# Continue to protest while Iraqi's dance in the streets? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 9, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612 "2003-04-09T18:38:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![jkusters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/fbc32d/32.png) [@jkusters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkusters)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/101 "2003-04-11T05:20:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spite \* > \*\*Bame [blame?] the poester [poster?] who’s [whose?] position is against the war has somehow posed a different arguement than they do not support the war unless certain of their situations are met. Regardless of people actually being murdered and brutalaized by their dictator, name one who has voiced support for an action that would remove Saddam and stop what has been going on. There is no difference. The arguement is the same. \*\* I’m afraid I don’t follow the point you’re trying to make here. Maybe it’s just the lateness of the hour, but I’ve read the first sentence (making some assumptions about words that appear to be misspelled) several times now and I’m not really getting it. My response to your post said that you seemed to be lumping a lot of different positions held by various anti-war posters into a single position that was self-contradictory, and that I found that to be disingenuous of you. Your response above _seems_ to say that I should blame anti-war protesters who refuse to support the war unless certain conditions are met. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, blame them for what? Then you state that there is no difference. Differences arise from two (or more) sets of conditions or states. You further state that the argument is the same. What argument? Or rather, what arguments, since you indicate I should be seeing multiple ones? Are you trying to say that what appear to be two types of people against the war are really just one type? Those who are just plain against the war as compared to those who are against the war unless certain conditions are met? I’m befuddled. Perhaps someone else could step in an enlighten me? I’m just not getting what **Spite** is trying to tell me. Thanks, JOhn. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/102 "2003-04-11T05:21:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Seven \* > **If this was the case why did the army make a bee-line for the oil fields right after crossing the borders?** The Gulf War, 1991. The retreating Iraqi army ignited close to 700 oil wells in Kuwait. It took nine months to extinguish those blazes. > [@](#): > > \*\*If this war IS about saving people from big bad regimes, I better see the US army hit a number of other countries in the next year or two. If the US is a TRUE liberator, then free all the other people being oppressed. If the US doesn’t do this, then the USA lied. \*\* So, once again, if the U.S. can’t fight _every_ oppressive regime, then it shouldn’t fight _any_ oppressive regime? BTW, will you be applauding or condemning the U.S. when it _does_ oppose the next oppressive regime? It seems you want it both ways. If it does oppose an oppresive regime, it’s for ulterior motives. If the U.S. doesn’t oppose an oppresive regime, it’s a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Spite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/103 "2003-04-11T05:25:20Z")
Hmm, my bad, I got overzelous. It was the Congress that didn’t approve of the Korean invasion. And the UN only passed a resolution after truman declared an intervention with US troops. Not saying they were against it, But Truman kinda got ahead of himself there didn’t he? And in that light, if the Soviets wern’t conveniently “boycotting” the SC then any resolution would have been vetoed no? I am just wondering how it can be morally just to have situations like Iraq, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (recent reports say over 3 _million_ people have died in the last 4 years due to the inhumane situation in the Democratic republic of Congo) , just because the UN does not deem fit to take action. And somehow it is morally wrong to take action without it’s approval. You do realise that if North Korea invades the South and China choses to veto any reslution, then that “moral justification” would not be there to help the south. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/104 "2003-04-11T05:31:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*BTW, will you be applauding or condemning the U.S. when it _does_ oppose the next oppressive regime? It seems you want it both ways. If it does oppose an oppresive regime, it’s for ulterior motives. If the U.S. doesn’t oppose an oppresive regime, it’s a liar. \*\* If the US goes after a few poor countries with bad regimes to free the people… then I will change my views. But we all know that’s not going to happen. Iraq was an easy hit which will pay off very well. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/105 "2003-04-11T05:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Seven \* > **If the US goes after a few poor countries with bad regimes to free the people… then I will change my views.** Like… Afghanistan? You seem unwilling to believe that the U.S. can act in its own interest _and_ in the interest of others. ---
