Escalating potential conflict in Iraq

Seems to me that Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan all had a consensus, guess that group had the wrong idea? So I guess even the UN might take the wrong approach. Kofi Anann (sp?) is sounding a whole lot like Nevile Chamberlain..."Look here world, I have Hitlers personal promise he won't cause any trouble" only you can substitute Hitler with saddam.

I would also like to point out that apparently the "Unrestricted Access" for the inspectors that Tariq Aziz mentioned is in fact restricted (once again) no school, no medical facilties and no royal palaces, estates or refuges are allowed to be inspected. Iraq played this hand once before...just after they surrendered when Saddam declared several military facilities as Residential palaces and off limits to inspectors. *sigh* Kofi please learn a lesson from history.

And unfortunatley unlike the president I can remember the old saying in Tennessee (and everywhere else) Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.

Just a side note to no one in particular, Henry Kissenger was not a national head of state, nor did he run a global terrorist organization.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by skywalker: So that means, since the UN can't find it's own end, it means we can ignore them and do as we please. We do share the planet with quite a few other nations. Does the strongest and loudest set the direction? I wonder what the World would be like if the UN disbanded. Mark

Yes, we do on many things already, just because a group gets together doesn't mean they're right. That works for both the U.N. and any other country in the world.

It has always been that way throughout history! And NO ONE has been able too or willing too answer me this question, (I've asked it several times) Name any country that throughout history, when it was #1, didn't conquer everything it could? Rome didn't, Aztec's didn't, Ottoman's didn't. At No POINT in history has any country enjoyed the gap in power that we (U.S.A.) currently enjoy. You can measure that power how ever you like. What country have we conquered and hold as ours now? What land have we annexed now? Don't give this crap about what we've did in the 1800's, unless we are living in the 1800's NOW. I'm talking about what is happening NOW!

Not a any different then it is now, there are still dictators, wars, starving people, lying sacks of horse manure, and any other thing we as people claim to be evil, bad, or wrong going on now with the U.N. in place![/QUOTE]In my mind it goes far beyond just "not conquering everything in sight". The US and others willing to take a stand have spent billions of dollars and the lives of their people to essentially take over other countries... just to give them BACK. After WWII we occupied Germany (with our Allies) and Japan, we didn't hold onto them longer than necessary... we spent time and money to get them back on their feet and they walked away as FULLY independant countries. We went into Korea... defended the South, and DIDN'T assume control of their country. If we'd stuck it out in Vietnam... does anyone actully think they'd be the 51'st State or something? Granada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanastan, etc... we've stuck our necks out... call it OIL or whatever... I don't much care. In the end we went there to try and maintain stability in the world, yes because it's in our best interest, but it's also in the best interest of everyone else out there.

Appeasement DOES NOT WORK... it's been proven TIME AND TIME AGAIN, yet I read over and over about how people think we should stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problems around us. Diplomacy is useless against a dictator bent on controlling others... the only thing Saddam and his ilk respects is POWER.

In then end though, I'm thankful that all the doves in this world can sit back, fat dumb and happy. They can go around pointing fingers and pooh-poohing those willing to forcebly take a stand. Those sorts of people NEED to exist in the world. It just kills me that they don't seem to realize that their very existance is utterly dependant on the rest of us, because WE'RE willing to get dirty to protect their right to berate us.

[ 09-18-2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by MagiK: ...I can remember the old saying in Tennessee (and everywhere else) Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.

That comes from Tennesse? I thought it came from "Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C"

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: ...I can remember the old saying in Tennessee (and everywhere else) Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.

That comes from Tennesse? I thought it came from "Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C" [/QUOTE]Naaa I don't think it came from TN but the Pres. was making a speach and wasn't really paying attemtion to what he was saying and messed it up [img]smile.gif[/img] Public speaker, he is NOT

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: ...I can remember the old saying in Tennessee (and everywhere else) Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.

That comes from Tennesse? I thought it came from "Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C" [/QUOTE]Naaa I don't think it came from TN but the Pres. was making a speach and wasn't really paying attemtion to what he was saying and messed it up [img]smile.gif[/img] Public speaker, he is NOT[/QUOTE]We in Tennessee, will take credit for that statement!

I have a question about the International War Crimes Tribunial. Couldn't and SHOULDN'T Saddom Hussien be prosecuted as a War Criminal? Seems to me, since that Tribunial has already been setup without US particaption, someone could go ahead and have him charged. Then we might see how effective this thing could be.[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: quote: We in Tennessee, will take credit for that statement! I have a question about the International War Crimes Tribunial. Couldn't and SHOULDN'T Saddom Hussien be prosecuted as a War Criminal? Seems to me, since that Tribunial has already been setup without US particaption, someone could go ahead and have him charged. Then we might see how effective this thing could be.

[/qb][/QUOTE]Good point Sir T. BUT as we have seen over and over, that unless the USA leads the charge, the UN, and other international bodies don't do anything but talk and pass resolutions. It is all talk and little action.....usually, there are exceptions however.

[ 09-18-2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Thoran: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by skywalker: So that means, since the UN can't find it's own end, it means we can ignore them and do as we please. We do share the planet with quite a few other nations. Does the strongest and loudest set the direction? I wonder what the World would be like if the UN disbanded. Mark

Yes, we do on many things already, just because a group gets together doesn't mean they're right. That works for both the U.N. and any other country in the world.

It has always been that way throughout history! And NO ONE has been able too or willing too answer me this question, (I've asked it several times) Name any country that throughout history, when it was #1, didn't conquer everything it could? Rome didn't, Aztec's didn't, Ottoman's didn't. At No POINT in history has any country enjoyed the gap in power that we (U.S.A.) currently enjoy. You can measure that power how ever you like. What country have we conquered and hold as ours now? What land have we annexed now? Don't give this crap about what we've did in the 1800's, unless we are living in the 1800's NOW. I'm talking about what is happening NOW!

Not a any different then it is now, there are still dictators, wars, starving people, lying sacks of horse manure, and any other thing we as people claim to be evil, bad, or wrong going on now with the U.N. in place![/QUOTE]In my mind it goes far beyond just "not conquering everything in sight". The US and others willing to take a stand have spent billions of dollars and the lives of their people to essentially take over other countries... just to give them BACK. After WWII we occupied Germany (with our Allies) and Japan, we didn't hold onto them longer than necessary... we spent time and money to get them back on their feet and they walked away as FULLY independant countries. We went into Korea... defended the South, and DIDN'T assume control of their country. If we'd stuck it out in Vietnam... does anyone actully think they'd be the 51'st State or something? Granada, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, Afghanastan, etc... we've stuck our necks out... call it OIL or whatever... I don't much care. In the end we went there to try and maintain stability in the world, yes because it's in our best interest, but it's also in the best interest of everyone else out there.

Appeasement DOES NOT WORK... it's been proven TIME AND TIME AGAIN, yet I read over and over about how people think we should stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problems around us. Diplomacy is useless against a dictator bent on controlling others... the only thing Saddam and his ilk respects is POWER.

In then end though, I'm thankful that all the doves in this world can sit back, fat dumb and happy. They can go around pointing fingers and pooh-poohing those willing to forcebly take a stand. Those sorts of people NEED to exist in the world. It just kills me that they don't seem to realize that their very existance is utterly dependant on the rest of us, because WE'RE willing to get dirty to protect their right to berate us.[/QUOTE]Thoran, are you sure you're a Yankee? Great post!