What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq? (page 3)

drahcir yarrum

If the UN inspectors find no weapons in Iraq, then we should attack them anyway and create a regime change, just like be did in Afghanistan. We can do it and in the long run it will be better for the stability of the region.

proplog2

Shakita:

If you spend a career investigating attrocities you will find them. It would be very noble if the US embarked on a program of liberating people from such things. However if you want to develop a world ruled by "law" it must be done under the auspices of some kind of general organization like the UN. At this stage of human development it doesn't appear that there is a consensus for this kind of project. The US could do a lot more good by taking the 100 billion dollars to fight Sadam and address health care problems that are killing people by the millions.

The US thought nothing of terrorizing Japan's homeland with two atomic bombs. But I guess its better to kill their civilians than to have your soldiers die.

Xander

However if you want to develop a world ruled by "law" it must be done under the auspices of some kind of general organization like the UN

That would, of course, be the ideal solution.

Not sure how well it would work, but it would be the ideal solution. Reduce members nations capabilies down to what we have for our states - defensive only. The offensive capabilies would be controlled by the UN, as a world government.

Ever work? No, of couse not. But it sounds good.

The US thought nothing of terrorizing Japan's homeland with two atomic bombs. But I guess its better to kill their civilians than to have your soldiers die.

There were three options in 1945:

1) Beat Japan back to their homeland and leave them be, blockaded against future expansion.
While this sounds nice, it has at least 1 critical flaw - Japan doesn't produce - BY FAR - nearly enough food to feed its population. It would starve to death rather gruesomely as the military leaders began hording what little was left for themselves.

2) Beat Japan back to their homeland and invade.
It has been documented in countless places what this would involve. Remember the Kamikazes? That wasn't even the start. Japanese children were taught how to strap bombs to themselves, and be 'rescued' by soldier to be taken back to their camps to blow themselves up taking the most enemies with them. Women were given anti-tank charges on pikes and taught how to roll under a tank to detonate them at their weakest point, etc.

Would most people do such things? Probably not. Would it stop the invasion? Well, no. But the cost in lives.....

3) Drop a few atom bombs and get Russia to declare war.
Well, Japan surrended, didn't they? (To be sure, even after the atom bombings, when the Emperor wanted to sue for peace right away, there was a miltary coup. It was actually put down, but it tabled peace talks until Russia entered the war and Japan realized they had no hope at all)

Crazy151drinker

Saddam is going down. Thats it folks. Deal with it.

Prop,

Lets not do the Atom bomb thing again. Do I need to repost the stats on the number of Civilians the Japanese killed?? Japanese Biological warfare attacks?? The millions of Dead Chinese???? Please. Read Japanese history before sticking up for them. They started it remember! We finished it.

I know what all of you wonderfull pacifists can do! Why dont you all send some Christmas cards to Saddam! Its going to the be the last Christmas he has.....

YERU2

100 Billion to fight Saddam? Maybe, but I think that's an over estimate, more like 25 billion. Sooo, we take this 25 or 100 billion and try to improve health care in the world. It still doesn't stop folks like Saddam and Bin Laden from hating us, in fact, they hate us more. The world is no safer for the spending of the Billions on health care than it was before, in fact, it's more dangerous because Saddam, in the mean time, is stealing his billions from the "oil for food" program and develops nukes.

I for one am not ready to cede the right of self protection to the UN, a body that is pretty antiamerican and whose member nations are not, in the whole, democratic. A body that gives a seat to the likes of Yassir Arafat, even if only as an observer, has some skewed priorities for world peace and is not to be trusted.

Edited by - Yeru2 on 9 December 2002 14:58:40

Gig

The UN will find JW's taking credit for progress and blaming Christendom for everything else. But maybe I'm just a little extra bitter today.

Xander

I for one am not ready to cede the right of self protection to the UN

Note that the above hypothetical was never to cede the rige of self protection to the UN, merely the ability to conduct offensive actions - IE., my troops or equipment in your country can only be done under UN control.

a body that is pretty antiamerican

I wouldn't go that far. Consider the US State -> Federal government relationship. Would you say the USA is anti-Ohio? Or anti-Texas? To someone in Ohio or Texas it could sometimes seem that way when the Federal gov't drops a military base or nuclear storage location somewhere, takes your land to build an interstate, etc.

However, on the whole, the government is not anti any-particular-state. Just pro whole-as-a-collective.

Is that bad?

(To be sure, if it worked on the scale the UN is, no, it wouldn't be. I'm afraid it doesn't work, though. So don't blast the idea of the UN, it's a good idea. Execution needs a little help, but it IS a good idea.)

Xander

....continuing from above....

In short, the thing to remember is:

Our planet is finite. It is here now, and it sure is nice.

It won't be here long, on the stellar scale. Indeed, near all life on the planet is exterminated on a fairly regular basis. I don't see any real plan to preserve life as we know it (by colonization or comprehensive space defense capabilities as a short term) coming from one single country.

Those who don't like the idea of the UN because it is anti-one country and it essentially groups all humanity together as one group really need to think about that. In the end - we ARE all only one group, and will, as a species, live or die as one group.

An asteroid heading towards Earth doesn't care how superior the US democracy is. It also doesn't care how cruel Saddam was.

When the sun gets around to going nova, it won't be concerned with much the French dislike several other western nations. Neither will it care what the current policies to subdue the masses in China are.

Sadly, we are far too short sighted as a species, and may be doomed to extinction because of it. (IE., we won't act until far, FAR too late to effect a means of survival).

It's enough to make you want to shake someone and slap them.

"You're squabling and WASTING LIVES over oil! OIL!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!" *slap* *slap*

"And you! YOU! Over there!! You're squabling and WASTING LIVES over religion! RELIGION!! That's MORE STUPID than squabling over OIL!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!" *slap* *slap*

Crazy151drinker

Give the U.N. miltary power???? Are you out of your mind????????????

Elsewhere

The US will do the say thing it did last time the inspectors were there... they will find a top official who wants to defect.

The last time the inspectors were there, the did not find anything until a defector ratted out Sadam and told the inspectors exactly where to look.

Busted!

What if the U.N doesn't find anything in Iraq?

Share this