What if the US loses?

by Robdar 97 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FreeWilly

  Expresso,

  "the rest of the world has been busy doing what they can "

  That's true, when the inspection program was in place many countries contributed. However, when in 1998, Saddam kicked them out, no one stepped up to the plate to insist on compliance. Now that the US and allies have threated Iraq - poof - they are back in there. People can say what they want about the US, but the US and its close allies have shelled out $$BILLIONS$$ to keep the world safer. Those who advocate concession to Saddam would create a world where dictators could wipe out their families in the future.

  Saddam's a criminal - just like Slobedon Melosovich. He needs to be apprehended and tried for war crimes even if it requires force. The Iraqi people deserve peace, not Saddam.
• 

  espresso

  No one stepped up to the plate to insist on compliance

  
  It is the UN security council's job to enforce compliance to UN resolutions, not any one member country.
• 

  FreeWilly

  espresso,

  "It is the UN security council's job to enforce compliance"

  That's true..... So now I guess you realize how gutless the UN has been without the US insisting on compliance - right? The UN was content to let the whole matter slide into the background. What did it take to get Saddam to allow inspectors back - the UN??? Hardly. Saddam took a calculated risk when he kicked the UN inspectors out in 1998. He speculated that the UN was weak and indecisive. He was right! He kicked the UN inspectors out while the UN looked the other way. That is, until the UN,UK,etc stepped back into the game. It was the iminent threat of invasion by US, UK (and the Aussies to!) - NOT the pitiful UN.

  I don't know about you, but I'm not gonna hold my breath for the UN to do anything meaningful. Without the insistance of the US and her allies, Saddam would be threatening the world right now with his nukes. Thats a fact!.

  Edited by - Freewilly on 9 February 2003 4:40:2
• 

  espresso

  The UN Security Council is not weak nor indecisive, however it can be slow to use force, would you really want it any other way?

  Right now, in numerous places around the world UN Peace Keepers are working hard to prevent war and/or enforce ceasefires with military force if required.

  New Zealand personnel are overseas right now as part of those UN peace keeping forces (including in the Gulf checking for illegal Iraqi imports/exports).

  Iraq are in violation of numerous UN resolutions no one doubts that. How patient will the security council be with them...who knows...but it is unlikely they will put up with Iraq's non-compliance much longer - a reading of Hans Blix's latest report indicates this.

  The gulf war was fought by an international force because the war was sanctioned by the UN and the security council. IMO any future conflict with Iraq is best fought by forces carrying out the will of the UN and the security council, not because a world leader gets impatient with lack of progress.
• 

  Navigator

  I am reminded of the film record of Neville Chamberlain from 1939 holding up a piece of paper and declaring "peace for our time". Failure to deal with the dictator Hitler at the appropriate time is what led to WWII and the death of hundreds of millions of people. Failure to deal with Saddam will lead to a similar result. The UN has not been much more effective than the League of Nations was just prior to WWII. AGuest and others seem to be missing the point. Saddam is trying to control the world oil supplies. He is willing to use "weapons of mass destruction" to accomplish that end. No one is asking him to disarm. We are asking that he give up those weapons of "mass destruction" that he intends to use to intimidate his neighboring oil producing countries. Controlling the oil would effectively give him control of the world's economies. Do you really want a madman to have that kind of power? The sooner we get him out, the better off we will all be. Prisca seems to think that the Iraqi people are supporting Saddam. Everyone forgets that he murdered his opposition years ago and that his power rests on fear. I suspect that many Iraquis will welcome the coalition forces and be as glad to get rid of Saddam as George Bush is. Why do you think Saddam's army surrendered in droves during the last conflict?
• 

  Erich

  Navigator: >Controlling the oil would effectively give him control of the world's economies. Do you really want a madman to have that kind of power?...<

  If you`d like to preserve the world from such a danger, you had to occupy essential parts of the world. Not only Iraq. Nobody is recently in the position to do so. No UN, no United States.

  E.
• 

  Prisca

  Prisca seems to think that the Iraqi people are supporting Saddam.

  I do?

  Actually, a year ago I used to work with a girl who was an Iraqi. She explained that many of the people of Iraq don't actually personally support Hussein, but they have to, otherwise they and their families will be tortured and murdered. But then, what would you expect from a dictator?

  Her family were Christians and they had to flee the country in order to live, and to practise their religion. I noticed after Sept 11 she wore a gold cross from that day on, due to the anti-Arab feelings that arose from that time.
• 

  shera

  I usally don't do war talk...it stresses me out.

  Regardless,lives are going to be lost and inoccent ones.

  Alot of good points in here.
• 

  Mary

  If Iraq was the only Superpower in the world, do you think any of us would still be sitting here with the freedoms we presently enjoy? Wake up people. This guy's sanity is just as bad, if not worse than Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain was so intent on preserving peace in the 1930s, that they totally ignored Adolf Hilter and his diabolical plans for the world, insisting that there would be "peace" for all mankind. The result? 55 million deaths. What's it going to take for people to see exactly what Saddam Hussein is all about? You want anthrax released over Australia or Europe?? How many millions of your people need to die before you say "Oh gee, maybe someone should have stopped this guy before it got this far."

  If these fanatical muslim terrorists attacked any of these countries, how would you fight back? The first thing you'd do is turn to the evil USofA for help..........so instead of bashing their policies and their "sticking their noses" into everyone else's business, maybe you should thank God that there's a country left who WOULD stick up for you if the need arose.
• 

  Erich

  The present situation is completely different, compared with that situation 60 years ago...
  
  NOBODY can stop millions of fanatical terrorists if they indeed are ready to use suicide-bombs. No USA, no UN; absolutely nobody. One little chance would be to WIPE OUT the religious base; e.g. when they see that they had really much to lose if they die. As long as a GI or other western soldier is not fanatical enough to offer his life for an ideology, but a muslim etc. is - as long you cannot win a war against suicide- terror. NEVER. Sorry, there is a world situation now US-people often cannot understand. Even the WTS cannot understand it exactly. Thats very sad.

  E.