Dreadsox:
>And the United States has done this how?
Bush repeated several times that he will attack Iraq either with or without the UN.
And he continued his speech with:
"Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
That's what i was talking about.
For me this means:
Either UN does what US wants - or they're irrelevant and we play police of the world without asking other nations.
>So the use of Biological agents would be much better? Klaus,
>I am not debating the awful side effects of the A-Bomb. But,
>if this man uses Chemical or Biological agents in a war with
>the United States, it is 100% reasonable to expect the
>president to use any means necessary to protect Amercian
>lives.
Biological and Atomic wepons have a really awful long term effect.
It's impressive to see the Battlefield of WWI between France and Germany, and a-bombs are far worse. They do not "only" destroy one region for centuries, they have global influence.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:
i like your first question.. but the 2nd one is unbelievable.
Also Dreadsox and Sting2 have a different opinion than we have i'm sure they care about allk humans and ii'm sure they don't think that an Iraqi man has less right to live than a US man.
STING: Well first i'd like to read the ai report of the united states for the last year. I'm sure every single american cares about human rights, but the government dosn't allways act that way.
I don't want so say europeans are better in this issue, they just have less power which results in less mistakes, because they can't do everything wrong they'd like to
>Its not the USA that is frustrating or attempting to stop the
>process of international law, rather its the Europeans that
>are doing that.
Well it's the US who boycot the ICJ (International Court of Justice) and for that they even bribe small countries.
But of course that's not because Europeans are better than Americans.. there are 2 simple reasons:
first: the US has more to loose (since without laws they always have the power to enforce their point of view)
second: Since the american independancy there were many wars which resulted in lots of suffering in europe. And this impression is still recent in our memory.
As far as i know a-bombs were only to be used if America was attacked by nuclear weapons - so "whenever we feel it's neccessary" sounds a little more agressive then that.
And this slight change might be a reason that hundreds of warlords will try to buy a-bombs from pakistan, russia, china or north korea. (If the USA threatens with a-bombs anyway they want to strike back with the same wepon)
This so called "dirty ammunition" is dirty enough - ask the
"Medecins sans frontieres" that's an international organisation which dosn't make politics - they just try to help people (and write down what hapened).
This "dirty ammunition" had serious effects on children (enourmous increase of cancer).
But that reminds me on the debate about the people who lived at the Bikini island. I'm not sure how long it took the US government to confess their guilt.
>France, Germany, Russia, and China's attempts to block
>enforcement of UN resolutions and a UN ceacefire
>agreement, and there refusal to do what is necessary to
>disarm Iraq and desire for Oil contracts with Saddam, show
>me that term "international justice" is not really apart of their
>vocabulary.
Well Germany for example has only one irellevantly small oil company, we buy almost everything from British companies.
So you might think about the folowing..
..maybe the countries who criticize US politics are not allways selfish driven but might have good noble reasons to do so.
Klaus