Give War a Chance!

[Doctor X]

Right, now that I have your attention. . . .

I had the pleasure of a bit of a sabbatical in Florida, so whilst most of you froze your nethers I basked in the warm glow of [Get on with it!--Ed.]

. . . er . . . yes . . . right, well there were some international guests there. The subject of Iraq, naturally, came up. I had intented to bring in some of their opinions, but, thinking about it and reading some other threads another thought crossed my mind . . . a rare occassion, but accidents happen. . . .

For Ye Agin the Glorious War

What would you require to convince you that "we" need to invade Iraq.

Let me expand on that. This is not intended to invite a response like, "Show me a WMD" in which I and the Peanut Gallery innundate you with "Fool! We already KNOW HE HAS WMD!!"

Taking that example further, I am not interested in shooting down every option--"Fool!! You will NEVER find the WMD because Saadam has hidden them all so well!"

Sure, if the Inpectors find that missle silo underneath Akmed's goat pen . . . well . . . that would be a "smoking gun."

Do "ye" need that?

Do you need another UN resolution.

I am merely interested in what those who are against action "want."

Now, I understand there are levels of "against" just as there are levels "for." Some are completely against all war and are singing Kumbaya. On the other side, some just want a war. Fine, whatever. I am more interested in those who have doubts about a war.

If this does not immediately fall to a "page 4" topic, perhaps we can turn it around and ask the "pro-war" posters what would convince them to avoid a war.

--J.D.

[The Don]

I guess I'd like to see all of the following:

- Evidence of WMD/WMD manufacturing programs
- Tangible evidence linking Iraq to terrorist groups and demonstrating intent to supply them with WMD
OR
- Planning documents showing intent to use WMD

I want a clear UN resolution, and I want equal enforcement of all UN resolutions

If the US was really interested in stopping terrorism then it would recognise that it has to find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict - and that means making sure that Israel also complies with the wishes of the UN. What is the point in claiming that Saddam has flouted UN resolutions when the US is currently threatening to lauch pre-emptive war AGAINST the wishes of the security council, and after a history of years and years of not only ignoring Israeli failure to comply but active and massive military and financial support of a vicious regime in Israel. Double standards isn't the word. The United States lives by Quadruple standards.

I want a 2nd UN resolution without any overt arm-twisting (like the attempt to bully Germany into agreement by trying to damage its economy - I mean for f***s sake what is the use of getting people to agree with you by threatening to cripple their economy - AND THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE YOUR ALLIES! :rolleyes: ).

I also want the US to apply equal value to all UN resolutions, not ignore ones it doesn't care about and enforce others that haven't even been brought into existence.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Undercover Elephant:
I want a 2nd UN resolution without any overt arm-twisting (like the attempt to bully Germany into agreement by trying to damage its economy - I mean for f***s sake what is the use of getting people to agree with you by threatening to cripple their economy - AND THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE YOUR ALLIES! :rolleyes: )

I doubt anyone could do as thorough a job of crippling the German economy as the Germans themselves are currently doing.

[synaesthesia]

Don,

As far as I'm concerned, those issues are red herrings. Nobody involved with the actual crisis questions the substance of the fact that Saddam has WMD. The question is how to ensure he get's rid of them. As far as I am concerned, the rest is rhetoric.

From what I see, there are only two options. One is that the United States and a handful of nations forcefully take Saddam from power while the other nations gripe that Saddam had given them .01% of his arsenal and was cooperating fully 20% of the time. The other is that a united, determined and solid UN alliance forces Saddam to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the disarmament process.

[Nasarius]

Actual, verifiable evidence that Hussein poses a threat to his neighbors. Powell/Bush's claim that there was a link to al-Qaeda sort of dissolved when the latest bin Laden tape came out, so what's going on? Iraq has had chemical and biological weapons for over a decade now, and they haven't been used. Is there anything to suggest that they will be? Is there any reason to start a war now on such thin evidence while the presence of UN weapons inspectors ensures that Iraq can't do very much? I don't know exactly what would convince me that an invasion was necessary. Perhaps strong evidence that a nuclear weapons program is active. This evidence could come in any number of different forms.

[rikzilla]

The only constant I've seen is that those who are against war are actually for continued sanctions.

Sanctions which have killed old and young in Iraq...and made everyone besides Saddam and sons miserable and hungry.

Baghdad once had a standard of living on par with Athens. Now they are on par with Mali. Look up Mali sometime. That's the reality in Iraq.

