Simple question...

Is there anyone here who DOESN'T think Saddam has Chemical and Biological weapons and is trying to get nukes?

not trying--HAS nukes....and is waiting to use them....

We gave Saddam research and supplies for chemical and biological weapons. Does he have them, yes. He had a stock pile immediatly after '91 and altered documents shown to weapons inspectors indicating he still has them and they are in hiding. Nukes, should have them by now, two years ago some plutonium mysteriously disappeared near the Iraq border.

It's not about what you or I "think" he has.
When there is a trial, ANY trial, does a person get convicted on what the someone "thinks" he has done, or what is proven?

Why should the criteria be any different when there are clearly tens of thousands of lives on the line? And many of those lives are American.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster
It's not about what you or I "think" he has.
When there is a trial, ANY trial, does a person get convicted on what the someone "thinks" he has done, or what is proven?

Why should the criteria be any different when there are clearly tens of thousands of lives on the line? And many of those lives are American.

You know, being innocent until proven guilty is a uniquely american idea.

Originally posted by mike


You know, being innocent until proven guilty is a uniquely american idea.

So, you don't think there are other countries out there that follow similar guidelines? Like say, oh... i dunno..... CANADA!!!!!
Or England, or France, or Germany, or Australia.....
The list will get long pretty quick if i keep typing.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


So, you don't think there are other countries out there that follow similar guidelines? Like say, oh... i dunno..... CANADA!!!!!
Or England, or France, or Germany, or Australia.....
The list will get long pretty quick if i keep typing.


Actually British Common Law does not (or rather did not) hold that same concept. It was established here. Historical fact. If you all have it, you copied us ;)

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster
It's not about what you or I "think" he has.
When there is a trial, ANY trial, does a person get convicted on what the someone "thinks" he has done, or what is proven?

Why should the criteria be any different when there are clearly tens of thousands of lives on the line? And many of those lives are American.

so you don't think our government is fulley keyed into what is going on. I be they have proof and have told the UN. THe UN is a bunch of feable pussies who wouldn't want to offend anyone


feel free to correct my politically uninformed ass :flipoff2:

But lots of other countries have put it into practice.
My original point that you countered with your American-centred comment is that you do not convict a person on what he/she is "accused" of doing, you convict a person on what they are proved to have done wrong. (And this is done around the world)

So, are you saying that it's ok to hold other countries up to lesser morals?

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster
It's not about what you or I "think" he has.
When there is a trial, ANY trial, does a person get convicted on what the someone "thinks" he has done, or what is proven?

Why should the criteria be any different when there are clearly tens of thousands of lives on the line? And many of those lives are American.

Because this isn't a court of law.

So answer the question. Do you think he has WMD?

Originally posted by TRD


so you don't think our government is fulley keyed into what is going on. I be they have proof and have told the UN.



If the UN had been told, and given 100% proof of the Iraqi gov't holding illegal weapons, then there wouldn't be so much push for more inspectors, would there?

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


So, you don't think there are other countries out there that follow similar guidelines? Like say, oh... i dunno..... CANADA!!!!!
Or England, or France, or Germany, or Australia.....
The list will get long pretty quick if i keep typing.

Presumption of innocence is absurdly irrelevant when it comes to nation-states.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


If the UN had been told, and given 100% proof of the Iraqi gov't holding illegal weapons, then there wouldn't be so much push for more inspectors, would there?


Actually my point was that ACCORDING TO THE UN RESOLUTION THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON IRAQ.

Fawk it, :nuke: CANADA.... I heard they did something too.

Originally posted by nakona


Because this isn't a court of law.

So answer the question. Do you think he has WMD?

