China and Russia Warns USA!!

[Neo]

China and Russia has warn the USA if they attack Iraq without a formal perfmission from the UN. This doesnt look so good to me, and the USA should give it a thought. It could turn out ugly as oppose of peace?

[Giver]

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
China and Russia has warn the USA if they attack Iraq without a formal perfmission from the UN. This doesnt look so good to me, and the USA should give it a thought. It could turn out ugly as oppose of peace?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Warned? As in they will do what if the U.S. does?



P.S. - Great job on the new forum Neo!

[Faith]

Bottom line the US isn't going to let the French, German, or Russian government decide what is in the best interest of the US&gt;

[Ugly_Truth]

So, now supporting China and Russia. Neither of which has warned us anything. Let's see, they can throw sanctions on us. They'll both lose out of that one.

No bargaining leverage on their part.

Also, while they are telling us not to act unilaterally, they still continue to bomb Chechens and support India in Kashmir.

Good luck on YOUR double standards.

[FooFoo]

Ah yes UT, the double standards that are the staple diet of Omanforum. I love how the U.S is so EVIL, while some other countries, just get a pass on these boards.

UT, do you support war against Iraq?

[Ugly_Truth]

Chitchi,

Yes and no.

Yes, because I think this is a guy that really doesn't give a dam about anyone but himself. He has single handedly desimated his own nation and convinced all Muslims that it isn't his fault.

He blames sanctions for the suffering Iraqi people, while he spends billions on palaces, mosques, weapons platforms, etc. Yet Muslims blame the USA for those actions that he initiated.

If we don't do something about him now, we will ALL be dealing with him later, with a far heavier loss of life on ALL sides.

No, because, I'd rather Muslims deal with him now. But somehow, I don't believe that would happen.

I'm not eager to put a single American or Iraqi life in danger because of the actions of a single individual. Additionally, I believe, that we are doing what is best in the interest of the Iraqi people, but none of the neighbors will ever think so.

By getting involved, we place ourselves into future danger from those that will never understand that Saddam is the far greater danger. Even if Saddam left, his sons would be put in charge, and that will be even worse for the area and Iraqi people.

So, in the long term, yes, in the short term, no.

I personally would like to just draw up the borders, pull all of our troops out of all foreign nations, and let you all deal with each other without us. No immigration allowed anymore. If you are a refugee from your own nation, don't head west, stay home and deal with it.

[Brasco]

"I personally would like to just draw up the borders, pull all of our troops out of all foreign nations, and let you all deal with each other without us. No immigration allowed anymore. If you are a refugee from your own nation, don't head west, stay home and deal with it."

I think that this is the best solution. Let the chips fall where they may. The US will not be threatened, and if she is directly threatened, no doubt she will know how to deal with it with her $400bn a year dedicated to this end.

Is there any other country after Iraq that needs to be dealt with unprovoked/ "pre-emptively"?

Or is Iraq unique?

If chemical or biological weapons can be produced and hidden so easily, what hope do the US have of stopping it anywhere they are produced?

Will the next link in the "Axis Of Evil" be finding herself defending against a paronoid "Great Satan"?

Saddam Huseein is not a threat to the US, just as Palestine is not a threat to Israel. It is just convenient to say it is so.

[hfsc_peace]

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
Saddam Huseein is not a threat to the US, just as Palestine is not a threat to Israel

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

An exact equivalence ..

PLA polls show that 51 % of pals believw the object of any treaty should be the end of Israel. HAMAS Explicity states that is their goal, as do Islamic Jihad, AL Aqsa, and Hiz b'Allah.

Or, do you disagree?

TO say Saddam Hussein is no threat to america is to DENY that 9/11 occurred.
He has the means, the opportunity and the will (can anyone say RAMZI YOUSSEF?).

Palestine is no threat to Israel as Hussein is no threat to the american people.

Yes I agree.

[Brasco]

"PLA polls show that 51 % of pals believw the object of any treaty should be the end of Israel. HAMAS Explicity states that is their goal, as do Islamic Jihad, AL Aqsa, and Hiz b'Allah.

Or, do you disagree?"

I do not disagree.

Just because the ants would like to give their larger tormentors a dose of their own medicine, it does not mean that it can ever happen, does it?

Israel can spend some of her US taxpayer billions on withdrawing completely and building a wall of security to keep the Palestinians out if she so desired. Her people would be more secure than they are now and the Palestinians would be happier and their extremists less inclined to feel that they have to blow themselves up to get some attention. Isreal can defend herself just fine. I think we all know that.

As for the US and Iraq. What would Saddam Hussein the dictator have to gain by in any way implicating himself in an attck on the US? What capability does he have to inflict enough damage that the US could not respond by raining utter devestation on his country? What does Saddam Hussein have to gain by making alliances and providing weapons with a powerful international organisattion like Al Qaeda that would like him removed just as much as the US. If not more.

The Iraqi and Palestinian "threat" is the stuff of fairytales.

[Smedley_Butler]

By taking 1000 human shields in 1990? The results were predictable?
I don't think the application of logic is the way to figure out this bad guy

[hfsc_peace]

Let's talk about that for a second ... back up to the Israel Palestine issue.

