The Dark Horse of the UN Security Council - Page 3

Kaak · February 7, 2003, 10:16

UI: i think your understanding of the war on iraq is fundamentally flawed. [b]We do not want to attack him because he is a dictator.[b] We want to attack him because he is a threat. He has WMDs and refuses, despite orders from the UN, to disarm.

It is a joke that the UN passes a resolution and claiming that if Iraq did not fully and utterly comply with there would be consequences, and then there are no consequences.

How are they supposed to have credibility when they order someone not to do something, and then only shake there finger when their orders are violated? The UN is a joke.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Iran is a sterling example of a country thay seems very close to becoming a very positive force in the region. The people seem to want this, but the Clerics are going to have to go, or at least stop sponsoring terrorists and thwarting democracy at every turn.

It will happen given enough time, provided Bush doesn't stick his foot in his mouth again, or do something even more stupid. That "axis of evil" comment certainly didn't help matters any. And if he starts threatening them after Iraq is over and done with, then all chance of change from within is pretty much lost. I just hope he's wise enough to recognize that fact.

Willem · February 7, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Usually Insane
Velo: Aye, you are right. but what I'm hearing at home is that of USA saying they are doing us a favor and that we should back them up whereever they go. not:

And unless the US governemnt makes this statement (in flowery speech) admits their guilt in saddams elevation and several others, and promises to correct it.

well, then I'll disaprove of any action the US are doing because I don't feel they are playing straight

this is of course my personal opinion only.

I think one of the problems in this whole issue is that many people can't seperate their distaste for George W. Bush from US policy. So far he's been like a bull in a china shop, blundering from one gaffe to the next and making a general ass of himself. If it were Powell in charge, presenting the same case, the negative reactions from the world wouldn't be nearly as severe.

We shouldn't confuse the policy with the bozo that's presenting it. I don't think there's very many people in this world that wouldn't like to see Saddam removed from power, and I think we can also agree that we'll be able to breathe a little easier if he's gone. Just because a diplomatic flunky is the one proposing to do it for us doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing.
Distasteful yes, but not bad.

Velociryx · February 7, 2003, 11:01

Couldn't agree more, Willem!

-=Vel=-

(EDIT: INCLUDING the parts about our current president, by the way!)

DuncanK · February 7, 2003, 11:59

The US will continue to support dictators around the world. We are Imperialists. If it will make you Canadians and Europeans feel better I will state that. But it probably wont because as some of you know I'm very much against the Imperialism of my own country. You ask, "why the hell is he for this upcoming war?" It's because, whether we fight this war or not the US will still support dictators where they feel they need to to maintain their order. Atleast with this war one of them is getting what he very much deserves and I believe that it will result in less suffering overall when Saddam has been removed from this planet. I know it fits into the overall Imperialistic plan, but its the wrong part to try to take out. We should be focusing on creating a plan that would prevent dictators from coming to power.

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Mobius: When will you guys get it through your skulls? The U.S. gives money to EVERYBODY. Yes, even dictators. The funny thing about lefties is if they're not condemming the U.S. for greedally refusing to give money to the worlds poor then they are condemming the U.S. for giving development aid to countries like Guinea.

Why is this all about 'lefties', we're talking common sense - not that I'm a leftie anyways...

Giving money to dictatorships is bad - nuff said!

And, as we know about so much of US foreign policy, the US doesn't just give money no strings attached - perhaps they'll be expecting Guinea to be voting in their favour for their, uh, 'investment...

Besides I'm sure the US gets far more back than the $200m in the natural resources that American companies are no doubt pillaging with the aid of Guinea's corrupt government...

Quote:

Here's a news flash for anyone who's interested. The majority of the world's poorest countries are run by dictators, ergo, if you give development money to the world's poorest countries you are helping to prop up a dictatorship.

Perhaps it's because of all the aid that these countries are receiving from the US that these dictatorships are allowed to perpetuate, huh?

I mean why is this country so poor anyway seeing as it has: "gold, diamonds and a third of the world's bauxite reserves", and why the hell is it actually getting poorer when it has such massive reserves!!? Where is the money going!!?

I'm beginning to think that the US' $200m pays itself back rather handsomely...

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 14:04

So sad.

I notice that of the four people that replied to me directly, two Americans had to resort to personal attacks...

Just because I make points that make you uncomfortable - to wit the US' blatant hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with Dictatorships and UN resolutions - you have to lash out in such an unsophisticated manner. I won't stoop to your level of behaviour, not that there's any point considering that there's more holes in your arguments than a Swiss Cheese...

Show sufficient decorum on this thread, and I may deign to shoot those arguments down in flames - assuming that is that you repeat your points in the polite and respectful manner of mature adults belonging to the human race...

DinoDoc · February 7, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Show sufficient decorum on this thread, and I may deign to shoot those arguments down in flames

I needed that.

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 14:26

GePap · February 7, 2003, 16:07

MOBIUS:

since most people here (including you) have the reason for the war wrong, don't expect a good discussion. Of course hypocrasy abounds all around: that's the way the world works, when black and white principles meet a grey world.

MOBIUS · February 7, 2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
MOBIUS:

since most people here (including you) have the reason for the war wrong, don't expect a good discussion.

So nice of you to second guess me GePap, what reason is it that I am claiming? Because I'll think you'll find that the reason you think I think it is, is wrong...

Quote:

Of course hypocrasy abounds all around: that's the way the world works, when black and white principles meet a grey world.

So you are therefore agreeing that the US is indeed acting hypocritically in gunning after Saddam despite creating this mess in the first place, and despite continuing to support a whole bunch of far less publicised Saddams around the world.

Or that the US is choosy about which UN resolutions it chooses to uphold and which ones it ignores - especially when in my mind 'serious consequences' does not equate to 'war'!

Thanks for clearing that up, GePap...