Yes i do. But i already said it doesn't matter what i "think", it matters what can be proven. And in a way, the UN is a court of law, of international law.
And the fact that there is so much at stake, we can't rush into this situation, although i also think it will happen anyway, and it will be a big fawking mess, and lots of people will die, and the actions of the American government will create even more anti-American sentiments around the world.
And with all this having been done, the attempt to "safeguard American lives" will actually backfire totally, and you will be in much more danger of being killed by a terrorist suicide bombing than you would have been before 9/11.

That is what concerns me, and that's why i keep adding my thoughts to this subject, in all of these threads. War is not a solution to the current situation.

Originally posted by Tin Bender
Fawk it, :nuke: CANADA.... I heard they did something too.

Thanks for adding some levity to this thread, bastard. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by Tin Bender
Fawk it, :nuke: CANADA.... I heard they did something too.


Awwwww dammit!!! Now you're gonna start THAT again!!! :flipoff2: :roxy:

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


Yes i do. But i already said it doesn't matter what i "think", it matters what can be proven. And in a way, the UN is a court of law, of international law.
And the fact that there is so much at stake, we can't rush into this situation, although i also think it will happen anyway, and it will be a big fawking mess, and lots of people will die, and the actions of the American government will create even more anti-American sentiments around the world.
And with all this having been done, the attempt to "safeguard American lives" will actually backfire totally, and you will be in much more danger of being killed by a terrorist suicide bombing than you would have been before 9/11.

That is what concerns me, and that's why i keep adding my thoughts to this subject, in all of these threads. War is not a solution to the current situation.



Where the hell in the UN charter does it say anything about the UN being a court of law? No where. Now I'll also point out that the United States, like Canada, is a wholly soverign nation. And therefore capable of making up it's own mind without an international concensus ;)

Originally posted by nakona
Simple question...

Is there anyone here who DOESN'T think Saddam has Chemical and Biological weapons and is trying to get nukes?

He's got chemical and bio weapons. He doesn't have nukes.

An American-led war is not the way to solve it. A multi-national, and financed, occupation force is. We could force the issue now with our bargaining power to have France, Russia and China to acquiese to a resolution stating that, backed with force.

Unlike most Americans, I don't adore Colin Powell. He's a very good SecState and CJCS, but he's a lying politician like the rest. And he did not convince me at the UN speech that Iraq is a threat to the US, either directly or by proxy.

There are so many other options here. Influence via the Muslim world. UN resolutions. Catching the naysayer nations in their own convictions. Popular revolt.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


If the UN had been told, and given 100% proof of the Iraqi gov't holding illegal weapons, then there wouldn't be so much push for more inspectors, would there?

It would be great if it was that simple.

If you dont think Iraq has them, you are being a little naive. We know the US has told inspectors in the part where weapons were, but surprise surprise, once the inspectors plan to go, a bunch of trucks show up, and the place in emptied out. Nothing to hide here, move along.

But I also think that the US is NOT showing its information because there are countries like France that would say something like "Well just keep telling us and we will send inspectors." Its convenient for them since they have so much invested in Iraq.

Originally posted by rusted


He's got chemical and bio weapons. He doesn't have nukes.

An American-led war is not the way to solve it. A multi-national, and financed, occupation force is. We could force the issue now with our bargaining power to have France, Russia and China to acquiese to a resolution stating that, backed with force.

Unlike most Americans, I don't adore Colin Powell. He's a very good SecState and CJCS, but he's a lying politician like the rest. And he did not convince me at the UN speech that Iraq is a threat to the US, either directly or by proxy.

There are so many other options here. Influence via the Muslim world. UN resolutions. Catching the naysayer nations in their own convictions. Popular revolt.

Well, according to the UN he's not supposed to have any of it. The UN itself knows this, Hans Blix himself stated that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution. The UN is unwilling to do anything about it. France and Russia are too heavily tied to Iraq financially and wont do a thing about it. Sounds like a real good environment for a multi-national force doesn't it?

Ok, so lets say that the US government has some top secert-squirrel info aboot Iraq's supposed illegal weapons that it can't just share with the general public yet, fair enough. BUT don't you think we might share that top seceret info with the other heads of state on our side say like; France/Germany/Russia so they'd be on our side? Why do you think the US is facing so much opposition by them?............... Because there isn't any evidence or its extremely poor. :shaking:

Originally posted by rusted


He's got chemical and bio weapons. He doesn't have nukes.

An American-led war is not the way to solve it. A multi-national, and financed, occupation force is. We could force the issue now with our bargaining power to have France, Russia and China to acquiese to a resolution stating that, backed with force.

Unlike most Americans, I don't adore Colin Powell. He's a very good SecState and CJCS, but he's a lying politician like the rest. And he did not convince me at the UN speech that Iraq is a threat to the US, either directly or by proxy.

There are so many other options here. Influence via the Muslim world. UN resolutions. Catching the naysayer nations in their own convictions. Popular revolt.
I disagree. First off, yes, there are other options. COntainmentis probably possible, but it would take far more than the war will.

I think you are taking the stance that he has to be a threat to us.

Why? He violated 17 resolutions. not one. not five

17

It makes as much sense to me expecting the bank to leave you alone if you dont make your car payments.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ok, so lets say that the US government has some top secert-squirrel info aboot Iraq's supposed illegal weapons that it can't just share with the general public yet, fair enough. BUT don't you think we might share that top seceret info with the other heads of state on our side say like; France/Germany/Russia so they'd be on our side? Why do you think the US is facing so much opposition by them?............... Because there isn't any evidence or its extremely poor. :shaking:


Berzy, you never share intelligence. Even with allies. Wanna know why? The US and USSR were allies during world war two, so was the US and China. Supersecret squirrel stuff certainley wouldnt be proffered up to even allies. Period.

Originally posted by LordRatner


If you dont think Iraq has them, you are being a little naive.

Look a couple posts up, i already said i think he has these weapons.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


Look a couple posts up, i already said i think he has these weapons.

That was not sent to you. It was a general statement, my bad.

Originally posted by LordRatner



Why? He violated 17 resolutions. not one. not five

17



Isreal has violated something like over 30.
If you're basing your agression on numbers, go after Isreal.

Originally posted by LordRatner


That was not sent to you. It was a general statement, my bad.

No prob.
I thought it was directed at me since you quoted me in your reply.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


Isreal has violated something like over 30.
If you're basing your agression on numbers, go after Isreal.

We have been. As I said before, why do you think there are still Palestinians there? Henry Kissinger JUST said on TV, The art of foreign policy is being able to see the distinctions between cases. He is on to something.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


Yes i do. But i already said it doesn't matter what i "think", it matters what can be proven. And in a way, the UN is a court of law, of international law.

No, there is no "in a way" about it. Those are two different things.

Now if you believe that he has WMD, do you believe he should be allowed to have them?

Originally posted by rusted

An American-led war is not the way to solve it.

Forget how it gets solved. Do you think saddam hussein should be allowed to have WMD?

Originally posted by rusted


Presumption of innocence is absurdly irrelevant when it comes to nation-states.


That may be but the average guy one the street doesn't see it that way at all.

If the US goes ahead and invades Iraq without UN approval showing proof of violations,Joe regular is going to be talking about how the US claims all these great things for it's citizens and condems other countries for not having the same values on one hand,and on the other doesn't apply thess same ideals to the rest of the world themselves.


Does Iraq have chemical and biolgical weapons.I don't doubt it but not enough to be a real threat right now.What is the big deal about theses things anyway?Sarin gas?,chlorine gas?,mustard gas?,whoopdi do,If some crazy ass cult can put sarin into a subway system I bet I could get my hands on most chemical agents too.Biolgical?it seems pretty obvious to me that obtaining anthrax isn't anywhere near tough to get as a nuke.Has the individual that poisened the US postal system been caught yet?Smallpox,if it's as prolific in Iraq as the media would have us believe it's gotta be fairly simple to obtain with enough money.

