Looks like we will be declaring WAR!

Bush is talking tonight at 8pm. The UN is pulling out all inspectors and humanitary workers. Saddam must leave Iraq or else we will attack- CNN is reporting. That seems even more dangerous. Then we have NO idea where the psycho is. But I am sure the worst of the worst will find him and plan even worse things against the US.

We are going against the UN and thus, pretty much saying that the US could care less what the UN wants. So what happens when another country says they don't care about the UN says. Does that mean that UN is just a building? I think so. Bascially that means North Korea can attack any country they pick. The UN cannot say that N. Korea went against the UN, because we are doing the same thing!

It is a sad day today.

No wonder the cops are alll over Grand Central..

It took me 10 mins to get across the Street there....

i find this all very sad and scary. as someone who works next door to the WTC site and whose office directly faces the WTC site, i can certainly understand us going after the terrorists, no matter where they are.

as for going against the UN - that's a tough one. should we risk more american casualties on US soil as the UN debates their own rules?? saddam was given a certain amount of time to disarm and he hasn't. the UN is choosing not to enforce its own rules. end of story IMO!! as for the french and germans not backing us - i wonder if they would feel the same way if something the magnitude of 9/11 happened on their soil. still - sending in innocent men & women to fight on foreign soil isn't something that should be done lightly. it's all very scary and confusing.

This is my feeling I think he has to act with or w/o the UN b/c of all he has been saying before hand. If he doesn't then other countries are going to look at him as a bluffer. I hope our men and women in the military will be ok.

Karen, & Shamma

Sad but true, this is what it comes down to if he doesn't act, it will look as though he was bluffing all the time.

However, what Pi$$e$ me off is all these people that protest with signs saying No War for Oil. Hello it's not about the d@mn oil, it's about nuclear arms and weapons

I agree that we have to make this move even w/o the support of some of the ALLIED nations. So much for a UN that actually has some authority. I also agree that if this were happening to France or Germany ... they'd want our support, our troops AND our MONEY!!

all I can say is

I wish we had a mind set of pre-9/11, now our ever other thought it terrorism. I wonder how the people in Israel keep going every day That is what you call resilient. I would never like to live somewhere that the acts of terrorism has become 2nd nature that we just accept it.

France's motives are strictly selfish. Who supplies their oil? IRAQ! Who does a little under the table selling of weapons to IRAQ? FRANCE. I've personally started boycotting French imported products in my home, because how many times has the U.S. helped their a$$es out of the fire? Pleasee!!!

Let's all pray for our troops! They are going to need our prayers I'm afraid...

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES!

MichelleW, I think what those people are saying is that Bush, and his family, and Cheney all have great investments and interest in the Oil industry and that this is the reason they want Saddam out, not only b/c of the weapons.

I am curious how some of the UN countries that are not backing us would react if they had a 9/11 and we did not support them. It's very sad indeed.

It's true that all we can do is hope and pray for our military and our world leaders, not to mention the people of Iraq who will also suffer a great deal.

shelzy, i don't understand either, because I think one of the things that is unclear is whether or not it is illegal for us to go to war without UN backing. Some members say it is and other say it isn't

I am just scared what is going to happen if we go to war. The economy, other landmarks, our subways, bridges, tunnels, etc...

I found out that doctor who has that pnemonia (sp?) was in FI's terminal. He walked 2 checkpoints from FI. Someone had to check this mans bag. Was it FI?? I dont know. It could have been the guy standing next to him...

That petrifies me.

Now a country at war, I'll never be able to sleep at night until I know he is home safe.

IMO, the UN has always been a thinly guised way for the US to act out its agenda under the pretenses of 'world support'. Now that we have one of the veto powers acting against us, we will just go ahead without them. Even if we had their support, it would be mostly our money, troops, strategy anyway - just as it has always been.

I have to disagree with you guys...

I think the United Nations is EXTREMELY important for world peace...

for shelzyp:
the UN is set up in 1945 (Roosevelt, Stalina and Churchill all agreed) with a general assembly (all member nations can discuss and recommend issues to the security council)...the security council was set up to be the 'decision maker' of the UN...as it would be very difficult to make decisions with all the members there are only certain nations in the security council...there are permanant members (US, UK, France, China, Russia/USSR - these are the allies and victors of WWII - and since they did not want to make another mistake like the Treaty of Versailles (ended WWI) they rewarded themselves...rather than punishing Germany and Japan. Each of these nations has 'veto' power...so they must all agree or a nation can abstain) and (now) 9 other temporary members (2 year terms) this is where Spain, Bulgaria, etc come in...


After WWI, there was a similar organization (the League of Nations)...however since the US and USSR never signed the horrific treaty..they weren't a part...and the League was very weak...they couldn't do anything when Japan invaded Manchuria/China...when Italy invaded Ethiopia...when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia...hence WWII...

therefore there are two ways to look at this...the UN will have no power if it doesn't stand up for its decisions (something the League couldn't do)...or Bush could say...if the UN doesn't stand up...then someone else should...to prevent another Hitler...


IMHO...I think it should be the UN...


as for NATO...North Atlantic Treaty Organization was set as an alliance to protect the countries of Western Europe, US and Canada from Soviet aggression (they counteracted with the Warsaw Pact) the only thing NATO is there for is if any one of these nations are attacked...the others will help them out...

whether the UN has been working for the US...I'd disagree with that...the Korean War was a clusterF, b/c Taiwan was considered China and the Soviets didn't use their veto...

but if you look at other conflicts...Vietnam, Bosnia...the UN did not cooperate with the US...

I think as the power in the world shifts from Europe/US to Asia and Africa...we will see more and more opposition to the UN...its only a matter of time until its demise...Bush is just accelerating it IMO...


Hope I wasn't too long winded..