Has it ever occurred to you that...

[hiphop]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

The arguements for attacking seem rational, clear, and obvious to me, the arguements against seem to be naive and more about wishful thinking.

Then be nice and answer my question as well.

It is true that there is some ratio in the arguments you posted as well. It?s not all mindless blabbering about "we want to dominate the world", and I see your point of view, and I think Saddam is dangerous.

But why not make it a CIA thing? Why not only remove him and his family, invade the nuclear plants with special teams, and build up international control?

I have the feeling that some politicians just want to see the whole region burning. Not to kill Saddam, no, he has to be kept! We have to remove his teeth maybe, but we?ll keep him. The U.S. needs some enemies. How would you explain the horrendous sums that go into the "defense" sector each and every hour to the taxpayers - if you were without a real enemy? Since cold war is over, the commies are gone - no danger no more. Twisted logic, fantasy, yeah, true, and then there is also the terrorist attack of last year. But I am also aware that IF US INTELLIGENCE WANTED TO REMOVE WHOEVER IN HISTORY, THEY WERE ABLE TO PLAN AND EXECUTE EXACTLY THIS, AND RELATIVELY FAST.

Saddam could be dead ten times. Why is he still alive?

You?ll have to admit that those are viable questions to ask, even if we don?t know the answers.

 

[melon]

I think a lot of people--including myself--are, at least, mildly skeptical, due to the fact that the Bush Administration *does* seemingly love to run everything in secret. Everything from Dick Cheney's energy policy with Kenneth Lay to details of the "Homeland Security" department, Bush wants to keep it out of the arms of democracy, which, whether he likes it or not, requires that some people will not agree or give him carte blanche to blow up any nation that looks at him wrong. Everyone from the American people to international leaders are supposed to just *trust* that there is some imminent danger that requires a comprehensive world war against terrorism, and Bush refuses to tell anyone why, outside of highly ambiguous, non-specific threats that will *always* be a concern, even when bin Laden, Saddam, and Al-Qaeda are just as much a distant memory as the Tripoli pirates that assaulted American shipping vessels around 1800...

Outside of this, do I think there is a real threat against America? Actually, I quite do, particularly after hearing the virulently anti-American sentiments not only from the Islamic world, but from the European world as well. However, in the long term, I feel that Bush is doing nothing to alleviate those sentiments, and his almost autocratic approach to this "war" is not helping in the slightest.

Melon

 

[anitram]

Outside of this, do I think there is a real threat against America? Actually, I quite do, particularly after hearing the virulently anti-American sentiments not only from the Islamic world, but from the European world as well. However, in the long term, I feel that Bush is doing nothing to alleviate those sentiments, and his almost autocratic approach to this "war" is not helping in the slightest.

Wasn't it big news a couple of weeks ago that a Canadian poll showed something like 84% of polled Canadians feel that the USA is partially or wholly responsible for 9/11? I was in Cuba at the moment, and ironically, one of the only English channels was CNN. I remember the shock with which the anchors delivered this news. Surely, if your next door neighbour feels this way, there is trouble on the horizon. It's not just that Bush isn't doing anything to alleviate the sentiments, but he is actually aggravating them with his unilateral, nationalistic jingoisms. I fear it does not bode well longterm. Remove Saddam, and what, the Muslim world, the Europeans, the Canadians and who knows who else will suddenly see the light? Hardly.

 

[melon]

BTW, in terms of strategy, I do think that Bush is smart for appealing to the U.N., using the factual knowledge that Iraq has repeatedly flaunted the terms ending the Gulf War back in 1991. I do believe that this route does force the U.N. to do something about it after all, and that may, indeed, require a military strike. At least, with a U.N. sponsored action, it will not give the appearance of U.S. aggression, but, rather, punitive action against Iraq for not cooperating with its own agreements.

My predictions, however, are that Bush has settled for another winter war, and is just crossing his fingers that the U.N. acts in time. Otherwise, he will just go on it alone, which I do not believe is smart at all, due to the international reluctance and the ongoing tensions between Israel and the PLO. I believe it would turn into something *very* messy at that point.