Does Iraq even have a reliable effective delivery system for delivery.I'm not talking about a one shot deal that will only lead to Saddamms death,he may be cruel and power hungry but I don't think he's insane,I'm talking about the type of system where he could actually put forth an effective assualt.

Iraq does not possess nukes,nor do they have the ability to process nuclear material,unless he's built a reactor or centerfuge.He could have bought some depleted uranium for a dirty bomb but one would think the intelligence community would have discovered it by now.

Where is Osama?what about the person/s that put the anthrax into the mail system?

Originally posted by R O
Iraq does not possess nukes,nor do they have the ability to process nuclear material,unless he's built a reactor or centerfuge.Ro, you don't need a reactor or centerfuge to make weapons grade plutonium. Besides several pounds of it disappeared a couple years ago near the Iraq border. Building a nuclear device isn't hard once you have the plutonium. ;) The last time I checked wich was several years ago it was reported that nearly 50 pounds of weapons grade material was "missing" from former Soviet stockpiles.

Originally posted by Belly Dragger
Ro, you don't need a reactor or centerfuge to make weapons grade plutonium. Besides several pounds of it disappeared a couple years ago near the Iraq border. Building a nuclear device isn't hard once you have the plutonium. ;) The last time I checked wich was several years ago it was reported that nearly 50 pounds of weapons grade material was "missing" from former Soviet stockpiles.


it's actually scarily easy once you have the materials.

Originally posted by Belly Dragger
Ro, you don't need a reactor or centerfuge to make weapons grade plutonium. Besides several pounds of it disappeared a couple years ago near the Iraq border. Building a nuclear device isn't hard once you have the plutonium. ;) The last time I checked wich was several years ago it was reported that nearly 50 pounds of weapons grade material was "missing" from former Soviet stockpiles.

well, 8 pounds (8.3?) is what ya need for a bomb.... I may be wrong though, I cant remember.... But 50 pounds is plenty for a few bombs

Originally posted by Belly Dragger
Ro, you don't need a reactor or centerfuge to make weapons grade plutonium. Besides several pounds of it disappeared a couple years ago near the Iraq border. Building a nuclear device isn't hard once you have the plutonium. ;) The last time I checked wich was several years ago it was reported that nearly 50 pounds of weapons grade material was "missing" from former Soviet stockpiles.


I stand corrected, thank you.

Originally posted by LordRatner
well, 8 pounds (8.3?) is what ya need for a bomb.... I may be wrong though, I cant remember.... Yeah there is a minimum to actually start the chain reaction. I'll go read my "fundamentals of nuclear physics" book and see what it says.

Originally posted by mike


Well, according to the UN he's not supposed to have any of it. The UN itself knows this, Hans Blix himself stated that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution. The UN is unwilling to do anything about it. France and Russia are too heavily tied to Iraq financially and wont do a thing about it. Sounds like a real good environment for a multi-national force doesn't it?

It's their proposal. If/when the multi-national force fails, or is attacked, then that would give the US carte blanc justification.

I hear you about the financial ties, and that does steam my ass. They don't want us going in there and finding all their industrial equipment saying Made in France, Made in Duetchsland.

I hear ya. I would be happier if the UN would back up their own decisions (the resolutions have included use of force as a reprocussion). I just can't see wringing our hands letting it get worse in the process.

Originally posted by nakona


Forget how it gets solved. Do you think saddam hussein should be allowed to have WMD?

I don't care. I care about resolution, not principles.

When it comes to my Constitutional rights, then the principle comes into play.

International relations are expedient. Nothing more, nothing less.

I mean, how could I 'forget how it gets solved'? That's absurd.

To answer your question: Saddam agreed to get rid of them. Now he must be forced to comply with the treaties and agreements he made.

Short version: No, he should not be allowed.

