MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Cannon fodder is one of those expressions I don't care for when addressing warriors.
Maybe not but essentially thats what you are asking the UN to provide ie troops to replace US troops in order to reduce US losses to make things more palatable at home, now given that a majority of the UN member nations did not support the invasion of Iraq (for right or wrong I don't see the need to rehash that debate) and those that did have already provided military support why on earth would you expect the UN to get involved any more than they have especially when they were attacked on both ocassions they did get involved.
Man, all I can do is present the facts and reference them, what you choose to do with them is strictly up to you.
And I agree with you however I would strongly suggest that you read the list of resolutions and take out all the ones that that expired after GW1 such as:
UNSCR 678
UNSCR 686
Then remove all the ones that we now know they complied with even though "intelligence" said otherwise:
UNSCR 687 (with the exception of I think it was the Al Samoud II rocket but could be wrong)
UNSCR 707
UNSCR 715
UNSCR 1441
Then remove all the ones that when looked at objectively Iraq did meet but couldn't prove because no one believed them however two years of occupation has proved they met:
UNSCR 707
UNSCR 715
UNSCR 1051
UNSCR 1060
UNSCR 1115
UNSCR 1134
UNSCR 1154
UNSCR 1205
And what are you left with:
UNSCR 688 (Seems an adequate request but hardly earth shattering, however this was with the benefit of hindsight the only genuine justification to invade, its really a pity it only showed up as an after thought once the invasion was over and all the other "reasons" were found wanting.)
UNSCR 949 (umm well ok)
UNSCR 1194 (well given that Iraq believed it had complied with these resolutions and disposed of its "illegal" weapons and with the benefit of hindsight it appears they had this is a rather pointless resolution)
UNSCR 1284 (Again doesn't say anything overly useful)
Now in many of these cases I have used the term "with the benefit of hindsight" which some may consider a poor argument but the reality is that with the benefit of reliable accurate and unbiased intelligence in the first place this war could and more than likely would ave been avoided and countless thousands of people would still be alive, Iraq wouldn't be a mecca for terrorists and the US/UK/UN's international reputation would not have been flushed down the crapper.
So with all the negatives out of the way is it a bad thing Hussein is history no its not he was a dangerous guy who sorely needed a few grams of lead behind the ear to balance him up but thats just my opinion, you will also notice that Afghanistan is not mentioned here as I believe that was an example of a perfectly justifiable action that has been until now well carried out.
By the way, I can't glean a lot of information from your profile. It would sure help in considering your ideas on various subjects.
I don't put a lot of info into my profile simply because messageboards are impersonal places and I don't judge people on their past, present or future only on their posts and I expect the same treatment and consideration and to be perfectly honest I get somewhat negative when I read posts from people saying things like "I am not going to take advice from 16 year old cadet or 20 year old accountant or whatever" because age and experiences do not preclude a person from being right or wrong.
However if you wish to know more about my personal info I am more than happy to discuss it via PM as I don't consider it secret just irrelevant.