Disarmament Was Working...

[Michael Griffiths]

So Michael, you don't find it interesting that Iraqi troops are being supplied with chemical weapons, the very weapons they said they destroyed in 1991? That doesn't give you any pause for thought?

I'm not disagreeing that Saddam is defiant and a lyer. Of course he is! I just don't think this initiative was put forth in the right manner. Again, there was not enough diplomacy put forth for more world support of a strike, and the wrong reasons were given for such a strike. That's simply my opinion, but I'm not alone. Most of the world agrees. This war wasn't provoked as much as it was sought out. 911 has not been shown to be tied to Iraq. I fear that much of the public support -- which as you say has come from countries that have suffered through terrorism -- has come from the premise that Iraq and Al Quada are somehow tied. Ask yourself this question: if the events of 911 had not happened, would public support be as high for a military strike in Iraq at this time? That's a tough question, but it has to be asked. To me, the Bush administration used those events as a tool to further their cause. I think loss of human life should never be used as propoganda. (Propoganda meaning using suspicion to formulate something that is disguised to sound factual, and then using that disguise to further a cause.) I find such manipulation insulting to all those who died that day, and if I were a family member I would either buy into the "revenge" aspect, or I would be even more insulted. Regardless of whether that manipulation was the administration's intention, that's how it comes across to many outside of America.

 

[Angel]

Well, I think he has to balance his principles with his politics in that even if he is opposed to the Iraqi invasion (for whatever reasons, let's just say), he would still have to find the middle ground to utilize Canada's relationship with the US. I think Canada should be supportive of something only if we agree. According to recent polls, 75% of Canadians are against military action without the support of the UN. So, if you look at it that way, he's representing the public view in this case. Also, he's not doing so simply to get re-elected: he has already stated he's not running again. He's stepping down at the end of his term. Paul Martin, among others, are in the running for his replacement.

I think Cretien and Canada as a whole are here to support the US and other nations in a humanitarian respect. We will be there to help clean up damage, to help feed and clothe. I don't think we can support the way the war was carried through, but now that it has happened, we will be fully cooperative, I'm sure.

I'll debate with you anyday, you fight clean! Nice chatting with you.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Yet Chirac still says we can't prove that they have them? THey aren't a threat? Good lord people are ridiculous.

Even they have all that you enumerated, Iraq is not a threat to the US. Despite all VX unaccounted, missiles and so forth. What is laughable is the range of those missiles.
After all Israel HAS nuclear weapons and far better delivery vehicles.

 

[ALEXRUS]

I'm not disagreeing that Saddam is defiant and a lyer. Of course he is! I just don't think this initiative was put forth in the right manner. Again, there was not enough diplomacy put forth for more world support of a strike, and the wrong reasons were given for such a strike. That's simply my opinion, but I'm not alone.

You are definitely not, Michael.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.

Absolutely.

 

[U2girl]

35 countries? Well, some of them are small countries and not really military relevant, and I bet a lot of them will do things like provide air space or help with humanitarian aid after the war is over, not actually fight.

As for Slovenia...first our foreign minister signed the Vilnius statement - he claimed our state supports a solution within UN, and later we signed an EU document stating just that. You could say we're trying not to piss off anyone.
Why the Vilnius statement was signed I'll never know. It clearly said it agrees with US arguments (that part was done even before Powell started his presentation in the UN!), and that it supports "any means necessary to disarm Iraq". (that includes war, right?)

Our Prime Minister said today Slovenia is not a part of the coalition ("there is no need to be a part of a coalition and we don't think it's necessary to join one" he said), as did our President. ("taking sides is not good in diplomacy" he said)
No one said anything about officially denying anything though.
Public here is against war, too.

 

[womanfish]

Even they have all that you enumerated, Iraq is not a threat to the US. Despite all VX unaccounted, missiles and so forth. What is laughable is the range of those missiles.
After all Israel HAS nuclear weapons and far better delivery vehicles.

Uh, first of all, no one would guess that Afghanastan would be a threat to the U.S. either. They don't have missles that can reach us.