Originally posted by R O
,Joe regular is going to be talking about how the US claims all these great things for it's citizens and condems other countries for not having the same values on one hand,and on the other doesn't apply thess same ideals to the rest of the world themselves.

RO, I agree with most of what you said. About this: tough shit. This is where we've disagreed before.

You are absolutely correct. We, the US, do NOT extend the same protections our citizens enjoy (are losing), to citizens of other countries, or the states themselves.

It is a double standard, but it is not hypocrisy.

I do not understand why you can't grasp that reality. Our Constitution dictates what happens within our borders. International relations are about pragmatic expediency, nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by mike



it's actually scarily easy once you have the materials.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm

The minimum mass of fissile material that can sustain a nuclear chain reaction is called a critical mass and depends on the density, shape, and type of fissile material, as well as the effectiveness of any surrounding material (called a reflector or tamper) at reflecting neutrons back into the fissioning mass. Critical masses in spherical geometry for weapon-grade materials are as follows:

Bare shpere:
Uranium-235 Plutonium-239
56kg 11kg

Thick Tamper:
Uranium-235 Plutonium-239
15 kg 5 kg

Originally posted by Belly Dragger
Yeah there is a minimum to actually start the chain reaction. I'll go read my "fundamentals of nuclear physics" book and see what it says. Must be in the attic, but I found my gas mask. :bounce:

Originally posted by Belly Dragger
Must be in the attic, but I found my gas mask. :bounce:

A buddy of mine snagged an MCU-2P from the ship before he left, for 'smoke warfare' reasons. I bet he's glad he's got it. That's a damn fine mask.

Originally posted by nakona
Simple question...

Is there anyone here who DOESN'T think Saddam has Chemical and Biological weapons and is trying to get nukes?

As I understand things, your question is irrelvant. BECAUSE, on previous inspections the chemical and boilogical weapons that he HAS was documented.

The UN inspectors are supposed to be documenting proof of destruction of the know weapons and Iraq is supposed to be leading the inspectors to each site.

The U.S. is still a relatively young country (Columbus, 1492 to current) compared to the rest of the world. YET, we hold the strongest Police Power of the world via our militaries. So why did the U.S. get involved? Because the United States of America IS the worlds Police. And yes, I feel that war is inevitable, I wish that it wouldn't happen, but who knows what all Saddam does have, his desert is BIG enough to hide anything.:mad:

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster


lots of people will die

you will be in much more danger of being killed by a terrorist suicide bombing than you would have been before 9/11.

War is not a solution to the current situation.

1. please explain "how" and "who" are the "lots of people will die"?

2. So we agree that there are terrorists and they want to kill americans and they have the capablity to do so (based on your second statement)?

3. What scares ME are people who sing "no war no matter what". That statement is kinda like your mom telling you "never say never". Have you ever taken the time to play out the scenario in your mind of inaction? I challenge you to play out "inaction" here over a period of 2 years, 5 years, 15 years. Yeah, I know....who knows for sure, but play it out the best you can based on what we know today about all the individuals involved and their history.
Include Osama, Saddam, N. Korea; the financial status of each country. The way each country generates revenue. I'll give you a little hint on questions to ask yourself: Who does Iraq buy its chemicals from? Yep, Germany.

I don't want to flame.....just want to generate a discussion based on facts. Please add your facts! :D

Originally posted by rusted

Short version: No, he should not be allowed.

OK then.


Would you say the 12 years of inspections have worked yet?

NoJoke, when i state that you as an American will be in more danger from suicide/terrorist bombings AFTER a war with Iraq has begun, this is what i mean:

The US military goes over there, on it's own cause no other contry agrees to this war, many people die, Iraqi military, gov't officials, and civilians alike. As well as the many American servicemen that will die in fighting of some sort.
So, there will DEFINITELY be death, on both sides, i can't see how anyone doesn't agree with that statement. Right?