Melon

 

[diamond]

I like what
Mark
Dread
Sting said
a lil what Melon said..
The rest of you thank u for your imput

DB9

 

[STING2]

In response to HIPHOP,

The CIA does not have the ability to take out Saddam's entire regime which is what would be needed. I seriously doubt they have the ability to take out Saddam himself as well.

First though even if it was a possibility, killing Saddam or Saddam and his family would just mean that another person in his regime would take charge. Someone that might be even worse than Saddam as far as making miscaculations and taking risk in regards to Iraq's foreign policy.

Realize that Saddam has spent over 20 years constructing his regime through bribes with his massive wealth, and mass murder, sometimes over a hundred key officials killed in one day. Saddam has created a regime that is tied to him, and one infact that he is tied to as well. Both depend on the other for survival. Saddams regime of course consist of 100,000 very well payed Republican guard troops, many members of the rubber stamp Iraqi government, and even includes believe it or not, members of ethinic groups in opposition to his rule. Saddam has used his power to divide and rule the country in a way, which makes a civilian uprising or CIA coup impossible to ever succeed. Nearly every independent military expert has stated that the "Iraqi resistance would be slaughtered if we tried to do an Afghanistan style operation, with mainly resistence forces on the ground.

The CIA cannot remove 100,000 well payed Republican guard troops that are willing to die for Saddam, just as they did in large numbers in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's total Military strength is between 300,000 to 400,000. The Republican guard is the corp with 100,000 troops, the regular army may be worthless, but you will still nead a large conventional military force to unseat Saddam's regime which includes his 100,000 Republican guard troops.

Regarding the CIA's ability, its true that is possible that they can kill individuals, but this won't accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq. The regime is more than just Saddam. A much weaker regime, the Taliban, would still not be a target that the CIA could change, simply because despite having far less military capability than the Republican guard, it is way to large for the abilities of the CIA. Airpower combined with special forces and the Northern Alliance succeeded in Afghanistan. With Iraq though, only large conventional US military forces will be able to accomplish and guarentee regime change. I could go into far more detail if you want.

The only way that Saddam could be guaranteed to be dead ten times would be a large conventional military invasion to overthrow the regime. Hundreds of people have tried to kill Saddam over the course of his life, even before he became the leader of Iraq. The CIA does not have the ability to kill anyone they want to, although they have been successful in the past. Killing Saddam does not constitute a regime change at all. In fact it could create a worse situation, only if that is one thinks that Saddam has retained some ounce of sanity he rarely uses and would be better than the family member of Republican guard officer that would take his place. Regime change cannot be accomplished in this case by taking out a single individual, which I seriously doubt the CIA has the ability to in this case anyway. If regime change were that easy the history of the 20th century would be a lot different. Only a large military force can accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq.

In regards to the defense budget, coming from a military family, my own relationship with the military in the past, and friends that are currently serving in the military, I can tell you the military is often underfunded. If you'd like to discuss the defense budget futher in detail, I'd love to. I'd like to know what serviceman's salary you want to cut, what weapon system you want them not to have when they risk their lives in combat for our security, how much exercises and training you want to cut which is also vital to their survival on the battlefield? Again, the military is often underfunded in many of these area's. More needs to be spent on defense, not less. If you feel differently, tell me exactly what you would cut and why?

 

[U2Bama]

Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama

 

[MadelynIris]

Tony Blair's 'evidence'.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme is "active, detailed and growing...

click link for more...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/24/uk.iraq/index.html

 

[hiphop]

In response to HIPHOP,

The CIA does not have the ability to take out Saddam's entire regime which is what would be needed. I seriously doubt they have the ability to take out Saddam himself as well.

First though even if it was a possibility, killing Saddam or Saddam and his family would just mean that another person in his regime would take charge. Someone that might be even worse than Saddam as far as making miscaculations and taking risk in regards to Iraq's foreign policy.

