Bush's Empty threats

The UN has no military with which to threaten military action. The best the UN could do would be to make economic threats and even those were empty of any consequence. Just as they have been with Iran and N. Korea.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
threat (thrt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "threat" [P]
n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

tired of the UN's empty threats and acted.

Brandon, when exactly has the UN threatened Iraq with military action and not acted upon the threat?

Please provide a link.

Never. They make vague empty threats of serious consequences. For instance, in 1993:

Quote:

The council declared that Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. on the weapons issues "constitutes a material and unacceptable breach" of the gulf war cease-fire terms and it warned of "serious consequences" if Baghdad does not comply.

No, it's an addition to the constant stream of misreprentations

Source

Good. So for twelve years the UN has never threatened Iraq with military action, and that's why Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003. Is that a correct representation of your point of view?

McGentrix
The UN has the power to request military action be taken by it's member states. While it's member states do not have the right to institute military action on their own in support of the UN.

Countries do not have the inherent right to preemptively attack other countries outside of the UN mandate, sorry. They only have the ability to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Semantics - a defense is not necessarily an attack and vice versa.

Bush attacked Iraq; it was not a defensive manoeuver since Iraq had done nothing to provoke the U.S. However, if Iraq had filed missiles at the US, it would have been.

There isn't any real evidence that Iraq was threatening the US in any way. Even the advent of advanced weaponry isn't a justification for attacking a foreign country; it would be like saying that we are justified in attacking France, because they might someday use WMD against us. Ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

No, what you have is the ability to twist facts to fit your case.

The UN didn't threaten N. Korea with anything. They asked N. Korea to cease hostilities and when they didn't, member nations were asked to drive the N. Koreans back north.

Maybe this will help.

Quote:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
threat (thrt) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "threat" [P]
n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

Iraq was threatened by the UN for example.

The best the UN could do would be to make economic threats

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that this 'evil, imperialistic madman' had the capability to harm us, at all. There was no evidence that he could harm us, at all. Even posessing WMD wouldn't give them a shot at taking the US down. Your argument falls flat in the face of that old demon of yours, evidence.

You try to change the meaning of the word 'defense.' You don't premptively defend yourself; you decide to go on the offensive. To say that an attack of another country without provocation is 'pre-emptive defense' is the height of idiotic semantics.

Cycloptichorn

An evil madman, fond of annexing neighbors, with an arsenal of weapons so powerful that one use of one could kill hundreds of thousands of people would indeed represent a danger. It's foolish to let a muderer have a submachine gun, and take action only after he's killed more people with it.