But now, (post war) the United States as a country has gone in and killed a lot of civilians, brothers, sisters, moms and dads, sons and daughters etc. The surviving relatives, think about them. They used to just dislike you, as an American, and dislike your country (for whatever reasons).
NOW, you've killed off their innocent family in the name of justice or whatever, in an attempt to oust Saddam, and protect American lives against the possibility of attacks using Iraqi-made chem./bio. weapons.
So what you've done is turned a civilian that didn't like you, into a person that has lost his or her entire family due to American bombs. They don't have anything to live for any more, why not emmigrate to the US, strap a big 'ole bomb on your back, and walk into a nice shopping mall? (I can't remember what the extremists call their suicide bombers) :confused:
Anyway, with the amount of death that bombing the absolute shit out of Iraq will bring, how many of these people do you think will be created?

That is what i think the real danger is with this "war".

Originally posted by nakona


OK then.


Would you say the 12 years of inspections have worked yet?

No.

Next question: Why would they work now?

Answer: It won't. But an international peacekeeping force will.

Originally posted by The Adam Blaster
They used to just dislike you, as an American, and dislike your country (for whatever reasons).
NOW, you've killed off their innocent family in the name of justice or whatever, in an attempt to oust Saddam, and protect American lives against the possibility of attacks using Iraqi-made chem./bio. weapons.

That is what i think the real danger is with this "war".

I think the majority of the Iraqi people fear Saddam more than they dislike the US.

When I was a kid, Iran was the demon. Now, there have been occasions where Iranians have invited a military action by the US. In secret, whispered, of course.

There are ethnic and sectarian divisions as well which could be exploited.

So while there may be a backlash, these aren't Palestinians, who have a solidarity in fighting Israel. These are the same people who all profess to *hate* Israel yet still cannot band together and erase that country.

I don't see a higher risk of terror after the war with Iraq. I see the American government, and people, succumbing to their own hubris.

I do believe that Iraq has these weapons. I do believe that we will go to war w/ Iraq. We need to do this under the approval of the UN Security Council though.

There are 5 permanent countries on the UN Security Council. And another 10 that are elected for 2-year terms by the General Assembly.

Security Council information page (http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm#MEMBERS)

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

I do not remember where China stands, but since 2 of the 3 permanent members do not concede to this action, then if we go to war w/ Iraq, it will be on our own. This will then put the US in the position of being a, for lack of a better term, “bully.”

Originally posted by JeepinIan
I do believe that Iraq has these weapons. I do believe that we will go to war w/ Iraq. We need to do this under the approval of the UN Security Council though.

There are 5 permanent countries on the UN Security Council. And another 10 that are elected for 2-year terms by the General Assembly.

Security Council information page (http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm#MEMBERS)



I do not remember where China stands, but since 2 of the 3 permanent members do not concede to this action, then if we go to war w/ Iraq, it will be on our own. This will then put the US in the position of being a, for lack of a better term, “bully.”

This is where you are completely wrong. You seee, if we go in, the UN will be with us, especially France. They cant risk the UN becoming obsolete, as it is their last area of world power. Unfortunately, France will end up joining at the last minute, so they can claim the whole think was a UN supported international effort.

The LAST thing the world wants is more gory for the US.

Think he has them but don’t really care, I will do whatever they tell me to, but if I had my way I would invade France for the hell of it I’m sure it would only take a day or so before they surrendered as usual, At times like this I feel sad that we Killed all the German men who had the will and balls to fight in the two big wars, now all they have left is a bunch of pansies with a complex. And the Russians,,,,come on, do they really count? The Chinese at least are consistent, I can respect that, and as far as people dying who cares the world is over populated anyway, this is Mother Nature way of keeping control of the populations. kind of like the brush fires,, if you don’t let it burn it will just collect more fuel later and be worse. And ass far as making more terrorist so the fuck what, if it happens it happens but that’s no dam reason not to invade the fuckers. And if Canada keeps talking smack were going to send the Salvation Army and invade you to. Just an old soldiers View. :D

