OK, so how should we do it?

Caid Ivik · February 26, 2003

Blaming USA and Bush from all evil is easy way to oppose Iraq operation. But USA are a fact, as it is a fact they are leading this crisis. We should try some constructivism. So, what should they do now to stand in your will?

Anathema · February 26, 2003

Stop acting as if they're above the UN and everything else.

Caid Ivik · February 26, 2003

Explain, please.

emprworm · February 26, 2003

they are not above the UN. they are simply not obligated to abide by the UN. that is not being "above" anything. just like the Netherlands is not "above" the US laws, yet it doesn't have to oblige by them. The US is not "above" the Netherlands, but it doesn't have to abide by their laws.

DukeLeto · February 26, 2003

Hmmm...I feel the UN has ceased to function as it should.

There is now no doubt that Saddam is (or was) concealing weapons, yet France and company continue to stall...if the UN cannot arrive at a resolution soon, I believe the US and her allies should take appropriate action, with or without UN support.

Khan · February 26, 2003

I think that the UN has tried to become too powerful. It is a nice ides to have a set of laws that the whole world has to keep, but since everyone keeps on breaking them you have to ask yourself, "Is it really worth the effort?"

Inoculator9 · February 26, 2003

I don't think he does have weapons NOW, and for the time being that is the question, not whether Iraq did have them because we all know the answer to that.

ordos45 · February 26, 2003

Well I have three words for what seems to be happening with the United Nations... "League of Nations". Anyhow, you must remember a government may be elected by the majority of the people, but it may not support the will of the majority. If you look at recent polls (almost every time I turn on the news and see a new one its a higher percentage) the majority of US citizens are not wanting a war with Iraq.

Nyarlathotep · February 26, 2003

I was watching an interview on TV with an former CIA agent. He was stating that the current director of the CIA was lead in his report by the US government (he changed the report to the likings of the US government). The changes made it possible for the US government to prepare a war against Iraq. If those changes weren't made, the US government could never have pushed for a war. This testemony was backed up by several other people (don't know their names, sorry).

So in answer to your question, I'd say they (the US government, agencies) should start making up their own minds and state what actually is happening. Not because someone else states "Please change this report so we can push for a war".

Don't get me wrong though, I honestly believe something should/needs to be done about Saddam, but looking at the above (and having watched it) I honestly am asking myself what the real reasons are.

GhostHunter · February 27, 2003

I think the U.S should actually take the action they're going for. I mean they send troop after troop day after day as less and less Americans follow the idea. And when they attack wipe them out in one WAVE, not bomber by bomber...

And saying America is somehow ABOVE the U.N is ludicris, are you suggesting of the U.S does one thing the U.N doesn't support with milteristic action that they should back off in cowardess?

Caid Ivik · February 27, 2003

How should look the one-wave campaign? You mean "Blitzkrieg 2003"? But blitzkrieg tactics cause more civilian casualties.

Dante · February 27, 2003

How should look the one-wave campaign? You mean "Blitzkrieg 2003"? But blitzkrieg tactics cause more civilian casualties.

And...? You think that bothers them?

alejandro · February 27, 2003

Mmmmmm Iraq must obbey U.N but U.S must not? what is wrong here??? >:(

Dante · February 27, 2003

Everything. Starting with the fact that nobody can agree and we've got idiots in charge.

alejandro · February 27, 2003

Idiots? No, they was idiots some time ago, what they are now is not written in the books.

lowzeewee · March 3, 2003

remember what i said about US being backed by UN in which in turn,it controls

Caid Ivik · March 3, 2003

They don't control it. If it was so, they wouldn't discuss with France or Russia to prevent veto ;)

Tenzul · March 3, 2003

They don't control it, but they don't mind the other opinions either.

UN has only one purpose, and that's legalization of polycies of

severe states.

Miles · March 4, 2003

"And,.... you think that bothers them?"

-- Caid Ivik

Of course it does, otherwise this war would be a hell of a lot cheaper. We would just carpet bomb Baghdad with cluster bombs and napalm which are a hell of a lot cheaper than precision guided weapons.

I don't support 300 bombs in one night, but they will all be precision guided weapons which probably cost about a million a piece. Civilians will die, but we will make every effort to avoid it.

However, we learned from viet nam that small forces gradually built up makes for poor policy. It is better to attack with overwhelming force to shorten the war. In the short term more people may die quickly, but in the long term it will save many more lives.

"hmmmmmmm Iraq must obey UN demands but US must not? What is wrong here?"

-- Alex

The United States did not lose a war to the UN and sign a peace agreement to cease hostilities. Iraq has, and it instantly puts us into a state of war, even if you don't want to see that.

lowzeewee · March 5, 2003

so,dont fight,whats the problem,if u remove Iraq,Iran and other countries like Lebanon---->:O will still harbour terrorists......

just admit u want their oil fields,Bush

Caid Ivik · March 5, 2003

Imagine how dear is that war, will profit from Iraqi oil production cover money spend on it? There is plenty of oil in Kuwait or Qatar, much more than in Iraq. It would be too long investition. Not saying that opened oil fields will lower oil cost.

ken124578 · March 5, 2003

so,dont fight,whats the problem,if u remove Iraq,Iran and other countries like Lebanon---->:O will still harbour terrorists......
just admit u want their oil fields,Bush

Yeah, he just wants their oilfields, what can a dictator do with some chemical/biological and nuclear weapons anyway ::) :P

DukeLeto · March 5, 2003

Nothing since he has no way of launching them. :P

Besides, Iraq DOES have the second-largest oil reserves in the world.

emprworm · March 5, 2003

Nothing since he has no way of launching them. :P
Besides, Iraq DOES have the second-largest oil reserves in the world.

yes, and France has the largest financial interest in those reserves over any country on earth. ::)

Anathema · March 5, 2003

And since Emp is the worlds most reknown financial expert, we can accept his analyses as true. Almost every country in the west has some interests in Iraq, dude.

Sign In

OK, so how should we do it?

Recommended Posts

Caid Ivik

Anathema

Caid Ivik

emprworm

DukeLeto

Khan

Inoculator9

ordos45

Nyarlathotep

GhostHunter

Caid Ivik

Dante

alejandro

Dante

alejandro

lowzeewee

Caid Ivik

Tenzul

Miles

lowzeewee

Caid Ivik

ken124578

DukeLeto

emprworm

Anathema

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information