One thing we all are truly united about

[CSL]

It clearly wasn't in the US's best interest though. There are hundreds more dead Americans and tens of billions of wasted dollars because the US failed to work through the UN in attacking Iraq.

Bacuase why? The UN was acting in the US best interest? Or that is was somehow really acting for some sort of greater good? (and for that matter that means exactly 0 if we are to treat acting in our best interests at the priority) The UN had proven itself to be worhless with regards to Iraq. I really don't see how people can say its policies were working.

The sanctions were an American plan and were pushed by them long after other countries felt they should be abandoned. The UN throughout its history has followed American plans and been dominated by US foreign policy concerns. That's why the anti-UN sentiment in the US is so moronic.

Oh, and fuck the game. And perhaps that's what George's statement was and perhaps if that was his premise, we will see his action as resounding succes. Only time would tell.

I'm sure it was very satisfying to thumb your nose at the big bad socialists in New York and the Hague, but the result is a quagmire that's draining your money and lives. I'd say it's turning out to be a resounding failure.

What's very interesting, is that you can look at some of the old theories on morality in individuals and it is really becoming clear how those same principles seem to be in motion internationally. It's especially fascinating when you look good ole Fred Nietzsche. I highly recommend finding a book called The Geneology of Morality and his examination of the fall of the Greek role model and the rise of the Christian society.

There is no morality in international relations. It's a balance of self-interested players seeking their own ends. The lives of civilians, in Iraq or anywhere else, are pieces on a chess board. You see, it's not an issue of whether France was more altruistic in intentions. Of course they weren't. The issue is that Bush's strategy was incompetent, and your brothers and sisters are dying because of it. That might mean something to those of you not consumed with whether fags are destroying society, or whatever makes Americans interested enough in politics to pay attention.

People die all the time for much less noble causes. More people die at their own hand than are die in Iraq! I don't think there was any mistake in the resounding support they gave the President who are you to question what they choose to risk their life for. You should just be thankful they are willing to fight for your right to second guess everything.

How is the sacrifice of American servicemen in Iraq have anything to do with Mad Hatters right to second guess? This isn't a war where democracy itself was at stake like World War Two, it was a pre-emptive strike on a country that really wasn't a signifigant threat to any of us. Initiatated on false causes as well, but the establishment of an Iraqi democracy is really more important.

People die all the time for much less noble causes.

And apparently people won't die for more noble causes such as Somalia, Rwanda and the Sudan?

Besides I think Mad Hatter is Canadian so noone is dying for him.

Some people (myself included) think Iraq was a threat to Democracy. He has every right to second guess. I just don't think using the lives of American GIs is a proper justification, when those GIs are in full support of the mission. Just a ploy to make people think about this emotionally. I think much more could be done in the African nations you mention. So were is the freakin UN??? I don't recall us vetoing anything that would help that situation. If there was money down there to steal they would be fighting over it. We have to address things that threaten security first and the lands of the warlords that drug our guys through the streets is not a threat to the US at the moment.

Yes we die for Canadians as well. They are one of our closest allies. I respect their decision to commit troops where they want. Not like they have ever had much in the way of security concerns. Except from fallout if we ever got nuked

The United States (among others) were regularly against the sending of more troops and equipment to Rwanda in the lead up to that genocide. Romeo Dallaire's book "Shake Hands With The Devil" makes mention of that several times.

[LordMortis]

Your faith in the UN to do what is in everyone's interest is unwise. The UN is not a representative democracy. It's an Elitist boys club, as such will never act for the common good of mankind.

It's not that I have faith in the UN. I don't. I am hoping and looking and thinking about solutions for Iraq. The billions of dollars we have spent is gone. The people that are dead and wounded are dead and wounded. From there, what can we do to make the best of the situation? At this moment if the UN could do the sorts of things you'd think it is supposed to do, then it seem like it could create the best solution possible. What is sad is that I don't think the UN is capable of doing what it is supposed to do. It is a failure, IMO.

[The Mad Hatter]

[

Some people (myself included) think Iraq was a threat to Democracy. He has every right to second guess. I just don't think using the lives of American GIs is a proper justification, when those GIs are in full support of the mission. Just a ploy to make people think about this emotionally. I think much more could be done in the African nations you mention. So were is the freakin UN??? I don't recall us vetoing anything that would help that situation. If there was money down there to steal they would be fighting over it. We have to address things that threaten security first and the lands of the warlords that drug our guys through the streets is not a threat to the US at the moment.

I'm puzzled as to how Saddam was a threat to democracy - but that's an old argument. As for helping African nations, it's true that all of us could have done more. No one was less keen to help Rwanda than Bill Clinton though, and he made it clear that any large scale UN action there would have no American support. Any significant peacekeeping operations need the support of the five permanent members, and none of them were willing to sacrifice to save African lives. That limited UN activities to the usual humanitarian activities - which save thousands of lives every year in Africa and other areas.