The "Serious Consequences" of 1441

[Midnight]

What the UN is doing now is equivelent to them saying

----

Dear Iraq

We, the member nations of the UN, have decided that you should disarm and get rid of your WMDs. Please do this in a reasonable amount of time, but don't worry if you need more time, we will give you more.

Also, we expect that you will do this, or you will have to answer to serious consequences. Again, don't worry, by serious consequences, we mean that we will all get together again and debate how reasonable it would be to tell you to disarm again.

Oh, and don't worry about it anyway, France only signed on to this letter because they didn't want to look bad when everyone else signed it.

By the way, we know we asked you several times to tell us about all those old WMDs you had. Would it be possible for you to answer those requests? If you can't that ok too.

Love

The UN.
----

I've seen little children do this too.

If you don't do what I say, I'm going to pout about it some more. Wha!!!!!
----

[Pongo]

Dear Iraq
One of our Clerks in the Pentagon guesed that you have 30 000 chemical war heads. Unless you can prove you do not. We will bomb you.
We noticed some trucks driving arround. Unless they stop we will bomb you. If they stop..that is even more suspicios and we will bomb you.
Stop oppressing your people or we will kill them.
PS Sadam. Your still in power and my dad isnt . So I'm going to bomb you.

The Pres.

[john9001]

saddam loves you, he really does

[weazel]

Some day they may call this the Bait-and-Switch War.

George Bush promised us Osama bin Laden in the ads.

But when we called up to place an order, he gave us Saddam Hussein whose only affinity with Osama seems to have been that he also was armed and encouraged by American officials.....some of whom are still in office.

WHEEEEE!  The *adults* are in charge in Washington.


"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"

-- Congressman Abe Lincoln, 150 years ago

My, My, My......how the Republican party has changed.

[Sandman]

Dear U.N.,
 I know we're in material breach of something like eighty U.N. resolutions. Please make sure that Iraq and North Korea are on top of your list because the U.S. is our bestest friend in the world.

thanks,
 Israel

[Habu]

Dear Sandman

Read this old post of mine to see why your post about Israel and UN resolutions has no merit. That is if you really care about the truth. The part about Israel is at the bottom if you are too lazy to read it all.

Why the US should tell the UN to get stuffed
 
It is interesting when things like the US's hunt for weapons in Iraq or the war on terrorism how many times people in these forums or in the press bring up the United Nations. It is as if the United Nations is some kind of higher body that should be dictating what the US should be doing.

The UN is anything but. It has become highjacked by third world despotic regimes and euro-weenie (France) countries that use it as a mouthpiece to promote their agendas and to block any criticism of them or of their dictatorial colleagues. So next time some tries to quote a UN resolution that condemns Israel's fight to exist or the US's war on terrorism remember these facts.

Some recent examples of why the UN should not be taken seriously.

Last week it was announced that Iraq and Iran will co-chair the UN's key disarmament negotiating forum during its May 12 to June 27 meetings in Geneva. Yes right now when the two most important situations affecting world peace are the North Korean nuclear crisis and Iraq's refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, the UN makes these appointments. So how credible is the UN?

The week before Libya was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission. Yes that is right Libya. No I did not make this up. What are the odds that this commission will focus any attention on any of the human rights atrocites occurring in third world Arab countries? Of course Libya is only the chair, the rest of the commission will insure that justice is done. Right? Well lets look at some of the rest of the members.

The dictatorships of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan Syria and Cuba are on all it. So is Zimbabwe, possibly worst human rights abusers in Africa. China and Russia are all members of this 53 member commission? An argument may be made for Russia and China (despite what is going on in Chechnya and Tibet) inclusion based on their size and power but what argument can be made for any of the others mentioned being there?

Yes those countries are all responsible for making the resolutions that condemn the countries that abuse human rights. Of course they vote in blocs and make sure that they use these coalitions to deflect attention on true human rights abusers and focus it on countries like Israel. That is why of the 59 General Assembly resolutions made during the 2001 session almost half dealt with Israel while the General Assembly remained silent of the actions of many ruthless undemocratic regimes.

As long as the UN has the naive notion that every state is equal to every other, regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy and regardless of its record on human civil, and political rights, it will continue to be irrelevant.

Remember that next time someone tells you it is not.

[Sandman]

Hmmm... so if the UN and it's resolutions are irrelevant, what was the U.S. justification for invasion again?

[Habu]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hmmm... so if the UN and it's resolutions are irrelevant, what was the U.S. justification for invasion again?

Probably why the US will invade despite what the UN does.

[Puke]

One of our Clerks in the Pentagon guesed that you have 30 000 chemical war heads. Unless you can prove you do not. We will bomb you.

Pongo, let's go over this so you understand.  A lot of this is that after the Gulf War Iraq made a list of all his weapons that were to be destroyed and he was to then provide proof that these same weapons (such as Antrhax) were destroyed as he disarmed his nation.  We did not want to occupy his nation to do this.  However, 12-years later and he's not provided proof that many of the weapons as provided on this list were destroyed.  So instead, the UN tries to send a few people in to find these weapons, along with anything new that Saddam has created.  And his most recent list he provided a month or two back didn't even include a few things that were on the original list of known weapons.  And yes, we do suspect he's created more weapons too since then.  So once again, it's up to Saddam to prove that these things have been destroyed, not for us to prove he has them.  (Some of it is in Syria and some is in Iran.)  Can we stop regurgitating what we read on posters carried by hairy-legged women?

[Habu]

Originally posted by Puke
Pongo, let's go over this so you understand.  A lot of this is that after the Gulf War Iraq made a list of all his weapons that were to be destroyed and he was to then provide proof that these same weapons (such as Antrhax) were destroyed as he disarmed his nation.  We did not want to occupy his nation to do this.  However, 12-years later and he's not provided proof that many of the weapons as provided on this list were destroyed.  So instead, the UN tries to send a few people in to find these weapons, along with anything new that Saddam has created.  And his most recent list he provided a month or two back didn't even include a few things that were on the original list of known weapons.  And yes, we do suspect he's created more weapons too since then.  So once again, it's up to Saddam to prove that these things have been destroyed, not for us to prove he has them.  (Some of it is in Syria and some is in Iran.)  Can we stop regurgitating what we read on posters carried by hairy-legged women?

The problem is that so few people are really informed on all aspects of this crisis. First there is the UN and its structure which is the reason there will never be a strong consensis. Second is the topic of France and their massive economic and personal ties to Iraq and Sadaam. Third is the weapons, their history and the history of the disarmament that did not happen after 1991, finally is the issue of European politics.

With all those factors needing to be understood to appreciate why the US wants to invade and why France and Germany are opposing it, it is really hard for the average person to have an informed view of the whole situation. Most just latch on to one or two facts (ie Bush is a cowboy etc) and base their decision on that alone.

Sad really.