's don't act like we're the only country that acts in its own best interests...having said that, turkey has agreed to allow us to stage operations there and use air bases.