Will this happen with Iran?
2007-02-01 23:08:07 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
He ignored 17. Sadaam had every chance to work with the UN and save himself and his country. He chose to stick two fingers up to the world instead. How far should we have let it go? It was inevitable that there came a time when we said 'you are taking the p1ss, enough is enough'.
Sadaam had only himself to blame.
2007-02-02 00:34:20 · answer #1 · answered by derbyandrew 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think there were 17 ignored resolutions. The UN is impotent in the face of contemptuos defiance, especially when the defiant country is being aided and abetted by permanent members of the Insecurity council which will veto any kind of serious effort to curb the rogue behavior.
Militant Islam has made the UN a vital weapon in their plan to reestablish the caliphate and place all mankind under Islamic Theocratic rule and Sharia law. So far their plan is working right on schedule. Have you bought your Koran and Prayer Rug yet? (God help us all when these fanatic nut fudges get nukes).
2007-02-02 07:42:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To many, he should have been taken out during the Clinton Administration , but was not. Main thing is, he is gone for ever now. As for as Iran, I do not think it will take as long as it did with Sadaam if a Republican is in office in 2008, otherwise, we may just as well bend over and kiss our butts goodbye.
2007-02-02 07:15:15 · answer #3 · answered by m c 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
who's "we"?
if by "we" u mean the US (and all those who support it), then let me ask YOU a few questions:
a) why did the US enter iraq even though there was no evidence of nuclear weapons and even though the UN was generally against the idea?
b) why does the US support israel's "right to defend itself" against lebanon and palestine? if anything, they broke TWICE as many UN resolutions than saddam has. that's besides all the illegal and inhumane things they have recently done... let me name a few...
- the massacre of qana during the war on lebanon, where 50+ women and children (and ONLY women and children) were killed during an air strike on a civilian building
- the use of illegal (yes... ILLEGAL) rockets during the war on lebanon.. which, for ur information, were provided by none other than the US
- the continuous massacres occuring in palestine every day.
- the occupation of palestinian, syrian, and lebanese soil.
and the list goes on my friend.
i'm not saying saddam was a good guy, but the finger should be pointed elsewhere instead of being regularly pointed at the same "arab badies." and btw, need i remind u that saddam was pretty much given power by the US? think about THAT for a while...
the words of jay leno easily answer the first question i posed (why the US entered iraq):
"the US was going to call the war on iraq 'operation iraqi liberation', but then they realized that that sentence is abbreviated as OIL"
2007-02-02 07:31:14 · answer #4 · answered by abulshabab 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Iraq situation was a knee jerk mistake as a result of 9/11. Americans will not tolerate a war with Iran. George Bush and his entire administration would be impeached by the house before that would happen.
It is up to the global community to enforce economic sanctions on the country. Eventually a revolt will happen internally as a result of the zero cash flow and average people will rise to the occassion in Iran much like they did in the 50's. Problem is America meddled in the 70's to reverse Iran to what it is today.
2007-02-02 07:13:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
We didn't let him ignore any. Enforcement was in place and there were No Fly zones in the north and south. We had sanctions in place that hurt the people of Iraq but not it's leader. Actually, I guess you could say we let him ignore them by punishing his people and not him.
Iran is another matter that our leader will probably address shortly. Why are we sending Patriot missile batteries to the region?
2007-02-02 07:40:57 · answer #6 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe it was 17 UN Resolutions
2007-02-02 07:12:23 · answer #7 · answered by adreed 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who is " we" ? I never supported this invasion and occupation.
This is about Mr. Bush and his wars of choice. It will be a disaster of huge dimensions should Americans attack and invade Iran.
2007-02-02 07:42:21 · answer #8 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
17. And Clinton did nothing.
2007-02-02 07:25:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes - he was still the only person that was capable of running that country. The alternative is just so much worse. The Iraq intervention has been a disaster.
2007-02-02 07:12:51 · answer #10 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