Thanks for the Carlo.

See...now this is civilized conversation.

 

Oh...and CORNER!!!!!

 

I start talkin' about the breakup of NATO and you steal a corner. Wanna talk about breaking up alliances!!!

 

heh heh...

 

Brant, I don't think the whole world is asking for our help in the Iraq situation. That's a preemptive nat'l defense issue. You can thank Sept. 11th for the change. Containment just won't work w/ Iraq. I can't help but wonder if it's a bandwagon thing that the world is opposing war (Like the anti-americanism movement that has spread everywhere-even to countries who were crying with us after Sept 11.). If anything, all we are asking is that the world support us in our defense of ourselves.
As for the UN, I don't know what ligitimacy it has when it won't even back it's own resolutions. Did you know that Resolution 1441 is the 18th resolution that the UN has slapped on Iraq? And did you know that Iraq has NEVER complied with any of those 18 UN resolutions? And now they want to make ANOTHER resolution... Give me a break!
Basically, the UN has become a joke in the eyes of the terrorist community and they're exploiting it.

 

hahahaha!!! I see where your priorities are, Brant! You whore!!

 

I don't really see a clear link between war with Iraq and our immediate national defense needs...particularly in light of the fact that nations that ARE in immediate risk from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam surely has are opposed to it.

I think what makes me somewhat nervous is the use of the word pre-emptive. Not by you, particularly, but just in general. I support the idea of a pre-emptive strike, but shouldn't such actions be held to a rather high standard?

The fact that the UN does not have teeth is something I completely agree on. It's nearly impossible to have such a broad coalition come to a consensus on the use of force as well as the various militaries having difficulty with integrating the various command and control structures of the different services. Heck, it's hard enough for the various branches of the US military to have joint operations sometimes.

However, I firmly believe that the UN plays a vital role on the global stage and it is important for ANY superpower to respect the process and to utilize that process to develop the necessary consensus...even if it is not a majority.

The US must not merely run rough shod over other countries because we have the ability to do so.

EVERYTHING is a joke in the eyes of the terrorist community. Even if we systematically went around the globe and annihilated every country that we believed to support terrorism, THAT would not stop terrorism.

As for anti-Americanism movements. I think you will find if you travel the globe or talk to people that have been to various countries around the world that the sentiment is not so much anti-American as anti-Bush Administration foreign policy.

 

Brant, good points!
I know and the rest world knows that the US can't just go around the world exacting cowboy justice. But we have to be able to do something. It's a sad day when the US can't even begin to get UN support against a dictator that has defied every single UN resolution issued to him. It doesn't take a child of 4 to realize this guy (Saddam) is not going to listen. That's why I have my doubts about the UN and its integrity.
I agree that the US should (and I think it will) be careful with its new preemptive strategy (never been done before). I also agree with you that terrorism will always be around (as with crime). But, something must always be done about both.
As for the nations that are at risk from an Iraqi attack, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have pledged support for the US and are holding an Arab Nations summit next week to discuss a possible war with Iraq.

 

I have a suspicion that the resistance is not necessarily to the use of force to disarm Saddam, but rather that it could very well be resistance to the methods of the current Bush administration.

Whether he has intended to or not, President Bush from the very beginning has made it clear that his personal feelings are to say to hell with whatever the UN or the international community have to say. He wants to attack Iraq.

The fact that he evolved that into a strategy of going to the UN for support did not convince anyone...and even our allies that supported us initially have backed off support. Why? Because President Bush appeared to be a man pointing a gun and saying, "give me a reason to shoot or I will find one."

That, frankly, scares me.

Do Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt support us? To an extent. Saudi Arabia has their own reasons for wanting to force this hand. Their country is facing reforms...one of which is to remove all foreign military forces from their country following any war with Iraq. This will make them pretty much the undisputed power of the Middle East.

I will be interested to see what comes of the summit.

I hope that I don't sound anti-war, as that is not my position. I have just lived my entire life around the military and government and believe that we need to be very clear about when we use force and why. We have great power and I just think that it is equally important to weild it with great responsibility and necessary restraint...not just to advance OUR goals, but to support our allies and to promote peace (not necessarily democracy) wherever possible.

 

Peace? Brant, you peacenik. Who cares about peace? I'd rather have freedom. Peace through strength.

The real truth is:
Freedom for everyone! We are going to liberate you and your countrymen even if you don't want to be. No longer is it okay to stay on your side of the fence while your neighbor beats his wife and kids. Iraq is just the first domino. It's a new world order baby. Here we come. Tyrants beware! Your days are numbered.

Giddy up cowboy!