Should Saddam Be...

[FatBastard]

Nah, on second thoughts, I think you were right the first time!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@17 December 2003 - 21:46
@ j2k4 - The US is a member of the UN, and the UN said Iraq should have longer to prove they had no WMD. The US (and other countries, including my own) ignored them, just like everyone else with an agenda did.

Alex-

I am well aware of how you view the United States' actions vis a vis Iraq.

I asked specifically about France, Germany, and Russia, and their workarounds of the embargos.

Do they warrant your scorn too, or do you reserve that for the U.S.?

Also:

You obviously feel the U.N. was correct in allowing Saddam to flout all their precious resolutions for 12 years.

Is this an unspoken condition of all U.N. resolutions?

How much longer should they have waited before they acted?

What do you think might have finally precipitated action on the part of the U.N.?

If you do not wish to answer these questions, please cease and desist in questioning the "haste" of America's actions.

[FatBastard]

J2k4, does this insistance on conforming to UN resolutions extend only to Iraq?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@18 December 2003 - 01:59
J2k4, does this insistance on conforming to UN resolutions extend only to Iraq?

Not necessarily, but for purposes here, let us say yes.

I am merely attempting to assay whether I am witnessing anti-U.S. bias or a more reasonably well-rounded cynicism; logic dictates if it's the latter, some well-warranted commentary as to France, Germany and Russia bearing some of the responsibility for Saddam ought to be forthcoming, yes?

An absence of same would indicate a bias, surely?

I don't believe my expectation is at all unreasonable, do you?

Please bear with my inability to attend immediately to this thread, as I trying to multi-task at the moment.

It's kinda fun.

Like juggling feathers.

[FatBastard]

I think the core of the problem here j2, is that people just don't believe the US and it's allies went into Iraq for the reasons given. That renders anything they say as suspect, and is treated with sceptisism. We know other countries flouted the rules, but they didn't invade on a false pretext, did they?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@18 December 2003 - 02:57
I think the core of the problem here j2, is that people just don't believe the US and it's allies went into Iraq for the reasons given.  That renders anything they say as suspect, and is treated with sceptisism.  We know other countries flouted the rules, but they didn't invade on a false pretext, did they?

Okay, ignore the pretext.

You say the U.N. felt Saddam should have more time (I still find this amazing)?

The reason the U.N. was "irresolute" with regard to their own resolutions was because of the resistance of the aforementioned three countries.

It is very clear:

Had not France, Germany and Russia expressed a latent resistance to enforcement of the resolutions they were signatory to, we wouldn't be debating this.

For that matter, leave the U.N. out of it altogether; this stagnation was the result of a difference of "opinion" between those three and the U.S.

That would be a more accurate summation of the dynamic.

These three countries had motivations apart from the larger U.N., but for their purpose relative to Iraq, they were the U.N.

[tralalala]

in a way... everything IS possible...
even if its impossible to believe - a bit like a basketball team down by 2 with 0.5 secs to go and the other team score from full court length... near impossible... but the chance is allways there.


tralalala

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by tralalala@17 December 2003 - 10:10
well in that case my friend... you may go off to iraq (actually emigrate) and live there... if thats your oppinion of the western world.

i do not acknowledge or respect the "love it or leave it" slogan or any paraphrase thereof. it is a lazy cliché-- it's just an easy shortcut around the argument rather than seriously addressing it. just because someone fails to idealize or exaggerate the virtues of their homeland, that does not make them a traitor or undeserving of residence there.

and... uh... if i dislike the brutality of the west, i should move to a country that's been invaded, conquered and occupied by the united states? i appreciate the offer (especially if you meant that you wanted to pay for my plane ticket to iraq), but no thanks. though it might not be so bad, if i were to emigrate there in about 50 years. i imagine baghdad will be exactly like tokyo or west berlin by then.

[2Pac_4_Life]

i think he should be tortured. and then burned to death

[3RA1N1AC]

yeah or maybe some iranis could pop a few in his dome, drive-by style. er... i mean, 2pac-style. then he will be remembered as the greatest dictator ever, and continue oppressing the peasants from beyond the grave and release collaborations with new dictators who weren't even on the scene when he was alive.