Do we care about world opinion?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Months, eh?

So, lets see... I have to do the math real quick. 12x12 =?

144 months and going strong.

Inspectors routinely got kicked out of Iraq and denied access to areas they were supposed to be inspecting for 12 years.

Saddam was supposed to disarm, and prove to THEM he disarmed, not have the inspectors playing hide 'n go seek.

So, until the rest of the world can sit there and enforce their original resolution of Saddam disarming and proving his disarmament (not playing hide 'n go seek for 12 years)... then I really do not give one toejam what the world thinks because obviously they care so much about their own opinion that the US and Britain are the only ones who will enforce it.

You say months, they've had more than months, they've had years. The gig is up, and the world has proven to be a joke when it comes down to the wire.
-SW

[RRAM]

I don't think you know better than the inspectors themselfs, do you?.

I can quote the reports given to the security council by them. What they said is pretty clear: they needed more time. Not weeks, not years: they needed months. But they could get the job done in that time without resorting to the use of force.

If that is what the inspectors say, and the UN resolution says clearly that the reports to follow are THEIR reports, then the situation is clear: there is no need for a war, because the inspectors report that the job can be perfectly done if they are given more time.


So, in short, UN resolution 1441 is being applied successfully. Or at least was being until three world leaders decided to do a coup against the UN last sunday in the Azores meeting, probably destroying in the meantime the credibility of the only international organization that can mediate in the world conflicts today.

[RRAM]

BTW Spain is also supporting USA and UK in this matter. There will be spanish troops and ships in the area during this war (only in supporting and humanitarian tasks, but they will be there).

Spain is giving plenty logistical support to USA; spanish air bases are full of activity of US planes carrying matherial to the middle east.


All that against a calculated 92% of the public opinion in spain, BTW.

Aznar and his party will have to stand a pretty good hit in the next partial elections ,in a couple of months from now, because that. I voted them last elections. I'm happy they will have to pay for ignoring what most of this nation's people thinks.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Sorry RAM, that won't fly.

The only thing that has kept the inspectors in Iraq the past year has been the threat of war by the US.

We're tired of playing this game, it's been 12 long years.. if the UN meant something, the inspectors job would of been done 11 years ago.

They want more time, they've had 12 years... they don't need anymore time, as it's up.

Now, lets pretend the UN had been the one keeping the UN inspectors in Iraq for the past 12 years... I'll bet the tune would be a lot different today.

The jig is up, they've had all the time in the world and accomplished next to nothing. The world wouldn't enforce the UN resolutions dating back to 1991, so we will enforce Saddam's disarmament by force.
-SW

[RRAM]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
They want more time, they've had 12 years... they don't need anymore time, as it's up.
 

that is not what the inspectors said. They need months to get their job done, but it will be done when that time's over.

The objective is to get irak disarmed?. Fine, I agree, they've been playing seek&hide for 12 years, and I agree, they only started moving towards disarmement after they had a couple hundred thousands of US soldiers at the other side of the frontier. But the fact is that they ARE GETTING DISARMED.

If you have waited for 12 years you can wait for three or four months, if those who are doing the job of supervision of disarmement say the job will be done by then. But what is not understandable is that now, that Irak is finally doing what it must do, they get into a war.


If what you are looking for is disarmement, it can be perfectly done without throwing a single bomb into Irak.

If what you are looking for is a different thing (whatever it is), then there's nothing more to say, but then I'd thank US diplomacy saying the truth, and not using disarmement as an excuse for an attack that is against all international laws.

[Martlet]

I don't think it will get done without military force.  It would be one thing if Saddam put forth an honest effort, told us what he had, then destroyed it.  He isn't.  He hides it.  He denies it.

It will never all be found unless we beat the piss out of him.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Yeah right Saddam's disarming and we have a moon base.

He is NOT disarming, at all.

He's playing games just like he has been for the past 12 years.

You think he's had a change of heart? I'll sell you an air force complete with B-2s and F-117s.
-SW

[RRAM]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe

He is NOT disarming, at all.

UN inspectors think otherwise.

and UN inspectors are the ones to say wether he is doing or not, according to 1441.

So in the end UN resolution is being fully respected so far by the nations that voted it. So your initial argument of


"*I* will care what the rest of the world thinks, when the rest of the world can actually stand up for their convictions. (UN resolutions) "


so far isn't appliable, because latest UN resolution concerning Irak disarmement is being respected and all who voted for it are standing up for their convictions.

Except USA, UK and Spain.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

No, indeed it is very much appliable RAM.

They've had 12 years worth of resolutions, what were the first 17 just throw-a-ways for hugahunk?

