Why the US-agression in Iraq ist NOT justifiable

[Tarik]

To be contrary to some ppl in this forum, lets talk factually.

The most importent arguments of the war supporters are:

1. Saddam breaches the UN. resotion 1441 as well as he breached further resoltions regarding weapons of mass destruction

2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war 1980 - 1988

3. Saddam has connections with Al Qaida (so this argument means that according to this, he was involved in the 11.9. attack

4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights

Lets go through point by point:


1. Its a true and a fact that Saddam breached 17 resolutions of the security council. But it is also a fact that Israel breached (and still is breaching) UN resolutions, as (according to the res.) they have to leave the territories occupied '67 as well as their colonies in the Westbank are illegitimated.
But Israel needn't to be afraid of an invasion, as well as there even are no sanctions or not a boykott agains israel.

Far from it! Israel annual get 3 bil. US dollars from the United States.
But back to the last UN resolution. The last two reports from Blix (expecially the last) commended the iraqi cooperation. If the inspectors had more time (of course with the US military compression) this conclict would be solved peacefully. But to invade in Iraq WITHOUT UN MANDATE and without solving the Palestinian problem can have fatal consiquences.


2. Its true that Saddam used chemical weapons agains Iran and the Kurds. But if this fact would be an argument for a change of that regime, it would have to take place in 1991. During the gulf war this year almost all provinces in Iraq were occupied by the allied troups or by revolters.

But what happened? "Suddenly" the US made peace with Saddam, giving him time to break down the revolts.
And what about 1992, when to US government refused to help the shiites in South Iraq, although they liberated importent cities like "BASRA" and "NASIRIJAH"?
Its a fact that the Saddam during the 90's has remained in power cause the USA DIDN'T WANT A REGIME CHANGE.


3. This is the flimsiest argument. Saddam is in almost the same manner accountable for the 11.9. attack like the pope. Saddam's baath party is laical and the eyes of islamic fundamentalists he is a "heathen" (osama himself called him so), which party ist not compatible with an islamic theocracy. In Iraq there is for example the "Ansar Al Islami" group fighting agains Saddam.

In my opinion the intention of this argument is a "brain wash" of the american ppl. And it works: Almost 50 percent of the US ppl. believe that Saddam is hand in glove with Osama (no wonder if you read "Stupid White Men").
As I live in Germany I have the chance to see more objective reports and news as against you in the united states.

4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:

- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited

What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"

 

[pax]

This and all other war-related threads should go in "War."

 

[speedracer]

4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights

Lets go through point by point:

4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:

- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited

What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"

I certainly don't have any nice words for the other corrupt regimes in the Middle East that receive US support. But I have to ask you, what is wrong with the US picking and choosing its spots? Especially since there is already a somewhat functional democracy in Iraqi Kurdistan that could be a precursor to some sort of federalist government in Iraq once the war is over.

And I have to ask you, why do you think that all American media is jingoist nonsense? I've been pretty satisfied with the reporting from CNN, the New York Times,, the Washington Post, and the New Republic. And I've compared these sources with other good sources such as the BBC, the Guardian, and the Independent.

 

[womanfish]

No - don't you see Speedracer. Only the people in the U.S. are brainwashed. Tarik is from Germany, so obviously he knows the real truth.


So tell me Tarik - what does "serious consequences" mean to you? And I am sick and tired of the stupid, useless Israel arguement. Israel is an ally of the U.S. - no one is disputing that. I wouldn't expect any country to use military force on an ally. If other countries have such a big problem with Israel, then THEY can do something about it. But as you can see, everyone expects the U.S. to do the work.

 

[Tarik]

First of all an independent kurdistan will never be accepted by the turkish government. This is one of the reasons they marched in Northern Iraq independent from what the turkish government is saying.
Now, we can talk about the kurdish problem, which in my opinion is tragic. But on the other hand the reason Turkey will not allow an independent kurdistan is similar to the reason why Russia will not allow a free Chechenia...

And I was talking about arabic dictators. The Kurds are not Arabs by the way. If Hussein's supposed connections to Al Qaida (which is nonsens as I mentioned before) were the reason for this invasion, Saudi Arabia would have to be more afraid of an invasion, as they are financially helping terror groups like the HAMAS and not to forget:

Most of the Terrorists from 11.9. were Saudis, not Iraqis.
So why Iraq? Iraq does not pose an acute threat to the USA as well as to their neighbours (according to the declaration of Iraq's neighbours some month ago).
The inspectors could not find any clues of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US could not prove Saddams connections to Al Qaida.
And Iraq shut down 95 per cent of their mass weapons till '98 so I'm asking you, why does the USA choose Iraq as a spot and not other countries which are more dangerous as Iraq WITHOUT AN UNO MANDATE, BREACHING THE UN-CHARTA?

The fact that you are trying to get infos from different souces is very good. But the american medias you mentioned are PRINT MEDIAS, except CNN (which in my opinion is not so objective like the BBC).

But print medias does not play this central role as for example the propaganda of FOX NEWS and all the other stations without trying to get the bottom of the REAL reasons for this war.
And the majority is absolutely satisfied with it.

Sorry, but wtf is reading the NEW YORK TIMES? And I'm talking about the common ppl in the USA.

How else can you explain the fact the half of the US population thinks that Saddam is involved in 11.9.?

It's very easy: Brain wash by the media.

 

[Tarik]

By the way let me just add this:

http://ericblumrich.com/antiwar2.html

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

1. 1441 provides a UN mandate... unless of course "serious consequences" means standing in the corner and taking a time-out

2. in '91 US ground forces never even approached baghdad, let alone occupy the majority of the nation. the point of that mission was to liberate kuwait, which occured. afterwords, saddam was allowed to stay if he followed a set group of guidelines for doing so... every one of which he has violated.

3. saying the iraqi regime has connections with al qaeda in no way connects saddam to 9/11. saying that the iraqi regime had connections to 9/11 would connect them to 9/11. it is a fact, seeing as you like facts, that there were al qaeda operatives in baghdad recieving medical attention. never once has anyone in the bush administration, or the american media, which is apparently an arm of the US government, said that saddam had anything to do with 9/11. what has been said is that they have had connections with al qaeda, which is true, and with other terrorist groups, which is true, and that we want to stop them before another 9/11 happens.

4. mom: you know you were not supposed to go to that party, davey!
davey: but mommmm... joey from around the block's mom let him going to the party.

this argument by you makes the least sense... well yeah saddam is a horrific human being, but there are other horrific human beings too, so we shouldn't do anything about saddam. yeah that makes sense.

so lemme just step back here a bit... so you gave 4 reasons why hte "willing" are going to war... and your responses were
1. true, with excuse
2. true, with excuse
3. brain-washed americans
4. true, with excuse

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

oh and wouldn't ya know... the iraqis have been launching scuds at kuwait, which they said they never had and blix found no proof of them having

oh and lookie there... the marines found a chemical weapons plant south of baghdad. i am just shocked... i mean after all, saddam told dan rather he didn't have any chemical weapons, and hans blix didn't find any. golly gee... where did they come from? oh look at that billy bob... all the materials in this factory that the iraqis used to make these chemicals have "made in france" or "made in germany" printed on them! aww shucks... who woulda thunk it

 

[womanfish]

Oh and don't forget the night vision goggles, and GPS scramblers provided by good ol' Russia. Even on the spot training in Iraq from Russian arms dealers. Now that's service!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

service with a crooked corrupt smile

 

[Tarik]

1. 1441 provides a UN mandate... unless of course "serious consequences" means standing in the corner and taking a time-out


Tarik: Well, if the secretary general of the UNO is saying that this invasion on Iraq breaches the UN CHARTA what else is here to say? Military pressure against Iraq was in my opinion right. But to invade at a moment were iraqi cooperation was good according to the chief inspector is not justifiable.

2. in '91 US ground forces never even approached baghdad, let alone occupy the majority of the nation. the point of that mission was to liberate kuwait, which occured. afterwords, saddam was allowed to stay if he followed a set group of guidelines for doing so... every one of which he has violated.

Tarik: Sorry, but the US knew at that time that Saddam used poison gas against the Kurds and almost all provinces (11!) were free from Saddam, and it is not enough if the US government is talking about a mistake in '91. Every political step of the US has been calculated. And I remember statements of US politicians in *91 that saddam has to be kicked of.

3. saying the iraqi regime has connections with al qaeda in no way connects saddam to 9/11. saying that the iraqi regime had connections to 9/11 would connect them to 9/11. it is a fact, seeing as you like facts, that there were al qaeda operatives in baghdad recieving medical attention.

Tarik:If you believe that saddam has connections with Al Qaida and that he in fact didn't know anything about the 11.9. than its just nonsens.

never once has anyone in the bush administration, or the american media, which is apparently an arm of the US government, said that saddam had anything to do with 9/11. what has been said is that they have had connections with al qaeda, which is true, and with other terrorist groups, which is true, and that we want to stop them before another 9/11 happens.

Tarik: Which is true? but which has not yet been proved by the US and which has been denied by any SERIOUS expert for terrorism and the middle east...very intersting

4. mom: you know you were not supposed to go to that party, davey!
davey: but mommmm... joey from around the block's mom let him going to the party.

this argument by you makes the least sense... well yeah saddam is a horrific human being, but there are other horrific human beings too, so we shouldn't do anything about saddam. yeah that makes sense.

Tarik: That was not the point my friend. The problem ist that there are other countries which are more dangerous as Iraq but which are SUPPORTED by the US. Thats the point.

 

[womanfish]

Also - Tarik

I wish you would explain why you believe that it is "nonsense" that Iraq has connections with terrorist groups? It is still questionable in my mind as to what extent they are involved, but intelligence has proven that they are at least has been contact between the two. And I, being an American that can think for myself (i know you don't believe they exist), will not believe that Iraq/Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 until I see concrete believable evidence.

One just needs to look at a map to see that it is almost impossible that Iraq COULDN'T be involved with terrorists. They are sitting in the middle of the terrorist hotbed of the world. It would be like someone living in a crackhouse, saying they have no contact with drugs or anyone who uses them.

 

[Tarik]

Saddam is a disbeliever in the eyes of Osama as well in the eyes of all other islamic fundamental groups. But who knows? Maybe the Al Qaida does have contacts with North Korea, or with Micronesia or with Tchad...who knows...


And you are sick of listening the "israelian argument" cause Israel is an ally of the United States, and because they are an ally they are allowed to breach the UN resolutions. I don't expect the US to do something but why the hell are they supporting the israelian politics, which is based on terror agains the palestinians which 3 billions a year?

Like I said before, to invade in Iraq without solving the problem of palestinia will lead to more destabilisation, as the arabs think (and they are right to think that) : Israel can do anything but an muslim country is attacked, that is the massage they get. And as you can see for example in Jemen, Egypt or Bahrain, the ppl go on the barricades. And as longer this war goes on their hate will increase.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Oh and don't forget the night vision goggles, and GPS scramblers provided by good ol' Russia. Even on the spot training in Iraq from Russian arms dealers. Now that's service!

Easier... Russia never supplied the mentioned stuff to Iraq. Russia has never ever supplied anything to Iraq after sanctions were set. As a country that supported sanctions on Iraq it must not supply anything to Iraq which would violate the regime of sanctions. Russia is in compliance. At the same time I do not rule out that Iraq may have purchased some Russia-made military equipment. Not from Russia though but through third countries.

 

[womanfish]

Easier... Russia never supplied the mentioned stuff to Iraq. Russia has never ever supplied anything to Iraq after sanctions were set. As a country that supported sanctions on Iraq it must not supply anything to Iraq which would violate the regime of sanctions. Russia is in compliance. At the same time I do not rule out that Iraq may have purchased some Russia-made military equipment. Not from Russia though but through third countries.

As far as I've heard this is true (as of information that CNN and Reuters had receieved yesterday) and that Russia and the U.S. are in talks right now about ceasing any more sales and getting the arms dealers out of Iraq that are currently providing training to the Iraqi's on how to use this equipment.

 

[womanfish]

Saddam is a disbeliever in the eyes of Osama as well in the eyes of all other islamic fundamental groups. But who knows? Maybe the Al Qaida does have contacts with North Korea, or with Micronesia or with Tchad...who knows...


And you are sick of listening the "israelian argument" cause Israel is an ally of the United States, and because they are an ally they are allowed to breach the UN resolutions. I don't expect the US to do something but why the hell are they supporting the israelian politics, which is based on terror agains the palestinians which 3 billions a year?

Like I said before, to invade in Iraq without solving the problem of palestinia will lead to more destabilisation, as the arabs think (and they are right to think that) : Israel can do anything but an muslim country is attacked, that is the massage they get. And as you can see for example in Jemen, Egypt or Bahrain, the ppl go on the barricades. And as longer this war goes on their hate will increase.

I never said Irael should be allowed to break UN resolutions, I only said that you shouldn't expect the U.S. to be the ones to do anything about the situation because the 2 countries are allys. And do you think Germany is more of a supporter of Israel or Palastine?

As for you last comment, that is argueable. Most Iraqi exiles living in the U.S. believe that Saddam needs to go and that it will provide greater stability to the middle east.

 

[Tarik]

I know the fact that the exil iraqis want Saddam to go, and this is absolutely understandable. But Exil-Iranis or exil-cuban does want ist too.
But what if Saddam goes? Do you really think that after Saddam there will be democracy and stabilization? Iraq is not a nation, its more an "artificial formation", divided in Kurds, and what is very important Sunnis and Shiias, who are enemies of each other.

The iraqi opposition is divided in more than 50 different parties which are at odds with each other and the favourite for the post-saddam iraq is a criminal (previously convicted in Jordania).

Let me give you an example: Afghanistan

The president Karsai rules only in Kabul and the other parts of this country are divided between clans, all enemies of each other. The cruel Taliban are gone, but with them the stabilization.

And what is to be expected in Iraq? There is no arab country where you can see democratic structures, so how can you expect it in Iraq, divided in three parts whose ppl have some nasty thoughts about the USA???

What I think is the danger of a civil war, old bill to be payed...

And about Israel, well I can't accept the argument that Israel's resolutions breaches are tolerated only because they are allies of the US. I don't blame only the americans for this situation, don't get me wrong.
The european also have to be blamed. And Germany never will be against Israel cause of WWII for understandable reasons.

 

[womanfish]

So that is why I'm saying I am tired of the Israel arguement because it really is off topic to me, but anyway....

I do see your point of stabilization issues. I have heard good things from the Iraqi-American Alliance that says that they are planning on presidential council of 6 to 8 members to head up a new government. I just know that none of us can foresee what will happen. I can't argue that I think everything will be stable and fantastic after Saddam is gone. I just think that over time, it will be better to not have him in control of the country.

I think there is a large percentage of Iraqi's just waiting for him to be gone, and to start fresh. Why do you think Iraqi TV is playing these taped messages of Saddam that they say are new? It's to keep the people afraid. If they think he is still alive and in control, then they dare not stop fighting against the coalition forces. If he were confirmed dead, i think it would change their attitude dramatically.

 

[Dreadsox]

Easier... Russia never supplied the mentioned stuff to Iraq. Russia has never ever supplied anything to Iraq after sanctions were set. As a country that supported sanctions on Iraq it must not supply anything to Iraq which would violate the regime of sanctions. Russia is in compliance. At the same time I do not rule out that Iraq may have purchased some Russia-made military equipment. Not from Russia though but through third countries.

That is how the French Companies have been doing it. They sell to a middle person, usually in Syria, and then to Iraq.

All nice neat and tidy so France does not get the stain all over them.

I have not once, in all of my reading on this situation, found any evidence that Russia has supplied Iraq with anything.


Peace

 

[womanfish]

That is how the French Companies have been doing it. They sell to a middle person, usually in Syria, and then to Iraq.

All nice neat and tidy so France does not get the stain all over them.

I have not once, in all of my reading on this situation, found any evidence that Russia has supplied Iraq with anything.


Peace

Actually looking at the CNN archives Russia has a pretty long history of hooking up Iraq either directly or indirectly (without gov't. knowledge)

Here is one link from a month or so ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/12/iraqi.arms/index.html

and here's a link from yesterday about the products I mentioned - GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, and anti-tank shells.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.russia.military.sales/index.html

 

[ALEXRUS]

Actually looking at the CNN archives Russia has a pretty long history of hooking up Iraq either directly or indirectly (without gov't. knowledge)

here's a link from yesterday about the products I mentioned - GPS scramblers, night vision goggles, and anti-tank shells.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.russia.military.sales/index.html

If the CNN article is true, then it is a violation of the sanctions, it's illegal. At least in what regards the anti-tank systems. But once again I do not believe Russia supplied ARMS to Iraq in violation of the sanctions. Negligible profit to run the risk.

 

[womanfish]

If the CNN article is true, then it is a violation of the sanctions, it's illegal. At least in what regards the anti-tank systems. But once again I do not believe Russia supplied ARMS to Iraq in violation of the sanctions. Negligible profit to run the risk.

I wouldn't think they would either, I assume this is probably the work of more black market arms dealers without full knowledge of the Russian government. At least I hope.

 

[nbcrusader]

The GPS Scramblers in question no longer work properly....

 

[Man Inside The Child]

Great comments Tariq...

Unlike woman fish, I feel that Israel is a big part of this war, along with the primary objective of controlling oil and keeping the U.S. dollar strong relative to the rising Euro.


US Middle East policy is therefore Israelo-centric. Through the rallying of Jewish lobbyists in the U.S. over the past few decades, US middle east policy is committed to the destruction of Israel's enemies, and really stabilizing the young Israeli state.

Potentially Iraq is the most fearsome enemy of Israel because of that country's economic and human resources; Palestinians are formidable because they stand in the way of complete Israeli hegemony and land occupation. Saddam was also creating propaganda in Israel by supporting the idea of suicide bombing to fight back against the oppressive and unjust occupation of Palestine.

 

[speedracer]

Great comments Tariq...

Unlike woman fish, I feel that Israel is a big part of this war, along with the primary objective of controlling oil and keeping the U.S. dollar strong relative to the rising Euro.

1. I am quite skeptical that the US, Britain and Australia would all consent to be proxies for Israel in a war.

2. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this, but if oil were a primary objective, Bush would just go on the air and say "we think the Iraqi people have suffered too long under the UN economic sanctions, so we are going to put forth a motion to the UN that they be ended." He'd score a couple points with the Arab street and open up the way for American oil companies to do business.

 

[Man Inside The Child]

I respect your opinion speedracer, but I believe in idea that if America's objective in the world, were weapons of mass destruction, then why aren't they in Pakistan, India, and more importantly North Korea. If it were regime change, then why aren't they in Colombia, Indonesia, or Zaire.

There is, in my mind, an alterior motive to this war - controlling the supply of oil to the world - thereby setting of a rising Euro which has really hurt the U.S. dollar in recent years. Such control can really put an American stronghold/chokehold on the global economy for decades to come. As far as Australia and Britain, they want a piece of the action as well.

You also mentioned that Bush "would score a couple of points with the Arab street" after ousting Saddam.

I can't imagine that there is a single Arab or Iraqi who would not like to see Saddam Hussein removed. But lets be serious, consider for a second what exactly, in terms of LIVED EXPERIENCE, that will mean for the people who actually live there, especially after B-52 strikes tear their land and homes apart relentlessly - by Americans, for a second time. The Americans already have a foul name in the region for their support of the inhumane Israeli government. Nobody in the middle east is going to embrace the Americans, no "points will be scored. If anything, animosity towards the United States will rise even further, likely increasing the threat towards American security.

later

 

[speedracer]

I respect your opinion speedracer, but I believe in idea that if America's objective in the world, were weapons of mass destruction, then why aren't they in Pakistan, India, and more importantly North Korea. If it were regime change, then why aren't they in Colombia, Indonesia, or Zaire.

Well, the US reserves the right to pick its spots. We haven't the time or resources to intervene everywhere, obviously.

We don't feel threatened by Pakistan, India, Colombia, Indonesia or Zaire.

We definitely feel threatened by North Korea. I have no idea what we're going to do about it. Unless we know exactly where all their nuclear weapons are located, it is foolish to attack them now, unless we want to turn Seoul and Tokyo into smoking holes in the ground.