It's not only about what Saddam has right now (although what he does have is illegal according to U.N. resolutions) It's what he is working on and will have if he is not stopped. His own bomb-makers, or I guess ex-bomb-makers, have said that he will have nuclear capability within 2 years, and the ability to deliver them almost anywhere. And it's not just about attacking the U.S. - He has already attacked several countries right next door to him, and yes, he's even attacked his own country!!

Now onto your second statement - Do you believe that Israel is a threat to the United States? Study politics much?

 

[womanfish]

Ok, Michael G. I will give you this.

Do I think that the motives of the U.S. and UK are pure - No. But I do think getting rid of Saddam and the weapons he is creating is a good thing in the short and long term.

I also think that the motives and timing are suspect, but resolution 1441 was passed in November and that's pretty much what kicked this whole thing off. I suspect that it passed unanamously in the U.N. because everyone figured that it was just another useless warning to Saddam that he won't comply with and that the U.N. won't follow through with just as had happened with the first 15 resolutions. But this time the U.S., U.K., Spain and Australia figured that it was about time that the U.N. did make sure that Saddam complied. Many of the other countries then backed off of what they had initially agreed to do as members of the U.N.

This is being made out to be the fault of the U.S., U.K., Spain, etc... but in actuality all could have been avoided if Iraq would have complied OR if all the countries in the U.N. would have stood up and made a united front against Iraq. In both of those instances I feel war may have been avoided. So I put the blame on Iraq and the countries that backed out of their initial commitment that they signed onto.

And yes Michael, I too like debating with you. You are a fair fighter.

 

[kobayashi]

This is being made out to be the fault of the U.S., U.K., Spain, etc... but in actuality all could have been avoided if Iraq would have complied OR if all the countries in the U.N. would have stood up and made a united front against Iraq. In both of those instances I feel war may have been avoided. So I put the blame on Iraq and the countries that backed out of their initial commitment that they signed onto.

that is one way to frame the argument.

but it could also be argued that regime change has been the goal of the american's all along. since saddam isn't going anywhere by choice a war of some kind would be neccessary. with a war impending then, saddam is not going to disarm.

 

[U2girl]

Uh, first of all, no one would guess that Afghanastan would be a threat to the U.S. either. They don't have missles that can reach us.

It's not only about what Saddam has right now (although what he does have is illegal according to U.N. resolutions) It's what he is working on and will have if he is not stopped. His own bomb-makers, or I guess ex-bomb-makers, have said that he will have nuclear capability within 2 years, and the ability to deliver them almost anywhere. And it's not just about attacking the U.S. - He has already attacked several countries right next door to him, and yes, he's even attacked his own country!!

Now onto your second statement - Do you believe that Israel is a threat to the United States? Study politics much?

Technically, the threat was Al Kaeda organisation, not Afghanistan as a state.
It could also be argued that the vast differences between the rich and the poor and current administration's attitude (in general and regarding the Palestine issue) don't help in providing the extremists with rage.

People say "if we didn't attack, others might get the weapons". Lots of countries have chemical or biological weapons, and several that have nuclear - why would someone try to get it from a country closely watched by the international community, with inspectors in it? Along with that, Bin Laden critisized Hussein several times, plus Hussein banned his religion in Iraq.
(not to mention military force does not help against fanatics - it didn't help in Middle East or in N. Ireland, and I don't see why it would work now. Intelligence data exchange, confiscating money/blocking accounts and police work are better IMO)

They say "Iraq has WMD and breeched UN violations". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel did exact the same thing yet nothing happens to them (US would be a lot credible if it had helped Palestinian set up their state). N. Korea has proven nuclear facilities and is said to be willing to sell rockets to anyone - and actually has rockets that can hit US coast - yet nothing significant happened there, except US sent spy planes back and put some more military forces in the area. (to which the Korean leadership has put very negative response)

They say "Iraq hat to do with 911" yet this has not been officially proven. I think that when deciding for a war, you better have proof for it.

 

[Danospano]

At the end of each day there will be only one truth: Dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of people will die. Iraqi PEOPLE, American PEOPLE, British PEOPLE, Australian PEOPLE....

And for what?

Why did they NEED to die?

Who's profiting from this war?

Why are they profiting from this war?



Elvis Costello....

"As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin' for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
There's one thing I wanna know:
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?