-zilla

[bjornart]

What is needed for me to support an invasion of Iraq? A complete breakdown of the current diplomatic process. As long as Saddam is giving in inch by inch, as he is currently doing, I think war should wait. If he goes back to kicking out the inspectors or other blindingly obvious acts of non-compliance then I think war is required, but even then the US should try for a UN resolution.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The only constant I've seen is that those who are against war are actually for continued sanctions.

You haven't talked to enough people, then. There are plenty of people who oppose both war and sanctions, including me.

Jeremy

[Jocko]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I want a clear UN resolution, and I want equal enforcement of all UN resolutions

If the US was really interested in stopping terrorism then it would recognise that it has to find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict - and that means making sure that Israel also complies with the wishes of the UN. What is the point in claiming that Saddam has flouted UN resolutions when the US is currently threatening to lauch pre-emptive war AGAINST the wishes of the security council, and after a history of years and years of not only ignoring Israeli failure to comply but active and massive military and financial support of a vicious regime in Israel.

Why should the US acknowledge the authority of the UN, when the UN's own lax enforcement of its "tough talk" edicts has brought the world to this very point?

If the US acts without the UN, it will only confirm what the UN has already proven- that it is an irrelevant, toothless utopian ideal that has no legitimate function in real-world affairs.

It's up to the UN members to live up to their obligations and enforce the terms of 1441. If they did so, then they wouldn't be at odds with the US.

If that seems like a catch-22, then remember that it's of the UN's own making.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by toddjh


You haven't talked to enough people, then. There are plenty of people who oppose both war and sanctions, including me.

Jeremy

LOL!!! Then of course you will tell us how to stay safe from Mr. Hussein won't you Mr. Chamberlain??!! :D :D

-zilla

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
LOL!!! Then of course you will tell us how to stay safe from Mr. Hussein won't you Mr. Chamberlain??!!

Iraq is no threat to the United States. There are plenty of places that deserve more attention. If security is your concern, North Korea is a much, much more important target. If you want a humanitarian cause, I could suggest half a dozen African countries that are in much more dire need of assistance.

Jeremy

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by toddjh


Iraq is no threat to the United States. There are plenty of places that deserve more attention. If security is your concern, North Korea is a much, much more important target. If you want a humanitarian cause, I could suggest half a dozen African countries that are in much more dire need of assistance.

Jeremy

Iraq is a threat to the region. A threat in that region is a threat to the world....(specifically Israel)....if the US pulls out and the UN lifts sanctions Saddam Hussein will be the world's next nuclear power. Nuclear war in the middle east is indeed a threat to the United States.

Jeremy....I find it hard to believe this is your intended argument. You are arguing to appease a tyrant. Didn't you study history?

Inscribed in marble at the entrance of the US National Archives:
"The past is prologue."

Simple and to the point IMHO.
-zilla

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Iraq is a threat to the region. A threat in that region is a threat to the world....(specifically Israel)....if the US pulls out and the UN lifts sanctions Saddam Hussein will be the world's next nuclear power. Nuclear war in the middle east is indeed a threat to the United States.

What would be Iraq's motivation for starting a nuclear war? Saddam may be an oppressive dictator, but he's not stupid. The Gulf War showed him what would happen if he attempted to expand. He knows he cannot take that route and stay in power, and staying in power is what he wants. Besides, I didn't say we should take no action against him; I simply said that a full military assault is unwarranted and that economic fixes are ineffectual and counterproductive. Maintaining an inspector presence in Iraq seems like a good solution for the time being. Lifting sanctions will also give the Iraqi people a much better opportunity to take matters into their own hands. We might choose to support a popular uprising at the appropriate time; that's the path I'd take.

Compare with North Korea, which is a nuclear threat right now, and has been overtly threatening the United States this last week. What is your justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq when its attack capabilities are years away at best, when North Korea is practically firing warning shots this very minute? If you accept the legitimacy of the concept of a pre-emptive strike, doesn't it stand to reason that it should be directed at the biggest (and only) immediate threat?

Jeremy

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by toddjh


What would be Iraq's motivation for starting a nuclear war? Saddam may be an oppressive dictator, but he's not stupid. The Gulf War showed him what would happen if he attempted to expand. He knows he cannot take that route and stay in power, and staying in power is what he wants. Besides, I didn't say we should take no action against him; I simply said that a full military assault is unwarranted and that economic fixes are ineffectual and counterproductive. Maintaining an inspector presence in Iraq seems like a good solution for the time being. Lifting sanctions will also give the Iraqi people a much better opportunity to take matters into their own hands. We might choose to support a popular uprising at the appropriate time; that's the path I'd take.