Realize that Saddam has spent over 20 years constructing his regime through bribes with his massive wealth, and mass murder, sometimes over a hundred key officials killed in one day. Saddam has created a regime that is tied to him, and one infact that he is tied to as well. Both depend on the other for survival. Saddams regime of course consist of 100,000 very well payed Republican guard troops, many members of the rubber stamp Iraqi government, and even includes believe it or not, members of ethinic groups in opposition to his rule. Saddam has used his power to divide and rule the country in a way, which makes a civilian uprising or CIA coup impossible to ever succeed. Nearly every independent military expert has stated that the "Iraqi resistance would be slaughtered if we tried to do an Afghanistan style operation, with mainly resistence forces on the ground.

The CIA cannot remove 100,000 well payed Republican guard troops that are willing to die for Saddam, just as they did in large numbers in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam's total Military strength is between 300,000 to 400,000. The Republican guard is the corp with 100,000 troops, the regular army may be worthless, but you will still nead a large conventional military force to unseat Saddam's regime which includes his 100,000 Republican guard troops.

Regarding the CIA's ability, its true that is possible that they can kill individuals, but this won't accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq. The regime is more than just Saddam. A much weaker regime, the Taliban, would still not be a target that the CIA could change, simply because despite having far less military capability than the Republican guard, it is way to large for the abilities of the CIA. Airpower combined with special forces and the Northern Alliance succeeded in Afghanistan. With Iraq though, only large conventional US military forces will be able to accomplish and guarentee regime change. I could go into far more detail if you want.

The only way that Saddam could be guaranteed to be dead ten times would be a large conventional military invasion to overthrow the regime. Hundreds of people have tried to kill Saddam over the course of his life, even before he became the leader of Iraq. The CIA does not have the ability to kill anyone they want to, although they have been successful in the past. Killing Saddam does not constitute a regime change at all. In fact it could create a worse situation, only if that is one thinks that Saddam has retained some ounce of sanity he rarely uses and would be better than the family member of Republican guard officer that would take his place. Regime change cannot be accomplished in this case by taking out a single individual, which I seriously doubt the CIA has the ability to in this case anyway. If regime change were that easy the history of the 20th century would be a lot different. Only a large military force can accomplish the goal of regime change in Iraq.

In regards to the defense budget, coming from a military family, my own relationship with the military in the past, and friends that are currently serving in the military, I can tell you the military is often underfunded. If you'd like to discuss the defense budget futher in detail, I'd love to. I'd like to know what serviceman's salary you want to cut, what weapon system you want them not to have when they risk their lives in combat for our security, how much exercises and training you want to cut which is also vital to their survival on the battlefield? Again, the military is often underfunded in many of these area's. More needs to be spent on defense, not less. If you feel differently, tell me exactly what you would cut and why?

Thank you for your detailed answer. I just read it now, after responding in the Why Bush why thread, so no need to repeat yourself.

So you assume that to overthrow the regime in Iraq, those 100,000 soldiers have to be taken out of action. Meaning 100,000 victims. Apart from the other - who knows how many thousands - civil victims. Hmmm, well,.... this is a high number. I can undersatnd the leaders of some European countries very well then, if they assume it is going to be a large scale long war - harder than in Afghanistan.

I ask myself if there wouldn?t be another possibility. Can?t we, with more allies form Europe so not only Americans risk their lives, destroy all the nuclear plants, which are the real threat, completely? If they are kept secret, I am sure that its no problem to locate them with the NSA?s finesse. Now you?ll argue that as long as Saddam rules, he will try to build up new nuclear programs if everything is destroyed. So you have to remove him.

What if the U.S. troops are not able to remove him?

Will it take twenty more years of threatening, another 100,000 victims, et al?

I don?t know.... I think a different strategy would serve the U.S. better. What if the U.S. concentrated on minimizing illegal nuclear trade? Oh, lets not stop there. Lets minimize all illegal weapon trade!

