sadam found living like bum, libya gives up bomb

just shows what being pro-active can do.

I couldn't agree with this statement more and the UN needs a standing force badly.

[Edited on Dec 23, 2003 by whiterabbit]

This is the same phenomenon we saw when the Berlin wall fell. Repressive governments (and I include repressive religious societies in this, as well) are like dominoes that will fall in succession when the foundation of their power (FEAR) is eroded by the realization of the masses that they have the power to control their own destiny. Planting the seeds of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, as difficult as that may be, will bear fruit well into the future.

Oh? Wesley Clark says the credit for Libya capitulating its WMD program should go to Clinton who laid the groundwork.

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=8193

WHAT A FUCKING DOUCHEBAG!

Yet Clark abandons this reasoning when it comes to 9/11. Did Clinton "lay the groundwork" with that as well? Oh no, no no no no. That was all Bush's fault barely 9 months into his presidency.

That's pretty good
I've always believed diplomacy is the preferable solution to any problem or situation, but there are times when diplomacy fails, and it has to be backed up by action. A threat of action isn't much of a threat if one person believes or knows the other person won't back up what they've said.
I know the recent war in Iraq wasn't popular with many people, but it certainly seems to have had some positive results.
Spike

George.

Then going by Mr Berlusconi's plans, they'll be made to comply with UN mandates, by force if necessary.
If somone like Colonel Gadaffi can be scared into line through this kind of action, maybe it's a sign that action like this should've been taken some time ago, and should be taken again in the future if the need arises.
Spike

-if woody would've gone to the police, this never would've happened...

That only happens when you appease them in the first place. For example, the Agreed Framework.

I'm not going to claim Bush or those in his administration knew this was going to happen when they invaded Iraq, but the possibility certainly had to cross their minds when choosing a target. Now, N. Korea has to examples to learn from; Iraq and Libya. The choice he makes will dictate the course we take.

However, I wouldn't be surprise if Syria gets hit next.

It certainly is.

He didn't mention nuclear powers specifically, so I'd suggest such plans/warnings would only apply to countries that are using those weapons in a threatening manner.

I'd suspect that those dictatorships will lose their seats on the council, but I don't know how possible that is. Can countries get kicked out of the UN?

I wouldn't really like to say as I'm not going to be the one writing the new policies. Maybe it will be something voted on, maybe it will be something like Gulf War II: Certain countries will take action without direct UN approval knowing that the outcome will be welcomed by the International Community.

Shamefull as it is to admit, seeing as some of my ancestors must've come from there, I don't know much about Israel beyond there's a dispute over land, lots of suicide bombings, and too much suffering.

If it's a common enemy, surely countries should unite against them, again, like Gulf War II, the forces that went into Iraq did so without UN approval, but have toppled a truly dispicable tyrant and brought freedom to the country. Things may still be far from ideal there, but progress has definitely been made, and can only be increased upon.

Maybe. I prefer to look at it as a way of telling dictatorships and hostile regions that their shit isn't going to be tollerated anymore, and they either fall in line with the rest of the world, or face the consequences.

Sorry to've been so fragmented, I wasn't trying to nit-pick, I just wanted to answer you as accurately as possible

Spike

It's also a communist country, but that's about all I can tell you about China. Is China a member of the UN? And are they hostile to any countries, or just their own people? I really don't know, so I couldn't say how they should be treated by the International Community. Yes, things are certainly far from ideal there, but if they're only abusive towards their own people and don't have plans for global terrorism, that may be why they're lower down on people's list of targets to 'take down'. I think it may be a case of "Okay, they could seriously fuck us up if they want to, but all the time they don't, we'll turn a blind eye." Far from ideal, but possibly what's happening there.

Ah, I follow you now, thanks clarifying
At the risk of being naive, I don't think those dictatorships would unite against the UN, as they're all too interested and involved in their own petty plans. Kinda like Al-Queda and Saddam. Both hate the US, but that doesn't mean they're working together. The old maxim "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't really work with dictators/regimes like those as they're just looking out for themselves. If they were to unite, then yeah, the shit would definitely hit the fan and things would get very nasty very quickly, but as I say, people/regimes like that don't tend to unite with each other due to their various and many ideologies and goals.
Spike

The hard part about playing 'chicken' is knowing when to flinch - The Hunt for Red October

Unless their names are Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo

Damn historical precedents...
I'm not too sure about Tojo (who is/was that), but didn't those other two guys get their asses whooped?
I think I read somewhere the other day about Mussolini getting lynched in the streets. Not sure about that though. I only took history at school to get out of geography
Maybe I can re-phrase that contemporary dictators don't seem the kind to unite
Spike

go read: Tojo

I love how this guy is taking part in a political debate. A for honesty, I suppose.

Interesting reading. From that bio, his views seem quite similar to Berlusconi's, ie take action first. If Japan had won the war, he'd probably have been a national hero rather than a war criminal.
Spike

Well as this is indeed a political debate, not a history lesson, how relevent is that?
Of course I'm honest, I'm not going to pretend to be some history buff if I'm going to be called out on it am I.
What we're debating here are current events and our feelings/thoughts about them, not showing off our report cards and grades, so my opinions are just as valid as any others.
Spike

well, except for the whole 'take over the world' thing, yeah.

most military people are advocates of taking pre-emptive action. It usually means less fighting in the long run, which saves lives provided war is the only course of action left. Tojo's mistake was in not doing a thorough job in Pearl Harbor. The attack missed their primary targets (aircraft carriers) and left some major tatical targets intact (airfields, dry docks, admin buildings) which came back to bite him in the ass 3 years later.

If all the objectives had been hit, the west coast would have been one long bomb run for years. He might have even won the war on his front.

Berlusconi isn't looking for world domination, just world democracy.

A great man once said that those who do not know the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. A working knowledge of 20th Century history often comes in handy, especially in the arena of political debate. You may want to brush up and stop being so feisty.

Can that status not be revoked? Could they withdraw from the UN if they wanted to?

Maybe it's time something was done about them then. As I mentioned above, China is indeed a formidable nation, and they are clearly adversarial, but perhaps they've been ignored thus far because they're only going for local nations, not major western countries like Germany, France or the US, so no one wants to piss them off for fear of a very possible ass whooping if they were to take steps against them.
Spike