What are we waiting for?

[Iron_Ranger]

What excaley are we waiting for? Why do we need Frances approval to defend ourself? The UN? The UN doesnt even inforce its own resolutions. Why should we commit ourselfs to a orgnization that frankly is usless IMO.

Its my understanding that it wasnt the insepectors job to prove he had weapons, it was Saddams job to give them up. You could tell he wasnt going to do that along time ago. So whats the bloody hold up?

Why is that people think we can disarm Saddam with resolutions, despite 12 years of failing to do so?

Why should we pass at least 18 resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, spend way too much time trying to build an international coalition to pressure Saddam to disarm, and continue to take no action even if he doesn't comply with our U.N. resolutions.

Again I ask, whats the hold up?

[johnny]

Politics, that's the hold up.

[Felix The Assassin]

Well with all of the current hogwash going on, we are starting to pick at each other.
If you recall not to distant past, Turkey denied us access. Therefore a flotilla was diverted to another location.
The other unit that was called to deploy is still on the gunnery range, and their flotilla has yet to arrive at port.
As some have said earlier, we have a lot of troops there. But.....
The clock is ticking, and the longer it takes the hotter it is going to get. I can tell you that wearing your CVCU (Combat Vehicle Crewman Uniform), plus your chemical overgarmet, already raises your body temperture by 10* F. Add to that an ambient temp of @ 100* F, and my attitude changes drastically. Not to be to graphic, but at that point one is ready to literally rip someone's head off, and beat him with it before he hits the ground. It's also called conditioning the troops. Not all young soldiers have the hunter killer instinct, it has to be instilled, monitored, and refined. Then when it's all over, we have to tone down, and teach them when and how to turn it off. That is why they will spend some time there after wards. Then the follow on forces will arrive, and the current warriors will rotate out.
But the longer we wait, the more training casulties we will encounter, and sadly the medical casulties will start. Dehydration; in a desert environment with full gear is always promient.
Sadly, if we don't do something soon, we may not be able to do it at all. The weather in that god forsaken place will tear down people and equipment quick, fast and in a hurry.
I left KKMC Kuwait 2 MAY 1992, with a NG escort to a Pan Am 747, at 1300hrs (local), with a ambient temperture of 112* F, and arrived at home station at 1500 hrs(local) 2 MAY 1992 to a very chilly 62* F. It may appear to have been a short flight, but you must consider the 6 time zones you fly back through from East to West.
It is now mid March, and the temperture is on the rise.
Will world politics and policies prevail?
Will we have to fight in the heat of the desert?
I agree, what are we waiting for.

[Stratos]

The US/UK probably want the rest of the world backing them up and supporting their solution on Iraq. Doing things on their own without a broad support might make the US a bit unpopular around the globe. They have already said no to ICC and Kyoto agreement, and a war on Iraq might make things even worse.

As for the UN being useless, I disagree. The UN consists of their member states and if we wan´t a good, wellfunctioning UN it is up to all members to make it so.
Besides there are successful parts of the UN as well, it doesn´t only consists of the Security Counsil.
It is true though that UN has failed their job several times before, but that doesn´t make it a complete failure.

US/UK believes that there are proof enough that Iraq has WoMD, but the sceptics are not convinced. It is up to US/UK to convince them that Iraq has all the WoMD that they claim it has.
Let the UN inspectors stay in Iraq a couple of months more to find the damning evidence needed to get a worldwide support for a war.
Still need to press him though, the inspectors wouldn´t even be in Iraq right now if it hadn´t been for US threatening to invade.

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Stratos: The US/UK probably want the rest of the world backing them up and supporting their solution on Iraq. Doing things on their own without a broad support might make the US a bit unpopular around the globe. They have already said no to ICC and Kyoto agreement, and a war on Iraq might make things even worse. Are you kidding? The world is going to dislike the US/UK no matter what we do, so why try and please them? As for the UN being useless, I disagree. The UN consists of their member states and if we wan´t a good, wellfunctioning UN it is up to all members to make it so. I agree here, key part here is 'up too all its members to make it so'. Besides there are successful parts of the UN as well, it doesn´t only consists of the Security Counsil. It is true though that UN has failed their job several times before, but that doesn´t make it a complete failure. US/UK believes that there are proof enough that Iraq has WoMD, but the sceptics are not convinced. It is up to US/UK to convince them that Iraq has all the WoMD that they claim it has. Let the UN inspectors stay in Iraq a couple of months more to find the damning evidence needed to get a worldwide support for a war. I think your incorrect here. Like I said in my first post, the inspectors are NOT dectives. A few more months? Like when? Three? Three more months it will be June, see Felixs post. Still need to press him though, the inspectors wouldn´t even be in Iraq right now if it hadn´t been for US threatening to invade.

