“The right to self-defence does not necessarily require a UN Security Council resolution,” thus is reported Rice in press. Iraq and now Iran? Doesn't it prove: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
213612
I'd say it's more of a, \n\n"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
345588
Weren't (I believe) these all seventeen (or so) UN Security Resolutions that Iraq had violated? \nThis takes care of UN SC Reolution 1441, the rest can be found here: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm\n\nUnited Nations\nNew York, New York\nNovember 8, 2002\n\n\nUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution\n\n[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]\n\nThe Security Council,\n\nRecalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,\n\nRecalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,\n\nRecognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,\n\nRecalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,\n\nFurther recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,\n\nDeploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,\n\nDeploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,\n\nDeploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,\n\nDeploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,\n\nRecalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,\n
517903
This is the best question I have seen on here. What a wonderful idea. When will the human rights activists start to realise that victims also have rights!! An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
489883
I heard it was for arming them so they could alleviate or stop the tyrannical oppressions that Iran did, and is now still trying to, impose upon them.  Why are some of you people so anti-freedom until you start screaming for your rights, that were fought, for to protect?  Sounds like very contradictory and skewed logic to me.
513178
I spent over an hour reading the article and the comments by viewers .  The bravado displayed by citizens of other countries, reminds me of my days overseas.  The rest of the world under-estimates our will and strength . This is a war-game, but this 'game' is not for fun . It's to prepare for the inevitable destruction of Iran's nuclear capability, plain and simple .
464070
It's should be an OUTRAGE TO THE WORLD that this rich tyrant in Iran dare to announce he wants to wipe another country off the planet. WHAT IS THE UN FOR?  Is the whole world going to back down and let these possessed guerillas rant on with their threats to humanity???????  This is like a nightmare coming to fore.
577102
Yes\n\nThe bottom line is that all countries, in this supposed civilized world, have no right to occupy/invade another country unless there is a threat.... That threat has to be proven and UN approval must be granted. This is exactly why we, and many other countries, helped Kuwait when Iraq occupied/invaded them.\n\nOne country has no right to decide on its own to suddenly go liberate another country. That is common sense in a civilized progressive world. That (and I am not trying to compare Bush to Hitler) is exactly what Germany did in WWII when HItler kept occupying one country after another. The world recognized that as wrong.\n\nAlso as far as being charged with war crimes... yes.\n\n* Bush has violated the geneva convention \n* Bush has used redension to knowingly use torture.\n* Bush is holding prisoners without allowing the Red Cross to have access to some of them and also not releasing some of their identities.\n\nSorry if some of us Americans don't want to hear that but all of that is fact and are clearly war crimes.\n\nI also believe that assassinating ppl in Iraq and killing 100,000s shoud be considered a war crime in this circumstance because Bush had no right to invade that country. He invaded on false-pretense. BUT that part is just my personal belief and I am not sure where that falls under any war crimes act.\n\nAlso Answerman, don't fall into the 'congress voted for it' trap. They want you to believe that all who voted to GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY IF NECESSARY was saying it was ok to go to war. I've seen many interviews with politicians who stated they never would have believed in 100 years that Bush was going to go into Iraq without UN approval. They got tricked into falling for his scam.\n\nPpl should learn their history: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia were not occupations. They were either forms of containtment (that is the political term for the freeze on the spreading of communism) or humanitarian acts.
329572
not sure i agree 100%,  taliban was a threat to world peace,  there were un resolutions authorizing use of force,  but we did botch up iraq and should have turned authority over to UN a lot more then we have, but it wasnt imperalistic since there was "some" legal basis.\n\nim not a lawyer of world law but just you know, jim darwin, opinion like a0hole ive got one
157111
"The days of countries taking over other countries by force are over. If any country tried something like that the UN would rally against that country."\n\nWhat do you call Iraq and Afghanistan? Idiot.
