Why do we still have to believe in International Cooperation?

[Parihaka]

Originally Posted by Julie

I personally do not see anything "United" about the UN. It serves merely as an international voice of ones who are only manipulating the system within for their own economic advantage, not to the welfare of the ones in need. To me, the UN is "much ado about nothing."

the United Nations is no more united than anything else but it is still streets ahead of anything else on offer, and is vastly preferable to an American Empire, no Dictatorship, which is what 'you' guys currently seem to be offering. One of the great failings of the United Nations is that it was set up with a 'Security Council'. Without this side order of Imperialism it would operate far better.
Since the United Nations is according to you so ineffective, how about giving up your right of veto?

[Parihaka]

[quote=Confed999]Saddam's attrocities were being committed before the Coalition got there, and he was much more proficent, than anyone in the Coalition, at atrocities. The living have a chance to be free.

So you,ve replaced one set of atrocities with another, and some time in the future a select group might be free. from what? you?

Sarin and mustard mostly, scattered all over. US troops were even affected by sarin from a shell used in a roadside bomb. Vials of what could be sarin were found in Fallujah today, testing is pending. Either way, as I said, there was no way to find out there weren't stockpiles without Saddam's cooperation. South Africa is a decent example of how a disarmament is supposed to be done. With cooperation the job could have been done in months.

so a sniff of what MIGHT have been sarin or mustard gas equates to WMD's?

The removal of the Baath from power.

replaced by the republican party, haliburton and the carlyle group. which is worse?

Go for it, and if you find something wrong, report it. Gotta know who the bad guys are before anything can be done about it.

how about agent orange, gonna compensate the Vietnamese you dropped it on as well as your veterans?

Just quote the post and copy the text. Delete.....

Ta muchly

[Kipruss]

The point Confed made about allowing the international community in to search US classified areas for banned weapons is a positive one.

Confed said in reply 25:
"Go for it, and if you find something wrong, report it. Gotta know who the bad guys are before anything can be done about it."

There should be one standard that all countries need to follow. A banned weapon should be banned in every country. Perhaps the UN could do the inspecting. They did a good job of keeping Iraq from producing WMDs after the first gulf war, as most of us accept now.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by parihaka

[b]Since the United Nations is according to you so ineffective, how about giving up your right of veto?

Only if France{spit}, and the others give up their veto powers. Then, any vote would be by majority by all members, not just the "elite" ones.

[Parihaka]

Originally Posted by Julie

Only if France{spit}, and the others give up their veto powers. Then, any vote would be by majority by all members, not just the "elite" ones.

so majority rule, of and by nations, without special priviledge is ok with you?

p.s. don't spit on the french, they have long memories and are quite happy to attack when the oportunity arises: witness the rainbow warrior bombing.

[Parihaka]

Originally Posted by Kipruss

The point Confed made about allowing the international community in to search US classified areas for banned weapons is a positive one.

Confed said in reply 25:
"Go for it, and if you find something wrong, report it. Gotta know who the bad guys are before anything can be done about it."

There should be one standard that all countries need to follow. A banned weapon should be banned in every country. Perhaps the UN could do the inspecting. They did a good job of keeping Iraq from producing WMDs after the first gulf war, as most of us accept now.

routine monitoring of the cia's activities is also a good idea, and maybe some international election monitors for next US presidential elections?

[Julie]

Originally Posted by parihaka

so majority rule, of and by nations, without special priviledge is ok with you?

How can nations unite, on equal footing, when the elite few have special privileges? Isn't that unequality and discrimination against the ones who do not have these privileges? What are the other member nations there for, moral support for the elite? Deleting the special privileges would eliminate the power struggle, and diminish the corruptness within.

[Parihaka]

Originally Posted by Julie

How can nations unite, on equal footing, when the elite few have special privileges? Isn't that unequality and discrimination against the ones who do not have these privileges? What are the other member nations there for, moral support for the elite? Deleting the special privileges would eliminate the power struggle, and diminish the corruptness within.

[cosmicway]

Originally Posted by Julie
Only if France{spit}, and the others give up their veto powers. Then, any vote would be by majority by all members, not just the "elite" ones.


