Fine, then send your own kids to die

[jameseb]

oh i dunno, what about the ones dealing with land mines?

LOL, I wasn't being facetious. I was really wanting to know. Can you provide more information than that, like a link or the resolution? Thanks.

 

[BigToe]

i dont know the name. look up resolutions about mapping out all the landmines and underwater mines that anyone has put anywhere so we can get rid of them for safety reasons. the US refuses to do so.

 

[datan]

My mistake then.




As I mentioned above, Resolution 687, clause 8 reads, "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution."

and which Council resolution would the United States be trying to uphold?

 

[reverend B]

one point i would like to make. america does not have the right to enforce un resolutions. only the un has that right. they are the ones who must make the decision to go into iraq if the excuse is going to be the sanctioning resolutions the un had in place. if south korea decided it wanted to walk into north korea agressively, would we have the right to do that for them? 1441 was not an AMERICAN resolution. we had no right to unilaterally enforce it. (please, don't anyone make the argument that three lithuanians and an armenian bulldog make a coalition). the entity that most regularly thumbs it's nose at the un is not some foreign country. it's us! we refuse to be part of a collective will. that is how a bully works on the playground. that is how we are pursuing foreign policy. when we helped to form the un, we had this wonderful idea that the world could come together and govern it's disparate parts with an outlook toward the future. we sold the concept hard. i guess we never assumed it would mean we would have to be led as well.

 

[Blindfaith]

What I'm trying to figure out is this; so many people are putting so much stock into the UN, but the UN are the ones who didn't enforce the resolutions in the first place. Therefore, should they be trusted 100%? Absolutely not. Is the UN so divine as to not undergo scrutiny? I don't think so. They sat on their laurels for 12 years and didn't enforce a thing.

If the US gets attacked, then the US can defend itself, even if it means taking on the terrorists in another country. If we waited on the UN to do something, it could take another 12+ years and how many more terrorist attacks in the making?

 

[BigToe]

right so in the mean time lets not allow anyone else to own or make WMD but the us can develop newer and deadlier ones? suuuure sounds like a great idea for a hypocritical nation *rolls eyes*

 

[jameseb]

right so in the mean time lets not allow anyone else to own or make WMD but the us can develop newer and deadlier ones? suuuure sounds like a great idea for a hypocritical nation *rolls eyes*

Wow. You seem real worked-up over this.

Practically every nation has signed the non-proliferation treaty. Its not just the United States that has WMD's, but also Great Britain, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc., etc. So make sure you roll your eyes at all of them too. However, even nations with such weapons do develop treaties banning further development of some weapons, and a complete destruction of particular stockpiles all together.

 

[B_shubby]

Hello again - her snoring got too loud Big Toe, you make an excellent point and I happen to agree with your sentiments.

right so in the mean time lets not allow anyone else to own or make WMD but the us can develop newer and deadlier ones? suuuure sounds like a great idea for a hypocritical nation *rolls eyes*

 

[Philosoft]

Practically every nation has signed the non-proliferation treaty. Its not just the United States that has WMD's, but also Great Britain, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc., etc. So make sure you roll your eyes at all of them too. However, even nations with such weapons do develop treaties banning further development of some weapons, and a complete destruction of particular stockpiles all together.

Are these nations really disposed to listen to us given the almost comical series of events that led to the Cold War? It seems like treaties are only beneficial now, when we can't scare the world into nuclear submission anymore.

 

[BigToe]

The US wants those other nations to disarm as well. I mean look at the Cold War. We made treaties with the Soviet Union that we would allow a maximum number of weapons and destroy all those that exceeded that number. Did we? Of course not. When we say disarm yeah its good and then don't do it ourselves its sending a mixed message to the world. They see that as saying, ok all we have to do is say we will disarm and we don't really have to do it. But then we go and attack nations because we think they are just lying about having disarmed again. But with that logic we use to attack Iraq (which sure, it made sense that since Saddam had been lying about it for 10 years that he would be lying again), wouldn't the rest of the world see our own track record of saying ok, no more of this, yet we still do it? Its a horrible habit the world has gotten into of signing treaties with no intention of keeping their word. And yes, it does go for the rest of the world as well. But seeing as I am a citizen of the US, I make more claims about my own nation that claims to be morally superior. If we are going to claim that, why don't we act that way?

 

[datan]

If the US gets attacked, then the US can defend itself, even if it means taking on the terrorists in another country. If we waited on the UN to do something, it could take another 12+ years and how many more terrorist attacks in the making?

yeah, so you attack another country?

doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[jameseb]

Are these nations really disposed to listen to us given the almost comical series of events that led to the Cold War? It seems like treaties are only beneficial now, when we can't scare the world into nuclear submission anymore.

I'm at a loss...what "comical serious of events" leading up to the Cold War are you talking about? I'm not sure what you were trying to reply to in my post. Treaties existed even during the height of the Cold War... we signed bans on biological weapons proliferation with Russia during this period as well. We also signed treaties with them on the development and proliferation of particular weapon systems as well.

 

[Philosoft]

I'm at a loss...what "comical serious of events" leading up to the Cold War are you talking about? I'm not sure what you were trying to reply to in my post. Treaties existed even during the height of the Cold War... we signed bans on biological weapons proliferation with Russia during this period as well. We also signed treaties with them on the development and proliferation of particular weapon systems as well.

BigToe mentioned this also. Look back to her last post. I think she's studied it more recently than I have anyhow.