Compare with North Korea, which is a nuclear threat right now, and has been overtly threatening the United States this last week. What is your justification for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq when its attack capabilities are years away at best, when North Korea is practically firing warning shots this very minute? If you accept the legitimacy of the concept of a pre-emptive strike, doesn't it stand to reason that it should be directed at the biggest (and only) immediate threat?

Jeremy

We need to start a war FAQ.

go here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
We need to start a war FAQ.

That's nice, but I'd still appreciate a response to my points. Specifically, why do you believe Saddam would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against another nation, when such an act would guarantee his death and, most likely, the obliteration of his entire country? Why do you believe that Iraq is a bigger or more immediate threat than the country which is currently pointing at us and waving its nuclear program in our faces?

I find it far more likely that Saddam wants "weapons of mass destruction" for use against an invading force or rebellion than against a foreign power. That's terrible in and of itself, but it's also a far cry from being a "threat to the region" or a "threat to the United States," as you imply.

If Saddam personally is your target, wouldn't it be cheaper (in both lives and money) simply to offer a $1 billion reward for his assassination? Sure, it's currently illegal (thanks Mr. Ford), but that could be changed, or ignored.

Jeremy

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by toddjh


That's nice, but I'd still appreciate a response to my points. Specifically, why do you believe Saddam would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against another nation, when such an act would guarantee his death and, most likely, the obliteration of his entire country? Why do you believe that Iraq is a bigger or more immediate threat than the country which is currently pointing at us and waving its nuclear program in our faces?

I find it far more likely that Saddam wants "weapons of mass destruction" for use against an invading force or rebellion than against a foreign power. That's terrible in and of itself, but it's also a far cry from being a "threat to the region" or a "threat to the United States," as you imply.

If Saddam personally is your target, wouldn't it be cheaper (in both lives and money) simply to offer a $1 billion reward for his assassination? Sure, it's currently illegal (thanks Mr. Ford), but that could be changed, or ignored.

Jeremy

Been there done that. You are obviously new to P&CE. I don't mean to be rude, but please go read some of the older threads. I've read 4 books on this subject and posted to numerous threads. All of your questions have been addressed to me, and answered so many times....I just can't keep this up.

Forgive me....but if you dig a little your questions will be answered. If you find a post of mine that you have further questions about please ask.

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Jeremy,

I recommend the book that changed my mind.

Mylroie (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1045512493/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-2842602-8680914?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

I got it from the DC public library....so if you're low on money...this research is still easy and free. Mylroie postulates that the first WTC bombing in 1991 was the work of Iraq. She makes a very good case. At the end...most chillingly...she actually predicts a "massive terror attack, possibly on the WTC again, that would cost thousands of lives"....

Puts Sylvia Browne to shame...



From Amazon Reviewer:
Chilling, November 15,
Reviewer: Ryan Mackle (see more about me) from Seattle, WA United States
In reading this book, I couldn't help but to feel that Ms. Mylroie read a few too many Nancy Drew novels at summer camp. Nevertheless, she welds together a series of events that have convinced some in our government (among them, the hawkish Paul Wolfewitz and Donald Rumsfeld) that the 1993 WTC bombing - despite being executed by halfwits (read: the genius who attempted to collect his deposit from the truck rental company after he'd just detonated it under the WTC) - was actually planned by Iraqi intelligence. If she's correct, this nation faces a huge problem: In her book, we learn of the networks that have been ignored for too long, and about just what they have in store the United States. One hopes that she's wrong; but if she isn't, Sept. 11 is a wake up call from which we shrink at out own peril. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.



Enjoy my friend...

-zilla

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I don't mean to be rude, but please go read some of the older threads.

Which threads would you suggest? Until you can give me a coherent response or point me directly to the source of a coherent response, I'm sorry, but you've failed to convince me that you have one. I don't have time to sort through thousands of posts on internet forums (which, I should hardly need to add, are not exactly the most reliable media in the world, either).

