I really don't know why you're all picking on France. It is very likely that China and Russia will also veto a new resolution against Iraq. So there's a significantly larger opposition to what the French call "busheries".
Feb 19, 2003, 10:29 AM
Veteran (1104 posts)
Feb 19, 2003, 10:29 AM
Post #77 of 441
Views: 26847
Vetos on the Security Council are something the five try to avoid as unity is the desired goal. However, there are abstentions. China abstained on the original two resolutions authorizing force back in 1990/91.
Russia just wants to be assured that it will get oil contracts, and other payments, from the next Iraqi regime.
A veto by any member of the permanent five on this matter will hand the US more freedom to exercise its power on the international stage, they'd much rather limit that power through the UN.
Russia just wants to be assured that it will get oil contracts, and other payments, from the next Iraqi regime.
A veto by any member of the permanent five on this matter will hand the US more freedom to exercise its power on the international stage, they'd much rather limit that power through the UN.
Feb 25, 2003, 12:03 PM
User (283 posts)
Feb 25, 2003, 12:03 PM
Post #78 of 441
Views: 27407
Quote:
It's not all to do with oil, but mainly. This website provides the reasons:
Or maybe this collection of press articles from around the world?
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/969.cfm
--
Rob
SW Montana's Online Community
Modular Model Railroading
Mar 5, 2003, 11:34 AM
User (125 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 11:34 AM
Post #79 of 441
Views: 27268
War is aggression, period. A war against Iraq that kills even one innocent citizen is an unjust war.
I have no qualms against incisively removing Saddam, but innocent Iraqi men, woman and children do not deserve to be torpedoed into infinity.
Everyone skirts around the issue of why Iraq and not North Korea.
The US turned a blind eye when it was convenient to have Iraq on its side against Iran. It was well known that he had biological weapons back then. Why now and why Iraq?
-------------------------------------------
I Am What I AM (Not a Programmer)
I have no qualms against incisively removing Saddam, but innocent Iraqi men, woman and children do not deserve to be torpedoed into infinity.
Everyone skirts around the issue of why Iraq and not North Korea.
The US turned a blind eye when it was convenient to have Iraq on its side against Iran. It was well known that he had biological weapons back then. Why now and why Iraq?
-------------------------------------------
I Am What I AM (Not a Programmer)
Mar 5, 2003, 11:51 AM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 11:51 AM
Post #80 of 441
Views: 27346
I've just watched a lengthy speech by Colin Powell live on tv so I'm in the mood to reply :)
I don't agree. If Saddam kills one thousand people and the war prevents him killing another thousand but as a result one person dies, I'd certianly say the war is justified.
Colin Powell pointed out that Saddam purposely places his weapons and armoury right next to schools, mosques and hospitals so that the opposition have to choice but to attack them and as a result innocent people will be killed. This is Saddam essenitally killing his own people.
Quote:
War is aggression, period. A war against Iraq that kills even one innocent citizen is an unjust war.I don't agree. If Saddam kills one thousand people and the war prevents him killing another thousand but as a result one person dies, I'd certianly say the war is justified.
Quote:
I have no qualms against incisively removing Saddam, but innocent Iraqi men, woman and children do not deserve to be torpedoed into infinity.Colin Powell pointed out that Saddam purposely places his weapons and armoury right next to schools, mosques and hospitals so that the opposition have to choice but to attack them and as a result innocent people will be killed. This is Saddam essenitally killing his own people.
Mar 5, 2003, 12:00 PM
User (125 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 12:00 PM
Post #81 of 441
Views: 27449
<<Colin Powell pointed out that Saddam purposely places his weapons and armoury right next to schools, mosques and hospitals so that the opposition have to choice but to attack them and as a result innocent people will be killed. This is Saddam essenitally killing his own people. >>
No... That would be the US aiding Saddam in killing his own people...
We are going to war with no proof whatsoever that Saddam is affiliated with Al Qeada -- none at all thus far. This is a speculative war. This is a war of vengeance - GW avenging daddypoo.
Let's get real here.
-------------------------------------------
I Am What I AM (Not a Programmer)
No... That would be the US aiding Saddam in killing his own people...
We are going to war with no proof whatsoever that Saddam is affiliated with Al Qeada -- none at all thus far. This is a speculative war. This is a war of vengeance - GW avenging daddypoo.
Let's get real here.
-------------------------------------------
I Am What I AM (Not a Programmer)
Mar 5, 2003, 12:06 PM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 12:06 PM
Post #82 of 441
Views: 27235
Quote:
No... That would be the US aiding Saddam in killing his own people...If Saddam placed his weapons away from civilians then when the US attacked no civilians would die. As he hasn't done so then civilians are more likely to die. It's unfortunate but if that happens to be a result of Saddams evilness then the sooner he is removed the better.
A few hundred/thousand civilian deaths in an attempt to remove an evil dictator does not balance with a dictator who has killed over 1 million people.
Quote:
We are going to war with no proof whatsoever that Saddam is affiliated with Al Qeada -- none at all thus far.None that you are aware of, there's a big difference.
Mar 5, 2003, 12:46 PM
Enthusiast (671 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 12:46 PM
Post #84 of 441
Views: 27200
Mar 5, 2003, 1:31 PM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 1:31 PM
Post #90 of 441
Views: 26691
Well each to their own.
I'm not going to post a big "YES TO WAR" because I'm not pro-war, I'm just so anti-saddam that it tips the balance towards war :)
By saying no to war though, I feel you are missing an important point which is that if there is no disarming of Iraq, Saddam will continue to make and hide weapons and then one day in the future he'll take a chunk out of the planet. I hope that never happens but if it does, I expect all the anti-war folk will be kicking themselves as they choke on the nerve gas.
I'm not going to post a big "YES TO WAR" because I'm not pro-war, I'm just so anti-saddam that it tips the balance towards war :)
By saying no to war though, I feel you are missing an important point which is that if there is no disarming of Iraq, Saddam will continue to make and hide weapons and then one day in the future he'll take a chunk out of the planet. I hope that never happens but if it does, I expect all the anti-war folk will be kicking themselves as they choke on the nerve gas.
Mar 5, 2003, 2:01 PM
Veteran (1104 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 2:01 PM
Post #96 of 441
Views: 27325
Quote:
We are going to war with no proof whatsoever that Saddam is affiliated with Al Qeada -- none at all thus far. This is a speculative war. This is a war of vengeance - GW avenging daddypoo.There is some evidence outlined by Colin Powell that Iraq has had linkages to Al Qaeda, helping them with their chemical weapons development and providing safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives.
But even if you reject that, Iraq has long been a supporter of other terrorist organizations including Mujahedin-E-Khalq, and the Abu Abbas faction of the PLO. Identified so by the US State Department long before the 43rd president came to town.
So to do they retain weapons of mass destruction despite agreeing to rid themselves of these weapons in exchange for an end to the 1991 Gulf War. Even France acknowledges that that Iraq has these weapons.
Some innocent Iraqis will no doubt die if there is a war. But inocent Iraqis already die every day thanks to the decisions of Saddam Hussein. Only a free Iraq can begin to address the wrongs done to them over the 20+ years of Saddam's rule.
Saddam better hope that a nice US Marine captures him before the Iraqi public pulls a Ceausescu on him.
Mar 5, 2003, 2:20 PM
Veteran (1104 posts)
Mar 5, 2003, 2:20 PM
Post #98 of 441
Views: 27296
Who's next for war? Hopefully nobody. But we live in a dangerous world and North Korea has its own agenda. Hopefully the Chinese will reign in their North Korean friends, a sense of calm will return, and serious dialog about reunion between north and south could resume.