Why does it matter?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Spelca: What I wanted to point out is that everyone (ahem [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is saying that Saddam will never disarm. Including representers of the US government that I have spoken to. So my question (if you've read my post) was what was the point of going to the UN if the US was planning to attack Iraq no matter what? You say you don't believe Saddam, but what if Saddam really would disarm, would you believe him then? Probably not, right. [img]smile.gif[/img] You'd say that he's still hiding some weapons somewhere. Soooo... if nobody is ever willing to believe Saddam, what exactly was the point of going through the UN? Can anybody answer me that? [img]smile.gif[/img] If the US had really wanted the oppinion of the UN and wanted to work through the UN, then okay. But right now it seems they'll go to war with the UN or without. So what was the real reason? [img]smile.gif[/img]

The point of going to the UN is hoping against all hope that it is not in fact defunct and can somehow correct its 12 years of lazy recalcitrance. Being disheartened by a governmental system doesn't mean you don't try to use it.

Look, the UN always wants to have it both ways. It approves the use of force and states firmly that Saddam is in violation of about a dozen UN mandates. Then it whines when the US and other countries actually wanting to enforce the mandates try to do it. This is like a court saying "Yes, you broke the law. Now go home and get it right next time." C'mon, how long do such "first time offender" breaks apply?

It's silly and it reeks of a system incapable of action other than [insert thumb up ass].

I for one, hoped Saddam would start disarming after 1441 passed. A clear authorization of force, in my mind, would have and should have been his wakeup call. Again, however, he thumbs his nose. I also agree with President Bush: if Saddam disarmed, we'd all know about it. Saddam certainly knows how to call up the TV cameras to make a big hullaballoo about cuting up a dozen missiles or so.

[ 03-10-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Spelca: What I wanted to point out is that everyone (ahem [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) is saying that Saddam will never disarm. Including representers of the US government that I have spoken to. So my question (if you've read my post) was what was the point of going to the UN if the US was planning to attack Iraq no matter what? You say you don't believe Saddam, but what if Saddam really would disarm, would you believe him then? Probably not, right. [img]smile.gif[/img] You'd say that he's still hiding some weapons somewhere. Soooo... if nobody is ever willing to believe Saddam, what exactly was the point of going through the UN? Can anybody answer me that? [img]smile.gif[/img] If the US had really wanted the oppinion of the UN and wanted to work through the UN, then okay. But right now it seems they'll go to war with the UN or without. So what was the real reason? [img]smile.gif[/img]

The point was, to play the political game. It was an attempt to allow the UN to possibly become an effective force for action instead of a counsel of appeasers and do nothings. It was an attempt to allow the UN some dignity of doing the right thing. It was an attempt to let some of europe show that it could effectivly fight terror and opressive regimes. What it showed was that the UN is useless and ineffective as an enforcement agency.

Err thats how I see it at least.

On second thought errrr.....yeah what Timber said