Will they strike even without...?

Caid Ivik · March 11, 2003

Do you think USA will strike even if new resolution enabling other solution than diplomatic would be...:

1. ...vetoed?

2. ...disagreed by majority in Security Council?

Serious answers please, no "they are idiots, they do everything they want" ;)

Anathema · March 11, 2003

The way things are looking now, France and Russia won't need to use veto right.

I don't think the US will back down if the majority of the security council is against it. As long as they still got support from some countries, the war will happen.

emprworm · March 11, 2003

the US will strike unless one of two things happen:

Saddam disarms

Saddam flees the country in exile

Gobalopper · March 12, 2003

I don't think the vote will matter. In my eyes the US doesn't want to have to rely on the UN for its national security. The problem with the UN is that everyone there is looking out for themselves so issues like this are always going to be hard to pass.

ordos45 · March 12, 2003

Its beginning to remind me of its predecessor, the League of Nations. If you ever find copies of their preceedings shortly after Hitler invaded Poland and France and Britain declaring war on Germany, they make no mention of a war going on.

As for the question at hand, yes. I seriously doubt we're going to withdraw everything we've sent over there at a cost almost as much as a war.

Dante · March 12, 2003

America will ignore the UN if it disagrees and praise it if it does. Either way, it shall attack and there's nothing we can do about it.

nampigai · March 12, 2003

with all the mobilising wich costs a fortune I doubt that the US would just pack and go home even if Saddam dissarms, I believe I read somewhere that it's no longer enough to disarm Saddam needs to leave too. I believe that there's no longer any use of the UN.

Dunenewt · March 12, 2003

the US will strike unless one of two things happen:
Saddam disarms
Saddam flees the country in exile

This is what I believe but I hope they don't strike without UK

Dante · March 12, 2003

I hope they DO strike without UK. Even better is no strike at all but that's another topic...

nampigai · March 12, 2003

the US will strike unless one of two things happen:
Saddam disarms
Saddam flees the country in exile
This is what I believe but I hope they don't strike without UK

I believe mr. Blair just got aided by the US in this matter. mr. Rumsfeld said that the US easily could do the campaign alone, leaving mr. Blair with his honour intact.

Dunenewt · March 12, 2003

If they strike on their own they will look stupid

Anathema · March 12, 2003

They already do now.

Dunenewt · March 12, 2003

With his honour intact!!!

He will look a fool if they dont attack with UK as Tony Blair has been acting the right way

Dante · March 12, 2003

If they strike on their own they will look stupid

Even better.

nampigai · March 12, 2003

he would look like a fool if his government would fall too.

Gobalopper · March 12, 2003

Hey don't forget Australia! :)

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait are all allowing US troops to buildup now too.

DukeLeto · March 12, 2003

the US will strike unless one of two things happen:
Saddam disarms
Saddam flees the country in exile

1. He is disarming. ::)

2. Why? It is HIS country...Saddam would probably like Bush to flee in exile too, but it doesn't mean he has too. ::)

Caid Ivik · March 13, 2003

That, what is ment in word "disarm" is based on showing were all previously found WMDs are or were, with showing an evidence of their and their producing facilities' destruction. I hope you understand fact he had such weapons, which were found by UN inspectors, and also he was orderred to destroy them, what he rejected and dismissed inspections until this year.

About the second statemen, why you say HIS country? Sorry, but if he want to be in UN, than he should stop with such feudal thinkings.

DukeLeto · March 13, 2003

Iraq actually is a member of the UN...the only country that isn't is Vatican City. ;)

Caid Ivik · March 13, 2003

I know Iraq is in, and because of that he should do what UN resolutions command.

In UN aren't more separate countries, i.e. Switzerland.

DukeLeto · March 13, 2003

Actually, Switzerland just joined recently.

Dante · March 13, 2003

What's wrong with feudal thinking?

Warlord Ripskar · March 13, 2003

Blair is done for whatever he does. If he backs down the Conservatives will eat him alive. If he goes through with it his own party will dispose of him.

rigel6669 · March 14, 2003

America will ignore the UN if it disagrees and praise it if it does.

That is exactly what the US governement said before submitting the resolution.

Even if saddam left the country or when iraq is disarmed, the US will still attack iraq. In both cases they will find another excuse to save their face

There is a big difference between what they say and what will be done....

lowzeewee · March 15, 2003

USA is just using the UN votes thingy as a shield for their attack,and getting the countries that depend on USA-via-their-country-trade heavily to vote.....obviously that is really stupid.

USA will strike no matter what.They actually just want their oil fields

USA will strike unless Saddam destroys ALL his oil fields

Sign In

Will they strike even without...?

Recommended Posts

Caid Ivik

Anathema

emprworm

Gobalopper

ordos45

Dante

nampigai

Dunenewt

Dante

nampigai

Dunenewt

Anathema

Dunenewt

Dante

nampigai

Gobalopper

DukeLeto

Caid Ivik

DukeLeto

Caid Ivik

DukeLeto

Dante

Warlord Ripskar

rigel6669

lowzeewee

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information