Is War an inevitability

HaVoC

At the moment the UN security council is 50/50, but there's 4 or something like that member undecided these less well off countries may be sway by the American dollar effectively buying America permission to attack

But say America is defeated and the 2nd UN resolution is not passed. America and Britain says they are still going to go ahead so there is nothing the international community can do??

So war is Inevitable ??

This is the way it seems to me

shotamoose

What I like is that now the US and UK are saying that as soon as they're sure a second resolution won't get passed, they'll head off to war, so that France and co are in fact hastening the onset of war by threatening to veto. If only they would just cave in and sign up to Mr Blair's little list of conditions, war would be postponed for, oh about a week or so and be given a lot more legitimacy. What they don't seem to grasp is that this patronising gambit only annoys the 'No's and the 'Maybe's even more.

Yes, war seems to be inevitable, and it's been the implicit diplomatic mantra of the US and UK to emphasise this - after all, isn't it the height of unreasonable irrelevence to resist the inevitable? It follows that if the US decides tomorrow to blow up the moon and declares that it will do so regardless of whatever anyone else thinks, the United Nations will be harshly rebuked as an irrelevent talking shop if anyone there raises their voice in dissent.

Hobbes

America will, UK may not.

The Gopher

The war has now been held off so many times the US will be impatient to start it before the summer heat adversely affects their fighting strength and ability.I mean think how many false starts there has been-it was almost definite for late November,and the week approaching mid March the papers claimed the attack could start by the weekend.I dont even think the US will want to wait another week.The chances are,IMO anyway,that the war will start on St Patricks Day or very soon after it.If I were betting I would say that this time next week the war will be underway.It has been put off too many times now for the USA to postpone it again.It has indicated several times,in less blunt language,that it doesnt care what the UN votes for,that war will be declared anyway.They merely want it to be legitimised(sp?)legally,but there are legal questions as to whether this war will even be legal.The only thing that could possibly hold it up is the whole Turkish invasion point issue,but I think they will still declare war next week and sort out this problem as they go along.
Remember,ages ago the USA said it wanted a regime change in Iraq.If Saddam went on tv and was filmed blowing up all his stocks of weapons the US/UK would still claim he had more.The only way he himself can avoid war is by going into exile.He has said he will not but he has made similiar deifant statements in the past and then given in(the Al Samoud missiles for example)

But I think by next Friday at latest we will see war.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by shotamoose
What I like is that now the US and UK are saying that as soon as they're sure a second resolution won't get passed, they'll head off to war, so that France and co are in fact hastening the onset of war by threatening to veto. If only they would just cave in and sign up to Mr Blair's little list of conditions, war would be postponed for, oh about a week or so and be given a lot more legitimacy. What they don't seem to grasp is that this patronising gambit only annoys the 'No's and the 'Maybe's even more.

Yes, war seems to be inevitable, and it's been the implicit diplomatic mantra of the US and UK to emphasise this - after all, isn't it the height of unreasonable irrelevence to resist the inevitable? It follows that if the US decides tomorrow to blow up the moon and declares that it will do so regardless of whatever anyone else thinks, the United Nations will be harshly rebuked as an irrelevent talking shop if anyone there raises their voice in dissent.

It depends on what's meant by 'inevitable'. Wars that are really inevitable mostly occur as a result of a crisis laden chain of events that builds up the momentum of a runaway freight train. I think WWI and the Cuban Missile Crisis are two such examples. Situations like this are scary.

This war is nothing like that. There's a discernable 'push for war' and a desire for inevitability on the part of the aggressors. Whether it's inevitable or not is, in fact already decided - the political will of Bush and Blair have made it inevitable, but only insofar as they're trying to manufacture the above kind of inevitability.

If this is the case, then the war isn't inevitable at all - there's no actual threat currently posed by Saddam to the US or the stability of the Middle Eastern region. The war in itself will prompt instability and the eruption of other logics that, themselves, will cause inevitable conflicts.

The question shouldn't be "is war inevitable?" (because that implies an unresolvable crisis) It should be: "are Bush and Blair likely to change their minds?" My answer to that question is: not really, unless the UN, France and the British government can do something very smart to make it seem like political suicide to Bush and Blair.

There's a much more dangerous crisis emerging in North Korea. This whole Iraq thing is just America sending a telegram to Pyongyang, which is a very, very reckless thing indeed. As reckless as Kennedy's treatment of the Cuban Missile Crisis and look how close that got us to war.

Actually i disagree. This war is inevitable.

The US has shipped in the region of 300k troops and equipment to the Middle east. They're not going to withdraw them, since it would be a blow to National Pride, and to Morale of the troops in the field.

The US has been saying for the past few months, that they see the threat and will act upon it, even should the UN stand against them.

The US will Never be happy with what Iraq decommissions. It will always claim theres more.

Even should Saddam go into Exile, the US will want to invade, to prevent one of Saddam's followers from gaining power. They'll want to push the whole "Free & Democratic election under US supervision" gig.

The US are not about to let this go. Especially considering how much money they've spent on deployment of trrops, movement of carrier groups, and bribing of UN Members. It would be too expensive otherwise.

This war is going to happen, with or without UN consent. And it will happen within the next 5 weeks.

There's a much more dangerous crisis emerging in North Korea

More dangerous? Sorry but i never thought Iraq to be a current threat in the 1st place. As for N.Korea, nothing will happen, simply because N.K. will nuke/shell the crap out of S.K. should anything be tried.

Éomer of Rohan

This war is IMO inevitable so long as there exists a nation that is willing to have such a band of financially dubious cretins as its political elite with enough power to annihilate the world and enough financial and trading power to bribe those in its way rather than have to use the carrot and stick technique of the British Empire. For those of you new to this, I mean the US of course.

The UN is dubious in itself. Financially, it relies on the US, being based in New York to boot. Five nations have a permanent seat on the UNSC and the veto that this carries; one a morally bankrupt, corrupt, overly powerful nation, one a cesspit of collapsing capitalism, one the 'great new future' for capitalist exploitation, one the running dog of another and the last being France. While this organisation is based on military power dynamics, nothing of real meaning can ever be accomplished - thus war in general may always be inevitable, simply with the support of 'the international community' as represented by in effect 15 nations.

While this body is based on the nation state, with its private concerns, bias, corruptibility (see Turkey, Angola, China et al) and petty squabbling over issues such as who controls the world oil supply or whether or not it is in the interest of 'the world' to invade a second rate power who has not the cojones to threaten a fly after what happened the last time just because this power happens to be sitting on a huge supply of oil, then justice will never be done and the world will ever be at odds with itself.

Éomer of Rohan

There's a much more dangerous crisis emerging in North Korea

I cannot believe that people actually listen with concern to this rubbish that our media seems so concerned over. North Korea is not a danger to South Korea. North Korea is not a danger to Japan. North Korea is certainly not a danger to the United States of America; if they were going to do something, they had the opportunity when the ROK was on the verge of civil war...they didn't. So they have just developed nuclear weapons....excellent!! One more country that will refuse to be bullied militarily by the US - but remember that there are more ways than one to skin a cat and I just bet GWB and his fellow morons in charge are rubbing their hands with glee at the paranoia that seems to be sweeping the world and that will allow him and his cronies to resume Cold War posturing that will ultimately probably force the starvation of a million N Koreans before the stalinist regime of that country collapses.