U.N. Passes Resolution To Support U.S. in Iraq

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/16/...main/index.html

 

Excellent, excellent news. Hopefully, we can start bringing some of our troops home.

[Firestarter 0]

This must be a product of the vast right-wing conspiracy that controls the media... there's no way in hell an administration as corrupt and incompetent as ours could ever have achieved anything significant in international diplomacy. The President's a bullying unilateralist cowboy without a serious thought in his head, remember?

 

</sarcasm>

 

I'm eagerly awaiting the liberal apologists's attempts to explain this away. "It was all the State Department's hard work! They managed to pull this off in spite of the White House!" It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. I wonder what you people will find to bitch and whine about next?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, I didn't say any of that.

 

It's more of the U.N. ignoring the fact that we thumbed our nose at them and realizing that we need help in Iraq to ensure the stability of the region and the tranquility of the nation. I'm rather happy that the U.N. realized that they should put their egos aside for a moment and just do what's right, even if we didn't to begin with.

[Firestarter 0]

To me it looked more like the UN desperately clutching at yet another chance the President graciously offered them to make themselves relevant in the world once more. Praise is due to the UN for nothing more than finally acting in their own self-interest, but even that's admittedly remarkable. Usually the UN goes out of their way to act like complete buffoons.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, you're saying that this is something we did to help the U.N., and not to curb the growing dissent at home over the prospect of our troops being firmly implanted in Iraq for the next decade?

[Firestarter 0]

Yep. The UN is our creation; we have an interest in taking it back from the Arab, Asian, African, and European blocs and rehabilitating it so it will one day become an institution that can actually do some useful work. If that's still possible.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

[Justice 0]

Thank God the UN finally got off their asses and realized if they agree to the US resolution they'd become even more illegitmate and powerless in World Affairs.

 

Tyler: You know that France and Germany aren't sending troops in, right? I doubt our troops are going to get much more relief than maybe 10,000 troops from these guys. I lack any faith in "UN Assistance" to be anything other than two more layers of red tape to go through when we need something done in this operation. But if they actually come through for once, good for them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, I didn't say any of that.

 

It's more of the U.N. ignoring the fact that we thumbed our nose at them and realizing that we need help in Iraq to ensure the stability of the region and the tranquility of the nation. I'm rather happy that the U.N. realized that they should put their egos aside for a moment and just do what's right, even if we didn't to begin with.

Again, you miss that whole spate of resolutions, including one promising dire consequences if Iraq didn't comply. We DID what the U.N SAID they wanted done.

 

WE saved the U.N from itself. God only knows why --- we should let it rot on the vine.

 

We were absolutely in the right here. The only thing we need to do now is not give the U.N too much power. God knows if we let them run the show, we'll have a more brutal dictatorship.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

How did this happen? Seriously, I thought France was steadfastly against the resolution.

 

Anyways. This should free up US forces, to hunt and track the groups making these attacks.

[Cartman 0]

How did this happen? Seriously, I thought France was steadfastly against the resolution.

 

Anyways. This should free up US forces, to hunt and track the groups making these attacks.

Yea THAT might happen.

[Justice 0]

How did this happen? Seriously, I thought France was steadfastly against the resolution.

 

Anyways. This should free up US forces, to hunt and track the groups making these attacks.

Yea THAT might happen.

I'd give that the same odds of happening as I would give for cartman giving an intelligent response for once.

[MrRant 0]

As long as they don't send in the French.

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

US declares war against Iraq against the wishes of most of the world. US says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and must be stopped.

 

US wipes out a poor country in a matter of days.

 

Weapons of mass destruction still not found 6 months later. Emphasis of war quickly shifts from preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction to liberating a country. Iraq civilians, who were promised liberation, are left with a country in tatters. US says it needs support to rebuild country.

 

Of course, this should be because according to their new war policy, any country that they deem threatning that has wepons of mass destruction, must be wiped out. Who is next? - China, North Korea?

 

This is seriously pathetic.

[Guest jpclemmons]

after calling the UN irrelevant. dubya gets on his knees and begs for UN assitance.

Edited October 16, 2003 by jpclemmons

[Vyce 0]

Um, no.

 

In fact, Bush was rather harshly criticized a month or so back when he did go before the U.N., because he asked for assistance while steadfastedly (and correctly) refusing to apologize for anything the U.S. has done over the past few months.

 

This isn't the U.N. bailing the U.S. out.

 

This is the U.N. realizing that they must capitulate to some extent to the U.S. - not the other way around.

[Cartman 0]

Um, no.

 

In fact, Bush was rather harshly criticized a month or so back when he did go before the U.N., because he asked for assistance while steadfastedly (and correctly) refusing to apologize for anything the U.S. has done over the past few months.

 

This isn't the U.N. bailing the U.S. out.

 

This is the U.N. realizing that they must capitulate to some extent to the U.S. - not the other way around.

Riiiiiight because We are the greatest country in the world and we are NEVER EVER EVER in the wrong.

[Firestarter 0]

Not this time. No.

 

Go to Baghdad. Go tell a child on the street who watched his mother being raped and his father getting shot in the head that no one had the right to kill the madman who left him an orphan. Go to a Kurdish village and tell the people there that they deserved to be human guinea pigs for a tyrant's chemical arsenal. Go dig up a mass grave containing thousands upon thousands of men, women and children, corpses buried dozens deep - go dig it up and grab one of the countless skulls staring blindly into the dirt and shout in its face that we were wrong.

