Weapons of MASS destruction.
 

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the US allowed the United Nations to send a team into the US and check out their weapons of mass destruction?
How willing and honest would they be?

Every country in the world should. We all have treaties and should be checked for compliance. I wonder what Bush would say when we failed the inspection.

Hmmm, I don't recall the US ever signing a peace accord which outlined UN inspections of our facilities. Perhaps when that document is signed the inspections would start.

If that were to happen, we would stop funding the UN, and then the UN would cease to exist.

Agreed. Don't expect the top dog to be willing to give up anything.

Nothing better could happen.

IMO if the UN was really what it was supposed to be (in theory) I dont think there would be a great need for WMD. The blatant hypocracy within its foundation perpetuates the absurd dog and pony show it has become.

I find it annoying it even still exsists. Everything seems to happen with a few phone calls and a diplomat here and there. Its one place the word veto will eventually shake the very foundation of the world.

To stop funding you have to start funding first.
Last Time i checked all nations of the security council were in dept (i think exept france but i'm not sure) As far as I know the US has still to pay at least $800 millions.
All in all the UN still waits for 2.6 billions (1.7 billions still from the last year ...).

Well there's that and the fact that the second largest contributer to the UN is Japan, who hasn't got a permanent seat in the UN security council and no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever - how's that for pathos?

the U.S Gov't could never stand the glare of world scrutiny and could not "project" power if they were held up to hipocracy.
The "do as I say and not as I do" operational theory is strongly at work in the U.S. I'm afraid.

Agreed and agreed!

I Agree with this.

What treaty did we sign that said we coudlnt have WMD? We have them, so does England, Russia, China, France, etc... If we sign a treaty after a failed invasion, then you have a case.

You miss the point, which as i see it is the fact that, it is hypocritical for the US to attempt to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1. The US opened that particular can of worms and 2. The US still has enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet THIRTY NINE TIMES OVER.

So you think its hypocritical to for the US to want Iraq, Iran and North Korea to NOT have nukes? And you base that on what logic? We dont care that France and England have them. Why? Cause all thats said and done, they are stable nations. Why you think its NOT in the Worlds best interests to stop places like Iran, IRaq and N Korea from creating nuclear stockpiles is beyond me.

Problem with that is that all UN security council members have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (in it's original form) and that people like Rumsfeld don't care about its stipulations.
No, maybe it's just hypocritical that the US won't allow inspections and that the leaders of North Korea and Iran who don't care much for inspections either, should allow inspections or risk detruction/war/invasion/etc.

And France broke the treaty by testing weapons in 94, lets inspect France!!!!! Are we still making nukes? Do we put nukes in space? That is the Non Proliferation Treaty in a nut shell.

We are not allowing inspectors? Who is calling for inspectors in the USA? When did we sign a treaty that said we would allow inspectors?


Are you for real Dami? It post like this that make me think that mabye Coulter is correct when she says liberals always work against America's best interests.

Double Post

1. Chirac is a hypocrit, has been in power for far to long and France deserves better - 2. You're saying Rumsfeld hasn't commisioned studies on "putting nukes in space"? "making small tactical nukes"? oh yeah that's right: "study, not build, new nukes" :rolleyes: just another way of using US tax payers money in a times of economical crisis :)
What made you think that Dami³ (btw hello) was a liberal? News travels fast, mind you I'm a European liberal, the kind Coulter hasn't written a book on yet :)

O you are the worst kind of liberal than. I never said anything about Rumsfeld. And were is studying against any treaty? You are shouting that we are breaking a treaty, and should be inspected, and all you have to show for proof is vitrol.

While i couldn't care less if the states allowed any auditing whatsoever, your statement is kind of funny because the US uses the UN constantly to carry out IT"S foreign policy.

If anything, the UN is runs on the whims of the USA.

For example, the USA has vetoed resolutions something like 28 times where Israeli war crimes are concerned.

Would you like me to post a list?

Or, most recently, when George W Bush went before the UN asking for and ulitimately receiving international assistance with Iraq. The United States is streteched beyond its capacity to administer a peace in Iraq.

Whether you like it or not, the usa NEEDS the UN.

The UN seems like a utility tool for the US.

Or more likely the UN and the world needs what the US can offer.

Doubtful, let’s just say we all need each other, just for kicks.

The UN is just an organization that helps those in power, stay in power.

We need a more democratic allegiance of nations.

Without the UN, we would still exist. Withouth the USA, the UN would not. And we would still be able to do everything we needed to get done.

Really???

Then why is is that George W Bush went before the UN four weeks ago on his knees looking for help / money / troops in administering the peace in Iraq???????

The entire world is snickering at him and his government.

Here's a link to Georgie Porgie's speech in September 2002 where he (Bush) was talking tough to the UN.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

Here's my favourite quote from that speech.....

"... Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Now, one year later, here's Georgie Bush on his knees before the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2003.

Here, you read it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s952270.htm

Another damned if you do, damned if you dont senario. What is wrong with asking others to foot some of the bill for the peace and prosperity they are going to benifit from once the US did all the hard work? If it were up to Canada, France and Germany, Iraqis would still be getting killed enmass, Saddam would still be playing tricks with the world and sooner or latter a war would have happened, but on HIS terms.
The US asked for help, you turned your back, we went in. Now we ask you to chip in, and you do, once the scary part was over. I think it was rather logical, and good economic sense to ask for the nations that will benifit from this to help pay the cost. Snicker all you want, the fact is the world sold out the Iraqi people, I am snickering at the cowards in Europe that would rather say" i was right" rather than " I helped".

Just a suggestion--- Your point is promoted so much more effectively if the conversation isnt brought to a personal level. It's something I certainly have been guilty of in the past, but at the end of the post I don't see it being any better of a debate becasue of doing it nor creating solid, factual foundation for conversation that anyone lese would want to join.

Just my opinion; nothing more.

Jesus the irony is so thick. I am constantly reminded that americans have less sense of irony than Norwegians (my half-american half-gf said that, not me). Jesus I would be laughing at the whole whing as Bush went off begging for money to rebuild Iraq, but it choked as I heard haw fucking cocky every American dared be about it. IT IS A FUCKING SHAME! if I were American, I would fucking shoot myself for being in a country who screws up in such a spectacular manner. First, they go to war over some dodgy bs evidence, then they flip off the entire UN and start a pathetic "coalition"consisting mainly of countries without any relevance or power whatsoever (hello micronesia). Then they fuck up, things get more expensive than expected, and they come back going "HELLO THERE WE NEED MONAY" "DON'T YOU WANT PEACE AND PROSPERITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST? YOU BASTARD YOU!"

No I don't want our country or any other not responisble for the bombing taking the bill for some far-fetched oil adventure which fucked up. If I learn that my tax money shall go to funding an american colony, I'll collect some stones and take a walk towards the American emabssy ASAP.

For the record this american thinks it is a shame too. I think we've clearly bitten off more than we can chew and still get el presidente reelected. We don't wan't to have to deal with all the ramifications of our unilateralism on a unilateral level. So we tell the rest of the world to fuck off and then come back to panhandle with our tail between our legs.

You dont want to pay, then you dont get to take any credit when the Middle east is more stable, more peaceful and more productive in the next 20 years. I think BUsh was awful nice letting you guys have a second chance to do the right thing. And look how many nations jumped at the chance, now that the dirty work is done.

Fucked up? How in what way? Last I read, 80% of Iraq has power, food, and locally elected democratic leaders? The only problems are Tikrit and Baghdad, which are full of Party loyalists that are scared that they will loose their favored status and be held accountable for their crimes. The rest of the nation is ok. Compare that to last year, compare the deaths to last year. I would say that its been a very good success. Too bad people cant see the forest for the trees.

If things are so hunky dory, why are you asking for money, braniac?

And sure, you go ahead take the credit, i don't give a fuck, just don't take my tax-money and spend them on cleaning up your mess.

Why not ask for money? It makes sense to ask for money. And since Europe WILL benifit from a peaceful, stable Iraq, then why not ask them to pay for it? Brainiac?

So getting too big expenses and needing money was the plan from the start? Or maybe you don't really need it, since you sound so causual about it? No problem then. Europe already profited from an unstable Iraq (hello France and Germany), so don't count on their help. Here in Norway, we produce our own oil, and apart from that, what do Iraq have that we need? Are we averting major arabic attacks here? Seriously, you go fix your problems, get yourself out of it. You were the ones who told the UN how useless they were, you have no right to come and demand money now just because you took on more than you can handle.

I guess time will tell, but I doubt this action will make the middle east more stable. I am certain that the US is hated a bit more around the world, how this makes you guys safer in the long run, I don't know. Like I said..time will tell.
hehe...now thats funny...thanks for that:p It's amazing how differently people see things...wow.

THE DIRTY WORK????

Are you on crack?

THIS IS THE DIRTY WORK.

Blowing the shit out of Iraq was easy. You got to test some of your nice weapons, use them up so you need to order more from Lockhead Martin, and help feed the bottomless pit that is the industrial military complex.

Now building Iraq, that's a whole lot messier. It's going to cost WAAAAAYYYYYY more money, its already cost more americans their lives than the war, and it's going to be a quagmire.

Thanks George for letting us foreigners have a second chance. I really appreciate it. Your short myopic strategy for peace through war has enflamed an already unstable region and fed the flames of international terrorism.

Thank you james t kirk, I would have said that if i had teh brains.

This is the third time you you expressed the atitude, " We have oil so let the IRaqis die" Is this Norways take or just yours? I guess we could have taken that stance in WW2.