Originally Posted by MontyB

Hey leave the UN out of this, it didnt support the war from the start and it has taken no part in it since. If nothing else it has at least stuck to its principles over that.]

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

I think this should enumerate the UNSC Resolutions broken by Iraq before the conflict. You can't post and run with "off thread" without backing up posts without references, it's not nice.

Originally Posted by Missileer

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

I think this should enumerate the UNSC Resolutions broken by Iraq before the conflict. You can't post and run with "off thread" without backing up posts without references, it's not nice.

the US still has a healthy number of banned weapons does it not?

and how many international treaty's has the US blown apart in the past 10 years or so?

clearly there is a "world community" and it is everyone bar the US, self interest will be the death of us all

Believe me, there is going to be no large scale military withdrawal from Iraq for the next 3-4 years. If the current insurgency attacks continue, I think we will be stuck there for quite some time.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

the US still has a healthy number of banned weapons does it not?

and how many international treaty's has the US blown apart in the past 10 years or so?

clearly there is a "world community" and it is everyone bar the US, self interest will be the death of us all

And all of your sources for these tidbits of propaganda....?

I hate this but i have to say that Iraq needs some hard arse leaders like saddam to deal with the insurgents. These rebels are the same people saddam had to deal with and he always managed to dispose of them. Because the nation is somewhat still an anarchy in plenty of regions, it gives these insurgents their chance to fight for their extreme political views.

Originally Posted by Missileer

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

I think this should enumerate the UNSC Resolutions broken by Iraq before the conflict. You can't post and run with "off thread" without backing up posts without references, it's not nice.

Yep I have had that list presented before but in all honesty a lot of it is outdated and was made invalid by the ending of Gulf War 1 a sizable chunk of the remaining resolutions were grudgingly met by Iraqs readmission of weapons inspections teams in 2002, this combined with what UN and subsequent US weapons inspections teams have determined pretty much indicates that Iraq did meet its WMD and disclosure requirements therefore other than a few deployment and human rights issues (which many countries on earth are guilty of) Iraq met everyone of those resolutions.

Now for the counter argument and I only have one point to make:
Compliance to UNSCR's is determined by the UN and not individual nations therefore until the UN says "Yep that resolution has been broken lets do something about it" you cannot blame the UN for creating this mess nor can you expect them to sanction cash or supply cannon fodder to fix it.

Originally Posted by Kilgore

I hate this but i have to say that Iraq needs some hard arse leaders like saddam to deal with the insurgents. These rebels are the same people saddam had to deal with and he always managed to dispose of them. Because the nation is somewhat still an anarchy in plenty of regions, it gives these insurgents their chance to fight for their extreme political views.

As Rousseau said, fanaticism is not something that can be fought with logic, but only force.

It has been my opinion that what Iraq needed was a hard nosed intermediate ruler to clamp down and secure the nation before handing it over to the elected politicians. I'm thinking Mac Arthur in Japan.

However, the current strategy seems to be working fairly well, but history will be the judge of whether Mr. Bush was indeed smarter than I am

US forces will have to stay for many years.

It will be interesting to see if continued US presence draws in more insurgency forces over the next decade.

This didn't happen in 1945!!

Anyone who compares the situations in Germany or Japan post WW2 with Iraq is living in fantasy land

Having gone there and broken up all the systems of government that they had in place, you can't just walk away if you are taking a few casualties, you have to see this through to end if you expect to have any credibility left in the world. The Terrorist have watched America pull out of so many places when the death toll starts to mount, and they know if they just keep plugging away and the American politicians will want the troops to come home. It is this more than any thing that is causing the problems over there and once the terrorist know that America wont pull out to till things have settled down will things get any better.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Yep I have had that list presented before but in all honesty a lot of it is outdated and was made invalid by the ending of Gulf War 1 a sizable chunk of the remaining resolutions were grudgingly met by Iraqs readmission of weapons inspections teams in 2002, this combined with what UN and subsequent US weapons inspections teams have determined pretty much indicates that Iraq did meet its WMD and disclosure requirements therefore other than a few deployment and human rights issues (which many countries on earth are guilty of) Iraq met everyone of those resolutions.

Now for the counter argument and I only have one point to make:
Compliance to UNSCR's is determined by the UN and not individual nations therefore until the UN says "Yep that resolution has been broken lets do something about it" you cannot blame the UN for creating this mess nor can you expect them to sanction cash or supply cannon fodder to fix it.

Cannon fodder is one of those expressions I don't care for when addressing warriors.

Man, all I can do is present the facts and reference them, what you choose to do with them is strictly up to you.

By the way, I can't glean a lot of information from your profile. It would sure help in considering your ideas on various subjects.