 

Go do that. Then shriek your petty sarcasm to the wind.

[Guest MikeSC]

US declares war against Iraq against the wishes of most of the world.  US says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and must be stopped.

 

If memory serves, we had MORE countries in the coalition this time than in 1991.

 

US wipes out a poor country in a matter of days.

 

Wiped out their crap military, yes. Civilian casualties, as always, were real low.

 

Weapons of mass destruction still not found 6 months later.  Emphasis of war quickly shifts from preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction to liberating a country.  Iraq civilians, who were promised liberation, are left with a country in tatters.  US says it needs support to rebuild country.

 

Bush gave several reasons for war long before he went. WMD was one of them --- and seeing as how Saddam had a long time to hide them and how much the U.S CAN look for them while being attacked is iffy --- it's not out of the picture to assume that looking has not exactly been job one.

 

Of course, this should be because according to their new war policy, any country that they deem threatning that has wepons of mass destruction, must be wiped out.  Who is next? - China, North Korea?

 

This is seriously pathetic

 

We'd be doing both countries a HUGE service in wiping out their totalitarian regimes.

-=Mike

...But, hey, as long as you aren't inconvenienced by the horrid suffering of others...

[Guest MikeSC]

after calling the UN irrelevant. dubya gets on his knees and begs for UN assitance.

Actually, he said if they did nothing, they risked irrelevancy.

 

And, honestly, they are irrelevant.

 

Horribly so.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He may never apologize for going to war, but he may soon be apologizing for his reasons.

 

We will never EVER find WMD in Iraq. I'd guarantee it.

[Firestarter 0]

...

 

<notes this post number for future reference as well>

[Guest JMA]

Anyone else find all this debate and "We're right, you're wrong!" mentality on both sides annoying? No? All right, then. Personally, I'm GLAD we went to Iraq (and yes, I'm an "evil" leftist). When the war first started I was very cynical about it and the motives behind it. Now I'm glad we went.

 

HOWEVER...

 

That doesn't mean I agree with the assurance that there were WMDs in Iraq. I still doubt Iraq had any when this whole thing first started. I'm not saying I'm positive that there AREN'T WMDs there, though. If the weapons were found tomorrow, I would admit that I was wrong. I don't see that happening, though.

[Guest JMA]

As long as they don't send in the French.

Bush seems to be trying to restore good relations between the countries who didn't want to help during the war. It's one of the few things I agree with him on. Sending Laura to Paris was a nice gesture.

[Vern Gagne 0]

We will never EVER find WMD in Iraq. I'd guarantee it.

Hussein had 12 years to comply with the UN, and he never once did.

[Justice 0]

Question: Does anyone actually remember when Kays came on T.V. and talked about the places he was searching? I mean, like the 200 square mile ammo dumps with hundreds upon hundreds of shells and rockets with his team? People are bitching about how we haven't found anything... well, the Iraqis have a tendancy not to mark this sort of thing (Because hey, it makes it a bit easier for people who capture the places to find these things), which means they have to test EVERY INDIVIDUAL ARTILLERY SHELL. Remember, these guys had one of the largest ground armies in the World. They had to supply them with ammo as well. But hey, when we eventually find them, it'll be hilarious to watch how many people are going to claim "OMG THEY PLANTED THEM!"

[Guest JMA]

But hey, when we eventually find them, it'll be hilarious to watch how many people are going to claim "OMG THEY PLANTED THEM!"

And if we don't find them, I'm sure there will be a lot of people saying "OMG, THEY WERE MOVED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!"

[Vern Gagne 0]

What happened with people who wanted to give UN inspectors more time. They said Iraq was the size of California, and it could take up too 2 years to search. After 4 months of the US searching, there was obviously never any WMD's at all.

[Justice 0]

But hey, when we eventually find them, it'll be hilarious to watch how many people are going to claim "OMG THEY PLANTED THEM!"

And if we don't find them, I'm sure there will be a lot of people saying "OMG, THEY WERE MOVED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!"

Considering that Kay has found the following:

 

- A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment that was subject to U.N. monitoring and was suitable for continuing chemical and biological weapons research.

 

- A prison laboratory complex that possibly was used to test biological weapons agents on humans. Kay said his investigations have shown that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were ordered not to declare the facility to the U.N.

 

- Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in the home of an Iraqi scientist. One of the strains can be used to produce biological weapons.

 

- New research on biological weapons-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin -- none of which were declared to the U.N.

 

- Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have helped Iraq resume uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation.

 

It looks like one of those is a bit more likely, JMA. And to channel Marney: How many countries disagreed with us about this maybe two years ago? None. Suddenly they don't have them? Does anyone see a problem with that?

[NoCalMike 0]

That doesn't mean I agree with the assurance that there were WMDs in Iraq. I still doubt Iraq had any when this whole thing first started. I'm not saying I'm positive that there AREN'T WMDs there, though. If the weapons were found tomorrow, I would admit that I was wrong. I don't see that happening, though.

What are you blind? It is obvious that all the WMD's are in Syria, moved so cleanly and percise that they left no trail, NONE.