**Author:** ![Spite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/106 "2003-04-11T05:54:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jkusters \* > \*\*I’m afraid I don’t follow the point you’re trying to make here. Maybe it’s just the lateness of the hour, but I’ve read the first sentence (making some assumptions about words that appear to be misspelled) several times now and I’m not really getting it. > > Thanks, > JOhn. \*\* ouch. That is ugly taint it? > [@](#): > > Bame [blame?] the poester [poster?] who’s [whose?] position is against the war has somehow posed a different arguement than they do not support the war unless certain of their situations are met. **Name** the **protestor** whose position is against the war has somehow posed a different arguement than they do not support the war unless certain of their situations are met. I was trying to say that , to them, it would only be ok to “liberate” an oppressed people only as long as it is done on their terms. Ie: UN approval, obvious threat to US, etc;. They can try to abuse the current war as commiting attrocities against the innocent as their reasons against it. Yet when it is demonstrated that the innocent would more than likely end up better and happier they still do not support it because their terms are not met. Sure there are true pacifists out there who believe any war, under any circumstances, is wrong. And I do not intend to argue their position because, t me, it is indefensible. I mean those that opose this war based upon some moral equivelance of how it should have been handled “properly”. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/107 "2003-04-11T06:23:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*Like… Afghanistan? > > You seem unwilling to believe that the U.S. can act in its own interest _and_ in the interest of others. \*\* I’m sorry. I seemed to have missed the memo that says the USA went into Afghanistan to “free the people”. Cite please? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/108 "2003-04-11T06:28:46Z")
See my posting three above this. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/109 "2003-04-11T08:18:12Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > - Okay, for all of you who think this was a ‘rotten’ war. I have one question: > > If you could roll back the last month and stop the war, would you?\* Yes. If I were king of the world, I would have stopped this invasion, even with what I know today.\* > [@](#): > > If not, doesn’t that mean you were wrong?\* There’s no denying, of course, that there are have been some important humanitarian gains, at least thus far, in the war, with the overthrow of the odious Iraqi regime. > [@](#): > > _If so, how would you explain that decision to the millions of Iraqis who would still be living under Saddam’s thumb?_ Dear people of Iraq, I have heard about the terrible suffering under which you live by the government of Saddam Hussein. I strongly wish that it was in my power to do something about it. As you know, the United States has attempted to convince the UN Security Council on numerous occasions as to the gravity of your situation, and the threat that Hussein’s government poses, not only to you, his citizens, but even to his neighbors. Years of warnings, political rebuffs, and economic sanctions have proven futile against his government; we have come to the conclusion that the only alternative is armed military intervention, with the intent of removing him from power by force. However, for better or worse, the United States does not exist within a vacuum. We are part of a community of nations. We have thus far been unsuccessful in our attempts to convince that community of the need for military action. Since we are committed to this community, to the institutions in which it finds expression, and to the principles which animate and preserve it, we find that, for the present, we cannot aid you militarily. As sorely as it grates upon our soul, the US cannot act unilaterally, against the will of the Security Council; our honor, and our commitment to the rule of law, national sovereignty, and international order forbid it. I am sorry. We will continue to strive to aid the people of Iraq as best we can, and work diligently to convince the world of the sincerity of our concern, and of the need for the community of nations to come together and act with one voice in this question, diplomatically if possible, but militarily if necessary. Until such a time, my heart is with you in your suffering and struggle. Sincerely, George W. Bush President, United States of America ---
**Author:** ![pennylane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@pennylane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pennylane)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/110 "2003-04-11T09:48:57Z")
Bravo, **Mr. Svinlesha**! ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/111 "2003-04-11T09:59:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Okay, for all of you who think this was a ‘rotten’ war. > \*\* “Was”? You think this is all over? You think that there will be no repercussions? You think that life’s just a happy-ever-after for the people in Iraq from now on? You think the Middle East is just going to forget Bush’s little escapade? > [@](#): > > \*\* > I have one question: > \*\* Umm, surely you mean three? > [@](#): > > **If you could roll back the last month and stop the war, would you?** Yes. There was better ways to achieve the removal of Saddam. They may not have suited Bush quite so well, but it’s not about him. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If not, doesn’t that mean you were wrong?\*\* Again the past tense? > [@](#): > > \*\* > If so, how would you explain that decision to the millions of Iraqis who would still be living under Saddam’s thumb? \*\* Silly question. The millions of Iraqis would not be concerned with what-ifs. They would more likely be questioning what had really already happened. Like wanting an explanation for the support and arms trading that Saddam enjoyed all through the 80s. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/112 "2003-04-11T11:35:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Well, I live outside the Beltway and I accepted it. Further, if a poll was taken (which I’m sure it has), I suspect you’d find one or two more of us outside the Beltway. 