- The French are proving partially right:
No WMD in Iraq - no peace plan !

A U.N. force, of the type used in Korea - Gulf might have had at least
marginally better chances of imposing law and order over there.

Neocons are nuts for wanting to break down the U.N., despite its weaknesses -
possible reservations about secretary Koffie Annan.
It's a disastrous policy and we will all have to go and hide in the mountains like
Bin Ladden if put to effect !
Hopefully it is only a grass-roots opinion of ultra neocons ( = bigotry, class
hatred, race hatred) and will not touch the administration.
The idea it (U.N.) wants or is capable of taking powers away from U.S.A. is of
course an invention and a first class lie.

The neocon ultras see as their principal enemy the moderate conservative
world opinion and do not care about socialists-communists and the like.
It is correctly diagnosed by them that the latter, as adherents to bankrupt
philosophical systems and social ideas, can ultimately be "easily dealt with".
Neocon ultras are manic depressive bigots and they want to hide in the
mountains with the bible and a few sheep and pray for judgment day to come
soon.

Neocons are not conservatives but bigots of 19th century remake.

[Ray]

I hope you guys have seen the damages done to Fellujah?

Let me talk as an Iraqi.

I am no friend of terrorists, but if I were a peace loving Fellujah citizen and you knocked my house down (the only property I have, which I can't rebuild again as I have no job), tell me what should I think of the puppet Iraqi govt or for the US forces?

Shoud I embrace you as my 'liberator'?

You all are crying over votes in your US elections; and blue states and red states and migrating to Canada and elsewhere. I have no state. I have NO home. I have NO money to even imegrate.

Please think of me.

Think of me when you let your tank round hits on my house......and the best part I am not in the show; I don't support you or the terrorists. I support living a life as you are living.

What is my fault that I deserve this fate when Freedom and Democracy has come as per GW Bush?

Where is it?

American, do stop and think.

I am a human as much as you.

Give me a chance to live.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Ray

I am a human as much as you....Give me a chance to live.

Ironic, one of Bush's main campaign issues was his pro-life stance. However, it is not consistent with his Iraq plan is it?

[NeoLiberal]

Originally Posted by Confed999

Same reason the Kurds in the north aren't volitile. They wanted Saddam to control them less than we wanted Saddam to control them. Until after an election the only people with motive to resist are Baath and terrorists, as they are the only ones who will not benefit as much from a free, or even semi-free, Iraq, as they would benefit from another Baathist dictator.

Mosul in the north has seen lot of violence with a big upsurge lately.

[Fonnicker]

We attack fallujah, and the uprisings flare up in Mosul and Baghdad. There is no way that we will see fighting end in Iraq. The insurgents will never acknowledge the Iraqi government. It will always be a puppet state of the US to them. How long can the Iraqi government maintain marshall law and still claim to be democratic?

[cosmicway]

Julie wrote:

<< Ironic, one of Bush's main campaign issues was his pro-life stance. However, it is not consistent with his Iraq plan is it?>>

There never was an Iraq plan of any kind.
It is comical now to look back at the so called resistance offered by Saddam's army for 10 days or so during the invasion.
Did Bush think that that was all there was to it ?
Improbable and perhaps impossible for him.

Bush said he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq.
Ostensibly so, because even a low grade pupil understands western democracy is alien to the Islamic world and an irrelevent factor in the equation.

The truth is the entire war was engineered to intimidate the U.N. and the Euros, as if they were the deadliest of enemies to America !!

Yet Bush cannot afford to play such games.
Terrorists are really dangerous.
Look what Al Qaedda's cousins did to Russia and Spain.

U.S.A. cannot afford to abandon Iraq.
This is not like Vietnam, where a communist state was set up after the U.S. pullout.
Dislikeable as they may have been, the Viet Kong represented no danger as long as the Soviet Union did not want to start world war III.
Here we have an enemy that bites and he wants to come back asking for more.
That much is true and not even the lefty liberals can deny it.

But the way the present U.S. administration are handling things is diabolical and it bears all the hallmarks of utter failure and disaster.
A change of mind is needed before long.

[Ray]

The way things are moving, I sure believe there was no plan at all.

It is more like sleep walking, what?