Jeremy

[rikzilla]

Sorry...omitted the fact that Mylroie's book was published in 2000.
(About a year and a half before 9/11)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I got it from the DC public library....so if you're low on money...this research is still easy and free. Mylroie postulates that the first WTC bombing in 1991 was the work of Iraq. She makes a very good case. At the end...most chillingly...she actually predicts a "massive terror attack, possibly on the WTC again, that would cost thousands of lives"....

The first WTC bombing I can't comment on, because I don't know that much about it.

But trying to link the second WTC attack with Iraq just doesn't gel. bin Laden has discussed in detail the planning of the attack, right down to what floor the pilots should try to crash into, leaving no room for doubt that he and his "inner circle" were directly responsible, and just recently he expressed his, er, extreme distaste for Hussein and the type of government he runs. I find it unlikely in the extreme that they would've cooperated to the extent the WTC attack would've required.

Now, I'll concede the possibility that Iraq has, directly or indirectly, supported terrorist organizations. However my response remains the same: aren't there bigger fish to fry? What about Saudi Arabia? What about Arafat?

Why the fixation on Iraq in particular? And, above all, why right now?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by cavin
so, now it's alright to assasinate someone Todd????

No, you misunderstand. I'm not advocating assassination. I'm trying to outline a comparison between assassination and war to underscore some of the moral issues involved.

Assassination would be cheaper in both money and lives (and especially civilian lives) than an all-out war. Yet people view one as unethical and the other as justifiable. Why?

so how great would the US be if they just "took out" whoever they felt like, when ever they felt like it.

Don't they? Where's Noriega right now? It's only because of CIA incompetence that Castro is still around, and I think it's only a matter of time until bin Laden is sleeping with the fishes, too (I thought he was dead until about a week ago, and I'm still not 100% convinced he's alive).

I can't respond to the rest of your reply, since you misunderstood the intent of my original post. My apologies if my sarcasm was unclear.

Jeremy

Originally posted by bjornart
What is needed for me to support an invasion of Iraq? A complete breakdown of the current diplomatic process. As long as Saddam is giving in inch by inch, as he is currently doing, I think war should wait. If he goes back to kicking out the inspectors or other blindingly obvious acts of non-compliance then I think war is required, but even then the US should try for a UN resolution.

And exactly what was it that caused Saddam to start giving in inch by inch?

The threat of war. The threat of being ousted. And not just a threat, but a promise. With the might to back it up.

edited to add: force is the only thing that Hussein, and people like him, understand.

[AndrewHarter]

First off, I want credible evidence that Chancellor Hitler is a threat to the people of Poland.

Second, the rumors of a planned extermination of the Jews is ludicrous. The world would not allow for such an injustice to take place. I demand more than rumor and speculation.

Third, we need more evidence that he has violated the Treaty of Versailles. I say we give the League of Nations inspectors more time to look into this alleged military build up.

Fourth, the speculation that there is a secret war pact between Germany and Japan is absurd. The Germans, are racists (harmless racists) and would never agree to such an alliance.


Oops...wrong forum...wrong decade...wrong medium. My bad. Sorry.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by AndrewHarter
First off, I want credible evidence that Chancellor Hitler is a threat to the people of Poland.

Second, the rumors of a planned extermination of the Jews is ludicrous. The world would not allow for such an injustice to take place. I demand more than rumor and speculation.

Third, we need more evidence that he has violated the Treaty of Versailles. I say we give the League of Nations inspectors more time to look into this alleged military build up.

Fourth, the speculation that there is a secret war pact between Germany and Japan is absurd. The Germans, are racists (harmless racists) and would never agree to such an alliance.


Oops...wrong forum...wrong decade...wrong medium. My bad. Sorry.

:D You go Magician-man! :D

Originally posted by AndrewHarter
First off, I want credible evidence that Chancellor Hitler is a threat to the people of Poland.

Second, the rumors of a planned extermination of the Jews is ludicrous. The world would not allow for such an injustice to take place. I demand more than rumor and speculation.

Third, we need more evidence that he has violated the Treaty of Versailles. I say we give the League of Nations inspectors more time to look into this alleged military build up.

Fourth, the speculation that there is a secret war pact between Germany and Japan is absurd. The Germans, are racists (harmless racists) and would never agree to such an alliance.


Oops...wrong forum...wrong decade...wrong medium. My bad. Sorry.

What a stupid reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"The Germans, are racists (harmless racists) and would never agree to such an alliance."
Only from a man that gives poor answers based in poor methods.