😉 > > Making easily refutable universal statements really doesn’t aid your side in a debate. > > Sua \*\* Yes the statement was hyperbole so sue me, but now back to you. You accepted the false reports of confirmation of WMD when they first came out. Did you continue to accept them when they were shown to be lies? What about the second and third time that what the US presented was shown to be inacurate? Can you point to one credible piece of information that the US presented before the invation that showed the presense of WMD in Iraq? Let me put it this way then. Did the information the US presented before the war convince anyone who had not already made up their minds about Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/113 "2003-04-11T11:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spite \* > \*\*Cite? > > We are still fighting a war there for at least 40% of the country. > > Why do you insist that the military action itself is supposed to find WMD. Kind of like the crutch that was used that weapons inspectors was the litmus test on if Iraq has WMD? > > The finding will be after the removal of the powers that be and then the detective work begins. The lack of us not stubbing our toes on barrels of VX or whatever is not proving anything except that the regime is not utter morons when hiding their illegal weapons. Yes, we _may_ stumble on them. But jut st because we havn’t only proves they are not out in the open. > > But regardless, the OP and many people here are pointing to the celbrations that the war was a good thing in spite of WMD. > As **Sua** pointed out, the US felt it had a mandate to tackle Saddam. On one side of the coin it is said that the US must not arrogantly do things like this only because it wants to. On the other it is said even if the US feels it has a legal and moral mandate, it cannot be done unless all the worlds problems are attacked at the same fucking time. > > You people must be ignored because of your illogical falacies, or nothing in this world would ever get done. > You claim that your only concern is for the Iraqi people. You ignore the fact that the past Iraq was for Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Their freedoms and safety was only substantiated at the insane will of Saddam. By ingoring that fact you can say that you are not supporting Saddam when you are against the actions to remove him. > > How do you come to that? I honestly think you can seperate the two in your own mind. But I am asking you a direct question on how you do that. > > When others ask you how you can support the brutal dictatorship and murders of the Iraqi people, your only response is that somehow those that want action now must have supprted it for the past 30 years or they would have done something about it before. So without the mandate the US feels it has now, you would support action in Congo where 3 _million_ people have died? Does the US have to go throughout the world and start wars in every unpallatable regime just so you can appreciate the freeing of a country? > > That kind of logic is not even noble, it’s childish. \*\* Well since you address this rant to me I would appreciate if you could identify which parts of it you think represent my opinion. Do this and I will gladly respond. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/114 "2003-04-11T11:56:36Z")
P.S. While I’ve got your attention, people of Iraq, perhaps I should also take a moment to apologize for the role my government played in helping the Baath party achieve power over there in the first place, and in arming and aiding Saddam in his “preemptive” war against Iraq – yes, the one we supported then, but condemn now. (I know it doesn’t really make sense to aid a government in a war, first, and then condemn them for that war, later, but hey, I’m American – I don’t have to make sense.) Anyhoo, sorry about all that. If we hadn’t been meddling in your internal affair in the first place – quite illegally, I might add – we might have avoided this entire mess. But what the hell – shit happens, know what I mean? That was then, this is now. Hindsight is 20/20, water under the bridge, no use crying over spilt milk, etc. So y’all be good, and don’t forget to vote for Ahmad Chalabi in 2004. Otherwise, we may have no other option but to come over there and the bomb the shit out of you. Again. Yers, Georgie P.S.S. Thank ye kindly, **pennylane.** ---
**Author:** ![Azael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Azael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Azael)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/115 "2003-04-11T13:08:22Z")
**P.S.S.S.** I hope you can eat this letter, because “intentions” are all the international community owe you. I hope our letter somehow frees you from tyranny, because as you can see the most powerful nation in the world doesn’t have the courage. We are hoping that our intentions will prevent Saddam from developing WMDs because, after our past failures, intentions are all we can show the world. I hope this letter somehow frees your son, daughter, husband or wife from Saddam’s torture chambers because we are going to hide under our rock now - _we can’t help you_. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/116 "2003-04-11T13:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **jkusters** \* > \*\*Facetiousness aside, I’m still having trouble understanding how the first two reasons for war are warranted. \*\* Re-read my post. Those first two reasons were not why the war was warranted, but rather in response to **binarydrone’s** question as to why the US would go after Iraq before it would go after any other country. > [@](#): > > _by **jshore** _ > Another reason for getting U.N. approval is that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent. If we claim the right to striking preventatively and unilaterally, what is to stop India from claiming the same when they attack Pakistan…or vice versa, or North Korea when they attack South Korea or else…and so on? What **is** it with this argument? Why does it keep rolling when it so patently has no merit? Both sides of the argument are faulty. 