U.S. Action Against Iraq

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-10-27 01:46am

Which action should the U.S. take against Iraq?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-27 01:57am

First off, the US shouldn't take any action against Iraq. The UN should. Even then it should only be inspections with the capacity to use force to ensure inspections. Regime change should not be an option.

Something really amusing that came up in a political science discussion:

Remote Possibility No. 93782.
1. US petitions UN security council to allow a strike on Iraq.
2. UN security council turns down proposal (Or someone vetoes it).
3. US goes into Iraq anyway (without UN support).
4. The UN now has the ability to label the US an aggressor state, its priviliges in the security council will be removed (no veto) and the options for sanctions or a war against the US are opened up.
5. Russia, China, EU, Africa, South America et al (and anyone else who has an agenda) get to legitimately gang up on the US, politically and economically, with the option for military action.

Now *that* I would pay to see.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-27 03:15am

You know, as a U.S. citizen I sure as hell get tired of the U.S. pissing and moaning about the U.N.

HELLO! We helped create the thing. We stacked the deck and set up the rules in our favor so we either need to shut up and play by the rules or quit and take our ball and go home.

I voted against action. Not that there probably shouldn't have been some but we've dicked around in Iraq for 10+ frickin' years I don't think that now is the time to invade another country.

I know, if Bush really wants Saddam gone why not show some real balls and revoke Ford's executive order against assasinating the leaders of other countries? OH I know, because if we set that precident more people might think it is okay to come after him. Wouldn't want Dubya to feel like he's in harm's way.

Not doing assasinations is the civilized thing to do. So is working through the UN. If Bush doesn't think the UN sanctions are working because too many countries are bypassing them then maybe the US should consider cutting trade with those countries as well. Oh, but that might hurt the US economy

and that's the one thing politicians (especially Repulicans) can't do unless there is a potentially big payoff down the road.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-27 07:45am

Tell me... Tell me ONE UN sanction that has stuck to any of these "3rd Worlc Contries"

NK Built nukes, Iraq and Iran are working on thiers.

Heck look how fucking long its taken the UN to decided what to do, Even if a Country breaks EVERY SINGLE Resoultion and order pased by the UN they still toss out Regime change as an opition and armed Forces are a last resort.....

So what do I have to do to get a resoultion from the UN to attack someplace?
They Nuke me?

Laughing Mechanicus · Post by **Laughing Mechanicus** » 2002-10-27 07:55am

I would go with thorough inspections with the threat of force, but all dictated and controlled by the UN.

If the UN can't stop the US from invading Iraq, it bears a chilling resemblance to the failure of the League of Nations to prevent Hitlers militarism/expansionism before the Second World War.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-27 08:07am

If the UN can't stop the US from invading Iraq, it bears a chilling resemblance to the failure of the League of Nations to prevent Hitlers militarism/expansionism before the Second World War.

Ahh except

WE ARE NOT EXPANSITIOT!

The US would be looked down on(As we always are) for invading without permision for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam but nothing much would come of it

If we then Declared Iraq OURS on the other hand it would be a very big worysome deal

However Aaron I don't recall Hitler ever invading, Taking the Captial prolaming it HitlerVill then going home or any such thing

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-27 11:18am

The US would be looked down on(As we always are) for invading without permision for invading Iraq and taking out Saddam but nothing much would come of it

How do you know nothing bad would come of it? Do you mean our reputation? I might agree there, but the fallout from such an invasion might be more deadly and expensive than keeping the guy contained.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-27 11:22am

I think it is very simple.

The US puts a gun to Saddam's head. He can either let us see *everything*, or the bombs start to fly.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-27 12:01pm

Mr Bean wrote:Tell me... Tell me ONE UN sanction that has stuck to any of these "3rd Worlc Contries"

NK Built nukes, Iraq and Iran are working on thiers.

Heck look how fucking long its taken the UN to decided what to do, Even if a Country breaks EVERY SINGLE Resoultion and order pased by the UN they still toss out Regime change as an opition and armed Forces are a last resort.....

So what do I have to do to get a resoultion from the UN to attack someplace?
They Nuke me?

I agree that the UN has been ineffectual but I just get tired of the US crying about it. If we don't think the UN works it's time to either fix it or bail but stop the damn whining.

Based on the treaty Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War and because they've been violating it since day one we should be able to invade. I'd prefer we didn't though just because we dicked around so long on this.

I'd rather see the war on terrorism (the real stuff not propaganda bs) continue and see the US put it's money where it's mouth is. How about some economic sanctions on countries that are violating Iraq's sanctions?

Probably won't happen. Wouldn't want to interfere with anyone making money.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

U.S. Action Against Iraq

Which action should be taken?

U.S. Action Against Iraq