So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away, just makes me wanna cry.
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding? Ohhhh
What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Angel and Womanfish:

Thanks for saying such nice things about me. You are both very fair people, too. I thought I was going to get massacred for stating my last opinion. (I commend you for choosing not to massacre me ) I think the main thing now is to go with the flow, even for those who are against the war (and whatever that entails), because criticism of that which has already taken place will not help anyone from here on in. We must deal with what we have in the here and now in order to deliver our voices toward the best possible outcome (and that can mean criticism too). I just hope we have the least amount of casualties as possible, and that somehow the required diplomatic processes occur in the aftermath to maintain some kind of stability in the Middle East and even Asia.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action.

That is the only reason it was working. And why should the United States have to bear the brunt of the costs. I am not just refering to the monitary costs of having our forces move there.

The fact is that the actions of Saddam Hussein, have led us to keep a military presence in the region which in turn has brought about multiple terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda on my country.

The fact is that when steps had been taken in the past to try and make containment work, FRANCE, RUSSIA, and CHINA would block it. The Gulf Region States too, failed to help.

The fact is the President armed with the consent of congress was able to show the UN we meant business and led to 1441. If the President had not called the UN on their lack of inaction for 12 years there would have been further inaction and more dead civilians in Iraq because of the Veto powers of nations that would rather take advantage of the FOOD for OIL program than actually do something about the problem.

The fact is that the number of dead in 12 years is more than 12 times the numbers of people that died in the Gulf War. The only difference is that all of the deaths on the UN's head for twelve years are civilian as opposed to the 5,000 civilian deaths in the Gulf War.


That is the crime! The math does not lie! 30,000 Military 5,000 Civilians. Since Sanctions......30,000-60,000 Civilians a year for twelve years!!!!!!!!! How much longer is it acceptable to let him jerk us around????

The one and ONLY reason he started to comply is that he thought he could avert this war. When I say started, I want to point out that he was not fully complying. Start with the report from the Iraqis at the start of all of this which was full of lies.

When people sing the praises of inspections working I laugh.
Maybe if the UN meaning all of the countries on the security council had sent a force to the Gulf to help make it look like there would be consequences instead of leaving the United States and it's allies to do it alone I would not be so skeptical of the nations on the Security Council. Instead, the UNited States and its Allies have been paying the price without any help from the UN.

Not once did I hear the security council offer help with the build-up since it was evident that the military presence that made it work to the extent that it did.

 

[womanfish]

Technically, the threat was Al Kaeda organisation, not Afghanistan as a state.
It could also be argued that the vast differences between the rich and the poor and current administration's attitude (in general and regarding the Palestine issue) don't help in providing the extremists with rage.

People say "if we didn't attack, others might get the weapons". Lots of countries have chemical or biological weapons, and several that have nuclear - why would someone try to get it from a country closely watched by the international community, with inspectors in it? Along with that, Bin Laden critisized Hussein several times, plus Hussein banned his religion in Iraq.
(not to mention military force does not help against fanatics - it didn't help in Middle East or in N. Ireland, and I don't see why it would work now. Intelligence data exchange, confiscating money/blocking accounts and police work are better IMO)

They say "Iraq has WMD and breeched UN violations". Correct me if I'm wrong, but Israel did exact the same thing yet nothing happens to them (US would be a lot credible if it had helped Palestinian set up their state). N. Korea has proven nuclear facilities and is said to be willing to sell rockets to anyone - and actually has rockets that can hit US coast - yet nothing significant happened there, except US sent spy planes back and put some more military forces in the area. (to which the Korean leadership has put very negative response)

They say "Iraq hat to do with 911" yet this has not been officially proven. I think that when deciding for a war, you better have proof for it.

First, I was using Afghanastan as a point of reference geographically, not saying that the people of that country are against us. In fact the leadership and people there are coming a long way, with help from the U.S. they are rebuilding, providing schools for all children, women's rights are improving, etc... After the U.S. went in and got rid of the Taliban and help set up new leadership, these things are taking place. Hmmmmmm..... sound familiar?

Yes lots of nations have WMD's - they are NOT ruled by ruthless dictators that have actually used those weapons. This was illustrated and spoken about on several occasions by President Bill Clinton (of whom I'm a big fan). Did you know that Clinton also sent missles into Iraq when he was president? Most people don't or at least don't bring it up at the moment.