1. **jshore,** I have already listed **eight** instances from the 20th Century where the US has engaged in a preemptive, unilateral use of military force. (BTW, just thought of a ninth - the Dominican Republic 1965). In this century, it has been more common for the US to attack preemptively than in response to an attack on the US/an ally. The precedent, dangerous or not, has long existed. 2. The rest of the world is already and has long claimed the right to attack preventively and unilaterally. Within the past decade, the Rwandans and Ugandans preemptively attacked Zaire/Congo, and the Ethiopians the Eretrians. Looking back a little further, we have the Arab nations preemptively attacking Israel in 1973, and the Israelis doing the same to Egypt in 1967. _by **spoke-** _ On to Myanmar! Who’s with me? [/QUOTE] I am. > [@](#): > > _by **Degrance** _ > Can you point to one credible piece of information that the US presented before the invation that showed the presense of WMD in Iraq? Easily. Iraq refused to comply with UN disarmament resolutions for twelve years, despite the fact that it lost billions in trade and revenue and 700,000 of its citizens died. I could present that piece of evidence in any court. Combined with the evidence discovered by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, as well as the Iraqi refusal to account for WoMD UNSCOM demonstrated that it had possessed, I could get a conviction. Remember, you can get a conviction for murder without having to produce a dead body. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/117 "2003-04-11T14:56:10Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > by **spoke-** > > On to Myanmar! > > > > Who’s with me? > > (by **Sua** 🙂 > > I am. OK, that’s two of us. Somehow, I don’t think the Bush team will be joining our campaign, though… ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/118 "2003-04-11T15:17:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Easily. Iraq refused to comply with UN disarmament resolutions for twelve years, despite the fact that it lost billions in trade and revenue and 700,000 of its citizens died. \*\* That won’t cut it. Your whole argument is based on the premise that Iraq had WMD in some usable condition. None of what you state above indicates that this was true. Your whole mindset is based on negitive information. “If we know nothing about what is going on then lets invade and sort it out later.” is not what I want my country’s foriegn policy based on. Of course Saddam was yanking the worlds chain with his excuses and hedging and bying time. Does that prove the US allegations? No way. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/119 "2003-04-11T15:26:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha \* > Dear people of Iraq, > > I have heard about the terrible suffering under which you live by the government of Saddam Hussein. I strongly wish that it was in my power to do something about it. > > As you know, the United States has attempted to convince the UN Security Council on numerous occasions as to the gravity of your situation, and the threat that Hussein’s government poses, not only to you, his citizens, but even to his neighbors. Years of warnings, political rebuffs, and economic sanctions have proven futile against his government; we have come to the conclusion that the only alternative is armed military intervention, with the intent of removing him from power by force. > > However, for better or worse, the United States does not exist within a vacuum. We are part of a community of nations. We have thus far been unsuccessful in our attempts to convince that community of the need for military action. Since we are committed to this community, to the institutions in which it finds expression, and to the principles which animate and preserve it, we find that, for the present, we cannot aid you militarily. As sorely as it grates upon our soul, the US cannot act unilaterally, against the will of the Security Council; our honor, and our commitment to the rule of law, national sovereignty, and international order forbid it. I am sorry. > > We will continue to strive to aid the people of Iraq as best we can, and work diligently to convince the world of the sincerity of our concern, and of the need for the community of nations to come together and act with one voice in this question, diplomatically if possible, but militarily if necessary. Until such a time, my heart is with you in your suffering and struggle. > > Sincerely, > > George W. Bush > > President, United States of America Great post, **Mr. Svinlesha**. At least you have the courage to come out and say this. Most anti-war folks seem to have resorted to pointing out any tiny thing that is currently going wrong as an example of how the effort has been a failure. However, I completely disagree with you. You admit that this was the right thing to do, but value our relationship with the UN above doing the right thing. As the worlds only remaining superpower, we have an obligation to act. To do the right thing. With or without the UN. ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612/120 "2003-04-11T15:30:30Z")
As to this quote and similar expressions: " …If we claim the right to striking preventatively and unilaterally, what is to stop India from claiming the same when they attack Pakistan…or vice versa, or North Korea when they attack South Korea or else…and so on?.." The thing to stop India/Pakistan and N.Korea/S.Korea etc is the same thing as before the UN existed: fear of failure and retaliation. If those fears were removed, I’d think the whole situation would become much more dangerous. If the UN refuses to act against a rogue, that reduces the rogue’s fears. Does this make the rogue more dangerous to his weaker neighbors, or less? I don’t think a rogue fears the UN’s paperwork or disapproval… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/continue-to-protest-while-iraqis-dance-in-the-streets/167612.md?page=7)