|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The flaw in the "wait for UN approval" argument. | by slayer | 2003-03-18 01:02:39 |
| The way I look at it |
by Venix |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
Obviously there are two things to be considered here. The first thing is that the US and the UK can't just sit back after all this time of saying "We will atack Iraq if Saddam Hussein won't throw away his 'Weapons of Mass destruction'". This is a typical example of keeping credibility. The 'Allies' as I will call the US and UK in this, just can't get away with not atacking after all the 'evidence' they put up. Now they'll have to. That's the whole problem we were facing all the time. This war would have come anyways, whether the UN agreed or not.
This has to do with the debacle of Osama Bin Laden. After September 11, the US wanted to strike back to the people who did that act of war. So they tried to capture Osama. But, after a month or so, they still didn't have him, so (in my point of view) they needed somebody else to blame. That became Saddam, who has weapons of mass destruction. Simply forgetting the fact thet the US gave him those weapons. Bush and his companions had to find somebody else, or they wouldn't be convincing anymore to the majority of Americans, who were atacked so hard in the center of their economy. That's why Saddam Hussein is the target now. But if they can't capture Saddam, or can't strike hard enough, somebody else will be blamed, so there can still be a portion of revenge.
Don't get me wrong, I fully disrespect the men who did that terrible thing on September 11, but I can't stop thinking, that this (the Iraq thing) is just another way to find revenge.
The second thing I would like to discuss is this: By looking at the website of the United Nations I found out that Iraq is a member of the United Nations since 1945. As far as I know, if a country decides to atack an UN-member, it is seen as a declaration of war to the entire UN. Now back to the main concerns: What does the previous remark mean to this question? Both the countries are UN-members. So basicaly this would mean that the US declare war to the UN, but earlier this week, Saddam declared that if a war would begin, it would be fought all over the world. So Iraq is declaring war to the UN too... So what would be the thing to do for the UN? Basicaly, there is nothing that can be done. Two members are at war, so the UN should fight itself. I think this is a reason not to approve to the new resolutions for some of the countries in the UN Security Council.
I am pretty sure something has to be done against Saddam Hussein, but such a war at such a big scale isn't the solution for me. Small strike teams, striking hard at location that will hurt Saddam most would be a better solution in my opinion. Not striking with thousands of rockets. Even laser-guided bombs have a hitrate of only 50 percent. That means, that half of the bombs/missiles will hit buildings that weren't supposed to be hit, killings that weren't supposed to happen... Innocent people that will die, people who in their hearts do not conform with Saddam, but are too affraid to say so and stand up against him. By bombing Baghdad, thos people will be killed, and the feelings of hate towards Saddam will change to a feeling of hate against the Western civilisation. This is not what we want, do we? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Heh, | by LionsPhil | 2003-03-18 02:32:03 |
|
Now this is a very contructive idea! | by psc | 2003-03-18 02:37:26 |
|
I am currently researching for a response.. | by breezeblock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