Yes N. Korea is a concern, but they have not actually USED these weopons. I think it should be the U.N.'s next place to look at, but seeing as how they have a horribly unsuccessful history of dealing with such threats, I am not holding my breath for anything happening smoothly.

I have never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11/01. But guess what, they could have something to do with 9/11/05 if they were to be left to continue building and using WMD's.

 

[Popmartijn]

What Turkey has given support for is the ability to use their airspace which wasn't a sure thing a few weeks ago. They are in closed door sessions today discussing if we would be allowed to use ground space there. You have to remember. These people are terrified of Saddam, they know better than most what he has and is capable of.

I think the main reason the Turkish parliament did not gave the support for the USA to use their ground space is that they are afraid of the reactions of their own people. Most Turks do not approve of this war and the government still isn't that stable. They do not want to alienate their own people, not Saddam.

Besides, I think that at the end of the war the Turkish army will invade North-Iraq themselves. Not primarily to help overthrow Saddam (a nice bonus), but to control the Kurdish part of Iraq, so that they cannot create their own state. In Turkey there are also many Kurds and they want more rights, but are repressed by the Turkish government. The last thing that government needs is an independent Kurdish state next to their own borders.

(Edited for spelling mistakes)

 

[Dreadsox]

I have never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11/01. But guess what, they could have something to do with 9/11/05 if they were to be left to continue building and using WMD's.

I will say it!!!! There is a link. This situation has shaped our foreign policy in this region to the detriment of our own population. There is no direct link but as the author of this artcile points out:

Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.

The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.

The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.


http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=14&ID=89267&r=1

 

[womanfish]

Good point Popmartjian. You make a very solid arguement.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Uh, first of all, no one would guess that Afghanastan would be a threat to the U.S. either. They don't have missles that can reach us.
Now onto your second statement - Do you believe that Israel is a threat to the United States? Study politics much?

My dear, I don't need to. Nor you. It's hopeless case.
U2 Girl has actually responded for me but I'll repeat the main points.
1. Israel had violated numerous UN resolutions even before Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. If it is about mass destruction weapons, i.e nuclear weapons, go after Israel. You don't even need to search for them. If it is about violations of UNSC resolutions, go after Israel. It violated much more of them than Iraq. What about the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) still occupied by Israel? Remember when it happened?

2. Afganistan is not a threat to US. Has never been. Will never be, I guess. The main REAL threat now to the US (and Russia by the way) is international terrorism. It is very hard to fight it because it has nothing to do with the classical notion of a state. It knows no borders. It's evil that, like your President rightly described it, "hides and attack from the shadow".

3. Iraq developing mass destruction in 2 years? Who said that? Well, I can say that Bolivia, for example, will develop it tomorrow. M. El-Baradei, head of IAEA (know this acronym?) said THERE ARE NO SIGNS THAT IRAQ RESUMED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM SINCE 1991. Do you know what it it takes to produce enriched uranium? Do you know what uranium is? Do know you what production facilities are needed to produce enriched uranium? You think it is possible to hide such facilities in Iraq? Study much physics?
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Moreover, in recent years it has not made a single step to start production of nuclear material. If it had any, US would have taken a long thought before attacking it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Excellent post Popmartjian. They want something that the US was not willing to give them, that is for sure.

 

[Dreadsox]

My dear, I don't need to. Nor you. It's hopeless case.
U2 Girl has actually responded for me but I'll repeat the main points.
1. Israel had violated numerous UN resolutions even before Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. If it is about mass destruction weapons, i.e nuclear weapons, go after Israel. You don't even need to search for them. If it is about violations of UNSC resolutions, go after Israel. It violated much more of them than Iraq. What about the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) still occupied by Israel? Remember when it happened?

I am not going to crticize anything you say here. This is an area I have not read up a lot on. I do want to say that I am extremely frustrated with what I have learned about the UN and the security council. I am frustrated because I believe that the US and its VETO power is as much to blame for the situation in Israel as the VETO power of FRANCE and others is to blame in the area of Iraq.

THe UN Security Council has as much teeth as the Galactic Senate in Star Wars. Naboo is invaded yet, the Senate wants to send an exploratory committee...ANyway I digress.....Maybe it is time to change the UN so that FIVE nations cannot Veto. Then real work can be done.

