Quoting:
Very true. But I also think that Iraq doesn't have the capibility of doing too much damage to anyone. They may (or may not) have some weapons but I don't think they are as much of a threat as this administration makes them out to be. Who is more of a threat is North Korea. But, the U.S. won't go after them because they don't have oil.



Cat
End Quote

 I agree.  Anything to avoid a war.  I can't see how using a sledgehammer to kill a fly is going to further our goals if they truly are combating terrorism.  It will, IMO, certainly open a floodgate of terrorism, the likes of which we haven't seen.  
  Eventually Hussein will die.  Simply put, through diplomacy the US and world community (especially the nations of the midle-east) need to see that any succeeding regime becomes a productive and non-aggressive member of that community with the least suffering inflicted on all people.  On the mechanisms of this undertaking, however, I can only speculate.
  This makes me wonder what is to become of Cuba once Castro and his ilk die.  Another US business venture on a national scale?  I hope not, and that's another matter.

Quoting:
As someone against a war, I've got to wonder what the heck is wrong with Iraq?  Hans Blix says the situation is tense and dangerous, Iraq has to cooperate more actively...

Blix's team has also found conventional weapons, illegally imported within the past two years, but can't yet tell whether they were related to banned weapons. ''It is clear they have violated the terms of the bans of the United Nations,'' Blix said here Thursday.

There are 140,000 troops on your border, Hussein.  Do the math.
End Quote

He is a little man with dillousions of grandeur.  I don't like the idea of war, but if it is necessary then I back it up.  The man is clearly in breach of the agreement...I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking exile.  That would be a great idea...peaceful change.  Not that Hussein would go for that. ::)

Quoting:


He is a little man with dillousions of grandeur.  I don't like the idea of war, but if it is necessary then I back it up.  The man is clearly in breach of the agreement...I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking exile.  That would be a great idea...peaceful change.  Not that Hussein would go for that. ::)
End Quote

You hit on something important there which I want to highlight...a peaceful change, with the least destruction to secular infrastructure and loss of life.  It's the government, not the common citizens.
  Personally, I've always thought that the people of Iraq need to take things more in-hand than they appear to have done.  I don't buy this "people are frightened" and "rules with such an iron fist that no ghost of dissention is possible".  I've heard it said that you get the government you deserve.

Quoting:
Very true. But I also think that Iraq doesn't have the capibility of doing too much damage to anyone. They may (or may not) have some weapons but I don't think they are as much of a threat as this administration makes them out to be. Who is more of a threat is North Korea. But, the U.S. won't go after them because they don't have oil.



Cat
End Quote

Ahem.  Oog drive car.  Oog need oil for car unless Ug can make car that don't need oil.

Oh, the inspectors are kinda unhappy about Iraq's noncompliance.  Think they're hiding something?  Oh yeah.  This is like (dunno if I said this already) hiding porno under your mattress before the parents come into the room ::)

Quoting:
At this point, I don't know if oil is the issue.  Hussein has had ample opportunity to cooperate fully.  He has every reason to cooperate fully.  
9/11 was a declaration of war.  If Saddam isn't able to toss a nuke at us, he is capable of producing weapons of mass destruction that others can use to wage a war of terror against us.  
If the UN Inspectors have found Iraq in violation of the terms of the UN ban, what would you have the United States do?  A great power doesn't rattle a saber unless they're willing to unsheath it.
End Quote

Then the US should unsheath the saber and wipe that man off the map.

Quoting:
9/11 was a declaration of war.  End Quote

That was Saddam, was it? Not Bin Laden?

Quoting:


That was Saddam, was it? Not Bin Laden?
End Quote

9/11 was a declaration of war from terrorists towards the US of A.  Saddam, directly or indirectly, aided terrorists.  And bin Laden is probably either dead or dying considering his kidney ailments and the fact that he has to go cavehopping to escape the pursuers.  As I understand it, the United States made an umbrella declaration of war against all terrorists, and I guess this would include Saddam and Osama.

Quoting:
Well, if we want to point the finger at a specific individual, there's nothing directly implicating bin Laden, either.  No individual or organization has taken responsibility for the attack.
End Quote

So true, but he did kind of gloat on Al Jazeera TV a couple weeks after the event and subsequently seemed to take responsibility for it...

