What do you think?

no atack on a countrys soverenty is justifide but if it IS going to happen (which im against) then its GOT to be the UN

According to a poll that I saw on CNN, there is less than a 37% in favor for attacking Iraq without the UN backing, from those polled in the US.

I suppose we should withdraw from the UN if we are going to ignore it. We have the strength to proceed without their help.

1/3 of australians are against ANY atack

not sure on the % of people who are for it with UN backing but i think little johnny is the ONLY person in australia who surports the US going alone

he is even having problems with his back bench (altho not to revolt stage yet)

notice the tresure is keeping his head down?

smart boy he is

I think more importantly there shouldn't be an attack if there's UN opposition, period.

If the US goes ahead and attacks without convincing the UN, what if there are still UN inspectors in the country, and they get caught in the crossfire? What kind of message does it send if one of the permanent members of the UN says the hell with it and disregards the UN's opinion? Might as well disband the UN while we're at it.

If the US was opposed to an English attack on some country that bothers them, and Great Britain stated that they had evidence that was top secret, but trust them, and went ahead and attacked anyway, would we just shrug that off? What happened to the "United" in United Nations?

My opinion...either it's the UN going in to disable only the problem in question, or it's rogue nations who are using the UN (or going outside the UN) to launch hostilities. There's no inbetween.

No. (I live in the US.)

I say this because the US will likely get away with it. That the nations which compose the UN will let that happen despite their power to inflict significant suffering on the US (economy at least) is tacit approval.

zanket,

What?! No mention of the fight among UN members for the spoils of war. Why are so many UN members apposed to the possibility of change in Iraq's dictatorship? :D

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Rephrase please?

I thought you read this thing...

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html

I did. If anything it supports my point above. If the UN says “no” to the US but inflicts no penalty when ignored, then I assume that behind-the-scenes deals amount to a “yes.”

This is like how votes for congressional pay raises typically work. Most reps want the money, but all benefit from a “no” vote. So the “no” votes get bought and sold such that the “yes” vote happens to be 51%.

Perhaps I should mention that I voted “no” above in regards to official UN backing.

Whats your point Bowser? You hoping that France and Russia are just holding out for a piece of the pie? That ain't no suprise, it's just what politicians do. The UN is owned and run by a handfull of nations and it can't be relied upon to speak with reason. France and Russia may put up a fight but I think they'll cave in the end. A veto at the UN may be a last hope for some but I think it's irrelevant.
I have no sympathy for Saddam but until the U.S has the wit and the ability to deliver just one bullet in the right place, they should leave those poor starving bastards in Iraqi alone.

I'm trying to peel the onion. Relax and enjoy the ride. :p

That's one hell of an onion you're tackling there, Bowser. Good luck.

The Marquis,

You're right. I will stop trying. :D

Obviously the US doesn't need UN approval to do anything. Having said that, I still think it is important that they have it, although I'm not really sure why as the UN is a paper organization it seems.

Originally posted by zanket
No. (I live in the US.)

I say this because the US will likely get away with it. That the nations which compose the UN will let that happen despite their power to inflict significant suffering on the US (economy at least) is tacit approval.

I'm not sure how much damage can be inflicted on the US economy without damaging the world economy.

SCR 1441 is all the UN backing required.

The US is going to Baghdad.

And hell in a bucket.

Where it will find the UN already resident.

Hey a UN vote would be a nicety, but nothing more. The United Nations does not trump the soverignty of the US and furthermore is not required because we have enough Arab allies and plenty of military force to do it w/o the UN or NATO for that matter.

If we draft a Force Resolution, the French or Russians will veto. I think France will actually stick it to us this time. The Russians are iffy, but the French look to be actually, truly, anti-war for once. This seems to be more than posturing on behalf of the French and the Germans. The Schroder-Chirac axis is insane and supporting Hussein, in my humble opinion.

I can understand allies having decent. I have no problem with that. However, going behind the US's back, making a mockery of us by attempting to tripple the UN personnel in Iraq is assinine.

This is going to backfire completely. The US would veto any resolution to be submitted by the Franco-German parties, plus it is too late to stop the war. Troops are in place and so is everything else. This will only further marginalize the French and Germans and expand the European-American gulf to unprecident proportions.

So go ahead France, stick it to the US, its going to backfire and make you guys such an illegit former world power, you'll be begging the US for attention.

Of course, TheCurly, without a doubt, you are in the front of the invading troops, no? Naturally, you volunteered to may be a part of this great, almighty, US army, no?

I really hope they find a peaceful solution to this,but would like to add that France "Le Grand Nation"is working for its own ends ie they want great influence in the east as does Russia.

France's singular claim to being a playa on the world stage is its wielding of its security council veto.

Besides being demonstrably impotent in its abilities to resolve matters in its former colony Ivory Coast, "French security experts believe that a core purpose of their nuclear arsenal is to preserve France's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Irrelevance is the only "clear and present danger" against which France's nuclear weapons defend." (http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/20A_Perkovich.html)

"French security experts believe that a core purpose of their nuclear arsenal is to preserve France's permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Irrelevance is the only "clear and present danger" against which France's nuclear weapons defend."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true!

Why are we arguing over France & Germany when the UK, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark and the new NATO members of eastern Europe.Agree with the US?
:rolleyes:

Maybe I would join the military, if I was 18!

Why, Curly, does it sound like fun? Or have you been longing for the Iraqis to enjoy democracy?

I am pro-war, I refuse to use these euphamistic phrases like "pro-disarmament", etc.

But I support the war on my own terms. First, truly believe, for more reasons beyond those stated by the Bush admin. that Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, coupled with terriorist affiliations pose a grave threat to the US. The advent of terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs threaten to undo the delicate power structure set in place after the Cold War's end, and for the matter all of civilization.

Secondly, and of equal importance I want to see Iraq freed from the grips of a homicidal and plain ol' evil dictator. I think by uprooting Hussein, we can create a progressive, sucessful, democratic Arab state in the Mideast, that will only press other governments to change for the better.

Its unfair that sanctions had to be imposed, which with Hussein in office, resulted in skyhigh infant mortality rates and over a million Iraqis dead and more sick from malnutrition. Let it be known that the sanctions would have been lifted if Hussein completely disarmed, which he never did or will never do.

We did more than our fair share in putting Hussein and the Baathists in power. I think we share a small, yet special obligation to free Iraq.

Are the sanctions simply unfair, or are they the equivalent of nuking city after city until the leader gives up? I vote the latter.

Sanctions are certainly unfair, but provide more predictability, and the pace of events does not get ahead of decision makers- sometimes the pace is slow enough that even public opinion is a factor.

In the case of the tinderbox of the middle east, I consider the slower approach the only one in which well-considered action and common sense have a chance.