Thanks,
S&S

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Actual, verifiable evidence that Hussein poses a threat to his neighbors. Neighbors like Iran and Kuwait? :confused:

[Nasarius]

Some interesting comments:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15200

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Neighbors like Iran and Kuwait? :confused:

Sure. Is there any evidence that Hussein plans to attack anyone? "Well, he's done it in the past" is hardly evidence. As you surely know, one can easily drag up terrible things from the recent history of the United States - up to Iran-Contra, for example.

[Doctor X]

Again, not to make this into an actual debate on whether or not there should be a war, I want to receive what it is that would convince someone who is on the fence or against the war.

Of course, posting an opinion: "I wanna see the WMD" may generate a response. Let me hold it off for now.

However, I am laughing at Andrew of Harter's reply!

It may seem vulgar to "sell" a war to "the public;" however, that is what has to be done.

--J.D.

I'm on the fence about a war with Iraq, leaning in favor of war.

Right or wrong, I think it is too late to back out. We have to follow through or we won't be taken seriously for a very long time.

I think North Korea's timing on the nuclear issue is no coincidence. If we back down now on Iraq, we will encourage North Korea to continue in their efforts to become a nuclear nation with all its attendant threats to the U.S. and South Korea.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by AndrewHarter
First off, I want credible evidence that Chancellor Hitler is a threat to the people of Poland.

Second, the rumors of a planned extermination of the Jews is ludicrous. The world would not allow for such an injustice to take place. I demand more than rumor and speculation.

Third, we need more evidence that he has violated the Treaty of Versailles. I say we give the League of Nations inspectors more time to look into this alleged military build up.

Fourth, the speculation that there is a secret war pact between Germany and Japan is absurd. The Germans, are racists (harmless racists) and would never agree to such an alliance.


Oops...wrong forum...wrong decade...wrong medium. My bad. Sorry.

this has been raised before, but hitler had military forces with state of the art weaponry, training and tactics, and a powerful economy. when he invaded, (at least at the start of the war), he won. Saddamm has botched every military expedition, except against unarmed civilians.

If you want to look to history, look a bit further back, to the start of WWI. It is very illuminating.

Or even more recently, Afghanistan for the effects of a post US led war. This has demonstrated that the country itself, after the US has achieved it's aim of getting revenge on the taliban, has left the country in a state that is, for the average person, not much better than it was in the first place. The 'Norther Alliance', whose troops were lauded in the murdoch press, is once again a rag tag of thugs and warlords.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
I'm on the fence about a war with Iraq, leaning in favor of war.

Right or wrong, I think it is too late to back out. We have to follow through or we won't be taken seriously for a very long time.

I think North Korea's timing on the nuclear issue is no coincidence. If we back down now on Iraq, we will encourage North Korea to continue in their efforts to become a nuclear nation with all its attendant threats to the U.S. and South Korea.

no one would not take the US seriously. it is by far the largest military force on the planet. to not back down to save face is very reminiscent of the start of WWI.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


no one would not take the US seriously. it is by far the largest military force on the planet. to not back down to save face is very reminiscent of the start of WWI.

It is actually very reminiscent of the 1970's.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


It is actually very reminiscent of the 1970's. ????

[bjornart]

Originally posted by LukeT


And exactly what was it that caused Saddam to start giving in inch by inch?

The threat of war. The threat of being ousted. And not just a threat, but a promise. With the might to back it up.

edited to add: force is the only thing that Hussein, and people like him, understand.


I'm not denying the threat of war is what has got Saddam giving in, do I look stupid or something? (Don't answer that. :D)

But he is giving in, and I think he would have started giving in without the US going "with us or against us" on everyone disagreeing with you.

-Saddam should be pushed to comply, and I don't care who does the pushing.
-While he is actually giving in, war should wait, even if it does get too hot in a month.
-An invasion of Iraq could possibly create more problems than it solves, and at this time I think waiting with taking that chance is the smart thing to do.
-A "solo" act by the US will f**k up what little international cooperation and 'law' we have to day. It might be annoying and flawed, but if it's torn down it will be decades before it can be rebuilt.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I want a clear UN resolution...

What part of the first 17 didn't you understand???

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Doctor X
What would you require to convince you that "we" need to invade Iraq.

An imminent threat to the United States.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

An imminent threat to the United States.

