oh don't get me wrong im here to engage in the act of spreading new ideas and information - not put you in your place to feel like i "know everything"

-yes the u.n. should be held accountable..just like for iraq too. but they werent were they? so will it be the un's job to declare a preemptive strike on iran too?

__________________
Do not let your intelligence corrupt your wisdom.

way to avoid everything. You ask the hard question of bush but when the hard question gets asked about your preciouse UN then oh it's pepperoni pizza time.

ok. so when bolton and negroponte forced the us war on iraq who did they report to...the u.n. so when the u.n. said ehh..we don't know...we have - "official intelligence" as mr bush stated.

my point i was getting @ is how can my conjecturing become persuasive for grounds for real answers when this administration has been elusive to answering real questions with real answers. PLUS people of more social "significance" have allready raised disputes opinionating the same ill-disposedness on this matter before this post was even submitted.

__________________
Do not let your intelligence corrupt your wisdom.

I say the UN's job is to do something about Darfur (where does all that funding go? - US committment is 22%). You are not the first one to say that the US should deal with this problem and then give the UN a free pass. The UN is supposed to be above politics (but we know it is not), and it is pure politics why they don't stop a situation which, again, the US has called a genocide. The UN won't go that far in labeling this a genocide. I don't suppose there is any money to be made by UN officials in Sudan, so maybe that is why they are not there. The UN has, through its IAEA, called for inspections in Iran which Iran has evaded to an extent. I think it is the UN's job to ifollow through with inspections if they say they are - how can they really be taken serious if they don't. The UN is a paper tiger. If it is up to the UN then Iran has absolutely nothing to worry about, nor does anyone else the UN comes down on. The Security Council, among other things, makes them worthless.

hmm.
well all i can say is that they will have a bomb in a few...and if israel is our ally and they are calling for destruction of that state...what do you think will happen within the next year or so?

-personally i feel that iraq was used as a ploy to add turbulence to this end result that its concluding in as of now...what war are we trying to "win"
-if we keep thinking in those terms we will try to "win" the war on terrorism and that will be as long as the jews have control of territories once held by the palestinians..

__________________
Do not let your intelligence corrupt your wisdom.

Over 50% of the Jews in Israel are from ME countries such as Egypt, Iran, Morocco, et al. They are from the ME also. As far as them calling for the destruction of Israel . . . they have doing that for quite a long time now. I believe that Jordan actually recognized Israel's right to exist, which is a step.

Don't know what will happen if Iran gets a nuke, but even if they do, supposedly Israel has 400 of them. It is doubtful that a actual nation would use a nuclear weapon as they would cease to be a nation if they did. What is more worrisome is that some group or organization gets a hold of soemthing like this. Even then, I am pretty sure that you can tell where the nuke was made - which would result in the same thing.

lol.. thee end.

damn shame but i think thats what its coming to.

__________________
Do not let your intelligence corrupt your wisdom.

The UN hasn't had the opportunity to smack the president of Sudan with 12 years of worthless sanctions which are a prerequisite for even threatening harsh (not to be confused with military) action these days.

Preemptive strike-attack those whom you believe will attack you.
Would that mean North Korea and Iran have the right to attack us. Statements by U.S.government officials ,I believe, could be percieved by those countries that we might possibly be planning toattack them.

That would be pretty foolish of them, and I doubt that either one of them will be able to pull something like that off in the near future. Not to mention, a United States united by an attack is much more dangerous than a United States which is divided.