This, my friend STING, however important fast and strong action against Iraq may be, would be WAY MORE EFFECTIVE to minimize potential terrorist threats. Sure, if you go this way, the road is different. This means loads of problems, especially with the illegal weapon traders with who the U.S. (and lots of other countries) does business. Sure, our friends in Marbella wouldn?t be so happy of that. But if there was a way to slowly, slowly get more control over illegal arms trade, chances would be high that (dangerous, difficult to smuggle, not a few Uzis) weapons would not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Couple that with an effective strategy to put Saddam out of power. What if you simply destroyed the communication systems and the computers of all the country? Electromagnetic bombs or something - I?m sure I don?t know as much as you of weapon systems, but I think that also non nuclear devices are able to destroy communication and all electricity over hundreds of miles without hurting persons. True? And then kill him and his family and the top military positions (command structure). The 100,000 would run around all the country without any real plan. Chaos would break out. Then you can offer a strong hand and install another government.

Possible, in your opinion?

 

[hiphop]

Oh, and in regards to the defense budget:

Forget it, its not my business what the U.S. spends the taxpayers money for. Your argument is that more money is needed, well... I am looking at the situation from another non military point of view. I know I don?t really have the right to do that, because it is really not my business.

But if you ask me for my opinion, I think that the U.S. should better reduce its debts, build up a serious social system (see diamond in "I?m angry with my health care provider") and invest A LOT MORE in education (see the threads of the children in highschool unable to read). Instead of throwing money into SDI programs, or even into the dustbin throats of General Electric that has betrayed the government more than once. Backup if you want, all non classified, official hearings etc.

 

[diamond]

Mr HipHop-
Has it ever occured to you that if any Iraqi citizens are killed..that the blame will reside w Mr Saddam for not following the UN resolutions.. that the civilized world has repeadedly asked him to follow?
or
is it easier for you blame Tony B and GW..which is more easy and fashionable for some folk..?

Perhaps, we can send you overthere as a 'special envoy' to sit and drink tea w Saddam and reason w him over his choices?

DB9

 

[hiphop]

Perhaps, we can send you overthere as a 'special envoy' to sit and drink tea w Saddam and reason w him over his choices?

DB9

Sure why not? Maybe I could do business with him like some other folks 15 years ago

But I want my provision. O,6 percent to be precise.

diamond brother: to say "civilised" means that you think he is uncivilised.... don?t you underestimate him?

 

[diamond]

Hiphop-
No.

DB9

 

[hiphop]

I may ask you again: civilised in which sense?

I don?t think he is encouraging a civil society, for example.

But I don?t think he is primitive. If you think so, you clearly underestimate him imho. For example, he knows how to walk on two feet.

Anyway, I am still waiting for the answer of STING2.

 

[melon]

Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama

Bush "suspended" that executive order, and has ordered Hussein's assassination.

Melon

 

[hiphop]

Bush "suspended" that executive order, and has ordered Hussein's assassination.

Melon

Saddam Hussein? Really? Not the one of the king of Jordania? (Lets hope so, with Bush you never know )

 

[Dreadsox]

Didn't President Ford, (the only "non-murderous" U.S. President in recent history), issue an executive order banning the assassination of leaders of other countrues? And isn't that executive order still standing? From what I have read in Free Your Mind over the past 2 years, Ford seems to be the only U.S. President who has not been charged with or convicted of war crimes by the members of this forum.

~U2Alabama

Doesn't his part in covering up the Kennedy Assasination with the Warren Commision make him a co-conspitator?

Hmmm...member of the Warren Commission becomes the first Un-Elected President.

Interesting.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

I would not describe the Republican Guard as victims, and while taken them out may involve unavoidable civilian casualties, the level of civilian casualties would not be on the level that you suggest. One thing that the US does have the technical ability to do is to target the military forces without destroying civilian places on a scale like that of WWII, Korea, Vietnam. That is one technological advantage that we do have. A US invasion of Iraq is far from being a death sentence for the civilians, rather it is an opportunity for liberation and democracy for an enslaved group of people.

We do not have the capability though to target well hidden Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons with certainty. Only a very large inspection team on the ground, backed up with a very large military force, free to go anywhere, and I mean anywhere in Iraq, would have the capability to accomplish that. Iraq kicked those inspectors out, how in the past were really unable to fully do their job because they were not backed up with military force to prevent Iraq from stalling their inspection of certain sites so they could remove secret material.

The United States can remove him. In fact it will only take a fraction of US military power to remove his regime. The US armed forces is composed of 1.4 million troops, yet only 250,000 are going to take part in this operation. There is nothing Iraq has or can do to prevent us from invading and changing the regime there, with are military force.

The USA through the FBI, CIA is already concentrating on minimizing chem/bio/nuclear trade. Its far more helpful that in addition to doing that, we take out the possible likely supplier, Saddam. You act like you can only do one or the other, you can and should do BOTH!

Just turning of the lights in Iraq is not going to change the regime in Baghdad. Killing top officers and Saddam and his family will just mean the next up in the CHAIN OF COMMAND, will take over take over the country, most likely a Republican guard officer. But its pointless to talk about that because we do not have the capability to simply kill that many top military comanders or leaders, without going after the entire regime meaning, all 100,000 Republican guard troops and Saddam.

In addition to the 100,000 troops of the Republican guard, Saddam has 200,000 to 300,000 regular army troops. It is unknown where their loyalties will lie when the US invades, but some of them can be expected to defend the regime as well.

I wish there was another way that Iraq could be disarmed and the regime changed without military force, but there simply is not another way. The only leverage you have with Saddam is military force.

 

[V Nura]

FACT: Saddam personally signed the agreement that ended the Gulf War.
FACT: The Kyoto Protocol has not been signed by the United States
FACT: You can't violate something you have not agreed to.
FACT: Saddam has violated resolutions.


In my eyes, and the eyes of many other people, any UN Resolution will not be worth the paper it is written on if they do not enforce prior resolutions.

makes sense to me

 

[diamond]

I may ask you again: civilised in which sense?

I don?t think he is encouraging a civil society, for example.

But I don?t think he is primitive.

He is not primitive?
So what you are saying is:It is not primitive to-
"gas your own ppl"
"behead members of your own family"

Help us out w this one Mr HipHop..

DB9

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

all humans are still primitive, some less than others.

 

[MadelynIris]

You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark

 

[hiphop]

He is not primitive?
So what you are saying is:It is not primitive to-
"gas your own ppl"
"behead members of your own family"

Help us out w this one Mr HipHop..

DB9

Oh come on diamond

Its cruel, its bastardish, its evil.

But go and look up a definition of primitive. Primitive doesn?t mean baaaaad. Primitive means not developed, undeveloped.

Be careful with that word, by the way. It was used too often by us whities.

 

[hiphop]

You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark

Dear Mark, although it is useless to compare the situation of Hitler to the situation with Saddam, I will answer you on this. British intelligence knew there was something in store. Hitler was already in power in 1933. Pushed by who? The steel industry.

So IF YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPARE those two events in history, be aware that without capitalism the second world war would never have happened. Hitler would simply not have had enough money to fight and win the elections. But the steel industry gave it to him. Because they knew that if he was in power, chances would be good for a war - and war needs a lot of steel. You want me to name some of the evil German capitalists? Krupp, and Thyssen, for example.

A preemptive strike would have changed nothing with Germany. People were weakened by the economic crisis, by high first world war reparations which the Germans had to pay, and therefore "slipped" into the trap of national socialism. If there would have been a preemptive strike, Germans would have been even more angry and nationalist german tendencies would have been to at very least the same extent.

 

[Popmartijn]

In addition to the 100,000 troops of the Republican guard, Saddam has 200,000 to 300,000 regular army troops. It is unknown where their loyalties will lie when the US invades, but some of them can be expected to defend the regime as well.

I've read somewhere that Saddam has even stationed most of the Republican Guard outside Bagdad as he doesn't trust their loyalty anymore. Only a fraction, the Elite Republican Guard, is allowed in Bagdad to protect him. So as long as there is no direct attack by the USA, increasing diplomatic pressure will further weaken Saddam's position.

(Compare this with Arafats situation. The last few weeks he was getting weaker and weaker, replacing his cabinet, issuing elections, etc. But as soon as Israel started to attack his HQ he was immediately supported by the Palestinians. The paralel is this: when the USA does attack Iraq, the army and the Republican Guard support Saddam, if the USA doesn't attack, they weaken each other).

C ya!

Marty

 

[mad1]

I was talking to a mate of mine about this and she said............wierdly, (cause shes nuts anyhow!)......that she tinks Bush is bringin Britain into this to see how they would be attacked first...............basically she tinks Bush wants to see how, (if Britain was first or close to, as we're closer), and IF it DID happen, how it happened.......so that Bush can act quick to prepare his public and protect his country.......(she also mentioned with Nuclear/etc attacks on America there are huge underground basements built in and around NASA, or something and blah blah - I tink it was a programme she watched - for members of NASA blah blah to hide and basically say 'fuck the American public, we are gonna be protected and will survive ----------- apparantly this doc had the interviewers trying to talk to them but the American members of these 'high security companies' walked off without answering, almost embarrassed they were caught out, and this was waaaaay before 9/11).........and that Bush doesnt give a shit about Ally countries.......he wants them involved so that America is not alone in being attacked........(again or not)......I dunno.......this dont make much sense to me.....does it to u?............
she said he (Bush) is a selfish fuker who has itchy fingers to pull on his big-time weapons.....that he is just DYING to lead a war......so thats he is hailed a hero...............
ask her..........

 

[Angela Harlem]

lol maddie! Interesting theory I guess, was she serious about that? I remember hearing something once about underground bunkers but I dont remember NASA being involved, and I dont know if it was conspiracy or fact...so I can't really add to that.
No offence, but I personally think the idea of Bush using the poms as guinea pigs is just a tad on the laughable side. Despite what anyone may think of the guy, I believe he is genuine about the whole thing. He believes in his evidence, we all may not be convinced, but he is not a nutso psycho who would resort to such tactics.

 

[STING2]

Popmartian,

Most of the Republican guard is ALWAYS stationed outside of Baghdad and widely dispursed throughout the country in order to keep order and put down the first sign of resistence to the regime. Another reason that his forces are widely dispursed is to lessen the effect of a US military attack. Massing ground troops in one area with no way of defending against air attack is a recipe for disaster.

Also, when the USA attacked in 1991, the effect on Iraq was not this rallying around the flag and Hussain. This light years away from Palastine and Arafat. Iraq is a complex country made up of dozens of ethnic groups with competing interest. Saddam and the Rupublican guard control everything through brute force. While people who are Sunni might rally to Saddam side, most civilians will either stand out of the way or support a US invasion to topple Saddam.

 

[STING2]

HIPHOP,

Hitler is not the first dictator to come to power, Capitalism or not. There were other ways and means of funding one's self besides the "steel industry" in Germany. It is obvious in hindsite that pre-emtive action would have prevented Hitlers rise to power in the late 1930s. It is true that it could have been prevented earlier than that if the postwar arrangement after World War I had not helped to impoverish Germany. But worldwide economic depression was a fact nearly everywhere in the 1930s, and even if post World War I arrangement had not been focused on making Germany pay for it, there still would have been conditions for Hitler's rise. The Allies watched and waited, and did nothing to prevent the disaster that was rushing towards them. There are few arguements that are better for pre-emption than this one.

 

[ultraviolet7]

In response to STING2's reply to me

The US does not to go back to the UN to get approval for military action. The case for military action was already posed in the fall of 1990 and approved by the UN. The ceacefire agreement that stopped the fighting has been broken which means that the state of war has already returned. The US and hopefully other member UN states will bring Iraq back into compliance with ceacefire terms by a resumption of military actions in Iraq put on hold in March 1991.