2. Afganistan is not a threat to US. Has never been. Will never be, I guess. The main REAL threat now to the US (and Russia by the way) is international terrorism. It is very hard to fight it because it has nothing to do with the classical notion of a state. It knows no borders. It's evil that, like your President rightly described it, "hides and attack from the shadow".

On this we agree. I think it is a common cause that can possibly unite us.

3. Iraq developing mass destruction in 2 years? Who said that? Well, I can say that Bolivia, for example, will develop it tomorrow. M. El-Baradei, head of IAEA (know this acronym?) said THERE ARE NO SIGNS THAT IRAQ RESUMED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM SINCE 1991. Do you know what it it takes to produce enriched uranium? Do you know what uranium is? Do know you what production facilities are needed to produce enriched uranium? You think it is possible to hide such facilities in Iraq? Study much physics?
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Moreover, in recent years it has not made a single step to start production of nuclear material. If it had any, US would have taken a long thought before attacking it. [/B][/QUOTE]


I do not agree with this. El-Baradei can oonly report on what he sees. I have read references from German intelligence agencies (I think, do not quote me I am sleep deprived today) that put Iraq within three years of a bomb. If I can remember where I read it I will provide the source.

Nice post.

Great thread People!!!! I have enjoyed reading it.

 

[Popmartijn]

Excellent post Popmartjian. They want something that the US was not willing to give them, that is for sure.

But should we be happy with this next (possible?) development?

First the Turks were suppressing them, then Saddam. Then the Turks again for a short period before they got a few years to take a breath (since the mid 90s). Now it's very likely that Turkey will again occupy the territory.
Hopefully, this will be the next focus of the world; to ensure that the Kurds can live safe and sound (and not become a harbour of terrorists).

C ya!

Marty (whose real name is Martijn)

 

[ALEXRUS]

Maybe it is time to change the UN so that FIVE nations cannot Veto. Then real work can be done.

You've done that already, Dreadsox UNSC was trampled in dust in 1999 when NATO bombed Yugoslavia.

 

[Popmartijn]

I am not going to crticize anything you say here. This is an area I have not read up a lot on. I do want to say that I am extremely frustrated with what I have learned about the UN and the security council. I am frustrated because I believe that the US and its VETO power is as much to blame for the situation in Israel as the VETO power of FRANCE and others is to blame in the area of Iraq.

I wholeheartedly (sp?) agree with you on this. In many situations the veto power has become an instrument too strong. (Don't forget Kosovo in this light, as that had the threat of veto power by Russia) It has been politicised too much. Not the action of a specific country is central anymore, but the relationship a permanent member has with that country.

THe UN Security Council has as much teeth as the Galactic Senate in Star Wars. Naboo is invaded yet, the Senate wants to send an exploratory committee...ANyway I digress.....

Be careful that you not walk over to the Dark Side!

Maybe it is time to change the UN so that FIVE nations cannot Veto. Then real work can be done.

If that can result in a Security Council that will not be dominated by a single country and that can work efficiently, I'm in! However, I fear it will take many vetoes and bickering before that'll take place. France has never been a country willing to give up power for a more democratic system (see also the governing of the EU).

C ya!

Marty

 

[womanfish]

My dear, I don't need to. Nor you. It's hopeless case.
U2 Girl has actually responded for me but I'll repeat the main points.
1. Israel had violated numerous UN resolutions even before Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. If it is about mass destruction weapons, i.e nuclear weapons, go after Israel. You don't even need to search for them. If it is about violations of UNSC resolutions, go after Israel. It violated much more of them than Iraq. What about the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) still occupied by Israel? Remember when it happened?


2. Afganistan is not a threat to US. Has never been. Will never be, I guess. The main REAL threat now to the US (and Russia by the way) is international terrorism. It is very hard to fight it because it has nothing to do with the classical notion of a state. It knows no borders. It's evil that, like your President rightly described it, "hides and attack from the shadow".