Originally posted by Qbert
Think he has them but don’t really care, I will do whatever they tell me to, but if I had my way I would invade France for the hell of it I’m sure it would only take a day or so before they surrendered as usual, At times like this I feel sad that we Killed all the German men who had the will and balls to fight in the two big wars, now all they have left is a bunch of pansies with a complex. And the Russians,,,,come on, do they really count? The Chinese at least are consistent, I can respect that, and as far as people dying who cares the world is over populated anyway, this is Mother Nature way of keeping control of the populations. kind of like the brush fires,, if you don’t let it burn it will just collect more fuel later and be worse. And ass far as making more terrorist so the fuck what, if it happens it happens but that’s no dam reason not to invade the fuckers. And if Canada keeps talking smack were going to send the Salvation Army and invade you to. Just an old soldiers View. :D

Just a warning. Even sarcastic laden posts such as this will get you yelled at. Esp. since you mentioned Canada. They apparently lost their sense of humor.

Originally posted by LordRatner


This is where you are completely wrong. You seee, if we go in, the UN will be with us, especially France. They cant risk the UN becoming obsolete, as it is their last area of world power. Unfortunately, France will end up joining at the last minute, so they can claim the whole think was a UN supported international effort.

The LAST thing the world wants is more gory for the US.

If I read the "rules" from the UN correctly, we cannot "go in" w/o an OK, and not break the UN regs.

Originally posted by JeepinIan


If I read the "rules" from the UN correctly, we cannot "go in" w/o an OK, and not break the UN regs.

We are going in. I have very little doubt about that. But what I was saying is that France WILL approve it because they can not afford the risk of the UN becoming obsolete. They dont have much power elsewhere.

I would love to see them try to get onboard and be refused by the US. But that won't happen

Ah it’s OK I can yell whit the best of em! I think the PB has become to PC..The way I see it if you isn’t helping your in the way. People do this shit all the time wine and complain about war and shit like that, its all good it don’t bother me like it used to, but I do believe war is necessary every 5 years or so just to control the population. And boost the economy afterwards. And we are about due. Why do we always have to be the nice guys, and as Far as the UN they can kiss my ass, bunch of no balls obsolete old farts still trying to be of consequence.

Originally posted by LordRatner


We are going in. I have very little doubt about that. But what I was saying is that France WILL approve it because they can not afford the risk of the UN becoming obsolete. They dont have much power elsewhere.

I would love to see them try to get onboard and be refused by the US. But that won't happen

I understand that we will go in eventually. w/ or w/o the backing of the UN. I would rather it be w/ the backing, so we are not deemed "outlaws."
We cannot get the backing "properly" after we are in, this is why we are trying to convince the other nations to OK it. we have more than enough of the "general" votes, we just need to get all the permanent member cotes before we will have the backing of the UN.

Originally posted by JeepinIan


I understand that we will go in eventually. w/ or w/o the backing of the UN. I would rather it be w/ the backing, so we are not deemed "outlaws."
We cannot get the backing "properly" after we are in, this is why we are trying to convince the other nations to OK it. we have more than enough of the "general" votes, we just need to get all the permanent member cotes before we will have the backing of the UN.

I would like world support too, but we cant wait forever. I am not saying we will get the approval after. I say we will get it RIGHT before. As I said, they cant risk it. As long as France thinks they won't be able to stop us (and in doing so look like the worlds champion for peace), they will side with us. Not to mention I am sure they will want people there to guard their investments.

Originally posted by rusted


No.

Next question: Why would they work now?

Answer: It won't. But an international peacekeeping force will.

Military Fact:
Any peacekeeping force, in order to effective, must FIRST gain military dominance over their area of operations.

If a peacekeeping force is put into Iraq while Saddam is still in power, any hypothetical peacekeepers would NOT have military dominance.

So please, explain to me how it will work.