To vote for economic sanctions against a country, as the UN did today is an act of war... Is this what the US and the world wants and are you ready to pay $160 for a barrel of oil and the resulting increase prices at the pumps?
2007-09-22 09:59:27 · 13 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The UN is a toothless Tiger...who has no way of enforcing any of their worthless resolutions...who are you kidding.
2007-09-22 10:06:40 · answer #1 · answered by I Laugh At Morons 3 · 12⤊ 3⤋
I don't believe economic sanctions are an act of war.I think it's positive,could be positive the world tries to solve this issue through tough diplomacy.
While I recognize Iran is demonized and am aware Israel does have nukes, I at the same time convinced Iran should not have nuclear weapons.The Iranian government does have ties with Hezbollah and prior to 9/11 even al quaida.
Iran claims to wants to use nuclear technology only for energy.If that's true they should accept the offer the world community made on June first in Vienna.
That said at the same time it's clear Necons still want to attack and we should be vigilant to get not lied into another war either but the difference here is America isn't acting unilaterally for now.I like to think that's positive
2007-09-22 10:19:50 · answer #2 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Covert action is the american way, son. is going earlier to the Spanish/American conflict. Make the different adult men react to a concern so as that putting forward conflict on them is their fault. Or use yet another united states of america to do your grimy artwork. contained on the subject of Iran, if the poop hits the fan, it will be Israel who'll do it and the US will are available in later at their request.
2016-10-19 10:54:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN has no power and economic sanctions are not an act of war. I'm not worried about it.
2007-09-22 10:15:42 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny P 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sanctions are not an act of war! You are one loony dude!
Sanctions amount to a slap on the wrist. Iran has already said they "will continue no matter what"!
Sanctions amout to waging your finger at them. So yes the UN is still very very weak!!
It is better to pay $160 a barrel that to have our kids glow in the dark.
2007-09-22 10:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
Now or later oil prices will go up.
Iran may complain at and threaten the UN, but it won't go to war. The Iranian leader may be mad and crazy, but not stupid.
2007-09-22 10:16:09 · answer #6 · answered by Mitchell 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Another esay question! Russia and China supply Iran so the Lib sanctions are laughable But if the UN has anything to do with it It will result in the raping of women and children and oil for food scandles No wonder the libs worship the white flag carring UN
2007-09-22 10:08:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
Sorry, Humanist - until I actually *see* progress, I don't buy it.
The UN passed SEVENTEEN Resolutions again Iraq. They weren't worth the paper they were written on. Oil for Food was completely corrupt. The UN "peace keepers" have been raping little girls in the Sudan. They UN did *nothing* for Rwanda, and is doing *nothing* for Darfur.
I just don't see what is worth supporting.
2007-09-22 10:07:49 · answer #8 · answered by Jadis 6 · 10⤊ 3⤋
A Dem in office is the quickest way to Carter-era oil; no need for the UN.
2007-09-22 10:07:28 · answer #9 · answered by Kubla Con 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Really, "economic sanctions" are an act of war? So that means we are at war with Cuba - let's liberate Havana immediately!
2007-09-22 10:12:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