[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: There are reasons other than "innocents will die" Ronn. I'm well aware of that and didn't mean it to be an insulting generalization. Despite the other reasons, I'd assume saving the lives of the innocent would be the most important. If the USA decides to do this alone (or with a few allies) it will set a precedent. I wasn't suggesting the US should do it alone. I said the US military on the ground around Iraq now is the overwhelming reason for Saddam's cooperation. 1)Israel would be able declare a similar war on the Palestinians or vice-versa. The same goes for India and Pakistan, Japan and North Korea, England and Ireland, Russia and Chechnya and any number of other "hotspots" And the UNs failure to enforce it's own resolutions sends a similarly negative idea around the world doesn't it? 2)It will cost untold amounts of money to fight this war. It will cost more to clean up and the US government has not said how much it will cost and has not come up with a plan for what happens afterward. The fewer the allies, the more comes out of the taxpayers pockets. So money is the reason not to do it? I thought that American greed was the only reason we were interested in Iraq anyway. I thought we were going to steal their oil. Won't that pay for it? 3)We are creating an image that causes many people around the world to hate America. We are angering allies and may stir up the hornets nest of terrorism to new levels. If America doesn't care what they think, then we should close the borders and go into isolation. If we want to be the top dog, we must expect others to try challenge that authority. Many across the world hate America anyway. Many hate American culture and influence and arrogance and so on and so forth. Some people will hate America because we are here. Others will dislike our policies, and move on. I don't like the French position, but I don't hate France. It could be said that in America there is a growing anti-French sentiment. That sentiment is based on their politics regarding the current issue. Should they change to appease America? Of course not, so should America change to please the French or anyone else? I still can't see why we the UN can't just drop 100's of 1,000's of UN troops into Iraq to help the inspectors disarm Iraq and fly U2 planes out to watch for any cheating by the Iraqi Government. Is "blowing stuff up, real good" the only way to fix the problem?

UM, Mark dropping hundreds of thousands of UN troops to enforce what the inspectors are doing isn't reasonable based on what most members of the SC are saying. Where are those troops going to come from? Not France, Russia, China, Germany or Belgiam.

Are these troops to go in with the ability to act? I think the new Big 5 will say no, so why would sending in troops in this case matter? To stand around and be laughed at. You want to talk about wasting money, lets send in a 100, 000 UN troops and leave the there for 12 years without any purpose.

The coaltion of the willing did offer the UN troops to enforce the disarmament of Iraq, but the UN is sending more, unneeded, inspectors and giving them more time to evaluate the Iraqis non-compliance.