"Let's ROLL" or "No2War"

That is no excuse for not complying with UN resolutions

So the Un has the power to pass resolutions on nations that are not part of its membership? come on, be realistic. In that case, the UN would be the unltimate power in the world.

If there is war - It will be as a result of non compliance by Saddam.

Again, i say, if there is war, it will be as a result of the UN/US deciding it. Or just the US deciding it.

Again, i ask, what has Saddam done in the last year to warrant this invasion? why now?

I think that some behavior is unacceptable. This would be rank as one.

so is farting in public, but i don't expect someone to dress me up for it, ten years later.

Making excuses for him is giving him defacto support

Actually no. It means that i do support Iraq against the current situation. I am against this war, for the reasons i've heard so far. As far as i can see, Iraq has NOT generated this war. It has not co-operated with the UN, but if that was such an issue, then, why is he being taken up on it now?

Oh yes, before everyone jumps down my throat for saying i support Saddam. I don't. I support the Iraq against this lynching that's being going on for the last 7 months.

The UN needs to tell the world that it is noodys fool.

Too late. America is showing that it is.

How many chances does Saddam want?

Maybe the chance to start afresh, after 13 years of punishment?

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Also you believe that nations should follow the UN, but remember not all nations in this world are part of the UN

Wrong. Now that the Swiss have joined up last year, every country in the world is a UN member.
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

Even the Vatican has observer status.

Really? i hadn't realised. My apologies.

Cork

Iraq has NOT generated this war.

By not complying with UN sanctions they are.

Why can't they let the UN know the weapons it has?

I am of no doubbt they will - if a war starts.

By not complying with UN sanctions they are

Cork, by that standpoint, Israel, the Us and a number of other nations should have been invaded by now. This excuse of Iraq not complying with the UN, as a reson for war, is pathetic.

Tell me this, Cork, if this is a valid reason for war, then why isn't the world at war with Israel, or America for that matter? Since both of them have alot more UN violations than Iraq, and both of them have far more dangerous weaponary........

Why can't they let the UN know the weapons it has?

I don't know. Its possible they don't have em. Or they buried them 8 years ago, and lost the map. Anything is possible after 11 years.

I am of no doubbt they will - if a war starts.

If war starts you will see america playing with new gadgets on the battlefield and lots of Iraqi people/soldiers dying.

One other thing Cork, will you tell me the reason why Iraq is such a big threat now? I've asked this a number of times, on other threads, and still no answer. After eleven years of not co-operating with UN Inspections why have they decided to get so tough now? In those eleven years, when has Iraq made an offensive move against any country?

Cause for the life of me, i can't seem to find a reason for this sudden lynching.........

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Cork, by that standpoint, Israel, the Us and a number of other nations should have been invaded by now. This excuse of Iraq not complying with the UN, as a reson for war, is pathetic.

Tell me this, Cork, if this is a valid reason for war, then why isn't the world at war with Israel, or America for that matter? Since both of them have alot more UN violations than Iraq, and both of them have far more dangerous weaponary........

This comparison is specious. http://www.jcrc.org/icc/un_resolutions_analysis_9-25-02.html
For a start, the US isn't violating any Security Council resolutions (they have a veto, remember?). Secondly, there are no UN resolutions against Israel which could be enforced by military means. I'm getting tired of debunking this one.

Chapter VI of the UN Charter is entitled "Pacific Settlement of Disputes" and resolutions under this chapter envision negotiated solutions. All UNSC resolutions related to Israel were promulgated under Chapter VI. Neither sanctions nor force are authorized to enforce Chapter VI resolutions.

Iraq is the only country that is still the subject of Chapter VII UNSC resolutions that authorize military action for enforcement. Therefore, there is no double standard with Israel or other countries. Iraq is a unique case and a justifiable priority for Security Council enforcement.

Meh, guess i was wrong on that reasoning. Thats fine, but i must admit i'm getting tired of asking the following which nobody seems willing to answer:

Why is Iraq being hit with this lack of cooperation now, when they've been under inspection & sanctions for 11 years, that its now that answers are needed? Especially when Iraq has been quiet, and hasn't made an aggressive move since Kuwait. So why is there such a sudden urge to lynch Iraq now, in the last 6 months, when the last 10 years, nothing has happened?

The other countries that, in the history of the UN, have been subjects of Chapter VII resolutions are: Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. Of the above, sanctions have been lifted on Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. Sanctions on Libya have been suspended.

Meh, how long have these sanctions/mandates lasted on these countries? Have they lasted more than a decade?

Iraq is a unique case and a justifiable priority for Security Council enforcement.

Why is Iraq such an unique case?

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Why is Iraq being hit with this lack of cooperation now, when they've been under inspection & sanctions for 11 years, that its now that answers are needed? Especially when Iraq has been quiet, and hasn't made an aggressive move since Kuwait. So why is there such a sudden urge to lynch Iraq now, in the last 6 months, when the last 10 years, nothing has happened?

Because everyone (rightly) wanted to give the inspections and sanctions time to work. 10 years is more than long enough to see if Saddam is going to cooperate. It's now apparent that sanctions, inspections and even limited airstrikes have not worked and that Saddam has no intention of complying with the UN unless he is forced to. President Clinton realized this in 1998, when he announced that seeking regime change in Iraq was official US policy.

But it's only after 9/11 that the danger of rogue states with WMD has been fully recognized. The political will for a war on Iraq did not exist until after 9/11.

Why is Iraq such an unique case?

Iraq is the only country that is still the subject of Chapter VII UNSC resolutions that authorize military action for enforcement.

Meh, how long have these sanctions/mandates lasted on these countries? Have they lasted more than a decade?

I don't know about all of them. The sanctions on South Africa were lifted after apartheid, the Yugoslavian sanctions after Milosevic was deposed, and the Libyan sanctions after they handed over the Lockerbie bombers.

Cork

How much time does Saddam want?

The UN has already given him ample time.

I think that Saddam has bben given enough time.

& far from participating in the "anti war" march SF should be getting the IRA to disarm to cement our own peace process.

I hope that the Irish Anti War movement will not try & influence SF to get illegal arms destroyed.

Greetings from the good old USA folks

I've heard a lot of opinions here in the last few days, mostly anti-war.
yesterday I was outside the gates of the Whitehouse though and there was a lone demonstration there of about 5 elderly women from pax christi debating with anyone that would talk.
The most heated discussion was between them and a young jew, and what he wanted done with sadam is not for typing here.
Most of the passing locals were very gung ho and giving the pax christi crew a hard time.

I notice as well that even the local U.S version of CNN here has showdown in Iraq across the screen when they are discussing the topic-so they aren't letting Fox have the monopoly on "patriotism"

There is a lot of talk also about how the price of Gas is now around $2:eek: It's not that long ago when it was steady around $1.30 and they expect now in the NY area, that the Staten explosion will rise it further as the cost of getting it in there rises.They are also expecting it to rise with the onset of war,a war regardless of views , everyone feels here is inevitable.
Here ends my report from New York:)
mm

Cork

I think that if Saddam does not start actively complying with UN resolutions - war will be inevitable.

I think that the IRA also needs to dis-arm and I hope the Anti War movement in Ireland focus their attention on SF/IRA to get rid of any illegal arms.