You have a point here regarding past authorisation for military action, however since the cease-fire agreement was UN resolved, it is the UN and not the plaintiff, in this case the US, who has to decide whether there's been a breach in this agreement sufficient to justify resumption of UN backed military action. It's obvious that the US is seeking for UN approval because it is legally necessary, otherwise Mr Bush wouldn't be trying so hard to get the international community's support to force a UN favourable resolution in this sense. The reluctance of most countries including traditional US allies seems to indicate that what you claim is a "clear" violation of the cease-fire agreement isn't such, as the magnitude of the threat posed by Iraq isn't as great either. Otherwise there would be no reason on part of the international community to oppose this attack.

About what the inspectors said when they were thrown out in 1998. They did state that Iraq was still a threat and could reconstitute its WMD program in a matter of months. Those are the facts. Even Scott Ritter who has been so critical of the adminstration said himself in 1998, the last time he was in a position to know anything sensitive, that Iraq still posed a threat to the international community and could reconstitute its weapon programs in 6 months.

What's in your opinion Ritter's reason to have changed his mind regarding what you say were his 98 reports and his present claims? Again, why is it that UN decision-makers don't consider the inspection reports which according to what you say, state that Iraq is posing a serious threat to US and western safety in general, as enough proof to authorise immediately the attack on Iraq? After all the reports were made by UN-appointed inspectors which means that they must be worthy of UN authorities' trust.

Unlike Iraq, Pakistan actually cooperates with the USA and the international community. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan has not invaded and attacked four different countries with its armed forces in the past 20 years. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is not in violation of 16 UN resolutions. In many cases, Pakistan has been more helpful than are allies in Europe. There is a world of difference between Iraq and Pakistan. Much of it to do with actual behavior which is the primary reason for are concern with Iraq. Past behavior is an indication of future behavior. The terrorist and Mushareff have opposite goals, so not only does Pakistans behavior show that they are not a threat, but the goals of Mushareff and the terrorist are polar opposites. The same cannot be said for Saddam and the terrorist. But if Mushareff is overthrown and a fundamentalist regime comes to power then, that possibly could be a situation where we would have to become involved. But I seriously doubt fundamentalist will be take over the country based on what I have learned from talking to people from Pakistan.

Oh yeah I'd forgotten that Pakistan has been more helpful than some European allies, esp during the recent war in Afghanistan and that Musharraf applies ultra-orthodox capitalist policies which the US approves of. I'd also forgotten that precisely for these reasons the fact that he's a dictator who oppresses his people, that his country spawned in the past the Taleban (responsible of terrorist harbouring when in office in Afghanistan) and that it possesses WMD are irrelevant details. BTW How does the fact that Pakistan has not invaded 4 countries in the past relate to the fact that they will not supply terrorists with WMD?

Please don't tell me you believe it was the USA's fault, or that our foreign policies were the reason we were attacked on 9/11, thats the same logic that Saddam and Bin Laden, who claimed initially that he was not involved, had a year ago. The west and the USA will continue to be a target of terrorism if we do not seek to bring terrorist worldwide to justice and try to somehow withdraw from the mideast or pursue policies that are basically appeasement.

It is more than likely that US foreign policy in the Middle East is not the reason which inspires those who run groups like Al-Qaeda. However it is clearly the reason millions of people in the Islamic world support groups like Al-Qaeda. This is so because these groups use real grievances which are the result of western policies in the area as the reason of their fight, while it's obvious that such motivations are only a cover-up for them to be able to forward their own agenda. However this must not be mistaken as that such grievances don't exist. Maybe if the cause of such grievances were removed it would be easier to do away with terrorist groups since they'd have no support from their own people who would be the first to want to get rid of them.

Hussein didn't have any argument since there's no proof yet that he was actually involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden was obviously using that argument under the "holy war" pretext since it's, as I said, what allows groups like Al-Qaeda to gain ample popular support within the Muslim world.