wmw999 2,583 #26 March 6, 2003 We can lead, follow, or be out there all alone (or mostly alone) with everyone else telling us we're assholes. The UN isn't the chief; it's the consensus. It's not always right, but it does need to be investigated. Especially when we're going to kill a whole lot of people. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #27 March 6, 2003 QuoteWhy do we need the backing of the UN? so when you flying over, my comments were intended as an invitation. i can have someone pick you up in Bahrain. (that's IF you've got the rocks)--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
harryskydives 0 #28 March 6, 2003 US is turning into a rogue state. That the US is willing to unilaterally decide __________________________________________________ Please read UN resloution 1441. And No where does it state that every day a New resolution is required!! Humm rogue state: did the US attack iran? did the us attack Kawait? Did the US destroy 6,000 villages in Iraq? Gass the Kurds?? Saddam lost the Gulf War, he must disarm! You should be scared, If your police and armys will not enforce the peace. Remember France sold Saddam a nuclear reactor for enriching plutonium for weapons grade BOMBS Don't run out of altitude and experience at the same time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #29 March 6, 2003 that's exactly the response i expected... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #30 March 7, 2003 QuoteThe UN isn't the chief; it's the consensus. It's not always right, but it does need to be investigated. You're right Wendy, it does need to be investigated. As a world leader it is our obligation to do so. I think though that we have investigated the alternatives and as I mentioned earlier it seems more and more that the only way to disarm Saddam and destroy his WMD is through war with Iraq. The alternative I suppose is to let him continue down his current path of game playing and attempting to divide the UN. BTW: I'm sorry that your brother is afraid, I sincerely hope that everything works out for the best with him. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #31 March 7, 2003 Quote The day before that, N. Korean jets surrounded a recon plane of ours in international waters. International waters? Oh! You mean "airspace"We all know what you meant... ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #32 March 7, 2003 Wendy: I'm scared too. I don't care to discuss the "should we go in or shouldn't we." It's complicated. Regardless of what the right decision is, I'm still scared. I don't want our people dying, I don't want innocent Iraqi's dying. I just hope and pray whatever happens it is over quick and w/ little blood shed and that no additional harm comes to us. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,583 #33 March 7, 2003 I'm the one who's scared. He's pissed and concerned, and can't believe what he's hearing about the US. And I don't mean that the Brazilian press is lying (not that it's perfect, mind you...), but what he reads about the sentiment in the US from the US press. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #34 March 7, 2003 >Why do we need the backing of the UN? So we generate less hatred when we attack; that way fewer americans die in terrorist attacks in the future. That's worth even putting up with countries you don't like. > We can lead or we can follow. And, as we've seen on 9/11, we can die, too. Terrorism is a real threat to the US, and becoming more real as the technology becomes more readily available. Attacking Iraq without UN support will create a whole new crop of terrorists, people who see the US as the greatest single threat to their lives and their families. And nothing you do in Iraq will prevent a man whose family has been killed by US drones from taking a King Air full of ANFO into the Sears Tower. We better figure out how to deal with the root problem before that happens. >I would prefer that we lead. And I would prefer fewer dead americans - even fewer dead arabs if we can swing it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #35 March 7, 2003 > There is a GROWING Pro-War movement at colleges like HArvard and Stanford.. I was at Harvard this week. Saw a few anti-war rallying types (selling T-shirts) but no pro-war types. Same at MIT. Where are the pro-war people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #36 March 7, 2003 Quote Oh! You mean "airspace" [Tongue] I knew when I wrote that post there was something wrong with the visual on it...that's what you get when I get so tired...my bad...sorry, all! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralu 0 #37 March 7, 2003 Well, you forgotten Romania... Not a big deal, but US has here like 10000 soldiers, lots of planes and some battleships... And we didn't ask for money or other favors to let them in.... ralu what would be a woman without her dreams.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 613 #38 March 7, 2003 I think that the perception of the US as a rogue state is possibly a little harsh - but I do believe that the vast majority of people here in Europe do not trust the US and see the US as paranoid. There is deep unease about the war here in the UK and only some 10% of the british population support a war without a 2nd UN resolution. I am not sure what moral grounds the US/UK will have to stand on regarding international law when already both are saying they don't care about the UN process. Personally I am really freaked by the image portrayed by Bush that US are the strongest so THEREFORE the US are right - that is not necessarily true. I struggle to buy into the argument about Iraq posing a DIRECT threat to the US/UK. Nowhere has Iraq been tied up with Al Queda - in fact the UK admits there are active cells here - you gonna bomb us/our should Blair do that? If the US and UK go to war then terrorism WILL increase and one only has to look at Northern Ireland and Isreal to see how hard it is to "crush" terrorism.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #39 March 7, 2003 Quote>Why do we need the backing of the UN? So we generate less hatred when we attack; that way fewer americans die in terrorist attacks in the future. That's worth even putting up with countries you don't like. I don't know that I agree with this. It seems to me those who would launch a terrorist attack on the United States (or any country for that matter) aren't likely to forego that option simply because a war with Iraq was blessed by the UN. Terrorists are terrorists plain and simple. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #40 March 7, 2003 >It seems to me those who would launch a terrorist attack on the >United States (or any country for that matter) aren't likely to forego > that option simply because a war with Iraq was blessed by the UN. I agree with you there. However, a unilateral war with Iraq will create whole armies of new terrorists; many arabs will see that even the rest of the world cannot stop the US from attacking arab countries. It really is life or death; they must stop the US at all costs lest their country be next, or their religion/nationality be annhiliated. (I know, I know, it's really not like that, but consider how they see it.) I don't think that having UN approval will _reduce_ the present risk of terrorism, but going it alone will significantly _increase_ the future risk of terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,583 #41 March 7, 2003 QuoteI don't think that having UN approval will _reduce_ the present risk of terrorism, but going it alone will significantly _increase_ the future risk of terrorism. Having UN approval will also increase the chance that other countries will cooperate actively with preventing that terrorism and tracking down perpetrators, rather than just saying "not my problem." Nothing will make it perfect. But there are degrees of imperfect. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #42 March 7, 2003 It should be a majority vote flies. We would have no problem if that was the case.., Make the UN like congress.. lol Republicans and Democrats.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
