PDA

View Full Version : What do you think is the best solution to the Iraq crisis?


GoGoMaggie
Feb 18th, 2003, 06:37 PM
I know this has been discussed millions of times, but what the heck, what goes around always comes around doesn it?
I really have no idea how best the crisis can be resolved. I'm really against resorting to war and that's gotta be the absolute last resolution and in my opinion it's still too eary to jump into the conclustion that there is only one choice, that is attack Iraq, left.
so what do you think? I appreciate opinions from all the different fronts.

Gangsta_Girl
Feb 18th, 2003, 07:10 PM
I think they should put Blair, Bush and Saddam on an Island bomb it and let the rest of us live in peace.

Blogger Dives
Feb 18th, 2003, 10:24 PM
One Big Bomb = Large Parking Lot full of oil + No more Saddam :cool:

ys
Feb 18th, 2003, 10:37 PM
Currently, it is a legal stalemate. Saddam has to be removed, but there is no legal ground for that. He will be removed, I have no slightest doubt. US will throw all its weight not to allow him to keep the power in Iraq. The problem though is that at the moment this idea can't be spoken out openly because it contradicts current international laws. So I expect that it will take some stupid compromise - like they will use any little formal violation of disarmament UN resolution to justify their acts. It will look quite artificial though. But with current international laws there is no other way.

I see no other choice but by creating precedents and starting slowly and gradually moving the international laws into direction of making dictatorships and tyranny punishables by UN laws. Currently, the concept is of non-interference into internal affairs of independent countries. This concept has to go. Because if the dictator takes over power in some country, the chances are, he will stay with this power for his lifetime, and there is nothing inside his country that would make him go. Then it should be something from outside.

Changing international laws that way will be slow and painful - because there are too many powerful dictatorships in the world - like China or Saudi Arabia. That's why eliminating dictatorships one by one using any available opportunity is so important..

seabiscuit
Feb 18th, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Gangsta_Girl
I think they should put Blair, Bush and Saddam on an Island bomb it and let the rest of us live in peace.

that could be an idea if Hillary & Bill & Albright join them


ys--as one from Russia i'm sure you'd realize that Communism would have fallen on it's own dead weight long ago if not given help by the West...let the totalitarian regimes collapse on the their own as an altruisic policy is treasonist...but many in the Establishment have much to gain by keeping dictators in power just as the West abandoned the Cuban people by installing the Communist Castro in power back in '59 and the Kissinger/Nixon deal to entrench the Chinese Communists and of course handing over S. Vietnman to those fricken Reds...i wish the Western leaders were serious about eliminating dictatorships but where is the evidence?

ys
Feb 18th, 2003, 11:00 PM
i wish the Western leaders were serious about eliminating dictatorships but where is the evidence?

Now they are.. They were not serious, really, but after September 11 they realised that those dictatorships do pose a serious threat to the Western foundation.

ys
Feb 18th, 2003, 11:02 PM
as one from Russia i'm sure you'd realize that Communism would have fallen on it's own dead weight long ago if not given help by the West

It is not as simple as that, but that would be too long a discussion. Communism is too wide a term to operate with..

Iconoclast
Feb 18th, 2003, 11:09 PM
The UN Charter is a product of World War II. It is designed to deal with power-hungry dictators on inter-state expansion trips. When it comes to intra-state issues, like civil wars, and not so clear-cut examples of international aggression, like sponsoring terrorism, it's much less effective.

The Gulf War was a textbook case and perfectly suitable for the UN. One sovereign nation (Iraq) attacking another (Kuwait). Then, mandating military action against Iraq wasn't that difficult. It gets a lot more messy when you want to deal with a rogue state preemptively. That's why we have all this talk about weapons inspectors and WMD's. It's very hard to legitimately touch a pariah state with the protection sovereign states enjoy - no matter how little credibility they have.

And very questionable governments, without democratic backing, get the chance to wreak havoc in the UN system. The UN Commission on Human Rights has elected Lybia as its chair. Iraq is scheduled to lead the UN Conference on Disarmament(!) in May.

seabiscuit
Feb 18th, 2003, 11:21 PM
America Then...

Warren G. Harding, in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1921, already recognized the drive for a one world government. But he plainly stated the ideals of the people, and opposed it:

"We are ready to associate ourselves with the nations of the world, great and small, for conference, for counsel; to seek the expressed views of world opinion; to recommend a way to approximate disarmament relieve the crushing burdens of military and naval establishments. We elect to participate in suggesting plans for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, and would gladly join in that expressed conscience of progress, which seeks to clarify and write the laws of international relationship, and establish a world court for the disposition of such justiciable questions as nations are agreed to submit thereto. In expressing aspirations, in seeking practical plans, in translating humanity's new concept of righteousness and justice and its hatred of war into recommended action we are ready most heartily to unite, but every commitment must be made in the exercise of our national sovereignty. Since [America is] freedom impelled, and independence inspired, and nationality exalted, a world supergovernment is contrary to everything we cherish and can have no sanction by our Republic. This is not selfishness, it is sanctity. It is not aloofness, it is security. It is not suspicion of others, it is patriotic adherence to the things which made us what we are."

The position of our forefathers regarding any establishment of a world government, and the value they placed on national and individual *Freedom* is very clear. Today though few seem to be clear on much of anything.

Helen Lawson
Feb 18th, 2003, 11:25 PM
Send Neely O'Hara over there. She ruins everything she touches.