Agreed.

[ 03-14-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Patience IR - All good things come to those that wait

The war is comming - never fear. The whole UN argument is just about justification.

[Rokenn]

Yup judging by the latest news you blood-lust will soon be sated.

[Animal]

It's called conscience. The US needs to make sure it's the right thing. A lot of lives are riding on this, not just "possible" lives but guaranteed lives. I'm glad the US decided to give it at least a little more time so at the very least Saddam can prove his intentions one way or another.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: What excaley are we waiting for? Why do we need Frances approval to defend ourself? The UN? The UN doesnt even inforce its own resolutions. Why should we commit ourselfs to a orgnization that frankly is usless IMO. Its my understanding that it wasnt the insepectors job to prove he had weapons, it was Saddams job to give them up. You could tell he wasnt going to do that along time ago. So whats the bloody hold up? Why is that people think we can disarm Saddam with resolutions, despite 12 years of failing to do so? Why should we pass at least 18 resolutions in the U.N. Security Council, spend way too much time trying to build an international coalition to pressure Saddam to disarm, and continue to take no action even if he doesn't comply with our U.N. resolutions. Again I ask, whats the hold up?

It's a bit of a stretch to say that an invasion of Iraq by the US is considered self defense. I doubt Iraq could ever pose a direct threat to the US. Sure he could sell WoMD to someone who may, but then anyone could. We commit ourselves to the UN because we are a part of the UN, whether that be good or bad. We can't choose what UN decisions we'll abide by and which ones we don't. If the US feels that the UN is useless, that it needs to look at withdrawing from it.
We hope to disarm Saddam with resolutions and increased pressure of war. Sure it may not work, but all possible peaceful solutions need to be exhausted before opening that can of whoop ass.
War may be a quick solution, but it's not really the smartest. If the US and Britain invade Iraq under the flag of disarming Saddam's WoMD, and Saddam does in fact have active WoMD, do you think he would hesitate to use them on British and US forces? I think not.
It would be in the US's best interest to allow weapons inspections to run their courses if only for the intelligence that would be gathered. To find yourself storming accross the desert only to be confronted by a dozen SCUD's loaded with chemical and biological warheads would be a really bad scene.

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Animal: It's a bit of a stretch to say that an invasion of Iraq by the US is considered self defense. I dont think its a stretch at all. I doubt Iraq could ever pose a direct threat to the US. Sure he could sell WoMD to someone who may, but then anyone could. Anyone could yeah. But really think about it for a second. No one else really would. Who? Israel? Britian? France? None of those countrys are too likley to sell terrorist groups WOMD. However, Saddam has been known to gladly offer things to terroist groups. We commit ourselves to the UN because we are a part of the UN, whether that be good or bad. We can't choose what UN decisions we'll abide by and which ones we don't. If the US feels that the UN is useless, that it needs to look at withdrawing from it. So what your saying is we should we blindly follow the UNs descions? Why is it Ok to do that but not blindly follow Bush? Not that I am saying thats what I do, but right wingers seem to get accused of that an awfully lot. We hope to disarm Saddam with resolutions and increased pressure of war. Sure it may not work, but all possible peaceful solutions need to be exhausted before opening that can of whoop ass. Its MHO that they have been exhausted. They were exhausted with resolution 17. If you disagree, thats cool. But I have to ask? Where do you draw the line? 20? 30? 40? War may be a quick solution, but it's not really the smartest. If the US and Britain invade Iraq under the flag of disarming Saddam's WoMD, and Saddam does in fact have active WoMD, do you think he would hesitate to use them on British and US forces? I think not. It would be in the US's best interest to allow weapons inspections to run their courses if only for the intelligence that would be gathered. To find yourself storming accross the desert only to be confronted by a dozen SCUD's loaded with chemical and biological warheads would be a really bad scene.[/QB]

I heard thats its been underated on how British and American equiment is (!!). Hard to believe, but according to some Military anylist, anti chemical and biological suits have been tested throughly agaisnt Anthrax and nerve gas, and they have succeded. Whether you believe it or not is another question. Have a good day Animal [img]smile.gif[/img]