Registered: Jul 2000
quote:That depends on what they were guilty of, and how law enforcement handled it. If someone raped and killed your wife, and you knew who it was, and law enforcement refused to take any action on it, what would you do? Seriously.
Originally posted by ToolkiT
The united countries (including the US) in the UN made it the UN's job.
If you dont like the system work on it, dont go acting on your own...
If you dont like the way the lawinforcement handles your case do you go out and kill the person you think is guilty?
I totally agree that the UN failed on the Kurd massacre, but in this discussion that is irrelevant.
Sorry, but it's not. It speaks to the heart of the issue. Read the Ekeus article. Ignore the Bushie propaganda.
Bush used WMD as the reason to attack Iraq, now it appears they dont exist...
What makes you think they don't exist? Because they haven't been found yet? Have someone bury a gold ring in your back yard, but not tell you where it is. Wait five years, then try to find it without a metal detector while the person who knows where it is tries to mislead you from finding it.
If Bush went to Iraq for other reasons I'm sure a lot less people would have objected... but in that case he would have created a precedent and he would have to liberate countries where he had less interests in...
Depends on the reason he picked.
Its not black and white.. its millions of tones of gray...
You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and vice versa...
So, which do you think this was? Seriously. Let's get beyond all the devil's advocate nonsense and speak plainly.
It is general knowledge that the CIA provided Iraq with chemical weapons and learned them how to use them when Iraq was still an ally...
"1500 years ago, everybody 'knew' that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody 'knew' that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you 'knew' that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow."