Global Politics

[gekko]

Originally posted by playa_playa
So it's 90 days. Doesn't change the fact that it could trigger a serious conflict, no?

If we waited for congress to do anything, we would face serious consequences. It's there for a reason, but this isn't a god damn dictatorship, what Mr. President wants, isn't always what Mr. President gets. The 90 days law is because it takes congress forever to get things done. If we need action, and need it fast, the President can send troops and they can stay there up to 90 days if Congress doesn't allow for more.

[Professor S]

I'm growing a little tired of the US being the political whipping boy of the world. The fact is right now we are leading the world in the direction that actually UPHOLDS INTERNATIONAL LAW, while France, Russia and Germany who have all ignored the UN sanctions against Iraq and currently are owed BILLIONS of dollars by Iraq are considered angels, and not CORRUPT.

These countries passed the regulations that they are refusing to uphold because they never thought they never thought they would be put in a position to uphold them. They are a sham of international politics.

Here is my compromise that will hopeflly put this whole issue to rest:

Give Iraq 6 months (so winter somes up again), but keep the Military there, on alert, with inspectors in Iraq. If Iraq does not account for every item listed from the 1998 finding, including the 1,000 tons of chemical weapons BY THE OUNCE, Saddams regime must step down or be taken from power by force. The resolution should be worded exactly that way.

EVERY ITEM ACCOUNTED FOR, OR DIE.

The funny part is, even in the unlikely event this is passed, we'll still be going to war in 6 months and I think even those against the war know this. Iraq ever complying with UN resolutions is not likely. He hasn't done it yet.

[Joeiss]

But if America attacks Iraq without UN authorization... Wouldn't they be going against the UN, just like Iraq?

[Professor S]

Not really, as by 1441 the US can argue that they already have authorization. I think one of the reasons that the curent administration is responding with such force is because they are very unhappy with the vague and loop hole filled wording of the UN resolutions.

1441 states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if they do not comply. What the hell does that mean? The UN knew their wording could be reinterpreted to allow for abuse when they made the resolutions. I mean, the prior resolution allowed Iraq to have WMD and missiles and bombs that could carry them, BUT THEY COULDN'T BE PUT TOGETHER.

So you have a tank of VX Nerve Gas on one side, and empty Al Samoud 2 missiles on the other, and according to UN law that was legal.

The previosu administration completely dropped the ball on this issue, and part of Bush's reaction is trying to makeup for past mistakes, IMO.

Besides, what my proposal is, is for a UN resolution stating it, and worded in a way that they cannot back out of.