Business as usual

[Marcellus]

Franconius,

The United States would work with an international body, if an international body would act.

Going back to my scenario, let's bring up some CNN footage to describe how your scenario would go, a couple of years into the future...

In what can only be described as a shocking rebuff today, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats at the UN Security Council blocked a vote to implement sanctions against Syria for giving sanctuary to known terrorist Abu Musad al Zarqawi. Mr. Zarqawi has been living in Damascus for the past 18 months, where he has publicly called for muslims around the globe to attack non-muslims of any sort, in any fashion. His incitements are frequently broadcast globally by Al Jazeera. At least two 4 terrorist attacks are believed to have been planned and ordered by Zarqawi since his arrival in Syria in October, 2005. Foregin minister Jack Straw and Secretary of State Condozleeza Rice produced volumes of evidence linking al Zarqawi to the Madrid train bombings, the London train bombings and numerous other more recent acts of terror. Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, speaking for the opposition had this to say "It's not that we don't believe Zarqawi is responsible, or that he's still operating in Damascus. We the civilized nations of the world just don't believe this so-called pressure on Assad will lead anywhere. We have only been trying to convince Syria for 18 months. Let's give it another 4 or 5 years, and if he still hasn't relinquisted Al Zarqawi, perhaps we can begin to discuss some sanctions. But for now, non".

I don't think that France, Russia or China would actually veto your resolution, not if the evidence is sound enough. These people did not support the war in Iraq because the evidence was not sound.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think that France, Russia or China would actually veto your resolution, not if the evidence is sound enough. These people did not support the war in Iraq because the evidence was not sound.

It wasn't just the resolution against the War in Iraq that they vetoed. When the United States & United Kingdom were trying to get resolutions passed to turn up the heat, DIPLOMATICALLY, on Saddam to allow Hans Blix and the crew back in, even though not allowing the inspectors in and of itself violated multiple resolutions, guess who was right there to say 'Non'.

Folks, you all seem to have forgotten that prior to the Iraq War, the Left was moaning about how an inhumane boycott against Iraq was crushing the Iraqi people, and it was time to end Oil for Food and reopen the whole Iraqi economy. The boycott was put in place to make Saddam meet his obligations under the treaties he signed to end hostilities. He never did comply so the boycott wasn't removed. Yet somehow that got spun as 'inhumane America trying to starve Iraqi women & children to death'.

Honestly, other than 'tough talk', what are you all prepared to do end terrorism?

[Marcellus]

The boycott was put in place to make Saddam meet his obligations under the treaties he signed to end hostilities. He never did comply so the boycott wasn't removed. Yet somehow that got spun as 'inhumane America trying to starve Iraqi women & children to death'.

During the boycott, Saddam continued to live in luxury whilst his people starved. The boycott didn't work, and did only lead to Iraqis starving.

[Don Corleone]

During the boycott, Saddam continued to live in luxury whilst his people starved. The boycott didn't work, and did only lead to Iraqis starving.

Why was that the case? Because the UN, charged with oversight of Oil for Food (and yes, American diplomats too) allowed this to happen.

And your answer is 'well, the program isn't working, let's just let Saddam do as he pleases'?

[Franconicus]

Please let the past be past. There is no use in repeating the statements about Iraq war. Iraq war is a fact, terror is a fact. Let's talk what to do! Picking on the US or Europe or the Lefties or the Cons or even the French doesn't help anybody but AQ.

Would the US subordinate to an international organisation to fight the terror?

[Kagemusha]

Don my friend.You are all the time talking how Europe betrayd USA by not joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.If Europe is so against war on terror,why did European Nations backed up US attack against Taleban in Afghanistan.I think its only matter of proof.In Afghanistan everyone know there were terrorist training camps and a regime that supported terrorism against western world.In Iraq there was Saddam Husseins regime that was an terrible dictatorship and oppressed its own people terribly.
But if we are talking about war against extrem-muslim terrorist groups,then why choose Iraq.Saddam was and is lots of things,but he is now muslim extremist.
If US would have striked against Syria or Iran then i wouldnt had anything against that,because we all know that these countries harbour muslim terrorists.But if US goal is to strike down every dictatorship and anti democratic government in the world?Thats just unrealistic to me.I really dont support spreading democracy with force.I think that task is for those people themselves who live under a tyranny.

[Don Corleone]

Don my friend.You are all the time talking how Europe betrayd USA by not joining the coalition against Saddam Hussein.If Europe is so against war on terror,why did European Nations backed up US attack against Taleban in Afghanistan.I think its only matter of proof.In Afghanistan everyone know there were terrorist training camps and a regime that supported terrorism against western world.In Iraq there was Saddam Husseins regime that was an terrible dictatorship and oppressed its own people terribly.
But if we are talking about war against extrem-muslim terrorist groups,then why choose Iraq.Saddam was and is lots of things,but he is now muslim extremist.
If US would have striked against Syria or Iran then i wouldnt had anything against that,because we all know that these countries harbour muslim terrorists.But if US goal is to strike down every dictatorship and anti democratic government in the world?Thats just unrealistic to me.I really dont support spreading democracy with force.I think that task is for those people themselves who live under a tyranny.

I never said Europe betrayed the United States, and I don't believe it did. You all had every right to not support the War in Iraq, something I've said numerous times. I DID say the way France & Germany actively worked against us, in even trying to block economic restrictions against Iraq for non-compliance, and blackmailing Turkey into backing out of it, they showed that we are not allies. (By the way, to the Turks out there, didn't you just love the loyalty the French government showed you by blocking your EU entry anyway?)

And Kagemusha, you must be in a small minority of Europeans that actually supported action in Afghanistan. Yes, your governments did, and for that I am grateful. But you had widespread protests all over Europe against the actions in Afghanistan. There was even talk of dragging the US into the Hague to try us on war crimes. Everyone wants to pretend that now that hostilities have for the most part slowed down, they were all always in favor of it. I remember all the 'This is a war to exterminate Islam' and 'The Taliban is no worse than the Religious Right' chants going on at the time.

[Marcellus]

It wasn't just the resolution against the War in Iraq that they vetoed. When the United States & United Kingdom were trying to get resolutions passed to turn up the heat, DIPLOMATICALLY, on Saddam to allow Hans Blix and the crew back in, even though not allowing the inspectors in and of itself violated multiple resolutions, guess who was right there to say 'Non'.

France didn't say 'non'. Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" was passed in the Security council unanimously. France and others vetoed a second resolution specifically authorising military action in Iraq. It is only after this resolution failed that the US/UK and others said that they could go to war based on the original resolution.

And your answer is 'well, the program isn't working, let's just let Saddam do as he pleases'?

No, Saddam should not have been allowed to do as he pleases. But when it was clear that the Boycott was not affecting Saddam but was killing ordinary Iraqis, it should have been lifted and a new approach tried.