MORE U.S. atrocities (Kennedy, supporter, children, women)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Rggr

I agree with you, but that's unfortunately not the reality of dealing with the UN. I don't think that because the UN is impotent that we should throw away an agreement that we entered into in good faith.
It would be a nice park.

Where this got stated was a violation of an agreement, whether it's the UN or not doesn't make me believe that some silly baitinglike firing at our fighters justified a full scale invasion. In a case like that I think we'd be better served by locating the source of fire and treating them to a demonstration of good old fashioned B-52 carpet bombing, they'd eventually get the point and less risk to our troops, There's not a country in the world that can challenge our air superiority, to use pissy little incidents as cause for war makes no sense.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by burdell

Where this got stated was a violation of an agreement, whether it's the UN or not doesn't make me believe that some silly baitinglike firing at our fighters justified a full scale invasion. In a case like that I think we'd be better served by locating the source of fire and treating them to a demonstration of good old fashioned B-52 carpet bombing, they'd eventually get the point and less risk to our troops, There's not a country in the world that can challenge our air superiority, to use pissy little incidents as cause for war makes no sense.

It also included the WMD part.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Rggr

It also included the WMD part.

Let's not open that can o' worms again, at this point I doubt anyone's going to change their opinion and there's always new stuff to get aggravated about.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by burdell

Let's not open that can o' worms again, at this point I doubt anyone's going to change their opinion and there's always new stuff to get aggravated about.

Fair enough.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Let's not open that can o' worms again, at this point I doubt anyone's going to change their opinion and there's always new stuff to get aggravated about.

In this thread the WMD are a major point as to why these aren't U.S. atrocities. We were justified in making sure the WMD were dismantled and Saddam removed from power. The U.N. did vote to force Saddam to comply with the agreement with the threat of "serious consequences". However, the U.N. Security Council voted against any action, after being corrupted by the Oil-for-Food program, nullifiying their vote.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

In this thread the WMD are a major point as to why these aren't U.S. atrocities. We were justified in making sure the WMD were dismantled and Saddam removed from power. The U.N. did vote to force Saddam to comply with the agreement with the threat of "serious consequences". However, the U.N. Security Council voted against any action, after being corrupted by the Oil-for-Food program, nullifiying their vote.

Please, it's pure flip-flop to on one hand cite non-compliance with a UN agreement as an excuse to go to war and on the other hand say the UN itself voted against any action. If the agreement is valid then the vote for no action is just as valid. Citing the UN as an authority when it suits your agenda and ignoring it when it doesn't is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. A BushWorld fantasy that just doesn't wash in the real world.

[Rggr]

Originally Posted by burdell

Please, it's pure flip-flop to on one hand cite non-compliance with a UN agreement as an excuse to go to war and on the other hand say the UN itself voted against any action. If the agreement is valid then the vote for no action is just as valid. Citing the UN as an authority when it suits your agenda and ignoring it when it doesn't is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. A BushWorld fantasy that just doesn't wash in the real world.

Okay, let's take the UN out of it. Iraq and the US agreed to terms of a cease-fire. Iraq continuously violated it, and after years of warning, the US enforced it.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Rggr

Okay, let's take the UN out of it. Iraq and the US agreed to terms of a cease-fire. Iraq continuously violated it, and after years of warning, the US enforced it.

Is that a hypothetical question?

As far as I know the US never went to war against Iraq by itself so I don't believe there's an agreement between only the two countries.

If it is hypothetical it's far too general to answer without a detailed list of terms. But in general I'd say if it's a cease-fire you punish infractions with like levels of fire while minimizing risk to your own personnel. In my eyes some pissy little baiting by firing at our fighters doesn't justify full scale invasion/occupation. Hammer the shooters 'til they take the hint. If after all the billion$ we've poured into weaponry we're afraid of some third rate power like Iraq we've got far bigger things to worry about than AA fire.

[theroc5156]

Technically, the original Gulf War (1991) isn't over. There were signatures of surrender, etc.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Please, it's pure flip-flop to on one hand cite non-compliance with a UN agreement as an excuse to go to war and on the other hand say the UN itself voted against any action. If the agreement is valid then the vote for no action is just as valid. Citing the UN as an authority when it suits your agenda and ignoring it when it doesn't is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. A BushWorld fantasy that just doesn't wash in the real world.

The vote for no action was tainted and thus invalidated. Someone had to take action to prevent what was perceived as a possible threat to the safety of U.S. citizens. Thank goodness we had someone in office willing to do so.