At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> Do you have a better suggestion?Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact
The fact... what? Unfinished sentence.
> I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the > European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties > have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to > work together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* > can be the leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to > let someone else lead them. They do not trust each other. The same > applies for dictators. (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you > want to be a dictator; do you think that someone like, say, Saddam > Hussein, would trust someone like,say, Khadaffi to lead the United > Dictatorships?) It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example,
For example... what? Unfinished sentence.
Well, the usual reason for not supporting an idea is the belief that said idea is a *bad* idea...> The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences > (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but > throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support > from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by > terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it.
That is the whole problem: it is an *assumption*. I think that before you go to war (and drag the rest of the world with you), you should have a hell of a lot more than "assumptions", "suspicions" and "reasonable doubt".Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD.
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option.Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough?
That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely target.What besides "talk about it some more" will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own.
> If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a
Instead of a... what? Unfinished sentence.
America's promise was appreciated, but AFAIK the promise did not come with a clause that we would have to support the US everytime they want to wage war.> >Considering the fact that your country kept its representative > >government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on > >the line to protect it, > > Huh? That requires some explanation. That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from the firs Berlin Crisis that the USSR had its eye on European expansion...at least the Finlandization of Europe at a minimum.
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