3. Iraq developing mass destruction in 2 years? Who said that? Well, I can say that Bolivia, for example, will develop it tomorrow. M. El-Baradei, head of IAEA (know this acronym?) said THERE ARE NO SIGNS THAT IRAQ RESUMED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM SINCE 1991. Do you know what it it takes to produce enriched uranium? Do you know what uranium is? Do know you what production facilities are needed to produce enriched uranium? You think it is possible to hide such facilities in Iraq? Study much physics?
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Moreover, in recent years it has not made a single step to start production of nuclear material. If it had any, US would have taken a long thought before attacking it.

So if one country doesn't follow a UN resolution, then none of them should have to? Nice logic. I understand what you are trying to say, but using it as a defense for this situation doesn't hold water. The U.N. doesn't have sanctions against Israel because of their weapons. They do against Iraq. You saying Israel is more of a threat to the Arab world and world at large is ludicrous. They are a threat to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are a threat to the Israel. They have been fighting for years and will continue to do so even though, U.S. presidents go in again and again for peace talks.

And please list some UN resolutions that have been violated by Israel. If there are more than 16 in the last 12 years, then I stand corrected.

Also - If you were to read my reply you will see I never said Afghanastan itself was threat, but was refering to Al Quieda and the Taliban. And yes we all fear terrorism.


Yes, Saddam's main bomb scientist up until 2 years ago reported that he had been working on nuclear technology and that Saddam is within 2 years of having one. the Uranium can be purchased on the black market, the technology and equipment to make weapons from it was given to them by the French in the late 70's and early 80's. Luckily Israel (you know, those people that you think are so evil) destroyed most of this equipment. But here is a first hand account that Saddam has continued to work on a nuclear weapon at least up until 2 years ago, and I assume up until now.

How do you hide something like that? He himself has a enormous luxury bunker underneath a palace, 600 feet down (600 feet!!!!) with 10 foot thick walls. I think that they have the ability to hide things. As they have hid tons of chem. and bio. weapons for the last 12 years.

 

[womanfish]

Oh and as for Golan Heights - No I don't "remember it" the incident was in 1967 - 36 Years AGO! well before I was born. But I do know that most people believe it was precipitated by the formation of the PLO, and dozens of attacks back and forth with Israel. Then Israel violated a siece fire agreement and invaded the territory and continue to occupy it. And that there are continuing talks about Israel leaving the territory, but probably will never happen.

I don't say that Israel, or any country for that matter is blameless throughout the course of history. but this matter of Iraq is here and now and needs to be dealt with.

 

[Basstrap]

Good points here
main thing I see...regardless of whether saddam dies or not and a new regime is set up. The threat will not diminish
Saddam has said he has 300 people over the world.
These people will die for his cause.

You can't stomp out terrorism by invading countries.

 

[U2girl]

Womanfish: Yes I know Clinton fired missiles on Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. So?

(by the way, leader of Afghanistan asked for US to continue to help when he was in the White house recently - as far as I know, there are still gang-like fightings there)

True, the Koreans didn't use those weapons, but can we really trust them they won't do it? The tone of their leader seems unsettingly sharp to me.

As for 9/11/05: people can always go "what if...." and use all kind of scenarios.

I can't give you exact resolution numbers on Israel, but I can tell you I was watching the news the other day and this double standard was mentioned - I think the figure was about 20, and several more resolutions of another kind, where the figure was ever higher. Israelis build their settlements on land with Palestine jurisdiction, they mistreat Palestine people. Israel may count the bodies in hundreds but Palestine does it in thousands.

I will gladly applaud to anyone who can get that issue resolved - and I hope if that happens there will be more stability in the region. I just don't see how it could be done with a militant leader like Sharon.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Oh and as for Golan Heights - No I don't "remember it" the incident was in 1967 - 36 Years AGO! well before I was born.
I don't say that Israel, or any country for that matter is blameless throughout the course of history. but this matter of Iraq is here and now and needs to be dealt with.

That means that Israel has been in breach of a UNSC resolution for more than 3 decades.

 

[hiphop]

Nice thread, everyone. Keep it fair and interesting.

I?m so sorry for the civilians that are killed right now. The bombs raining down on Baghdad.

And this war is still against the UN Charta. There are many arguments for it, and many against it, but don?t count me in when something is against international agreements that are as important as the Charta.

 

[ALEXRUS]

So if one country doesn't follow a UN resolution, then none of them should have to? Nice logic.

I never said that. It's your logic.
Israel 'been defying UN for decades and nothing happened.