who will be the next Iraq?

[Doomgaze]

Most likely - Iran
Hopefully - Sudan
Long shot - North Korea
Worst Case Scenario - Defense of Taiwan

[Big D]

[q=War Angel]and who cares about the UN, or what they say?[/q]Well, if you count that the UN represents every world state except Southwest Africa and the Vatican, and that they've been responsible for most major treaties of the last half-century, and that the US wants their approval for all their wars... it kinda matters. The UN is the forum in which the global community makes its collective calls.
Only problem is that it functions on the principles of international law and non-violent intervention, except where necessary, so it's anathema to the US government's desire to commit, without challenge, acts of aggression while denying the sovereignty of other states.
(Incidentally, the state of Israel only exists because of the UN.) [q=Doomgaze]Hopefully - Sudan
[/q]What the Sudan needs is peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid. Bombing the place to hell will just lead to an even bigger humanitarian crisis. The world's already taking an active role there, and the UN's pushing for peacekeepers and aid agencies to be deployed. :rolleyes2 Stupid UN, wanting to keep people alive instead of bombing power infrastructureand replacing their government.[q=War Angel]Suffering is a by-product of justice - and that's all I'll say.[/q]So... if an infant is killed when its home is mistakenly bombed, that's "justice"? Ah well, I guess that if the child was an Arab then it must've been evil by default, thus deserving whatever "justice" it gets... [q=War Angel]It's not like that, and you know it. The USA is currently the strongest nation in the world, and as such, acts as its guardian. That means taking out threats to peace, such North Korea.
[/q]And what makes them a "threat to peace"? Their disagreement with the US. Basically, anyone who doesn't submit to the US's demands is a threat to peace.

With Afghanistan, and then Iraq, not to mention the several of the other interventions in recent history, we have been showing that the US's justifications for going to war have become progressively more flimsy, less substantial. It won't be too long before any excuse will do, or none at all - "we invaded because they have an anti-American system of government" or something similar. That is what the world is afraid of, and that is why it is for the good of the world that the US's rogue militaristic antics be stopped. International law binds the US as much as it does anyone else; fortunately, the rest of the world is strong enough to resist the US's demands to aid in criminal acts. The EU, PRC and other major world powers can - and are less reluctant than ever to be critical of illegal campaigns, and to refuse to take a hand in them. It won't be too long before the US's list of allies is so short that they are forced to either comply with the laws and treaties their rulers claim to hold dear, or to continue acting alone as the world's biggest "rogue state".[q=War Angel]Neither one does it now. And no, terrorism is not a subjective term, it's a very defined and objective term, used in reference a very specific kind of action.[/q]"Terrorism" varies in its definition. It doesn't even have a clear definintion at international law. Is it the act of a politicised group, a government-recognised organisation, rogue individuals? Destruction of property, murder of innocents, threats to do those things? At home or abroad? There's still no clear definition, even at international law. I'm sure the CIA never calls the Nicaraguan paramilitary activities "terrorism", even after two decades. I doubt the Frech government would claim responsibiltity for the "terrorist" bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, either. A "Terrorist" becomes a "freedom fighter" as soon as they start working for a cause that someone agrees with; thos who support their cause call them freedom fighters, while others consider them terrorists. While the latter is probably true in all cases, the "world powers" will never call their allies or pet causes "terrorists".

[Doomgaze]

Oh, um. That's what I meant. I was thinking more "next place to deploy troops," not "next place for a royal cockup"

[Big D]

Good point. The international forces are starting to trickle into the Sudan, but the situation's still too volatile for much to happen without more numbers and a more co-ordinated effort. The US's participation in an international effort would be very valuable. As long as the action takes place as a result of international consensus, the potential for disaster can hopefully be minimised.

[escobert]

What exactly's goign on in Sudan? Sorry I'm horrible on kieeping up with things

[Big D]

Massive humanitarian crisis is brewing.
All the usual causes - ethnic violence, mainly. Thousands dead for having the wrong religion/skin colour; a vast number of refugees camped out in the desert in squalid conditions. The refugees are short on water and sanitation; the international effort will be focussed on securing the necessities of life for these people. However, a large peacekeeping contingent will also be needed to protect the aid convoyes, and to suppress any further bloodshed.

[escobert]

Ok I've got a question. If say only the US had gone in and taken out the "bad" peopel or whatever and helped those in trouble would the rest of the world be pissed? My guess is yes.

[Big D]

"Taking out the bad people" is quite an over-simplification. Just killing every visible militant would accomplish nothing; the underlying sentiments would remain, and the weapons. Also, we're talking about large numbers of people spread over a very wide area, merged in with the general population. US-style combat would kill more innocents than guilty.
Besides, there are better solutions to problems than merely killing everyone with a different viewpoint. A long-term commitment of peacekeepers will be needed; it'll be their job to protect the innocent (not just kill anyone they think is a militant) while restoring order and peace to the affected areas, ensuring that schools and hospitals are kept running, making sure funds go to those in need. Kind of like the UN operations in East Timor or the Balkans, but on a much larger scale. A gung-ho, shoot-em-up killing spree won't solve anything though.

[aeris2001x2]

if they did that in Sudan, no i personally would not be pissed. it would be USA on the road to redemption for her past crimes.

its never going to happen though. there is no economic worth in such things...

EDIT- reading Big D's post now...ok scratch my last point. Big D is right once again(becoming a bad habit )

[escobert]

I wasn't saying just a gung-ho killing spree and I agree that they should try to keep the lives of the population as normal as possible. My point is that the "invasion" of Iraq will help many people in country. I mean look at the soccer team, when they would loose a big game Sadams son would torture players and kill some of them. The regime needed to be taken out. I don't think the bombing was exactly the best way by anymeans but it did the job with few to no American lives lost. I think and I feel most people would agree the Iraqis as a whole will be a lot better without them there.

[Big D]

The US is one of the biggest members of the UN; if and when the UN commits to intervention in the Sudan, the US will undoubtedly be at the forefront.
France has already begun sending troops from its bases in Chad to help with the distribution of aid supplies.[q=Escobar]I think and I feel most people would agree the Iraqis as a whole will be a lot better without them there.[/q]Few would disagree that the Hussein regime needed to be brought to justice for its atrocities; but one crime is not the best way to punish another. Illegal vigilante acts aren't always the best solution, especially when 10,000 or so Iraqi civilians are killed in the process. There are so many things that are fundamentally wrong with the history and implementation of the US's intervention in Iraq, that the positive outcomes are easily overshadowed at times.

[aeris2001x2]

and when u see the Iraqi tortue pictures, it shows USA are not the *moral crusaders liberating Iraq* but a corrupt regime as bad as Sadam.

[escobert]

And that's why those people are in big trouble and there's an investigation on the matter where as the Husseins promoted torture.

[aeris2001x2]

except it most certainly goes right up the chain of command. reminds me of the Racism rife in VietNam. except its covert now.

Its not a few bad eggs. its corruption at the heart of the army.

[escobert]

And every army on earth is perfect?