There are certainly other countries in the world where great injustices are committed against the people. One example that comes to mind is Sudan, whre Christians and other non-Muslims are enslaved and massacred. Sudan also happens to be an oil-producing state. Until about a couple weeks ago, a Canadian company owned a large stake in the Sudanese oil industry.

There is, in my mind, an alterior motive to this war - controlling the supply of oil to the world - thereby setting of a rising Euro which has really hurt the U.S. dollar in recent years. Such control can really put an American stronghold/chokehold on the global economy for decades to come. As far as Australia and Britain, they want a piece of the action as well.

This may very well be true, but I won't believe it until somebody gets a hold of secret planning documents that say so.

You also mentioned that Bush "would score a couple of points with the Arab street" after ousting Saddam.

I think you misunderstood me. I said that Bush would be more popular around the Arab world if he left Saddam in place and dropped the sanctions.

 

[Tarik]

so speedracer, you mentioned that the USA has the right to "pick up its spot" and that they feel "threatened by Iraq."

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.

And if you now want to argue with Saddams assumedly connections with international terrorism then I think SAUDI ARABIA, an US ally, would have to be more afraid of a regime change.

I don't think that the oil reservers in Iraq are the only reason for this invasion, but to say that this fact doesn't matters here, sounds ignorant to me.
And once again: What after Saddam?

I don't think they will support "AYATOLLAH HAKIM", an charismatic leader accepted by the shiites, cause they don't want a second IRAN.
But the shiites have to play a role in a post saddam iraq as they represent the majority (65 per cent) of the ppl.

I'm afraid of a civil war after Saddam is gone / killed, what do you think?

 

[speedracer]

so speedracer, you mentioned that the USA has the right to "pick up its spot" and that they feel "threatened by Iraq."

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?

So what exactly has been happening since 1998?

Under the disarmament program, Saddam was supposed to be completely forthright in destroying his WMDs or presenting records that show they had been destroyed. He was not supposed to play hide and seek with the inspectors.

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.

We put US troops in Saudi Arabia because they felt threatened by Iraq. They may say publicly that they do not support the war, but they haven't asked the troops to leave.

And who do you think these 15 countries who support the war in secret are?

And if you now want to argue with Saddams assumedly connections with international terrorism then I think SAUDI ARABIA, an US ally, would have to be more afraid of a regime change.

You're right, there are a lot of things in Saudi Arabia that need to change. I think we have a better chance of negotiating these things with them than with Iraq though.

I don't think that the oil reservers in Iraq are the only reason for this invasion, but to say that this fact doesn't matters here, sounds ignorant to me.

Well, of course oil matters--it is supposed to provide a lot of the funds for reconstructing the country. But I hardly think it's a primary motivation.

When supporters of the war give multiple reasons for going to war, the anti-war crowd seems to think this is a weakness in our case. On the contrary; these different reasons are parts of a solid cumulative case against Iraq (though I think that the fact that Saddam terrorizes his own people makes up the bulk of the case).

And once again: What after Saddam?

I don't think they will support "AYATOLLAH HAKIM", an charismatic leader accepted by the shiites, cause they don't want a second IRAN.
But the shiites have to play a role in a post saddam iraq as they represent the majority (65 per cent) of the ppl.

I'm afraid of a civil war after Saddam is gone / killed, what do you think?

I think some sort of federalist government can be put into place (where the country is divided up into individual states).

 

[V Nura]

But how can the USA with the mightiest army in the world can feel threatened by a country which mass weapons have been destroyed till *98 by 95 per cent?

And Iraq's neighbours declared some month's ago that Iraq is not an acute threat to them.

this argument is ridiculous



Osama bin laden technically is no threat to the US then..but he killed 3,000 ppl on american soil.


Tarik...the rules changed on 9/11.



Also...it isn't US agression.....it's an enforcement of resolution 687 based on the deploration of iraqs commitment to disarmement outlined explicitly in resolution 1441.



The arab worlds consistent aggression towards israel....is NOT justifiable.


and if iraqs neighbors dont' feel he's a threat??? why are they giving us airspace??? or int eh case of kuwait..the ability to base troops. ???