The world has had 12 years to say, okay Saddam, we want you to disarm and prove it to us. We have a resolution saying you MUST do this. It's time for you to stop diddlying around and do what the world is telling you to do.

No, instead we have to wait 12 years until the US has finally had enough of this roadkill to FINALLY hear the world cry out, "Wait! We really mean it!"

But do they? No, indeed they don't. If they did, then we wouldn't be where we are today.

So fact is, the world has had 12 years to say "Okay, our opinions mean something... we have had resolution after resolution passed, inspectors repeatedly kicked out and given the run around. It's time for you to disarm Saddam."

Instead, you all wait until the 11th hour of the 11th day when a country has finally had enough of this roadkill and begins piling their troops up on the borders. Then you still wait another diddlyin year before you cry out, "You don't listen to the world!" "The US is Hitler!" "No war for oil."

Like I said, if your opinions meant something you would of stuck up for them and not waited until it was too late.

Resolution 1441 means this to me: "We've had 17 other resolutions against your nation, but this one really means something because otherwise the US is gonna come in there and kick your ass. So we better get this one out the door real quick just so we can say the US is evil!"

And the UN inspectors.. yeah, they're getting full cooperation (insert rolleye emoticon here)... like I said, would you like to buy my airforce complete with B-2s and F-117s?

Saddam has no intention of disarming, never has and never will... unless of course I'm ill-informed and the UN inspectors put Saddam up to a lie detector and asked him, "Saddam, c'mon ya nice guy, will you disarm for us this time?" and he actually answered truthfully.

If the past 12 years has proven the world nothing else, it's that Saddam is _NOT_ trust worthy and even when he gives the illusion of cooperation with the UN... it is just that, an illusion.
-SW

[Arlo]

Pull your own damned finger. Begging for a date is pitiful. Go find a teenie chatroom or sumpin.

Originally posted by rc51
PULL MY FINGER AGAIN

[RRAM]

there are many points where I fully agree with you, Swulfe. In fact almost 90% of your message.


However I insist that the inspectors are those who have to say if Irak is disarming or not. So far their reports say they are doing it, and  that in months the supervision of that disarmement will be a fact.

If in months the job isn't done, then they will say so. And THEN, when the inspectors say they can't get their job done, a resolution for using hte force should be presented and voted in the Security council.

And THEN, the use of force would be legitimated. At this moment, it isn't.


In any case there are many, many lessons to learn from this problem regarding the UN. If we want it to be really effective then:

1- veto powers should be removed.

2- a new UN fund should be raised to be used in crisis times to pay the sending&funding of troops to crisis zones. You could say that there should be a fund for the UN to partially "hire" military power to enforce its resolutions, as it is clear that Hussein has started disarming ONLY when he has faced a real military threat...and it is unfair for a single nation to pay for it (yes, I'm talking about US spendings here, I don't see as a fair thing that USA has to pay to enforce an UN resolution)



In any case, in this particular crisis, and with the current UN Security council rules, the war that's about to start is illegal according to international laws.


 And regarding 1441 resolution, so far it is being applied successfully. So those who voted for it, and are against a war now, are perfectly consequent with the resolution they agreed to pass.

US, UK and spain, I repeat, aren't consequent with it.

[Gunthr]

To me, its what is important to Americans that matters.

This is my country, and while other nation's are entitled to their opinion, my loyalty is 100 percent to America. I am proud to have a LEADER like Bush, and I pray for him every day.

I think he is a genius. He's intuitive. He knows the right thing. I believe that time will bear this out.

He isn't perfect... but I think he's honest. And very importantly, I think he has a grip on the dangers that face us.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Actually, it is legal. It just doesn't have UN backing via 1441.

However, the cease-fire agreement (and Iraq's violation of) and the 17 other resolutions (and Iraq's violation of) gives the US legal justification to take out Saddam.

This is according to the British Attorney General (and they know law).

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/03/16/story91854.html
-SW

[RRAM]

according to the legal counsellors of Jose Maria Aznar, this war is ILLEGAL. At least that whas an inner report that was published in the media (probably someone in the spanish government gave it to the press) said.

Of course Aznar doesn't go on TV saying it is illegal. But his own counsellors gave him a report saying that it is, and that report was published, as I say, a couple of days ago.


No agression war is legal without UN backing, and this is an agression war, and UN resolutions don't back it.

[Gunthr]

No agression war is legal without UN backing, and this is an agression war, and UN resolutions don't back it. - RRAM

 Who says that agression war is illegal without UN backing? I dispute that.

The UN has some extremely bad and dangerous people in it that are given automatic legitimacy by virtue of being a member.

The United States of America recognises that fact, and bases its decisions on what is best for the USA - like the war in Iraq for instance.

The UN is not relevent.