The UN (pushed greatly by the shrub) has ordered weapons inspectors into Iraq, insisting that they disclose all WMDs and balistic misiles or face the wrath of Bush ibn Bush. Iraq has denied that they have ANY WMD.
North Korea recently siad that they are developing WMD, and not just some measly anthrax–they are making nuclear weapons.
Both countries were included in Bush’s “axis of evil” statements, so why are the North Koreans not being forced under the thumb of the mighty plant?
How can anyone still believe that this war is not motivated by Bush’s own personal vendetta against the man who tried to kill his father? It is not worth a single Americian life to fight George’s little holy war.
I say if he wants revenge, let him do it himself:
Movie trailer voice: In a world where a man…
Bush Jr: He gived me everything I ever have! I wouldn’t be sitting in this office if it were for him!
Movie trailer voice: has to take matters into his father’s hands…
Bush Sr: Damnit son, pull your self together!
Movie trailer voice: There’s only one way…
Laura Bush: Honey you don’t have to do this.
[closeup of Bush Jr]
Bush Jr: If I don’tent whos will?
Movie trailer voice: To get revenge…
Bush Sr: [on respirator] Make me proud, son.
[machine nearby emits a high, even tone]
Bush Jr: NNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!
Movie trailer voice: VENGENCE! coming to a theater near you when you wake up and realise that you’ve been played. Rated R for intense violence and extreem stupidity.
Bush Jr: I’m gunna have revengeness.
[fade to black]
Point out the Chapter 7 UN resolutions that North Korea has violated.
Time’s up.
The difference is that, ironically for all those bashing “Cowboy Bush,” there is no legal basis for a war against North Korea. There is a legal basis for war against Iraq.
SuaSponte: I’ve been unable to turn up anything outlining what exactly Chapter 7 pretains to. Any help in that area would be appreciated.
Regardless, what makes it okay for some nations to develop WMD and not others? Is it their “fanatic rating”? IIRC, WE are the only ones to ever have used nuclear weapons in war…
Here’s the way I see it. Iraq wants to destroy the USA and are (or at least were) making WMD. We should push the inspectors and disarmament ASAP to prevent a catastrophe and massive loss of US or other life. Saddam Insane tested WMD’s ON HIS OWN people. He should be disarmed AND “dethroned” for the safety of his OWN people at the very least.
So how many US citizens does he need to kill before you would aggree that the inspectors should go in? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? An even Million?
Guy Chapter 7 of the UN charter is the chapter that authorizes collective self-defense. Resolutions passed by the Security Council pursuant to Chapter 7 have the force of law and must be obeyed by members of the UN. If they are not obeyed, the use of force to compel compliance is permitted by the UN Charter.
North Korea did once violate a Chapter 7 resolution – and the result was the Korean War (which was actually the UN v. North Korea, not the U.S/South Korea v. North Korea).
Iraq also violated a Chapter 7 resolution in 1990, when it refused to leave Kuwait. The result was the Gulf War - again, a U.N. war against the violator. Iraq has since then violated Chapter 7 resolutions demanding its disarmament.
Chapter 7 resolutions are very rare, but IIRC they have always been enforced - either the offending nation complies or force is authorized.
As for what makes it OK for some nations to have WMD and not others, the answer is simple - the UN. Somebody has to make the determination, and all nations have agreed that the UN shall be that body. And the UN has decided that Iraq cannot have WMD.
Either you believe in international law, or you don’t. If we don’t have international law, we have “cowboy” unilateralism. Would you prefer that international law be enforced, or would you like to give free rein to “shrub”?
Where do you stand?
North Korea would simply be a harder nut to crack, given their large army ready to travel the 20 miles or so into Seoul and wreak havoc, their likely ability to rain at least some destruction on Tokyo, and most of all the fact that active US military intervention would very likely enrage China.
Forcibly disarming Iraq is not being advocated as a moral gesture; it has been advocated primarily as being preemptive self defense.
There are two psychos who hate you.
One has an unloaded gun and is looking in his pockets for the bullets.
The other has a gun, a hostage, and is standing in front of a barrel of gasoline.
I do not find it morally inconsistient to treat the two of them differently; on the contrary, I find it morally defensible and simply good sense to stop the first one, by force if necessary, if he refuses to stop looking for bullets, and take a different approach with the second.
I’ve never believed this was a revenge thing for Bush, sr. (though I’m not American) and I’d be surprised if most, or even many Americans did. Actually, it’s borderline condescending of you to claim that many Americans are that dumb.
The “he tried to kill my daddy” bit is being used to express the President’s personal resolve to wage this war, i.e. he has no intention of being half-hearted about it, a claim that was levelled against his father for liberating Kuwait but not invading Iraq back in 1991. It would never be accepted by Congress as a valid pretext for war.
The actual reasons have far more to do with economics, and this historically has been a valid pretext for war, or at least as valid as war pretexts get.