1948 - Just after the State of Israel has come into existance. A freighter (starts with M, driving me NUTS, I'll think of the name then post the link if I can remember) is heading towards the shore near Jaifa. On board weapons meant for the Irgun. Ben Gurion finds out and sends the army to STOP THE SHIPMENT (after all the Irgun is now SUPPOSED TO BE NON EXISTANT). On the beach the army detchment runs into the Irgun. Facing each other are Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Rabin. I assume you can figure who is which. Rabin tells Begin to stop the ship and turn it around. HE refuses. Rabin call Ben Gurion who tells him .. SINK IT. Rabin opens fire with his artillery. Ship goes down.

An action parallel to this is what is needed. But who'll sink the Hamas ship? Who will open artillery fire on Hiz B'allah?

Never mind the wall. Before the stupid idiot Sharon showed up above the Western Temple Wall and managed to light off this initifada, nomatter WHAT anyone said about Oslo both sides wre integrating their economies, and for all of the corruption of Arrafat at least that could be said.

It will take 2 generations to get to that point again, unless some palestinian group takes the kind of action outlined above.

Look no american jew I know supports the idea of these settlements. And in the final moment no american president gives a hoot, to say the least. But unless these groups are set to go the way the Irgun and Stern gang did, there's no hope. Why give up land when that's all there is to negotiate with?

AS for Saddam... the news is braying 15:50 eastern time that he has asked Iran for permission to cross their land to get out of Iran and get to asylum in Russia (?). Let us ALL pray this is true. So long as the replacement is not his son or other Saddam 2, the new leader can then fully document the destruction of or present the WMD for destruction, and then it's over. Lift sanctions, fly in food and medicine.

Then ............... North Korea, who yesterday threatened to revoke the 1953 armistice.

<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
Yet Muslims blame the USA for those actions that he initiated.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Well, the US did give him many of his weapons. When Bush confidently says Saddam has killed his own people, he forgets tha the US itself had a hang in it by prooviding Saddam with the weapons, no? Why didnt the US take him out in the second gulf war? Why was the US so friendly with him in the first Gulf war when the govt knew that he was clearly a threat to the region. Why didn't the US take action right after Saddam massacred his own people instead of using that to go to war with him a decade later.



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
I believe, that we are doing what is best in the interest of the Iraqi people

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Okay, it might help the Iraqis. Relatively, they'll be living in much better conditions. At least intially. But do you believe that is the only or main reason the US is going to war with Iraq? Because its a threat to its own people and KSA and Kuwait? You really dont think there might be something esle behind it? Oil maybe? You dont think oil has crossed Bush's mind? At ALL?



<blockquote><font class="small"><hr />
So, in the long term, yes, in the short term, no.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Not neccisarily. If the US wants to establish a true democracy in Iraq I can guarantee you that in a few decades Iraq will be like the rest of the Arab world in terms of friendliness to the US. As long as Iraq's people are voting, thats bound to happen. Remember, the Iraqi public hates to the US. Because of what has been said to them, they believe that the US is to blame for everything that happened to them (and I wouldnt really disagree, although I think Saddam and the US were equally responsible). I dont think the Iraqis are going to forget so soon. Look at Iraq's history. The Brits kept assigning pro-British kings who were overthrown by anti-british Iraqis with lots of support from the public. I think democracy in Iraq might prove to be a danger to the US just like it would in Saudi Arabia. Thats why the US doesnt really encourage democracy in KSA. There is a minority that is friendly to the West rules over a majority that isnt. I dont think what you're doing in Iraq will be good for you or Iraq in the long term.

[Love_Wonderer]

So Neo...what you're saying is...WW3 possibly? Man that would suck... <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[hfsc_peace]

We have confidence that in time that ill feeling will be tempered by the same people who have been told and taught to hate us. Just as in IRAN.

Don't you think the Japanese hated us in 1945?
The Germans?
In 1944 Japanese citizens were jumping off the cliffs of Saipan rather than stay home because they had been told our black troops would rape them, kill the men and enslave their daughters. That is a fact.

Now look.

We are a confident people. Many mistake this for arrogance. But arrogance is confidence poorly founded. I don't know if we can make Iraq Japan. I know that THAT is where the challenge is, and the people with the most to gain are the Iraqis. If they want us out, we'll go. SOme folks will be mad, but we WILL leave. Who else leaves?

Just as if the KSA asks us to leave, we'll go (and with bells on for that one, believe me).

What about Iran?
Yes, many in Iran love the American way of life but that doesnt mean they are pro-American. There are many things I like about the American way of life but I dont want the US to invade my country and decide who'll rule it. There are even fewer people in Iran that support America enough to support regime change for which the US will be responsible. But there are many more than these two groups together that hate America with a passion. I think the moderate Iranains would value democracy and MAYBE a regime change or just the election of a moderate like Khataami but only internally without external influence. I know a few Iranians who are very frustrated with the current govt and want change. Many Iranians would call them leftist and anti-Islamic but guess what, the same people are as anti-American as the average Arab. They'd never accept change from the outside. Most Iranians love Khatami. Khatami is not pro-American but he's not anti-American either. Did anyone watch his interview on CNN after sept 11th? He said some stuff he's never said before. Very shocking. He said he was ery sympathetic to the US's loss and extended his hand in friendship etc.. The world media, shockingly, didnt give two sh*ts about it and a month or two later, Bush shoves that hand in friendship up his ass and puts Iran on "the list".

I think Iraq needs a regime change but the only regime change in Iraq that most Arabs will be happy with is one that comes from the inside. Anyone disagree?