If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Why do we need to get into war quickly?
What makes you think he doesn't pose a threat?
And weapons inspectors don't destroy weapons.
We are engaged in a war on terrorism, with the majority of terrorists today being fundamentalists of the Muslim faith. Given those facts, and the above method, how do you see Iraq fitting in to a strategy in the war on terrorism?
OK the inspections led to the destruction of Iraqi weapons...
I don't see the link you are trying to draw between Iraq and TWAT....
Is this true regarding the future of the UN?
The UN's relevance is not decided upon by Bush or any other single world leader now or at any other time in its history. What will be true however is that so long as Bush continues to do as he pleases in world affairs without thought to the consequences, our own nation will become more and more isolated both politically and economically.
I beginning to wonder how much power Bin Laden has? He called for murders of Americans worldwide and it hasn't happened.
You mean like the League of Nations relevance wasn't decided by the US Congress?
Secondly since the US never joined it it also is a poor comparison.
Try reading what is written not what you choose to read. :rolleyes:
Yes. Remove the US/UK monitoring, and Saddam is very capable of reinvading Kuwait or going to war with others of his neighbors. In addition, Saddam is very capable of conducting unconventional warfare against his neighbors or other nations, regardless of the monitoring.
We don't know that. The whole point to the inspectors being there now.
The war on terrorism requires extensive assets. It also requires the opportunity to provide education to those who are recruited into such terrorist organizations. Currently, there is little or no access to educating the bulk of the people in the Middle-East.
Lots of people have claimed that a war against Iraq will destabilize the region. Why? One of the reasons most often put forward is that whether Iraq ends up being a Democracy/Republic of some sort, or ends up being a number of smaller nations, it will be a place where the people have more input into their lives than previously (not saying that it will be an ideal democracy, etc...just more input), possibly causing unrest in their neighbors. Simply by ensuring that education systems include teachings about alternate ways of life will significantly reduce the recruit base for terrorism and will also affect the neighboring nations. It may help by focusing the attention of the peoples in the region on their own governments and those governments' roles and responsibilities instead of focusing on the "Great Satan".
In addition, changing the regime in Iraq will reduce the number of safe havens that are available to terrorists. Given the nature of the Middle-East, it is unlikely that we can ever completely eliminate safe havens (isolated spots are always available), but it is possible to reduce the number.
Back to those assets required for the war on terror. Has anyone considered what assets are involved in "containing" Iraq? Troops, weapons, aircraft, satellites, intelligence assets.... all being used constantly for the last 12 years to contain Saddam Hussein. Couldn't those assets be better used in the war on terror? Well, if so, we must first take away the reason for where they currently are. That means a regime change in Iraq. Short-term commitment of a large number of assets is cheaper than long-term commitment of all the assets we have commited to Iraq.
Not such a poor comparison actually. Without the United States, the LoN was irrelevant to the world stage. The same will be true of the UN should the US withdraw. And yes, one single world leader can make that decision. Diplomatic personel, including the US representative to the UN, work for the Executive Branch.
Try thinking about what you write. :rolleyes:
Actually the LoN was irrelevant regardless of the US. What members it did have didnt trust the treaty it was based upon and were as yet steeped in nationalism, making multilaterism virtually impossible to achieve. I suggest you go back and study the historic details more carefully.
Then the UN would be then free from interference to pursue the compliance of other outstanding resolutions with the same ardour as those Iraq is in breach of.
I agree with you on the importance of education in reducing the terrorist threat.
If this is to be a proper method though, would it not be better to try and educate the people of Saudi Arabia or Egypt?
No terrorists have come from Iraq. Surely easier to initiate such a policy in surrounding nations and let ideas leach into iraq rather than the other way round?
This supports your claim Aladdin. It was in USA Today.
Countries have learned to fear Washington's wrath over key U.N. votes. When Yemen, along with Cuba, cast the lone negative votes against a U.N. resolution in 1990 authorizing the Gulf War, Washington almost immediately withdrew a $70 million aid package to Yemen. Immediately after the vote in the Security Council chamber, a U.S. official was overheard telling Yemen's ambassador, "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
Ah the morally superior "neutral" countries. Switzerland was neutral regarding fighting the Nazis but not when it came to making a buck off their stolen loot. Sweden wouldn't fight either. But much smaller Norway did and played a key role in delaying Germany's nuclear weapons program...at the expense of many of their countrymen's lives. Doesn't matter where you move it. If you don't have he US...you don't have game.
I think when countries see the US is going in...they will offer some involvement...in rebuilding Iraq and making new oil deals.
How?
Mexico is apparently now pro-war.
(Like my new AV? )