Well then,

Get off your ass and go invade John Ashcroft's office! :D :p

-zilla

[richardm]

Originally posted by bjornart


I'm not denying the threat of war is what has got Saddam giving in, do I look stupid or something? (Don't answer that. :D)

But he is giving in, and I think he would have started giving in without the US going "with us or against us" on everyone disagreeing with you.


I have to disagree with you, Bjorn. Saddam's done nothing of the sort over the last decade or so, despite there being numerous UN resolutions laid at his door.

It is only because the USA has suddenly said "We're fed up with this" and put a foot on his neck that he has started to give in - and that grudgingly.

It's not enough. In my opinion. Look 'ee - you recall that the inspectors were originally granted more time after their first report this year, and the Iraqis were supposed to be even more co-operative?

With the suddenly-extra-co-operative Iraqis, the inspectors found some illegal missiles, and the repaired and reinstated casting chambers used to make them. These chambers had been destroyed under the terms of an earlier UN resolution, but the Iraqis had cheerfully rebuilt them anyway. Doesn't it make you wonder what the inspectors might find if the Iraqis were even more helpful? Remembering, of course, that the inspectors aren't supposed to be inspectors in the detective sense of the word.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:

If you want to look to history, look a bit further back, to the start of WWI. It is very illuminating.

Two evenly balanced systems of alliances engaged in secret diplomacy against one another, not one of them was a democracy as we now know it, who fought one another to a standstill and sowed the seeds of Europe's decline in relevance.

How exactly is this analagous to today?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by richardm


I have to disagree with you, Bjorn. Saddam's done nothing of the sort over the last decade or so, despite there being numerous UN resolutions laid at his door.

It is only because the USA has suddenly said "We're fed up with this" and put a foot on his neck that he has started to give in - and that grudgingly.

It's not enough. In my opinion. Look 'ee - you recall that the inspectors were originally granted more time after their first report this year, and the Iraqis were supposed to be even more co-operative?

With the suddenly-extra-co-operative Iraqis, the inspectors found some illegal missiles, and the repaired and reinstated casting chambers used to make them. These chambers had been destroyed under the terms of an earlier UN resolution, but the Iraqis had cheerfully rebuilt them anyway. Doesn't it make you wonder what the inspectors might find if the Iraqis were even more helpful? Remembering, of course, that the inspectors aren't supposed to be inspectors in the detective sense of the word.

No, I don't wonder. I'm fairly certain that if Iraq was actually cooperative they would have quite a bit of illegal production capability and stored materials available for destruction.

As you say, there are giving in, and they are doing so because threat of a US invasion. _I_ think they would be giving in even if the US administration had threatened them without alienating everyone who disagreed.

I'm going to steal this quote from Senator Robert Byrd:
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

I've always known that the hands on the controls of the worlds most dangerous forces were in the hands of people who were quite ordinary apart from them holding high positions, but until they started slinging insults at each other it hadn't properly sunk in how ordinary they actually are.

[Giz]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I want a clear UN resolution, and I want equal enforcement of all UN resolutions

If the US was really interested in stopping terrorism then it would recognise that it has to find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict - and that means making sure that Israel also complies with the wishes of the UN. What is the point in claiming that Saddam has flouted UN resolutions when the US is currently threatening to lauch pre-emptive war AGAINST the wishes of the security council, and after a history of years and years of not only ignoring Israeli failure to comply but active and massive military and financial support of a vicious regime in Israel. Double standards isn't the word. The United States lives by Quadruple standards.

I want a 2nd UN resolution without any overt arm-twisting (like the attempt to bully Germany into agreement by trying to damage its economy - I mean for f***s sake what is the use of getting people to agree with you by threatening to cripple their economy - AND THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE YOUR ALLIES! :rolleyes: ).

I also want the US to apply equal value to all UN resolutions, not ignore ones it doesn't care about and enforce others that haven't even been brought into existence.

1 So Isreal (fighting for it's very existence in 1948, 1967 and 1973 as well as hit by terrorism [and a few scuds] since) is on a moral par with Saddam's Iraq?

2 Bullying Germany into behaving like an ally? Germany is supposed to be an ally! They've had their full of war which is great, but you can't be an unconditional pacifist until the last Hitler has bitten the dust.

Your anti-war stance doesn't tell us a lot about the pros and cons of war with Iraq, it just tells us about the way you perceive the world; Grrr, evil capitalists, grrr, must be about oil, grrr, not the oil that France and Russia want but the oil that the US somehow forgot to control when they save Saudi and gave back Kuwait, grrr, blather