If President Bush wants war with Iraq, he better present some damn good evidence of them having nuclear weapons. If the government can present cold hard evidence of Iraq having nukes, then Im all for going over there, taking over the hellhole and implementing a democratic government.
If there is no evidence of them having nuclear capabilities, then like some of you have said, let them take care of their own business, but in my opinion, it all boils down to nuclear weapons. They take the term "war" to a whole other level. The best deterrent the world has against nuclear war is mutual self destruction. That is if one country fires a nuclear weapon, they are guaranteed to be wiped out themselves. (Thats why through 40 years of the cold war, a nuclear weapons were never deployed between the US and the former USSR) But can we as a whole trust someone like Saddam with nuclear weapons? I sure the hell don't.
As for gasoline having our interests in the Middle East.... Hell yes I agree with that. Why do you think everyone in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates drive Ferraris (no joke either.) Its because all of OUR money is buying it for them! As long as we can keep them happy with $4 million dollar mansions and $100,000 cars, they'll keep selling their barrels of crude oil to us!
Im going out on a limb here and saying the next great American inventor such as Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, etc..... Will be the person(s) to develope a highlyreliable non-gasoline engine. After we have dependable vehicles that won't need gasoline, our only interests in the Middle East will be keeping nukes out of the crazy bastards' hands and that will be about it

 

I was all for the Gulf War. I was younger and thought I knew everything. I was not married and did not have any children, so the future was a lot different than the future I see now.

I do not think the USA has any rights to "TAKE OUT" leaders of other nations. . I hope that is not what is important to the citizens of the USA. Unless the US allows an attack to happen, Iraq has NO way of inflicting any damage to the US. If the US attacks Iraq without being provoked by an attack, it will ruin US foreign affairs for years to come. WHO in the region could trust the US? Who is the next leader that the US wants to remove? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Iran, Cuba, Libya, or Egypt.


Pakistan and India have Nuclear weapons. Pakistan has been close to a governmental coup, where the possible controlling leaders are going to make Saddam seem rational. In attacking Iraq now we will be losing the support of some of the counties in the region we are going to need to depend on in the future. We will need the other countries in the region support to deal with a new Pakistani government.

Now is not the time to try to pull this stunt. IMHO

 

UN cannot powergrab. It is not a super sovereign entity. It has no self-contained enforcement body. It is not even a sovereign entity. Its legitimacy is entirely based on fragile and shortsighted agreement that "bound" the nations in its inception.

Under traditional analysis of international law, a nation is sovereign against all others, including (or rather, especially) against other sovereign nations. It reserves all power to enter into bilateral and multi-lateral treaties and on the flip side, terminate all treaties for any reason and indeed no reason at all. If you are suggesting that a nation's, particularly a superpower like the United State, sovereignty can be abrogated without its full consent, then you are mistaken.

 

I think we should wait till... I don't know, till he lights one off in Columbus Ohio!

 

chaean,

First off, I agree that the U.S. can not lose it's sovereignty unless it willingly gives it up, or in our case, if the governemnt allows this to happen.

However, this is already in the works. You can't actually believe we haven't given much of our sovereignty up when we have signed into hundreds of treaties and agreements and ask the U.N.'s permission before we go to war, build a new power plant or create our environmental policy.

The U.N. is not weak because we prop it up. There are powerful americans that hold to the idea of a one world government. Ever heard Bush or others mention the new world order?? Take a look at the organizations that many poweful men (inlcuding bush and much of the press) are apart of. Look at the CFR, the trilateral commission. These think-tanks publish materials constantly promoting globalism and their founding documents promote the idea of abolishing sovereign nations.

Do your research and then come back and tell me that our own governemnt leaders are not leading us into a one world government via the UN.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.

 

biteme,
Im all for going into Iraq. Reason I said he better have some evidence of Saddam having some nukes, is to persuade everyone else to back him with the invasion. There is nothing worse for a country than to go into a war with no approval from any of your allies, or worse yet having 50% of your own population not supporting you!
As for nuking Columbus, Ohio, I could only hope that if there was a nuclear war, a missle would land right in the middle of my house. Its better to be incinerated in the actual blast than to get the "aftershock" or the effects of a nuclear winter which living in Columbus, Ohio, is the more likely option, because a major target after New York, Washington DC, LA, etc...would be Wright Patterson Air Force Base which is based in Dayton, Ohio one hour west of Columbus.

 

Reading through this, all I could think of is George Carlin's skit on the Big ***** Foriegn Policy at work.

Seriously though, I think that US sticks it's nose in way more business then it should be involved in.

 

How to begin... Frank S. I cannot even begin to imagine how I can answer your question. Suffice to say, it almost borders on a non-question because no person with at least basic understanding of international law would ask such a question. It's almost like asking, "Leaves are green in France. What do you think about that?" Well, I think a good answer would be, "who gives a *****?" You see, UN is not an unified body with a single agenda. Almost by definition, cannot be. Whatever unity it can manage from time to time is issue-specific, particularly focused on a specific concern that is shared by a key alliance of members and bribed on or extorted to the rest. It's dysfunctional, and that is precisely why it exists.

Sovereignty defines a nation-state. Because a nation is sovereign, it can enter into a treaty with another nation. And because a nation is sovereign, it can unilaterally break a treaty. For example, toilet paper you used this morning may have been recycled from Kyoto Accord papers. (I know it wasn't ratified and made all "official" but even if it were, it would not have made a difference) A nation doesn't enter into a treaty to be a good neighbor, or to go along with international consensus (a laughable term). A nation signs a treaty to preserve itself. Maybe signing a treaty will strengthen its economical positions. Or signing a treaty means a more powerful neighboring county won't kick its ***. Whatever the reasons, it is a "selfish"act. A nation breaks a treaty for the same reason as well.

