Are the US conservatives a threat to world peace?

[nicky g]

"and what did they decide on? "

In their last resolution before the invasion, they decided to continue to monitor the situation before deciding on further action.

[jaxmike]

America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."


Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Saddam Hussein is the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, continues to support terrorism, and poses a clear and ongoing threat to the United States and the region. He has shown no compunction about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran. His willingness to use them in the past illustrates the threat he poses should he gain access to more devastating WMD and the means to convey them to his enemies.



game, set, match.. as some would say. the UN did indeed authorize the continuation of hostilities in iraq whether they like it or not.....

either way, the US could have gone to war on its own. the UN cannot stop us, or tell us what to do.

[Voltorb]

My tin foil hat is not too tight, thanks for your concern though.

My comments regarding PNAC may be a bit overblown, but you cannot doubt that the think-tank has a rather aggressive strategy regarding America's role in the new century.

The goal of this administration is empire building. Not the traditional form of empire, but a more subtle empire. When Bush said "You're either with us, or you're against." this is exactly what he meant. You either serve America and American corporate interests, or if you don't, you soon will.

Consider Thomas Barnett and his analysis of the world as consisting of a functioning core (i.e. the countries who are in line with American intersests) and the non-functioning rest of the world ( Thomas P. M. Barnett ). He basically echoes the neocon's targeting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea (The Axis of Evil) when he speaks of bringing the rest of the world into the functioning core. I seriously doubt that this can be done in an entirely peaceful manner.

I realize my comments about America playing the role of Germany in WWIII were a bit crazy, but this was meant more as a warning against imperialistic ambitions. The cost, no matter how good our intentions, will be far too high. Most likely, the entire world will end up much worse than before we started.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had WMD's. There is no denying that fact. He USED THEM, on HIS OWN PEOPLE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadaam had chemical weapons before the first gulf war. He used them on the Kurds and on Iranian troops. He played a lot of cat and mouse games with UN inspectors, apparently trying to avoid giving them up. I will be honest. I was quite surprised that we didn't find them after we invaded, especially after we claimed to know exactly what he had and where he was hiding them during Powell's infamous dog and pony show at the UN. If he still had them when we cited them as our primary reason for invading, he did one hell of a job of hiding them, because we have yet to find them. OK, we found 2, count'em, 2 old chemical artillery shells. I'm sure glad we neutralized that threat. I will concede that Sadaam was an all around bad guy, and a little more dangerous than your average third world thug, because the oil money gave him a lot more capacity for mischief, but he was a threat we had already done a pretty good job of neutralizing and containing.

Although I think the Iraqi venture was unnecessary, what I really fault Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al for is their utter failure to understand what we were getting into. I knew when we started, that getting rid of Sadaam was the easy part, and occupying Iran would be the hard part. I also was concerned that invading him might push him into using his WMD, either against our troops, or against Israel. Fortunately, he apparently had none to use. We went in with a force adequate for the easy part, but not for the hard part. Rummy said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." This is would be a reasonable statement if the war is essential to national survival. When objectives of the war are desirable, but not essential, and your army is inadequate to achieve those objectives, then, if you have a lick of sense you don't go to war, or if you're determined to go to war, you build up your army until it is adequate. It amazes me that so many conservatives are so caught up in their ideology that they don't realize we have a bumbling incompetent for a president. Then again, there are a lot of Democrats who still think Jimmy Carter was a good president.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is if you had half a brain, which is in severe doubt, you would realise what he meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he does have half a brain, and he borrowed the other half from Rush Limbaugh. I have yet to see him post anything that doesn't pretty much paraphrase Rush. I'm not sure he has any thoughts of his own.

He has a point that the UN cease fire agreement wasn't really a peace treaty. That was the phrasing from the post I was replying to. I do know the difference, but got a little sloppy. It doesn't invalidate the point that if your rationale for going to war is the violation of the peace agreement with the UN, then it is the UN's decision whether the violation is serious enough to go to war. If your rationale for going to war is that Sadaam and his supposed WMD's are an imminent threat to the security of the U. S., then you don't need and shouldn't ask for the UN's approval.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that if the rest of the world starts seeing the US as a real threat they would, sooner or later, stop lending money to you.

This may happen anyway, if enough governments and banks decide it's better do let go of the dollar and take the calculated hit than to let the dollar collapse without any aid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see that happening Mostro, looks like economical suicide.

Is there a way to have some kind of international order? Some kind of international law that even the US respect it?

Or the world has to deal with the international law impossed by the US and try to get the best of it.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Being a nit(1) doesn;t help your argument, it just makes you look like a prick(2)."
...if you had half a brain(3), which is in severe doubt(4)"
"...or you're genuinely dumb(5)."
***********************************************
Nicky G. you are clearly unable to make a civil post without using an adhominem attack.
You personal attacks are evidence that wild emotion rules your mind rather than reason.....

When you proved wrong on a point, your tactic becomes:
If you think ________ then you must be ________ ("dumb", "thick". etc...)

You have become incredibly predictable... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
You are exactly right, David.

And the above post is an excellent example of the almost total degree to which the American Public has been brainwashed.

Expecting the American People to do anything about the problem is foolish. They will all be standing in a soup line waiting for a handout, and still telling each other how great things are, and that progress is just around the corner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The American public is brainwashed???? Simply because people disagree with you doesn't make them brainwashed. I am curious what your point was in your post other than to make a childish attack on Americans. I do realize that there are some real idiots out there, but this doesn't stop at our borders. Stupidity runs amuck all over the planet. If you haven't caught that already you are just as dumb as you say we are.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see that happening Mostro, looks like economical suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't bet my life on that. Granted, the cost for the world to do it would be high indeed, but maybe those cost are preferable than the higher cost of leaving everything as it is.
One thing I see that may provoce this into happening is rising oil prices, making the US trade imbalance higher and higher, making the dollar sinking further and further. Since the US needed som 80% of the combined world savings to keep its economy floating a while ago, it's not that far until you guys need some 103% or something...

Now, I'm not an economist, I just speculate a bit...

[Voltorb]

When the housing bubble finally bursts, there will be nothing to save us. The economic future of America is very dim indeed. And by the way Felix, liberal social programs are not driving up the U.S. debt nearly as much as misguided imperialistic adventures and overspending on defense.