Iraq now 'finished' for United Kingdom

[UKIP]

Yes, the US did ignore international sentiment which was reflected in a lack of a resolution, however the NK situation is different. North Korea was condemned by the UN Security Council, which, under the UN Charter, is the only binding body in the UN. That is part of the deal when joining the UN. There was no UNSC resolution condemning the US. Yes, it probably had a large deal to do with the UK and US having veto power though I doubt France and maybe even Russia/China would have pulled for condemnation if it came to blows. However, that's how the game is played and similar situations have been difficult because of the other four nations having veto power, so its not one sided.

I disagree, but not majorly. I agree with the bold part, I think the underlined part is irrelevant.

Eh I don't think that had as much to deal with it, it was difficult for us to pass off NK and China as terrorists. By the way, we could take NK no question. China, probably not.

Absolutely, he's done a terrific job with foreign policy so far.

That said the United States is still playing a hypocritical game, how can and how dare the United States ignore UN opinion, lie to the United Nations and then go and lecture countries such as North Korea on how the UN doesn't approve. France and Russia would probably of veto'd but it would of been a pointless effort as the United States and United Kingdom would vote against any French-Russian attempt to block the war.

It is relavent though, when Baghdad was falling the Bush administration changed from WMD to how evil Saddam was and how he needed to be removed to "free the Iraqi people" - this was only said because Saddam had not used any WMD against the invading forces when his regime was falling, and no weapons of mass destruction had been found in places such as Basra and so on.

The question isn't terrorism as we know Saddam had no links with Al Queda, the question is how dangerous the country is, there is no such thing as a terrorist state, you can have a state supporting terrorism, namely Iran. The Peoples Republic of China demands the democratic country of Taiwan back and North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, it even says so publically. Iraq wasn't like that, UN inspectors concluded that all Iraqi attempts to create a WMD programme had been abandoned in the early 1990's.

It was a bullying game, no doubt in my mind. If Iraq did have WMD then I can gurantee there is no way we would of actually gone in, or even if Iraq still has the means to bite back so to speak, just like North Korea, Iran and the Peoples Republic of China all have the means to fight back. North Korea as Jordy says creates a dangerous situation which would make us think 100 times before we took any military action, China would fear a revolution taking place as a knock on effect from the fall of North Korea which serves as a buffer from the affluent South Korea.

The US couldn't take NK though, in the past it would of no doubt upset the USSR and China, although it holds lesser relations with Russia, any war with NK would certainly upset the Chinese and possibily Russians. It'd be a proxy war all over again just like Vietnam (Which the US withdrew from...).

Iraq is different, Iraq didn't have a super-power behind it therefore it is 'bullying'.

Obama has the potential for great foreign policy, especially concerning Middle East peace but I'm yet to see any of this happening.

Exactly, if the PROC announced tommorow it was building an extra one hundred nuclear weapons i'm pretty sure we wouldn't take any military action because the fact is, we will not dare upset the chinese even though their system stands against everything in our system, more so than former-Ba'ath Iraq.

[nvrspk4]

That said the United States is still playing a hypocritical game, how can and how dare the United States ignore UN opinion, lie to the United Nations and then go and lecture countries such as North Korea on how the UN doesn't approve. France and Russia would probably of veto'd but it would of been a pointless effort as the United States and United Kingdom would vote against any French-Russian attempt to block the war.

I think accusing the US of lying is a misplaced accusation. In all his stupidity, Dubya did legitimately believe that Iraq had WMD, it was based on faulty intelligence and he should have known better, but from what we know about the situation so far it appears that Bush legitimately believed his claim. As I said, the UNSC and the UN general body are two completely different organs.

It is relavent though, when Baghdad was falling the Bush administration changed from WMD to how evil Saddam was and how he needed to be removed to "free the Iraqi people" - this was only said because Saddam had not used any WMD against the invading forces when his regime was falling, and no weapons of mass destruction had been found in places such as Basra and so on.

No what I'm saying is that when Bush went in saying we have to free the Iraqi people that was wrong, regardless of how good Saddam was compared to others, it is morally reprehensible to have the arrogance to believe that your way is better and to, for that reason, take over countries and implement your system. We'll be returning to the imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The question isn't terrorism as we know Saddam had no links with Al Queda, the question is how dangerous the country is, there is no such thing as a terrorist state, you can have a state supporting terrorism, namely Iran. The Peoples Republic of China demands the democratic country of Taiwan back and North Korea is developing nuclear weapons, it even says so publically. Iraq wasn't like that, UN inspectors concluded that all Iraqi attempts to create a WMD programme had been abandoned in the early 1990's.

Right, and there was an attempt to establish a danger and that failed, at that point the justification for war was moot.

It was a bullying game, no doubt in my mind. If Iraq did have WMD then I can gurantee there is no way we would of actually gone in, or even if Iraq still has the means to bite back so to speak, just like North Korea, Iran and the Peoples Republic of China all have the means to fight back. North Korea as Jordy says creates a dangerous situation which would make us think 100 times before we took any military action, China would fear a revolution taking place as a knock on effect from the fall of North Korea which serves as a buffer from the affluent South Korea.

That is not true at all, if Iraq had nukes there most probably would have been a preemptive strike against the nukes but I don't think there was the assumption that there were ready to fire nuclear missiles in place at the time of invasion. However I do believe Bush thought that there were WMDs even if there weren't necessary nuclear weapons. As of now we have no information to indicate the contrary and come on...the guy was an IDIOT.

If North Korea began a serious program, China would be forced into action, this has been played over many times before. The precdent of blocking US attempts to take action as NK starts large scale nuclear production would be a very dangerous precedent, because in retaliation the US might support capitalist allies in large upgrades of their nuclear programs (India, Pakistan, Israel, Canada, Turkey) putting the MAD balance in favor of capitalism. It would also mean less countries China would have the one-up militarily on and China, as with all other countries, is immensely considered with its power on the world stage.

Exactly, if the PROC announced tommorow it was building an extra one hundred nuclear weapons i'm pretty sure we wouldn't take any military action because the fact is, we will not dare upset the chinese even though their system stands against everything in our system, more so than former-Ba'ath Iraq.

Of course we would, with the number they have now they can kill most of us already anyway lol. Plus, the PRC is a nuclear nation, they have authorization to build as many nukes as they like.

[Jordy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ilan-g..._b_191832.html

I'm still yet to see either of them things happen or see the consequences of them.

[nvrspk4]

I'm still yet to see either of them things happen or see the consequences of them.

Either of what things happen?

[luce]

So we're still in Iraq but only to "keep peace" well i spose that's better then nothing although we should have never gone in in the first place it was only to pretect our dam oil.