As for my research, I probably don't read the same types of periodicals as perhaps some of you read. And I confess I do not keep myself keenly abreast of every new development either, since this not my field. But my reading list doesn't have ads for "mercenaries" and reproduction fantasy swords in the back, and I like it that way.

 

Frank S, Eric, and chaean

Frank and Eric, I understand your point, and I'm in slight disagreement with chaean (I agree with chaean about how things are NOW). I think both Frank and Eric are talking about the every-present "slippery-slope" argument, most notably used in arguments against liberalist interpretations of the Constitution (in fact I use them all the time).

The basic premise is - of course there isn't any coordinated effort to "fill in the blank" (not acknowledge belief in God did play a key role in the country's founding, ban all forms of handgun ownership, etc.) However, there are a small minority that use "incrementalism" to push the "norm" closer away from what it is today, and DO have such evil intentions. So the natural conclusion of the argument goes - so today we ban assault rifles, next is any rifle that isn't bolt action, next is rifles all together except for sport, then its ALL rifles, then its handguns except for sport, then its all handguns. I truly believe there is NOT a concerted effort to ban ALL handguns in America. However, I believe ultimately all handguns WILL be banned due the previously mentioned reason.

Using the same thought process, I know that the UN cannot control what the US does. I know that the UN can only exercise over the US whatever power the US gives it do so. But that doesn't mean that ultimately some day the US won't come under UN jurisdiction, and it doesn't mean the function of the UN can't grow and change just like any organization. Just like with handguns, I don't believe there is a CONCERTED effort to bring all countries under UN "control" or "policy adoption". But I do believe there are some people out there that will exploit whatever opportunity they can do change the "norm" to be more and more reliance and power transfer to the UN, the smallest piece at a time. Thus, in 60 years, it won't be unusual for every country to have given a UN-backed INTERPOL the power to go into any country unabashed in pursuit of criminals.

 

Neither does mine.



I am aware of this fact.

The key word here is "almost." Look into their treaties, way way into their treaties and you will see many disturbing beliefs. You may or may not care, or give a crapola as you say, but it is in there. And no I'm not trying to flame you, even after the comments about my perceived reading list.

cpadpl: Well said. The future will tell how far our civil liberties will be eroded. Unfortunately, the events of 9/11/01 have increased the rate of erosion.

 

Here's the thing. Real men and women do whats right, not what the crowd (allies) think is "in". Fact most of our allies are a bunch of wussies. Remember Hitler, alot of them were trying to be his friend at the time so they didn't have to worry about getting thier as* kicked by him, didn't matter though did it?

Don't matter if Saddam has nukes or not, its the biological weapons that are more dangerous. The man is a NUT he has killed his own people with the sh*t so thats all the proof we need. He has not done what he was suppose to do since the Gulf War. See in my world this "time-out" crap don't work. You punish, by either taking something away, or a smack on the as*. You DO NOT try to talk things over with the moron you tell him how it is going to be. Either you do what we say or we will kick your as* PERIOD. Why, because we are the super power, the bad as* on the street, the good guys.

It's time to stop ****ing around with these morons in the world and take care of business. Make an example of Saddam and the next guy will think twice about screwing with us.

There are some people out there that tell their kid "don't fight" when the bully messes with you at school, try to talk it out. That is the stupidest thing I of have ever heard of, but I will tell you the bully loves you people that teach your kids that. He makes alot of money off you and the wuss in the corner shaking. The kid that stands up to the bully may take an as* kicking but the bully ain't going to mess with him again he'll move on to another "weak" kid.

Its time to take Saddam out, however you may wish, invade or what ever. We are suppose to be reducing our nukes so hell while we are at it why not test a few out instead of waste them. In any case when we do take him out watch all are wuss (except the Brits) allies of ours who we have time and time again saved their wussy as*ses come around and start saying "ya we agree that was the right thing for the US to do" We sure in the hell don't need any permission from the UN, this is the US not UN screw them we can take them out anytime we please as well. I mean come on you talk about about a bunch of wuss kids standing in the corner shaking and your talking about the UN. They like to be safe and follow the crowd, not like real men and women who do whats right and not follow the crowd.

See, we already took our as* wooping (remember 9/11) so now its time to stand up to one of the wusses involved. If I could talk to the little ***** Saddam I would tell him "eat a real good meal, have some cake, because it will be your last"

 

Someone else that sees the big picture!

We can remain reactive and continue getting screwed by bailing out other countries and letting this idiot continue his trends. In the long run we would still have terrorist problems, end up involved in who knows what helping other countires, and still be accused of religious bias.

OR

We become proactive, and stomp his butt and force him into allowing the inspections that the UN, not just the US, imposed.


Anybody hear much about Momar these days? Didn't think so. Anybody think Ronald Reagans actions have anything to do with it?

 

This is a serious discussion. I was expecting responses like
"nuke em all".

Seriously though, there will never be peace in that little lovely
corner of the world. It doesn't matter who's in charge of Iraq.
The outcome will eventually be the same.

 

I totally agree with doing away with Saddam. What makes me laugh about the issue is anyone can look back to late September/October of last year, and 99% of Americans were ready to go over and make the middle east, whats the popular term again, "A Glass Parking Lot?" Have most of those people lost their ***** in the last year?