65507
War can divert manpower and materiel from peaceful uses to preparation for and conduct of war.  This can leave a country in debt for future generations.  Every country has the right to protect itself from neighbors (or any other country) that would take their land or resources or harm their people.  War is never justified when there is no provocation.  Of course a country like Nazi Germany invented provocation to start war with Poland then murdered all citizens that opposed Germany (and most of the Polish Officer Corp).  Saddam invented reasons to attack Kuwait (and murdered many of its citizens) and ignored UN sanctions after they were driven back.  Iraq became an outlaw nation bent on conquering its neighbors.  Saddam modeled himself after Hitler and his early mentors were Nazis.  He had to be stopped to give world peace a chance.  Now Iraq has a brand new Democracy and a good chance to join the fellowship of peaceful nations.  Leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf war was a big mistake but the coalition that existed at that time would not support his total removal from power.  He then murdered thousands more of his own citizens, especially in the south.  War often saves lives if performed surgically and timely.  Many believe that the UN should prevent war.  However the UN is not a coalition of Democracies (although there are many Democracies represented).  The UN is more an international debating society that at least might prevent gross miscalculations and buy time for diplomatic solutions to problems.  The strength of NATO is that an attack on any member is an attack on all members of NATO and NATO members do not attack each other.  Even the use of the A-Bomb saved lives ending WWII because the militarists there were prepared to sacrifice every man, woman and child to protect the Japanese homeland following a war they started and conducted with gross brutality throughout Asia.  Good luck with your debate.
214337
No, I don't believe so. I think all of the rhetoric is what you call the October surprise. It's voting time, and all the subjects are coming to the surface just like the last time America voted. You have got to figure, that Russia or China, either one could supply Iran with what ever they wanted anyway. Iran hasn't gotten involved with the Iraq situation, and they could have at anytime. I really believe it's Bush pushing American Military again.
407283
THE WHOLE U.N. VOTED TO GO INTO IRAQ HOW IS THE WAR ILLEGAL? HOW DID WE VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. SOME PEOPLE TALK TO HEAR THEIR OWN VOICE. DEMOCRATIC IGNORANCE IS RAMPANT. THE U.N. IS SOFT. THEY DO WHAT THE USA SAYS.
167207
no. sorry. everyone is stupid & easy to fool into believing lies. all theyve done is post some news stories that iran is bad & the peple are crazy. everyone in usa believes it & are dumb enough to follow allong like cattle. theres a saying, 'those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocoties'. im sorry.\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nhttp://thestressblog.com\nhttp://www.kaos959.com\nhttp://www.antiwar.com\nmoney, http://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\neducation, \nhttp://www.philipdru.com/taylor_stream.html\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/gatto_stream.html\nww1 wilson,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=88\nww2 http://www.philipdru.com/stinnett_stream.html\nnam http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=108\nbush & clinton http://www.philipdru.com/triplett_stream.html\nisrael \nhttp://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/webb_stream.html\niran http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=131\ngovernment explained simply,\nhttp://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=98
399334
U.S. benefits? they only people you see concerned with this issue would be democrats like they are not corrupt........it is partisan politics as usual, the big picture is preventing nuclear proliferation , imagine if the Iranian dictator/mullah gets a hold of a nuke? want to live life according to them....no basic human rights, religious bigotry, anyone opposed to this war does not have a clue, the big picture is preventing chaos, genocide...helping the peaceful people in the region to have a better life and address our national security, the democrats have no plan for this war, it is a difficult problem that will persist for decades, if the terrorist use a nuke all other problems in this world will pale in comparison.In general I do agree with you and all you people who oppose this war I think your cowards, hey lets have a draft! or are you too busy enjoying yourself to fight for what is right? isolationism and pacifism have been historically shot down.Lets work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons internationally....keep our thumb on the Iranian government and take out the nuke facilities if necessary, if we do not they will most certainly use them on our good friends in Israel, have they not been crapped on enough? oh yeah viet vet I served fourteen years preserving our freedom and proudly display my commendation from Donald Rumsfield....a great man I would certainly like to volunteer but like you I am too old.
322448
Unless any state like Israel bring to pass resolution before UN Security Council. And demand immediate close of guantano prison as UN panel already pressed for.  Now it’s necessary to force USA follow UN Security Council resolution.  If deny follow resolution force can be used against USA to make council resolution effective
206259
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
210546
I wouldn't count on anything that isn't related to Iraqi having anything done with it by the US.  On the other hand...does Burma have oil?  If the answer is yes, then it is a possibility!