Honestly, I don't think it's practical to wait for some fool organization to say, "Ooooh!  Oooh!  It was me!  BWAHAHAHAHA!" before we scatter their atoms ::)

Quoting:
Very true. But I also think that Iraq doesn't have the capibility of doing too much damage to anyone. They may (or may not) have some weapons but I don't think they are as much of a threat as this administration makes them out to be. End Quote

Cat, Hussien has already used chemical and biological weapons on not only Iraqi neighbors, but his own people!  What makes you believe he will have any regrets when it comes to using them on anyone else?  Not to mention using them on us?  He has already pledged the use of urban warfare if there is an attack.  He strategically places weapons facilities next to schools, hospitals, etc to increase the civilian casualties.  He is a ruthless dictator, simple as that.  How can you say he doesn't have the capability to do much damage to anyone and that the administration is exaggerating when Hussien has already showed he will use children and innocent civilians as shields in a war?  

Quoting:
Who is more of a threat is North Korea. But, the U.S. won't go after them because they don't have oil.
End Quote

We, along with others, are in the process of using a diplomatic method of working out the situation with NK.  Do you honestly think it would be wise to just drop the situation with Iraq and start a new project with NK?  Thats just not possible.  Hussein is under UN sanctions to comply 100% right now, whether he does it or not is his decision.  He has been given so much time to comply it is ridiculous.  He knows what will happen if he does not.    

This has to do with so much more than just oil, its just a shame some refuse to realize that.

Quoting:
I understand that Hussein is dangerous-so is Bush for that matter. I just think that way this is being handled is not the way go about it. Yes, Hussein is in voilation of U.N. policies. Why doesn't the U.N handle him? Why does the U.S. have to get involved? Because of (of course) oil. Bush wants to get his fingers on that pie and he is going to do it no matter the cost! Are you willing to lose your sons and daughters so that Bush and his buddies can have the oil in Iraq?
End Quote

I guess if that is your mind-set, then thats what you are going to believe, no matter what.  It is a shame though.  

Quoting:Yes, Hussein is in voilation of U.N. policies.  Why doesn't the U.N handle him?  Why does the U.S. have to get involved? End Quote

good, you just admitted Iraq needs to be dealt with.  Now how do you propose the UN handles it without US involvement?  Give him more sanctions and a slap on the wrist?  Yah, right, that'll work.  To deal with people like Saddam Hussein and Iraq, there needs to be a strong coalition of multiple strong countries.  We are one of those strong countries.  


I assure you though, this is not a big plot by Bush so that he "and his buddies can have the oil in Iraq".  I am actually surprised even you would beleive and say that.  

Quoting:
I wouldnt be surprised if the US put them there themselves!!! (theyve lied to us about everything else... why not lie about this?)
End Quote

Please to explain what the US has lied about, sir.  This could be interesting.

Quoting:
If this war was about nuclear weapons... why isnt the US waging war on Korea? They are the ones with the weapons... not Iraq!

More proof that its all about oil... and nothing but.
End Quote

Sigh.  It's not all about oil.  It's about routing out a madman who gasses his own people and, given the means, will unleash war upon the civilized world.  

As for Korea, they're not nearly as insane.  But since your mind is made up, I'm going to stop arguing and support my President, because he's preemptively making sure that Saddam doesn't start WWIII, and the rest of the world is making sure North Korea doesn't either.

Quoting:
If this war was about nuclear weapons... why isnt the US waging war on Korea? They are the ones with the weapons... not Iraq!

More proof that its all about oil... and nothing but.
End Quote

Read up and see that Korea is being addressed, Russia, China, and South Korea are involved as well.  Korea is negotiating.  
I also want to point out that oil is an important commodity to protect our interest in, I do not support a war for oil alone but given the collection of concerns I'm not against it at this time.  Oil heats us, allows us to get to work, transport our food and other sundries.  You want to see a country go to sh!t in a short time?  Shut down the transportation.  Oil makes the world go around, at least most of it and that of course includes the the strongest nation, the United States.

Quoting:

Read up and see that Korea is being addressed, Russia, China, and South Korea are involved as well.  Korea is negotiating.  
I also want to point out that oil is an important commodity to protect our interest in, I do not support a war for oil alone but given the collection of concerns I'm not against it at this time.  Oil heats us, allows us to get to work, transport our food and other sundries.  You want to see a country go to sh!t in a short time?  Shut down the transportation.  Oil makes the world go around, at least most of it and that of course includes the the strongest nation, the United States.
End Quote

Quoting:
Im not anti-america or anything... I just feel that all thats been happening lately isnt really what its talked about in the media. And george dubya is a bit of a moron if u ask me  :-/
End Quote

He is a moron, but he means well.  And our country has so many checks and balances that he can't really do much unless the smart folk tell him he can ;)

Quoting:


Please to explain what the US has lied about, sir.  This could be interesting.
End Quote

 


Well, presidents of the U.S. have been lying to us for many years.  Johnson lied about the Tonkin incident.  Kennedy lied about the Bay of Pigs, Nixon lied about Watergate, Bush Sr. Lied about "no new taxes", and Clinton lied about oral sex.  Dubya is probably lying about his "intellegence" (not only on Iriaqi weapons).  We need leaders who are not beholden to the military-industrial complex and who are willing to stand up to the big money guys and fight for us little people - and not send our kids off to die for their big money friends.

Quoting:
If this war was about nuclear weapons... why isnt the US waging war on Korea? They are the ones with the weapons... not Iraq!
End Quote

this is NOT just about nuclear weapons, its about nuclear, biological, chemical, etc etc weapons.  In other words, "Weapons of Mass Destruction".  And yes, Iraq has them, and like I said in a post above, he has used them on his own people so will have no problem using them on us.

Big Cheese, you are obviously biased and mis-informed.  I suggest doing some more research on the subject before attempting to wage in on it.  

And regarding Korea, like myself and others here have pointed out, we ARE dealing with them.  We, along with numerous other nations, are currently working on the situation in a diplomatic way.  

Saddam knows what he has to do to comply with the UN.

Quoting:

 


Well, presidents of the U.S. have been lying to us for many years.  Johnson lied about the Tonkin incident.  Kennedy lied about the Bay of Pigs, Nixon lied about Watergate, Bush Sr. Lied about "no new taxes", and Clinton lied about oral sex.  Dubya is probably lying about his "intellegence" (not only on Iriaqi weapons).  We need leaders who are not beholden to the military-industrial complex and who are willing to stand up to the big money guys and fight for us little people - and not send our kids off to die for their big money friends.
End Quote

Couldn't agree with you more.  Unfortunately, and I think you post touches on the real key of the whole thing, the last president to stand up to the military-industrial complex was the one who warned us against it initially, Dwight Eisenhower.

Quoting:
We need leaders who are not beholden to the military-industrial complex and who are willing to stand up to the big money guys and fight for us little people - and not send our kids off to die for their big money friends.
End Quote

...unbelievable. ::)  Yes, I'm so sure Bush's #1 reason for wanting to become pres was so he could start a war and kill off our kids.  Give me a break!

Quoting:
I was meaning... they seemed to just go straight for Iraq... and a few months later went to korea for NEGOTIATION

This seems a bit... strange


End Quote

Quoting:


Couldn't agree with you more.  Unfortunately, and I think you post touches on the real key of the whole thing, the last president to stand up to the military-industrial complex was the one who warned us against it initially, Dwight Eisenhower.
End Quote

I must have missed this in my high school history class.  Could you explain what it means?  Thanks!  :)

Quoting:


He is a moron, but he means well.  And our country has so many checks and balances that he can't really do much unless the smart folk tell him he can ;)
End Quote

Quoting:


Sigh.  It's not all about oil.  It's about routing out a madman who gasses his own people and, given the means, will unleash war upon the civilized world.  

As for Korea, they're not nearly as insane.  But since your mind is made up, I'm going to stop arguing and support my President, because he's preemptively making sure that Saddam doesn't start WWIII, and the rest of the world is making sure North Korea doesn't either.
End Quote

Of course its about oil.  Iraq sits on the largest oil deposit so far discovered, and Saddam has signed deals with China, Russia, and others for its exploration and  developments - but NOT with U.S. companies.  These deals, his opponents say, would be voided if they were in power.  Its all about oil.  On the other hand, since when has our government been concerned about how another leader has treated his own people?  We certainly didn't object to Pinochet, Sucarno, the Brazilian generarls, the Salvadoran death squads...the  list goes on.  Any (friendly) dictator - and Saadam was one once - who can afford a pair of sun glasses and is willing to make his part of the world safe for coca cola is our boy.  As Roosevelt said of Samosa, "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch."

Quoting:


I must have missed this in my high school history class.  Could you explain what it means?  Thanks!  :)
End Quote

...I'm glad I'm not the only one thats confused by that post.

Quoting:





Its all about oil.  End Quote

if thats what you believe, then there's no changing your mind I guess.

Quoting:On the other hand, since when has our government been concerned about how another leader has treated his own people?  End Quote

are you serious?  Do some research, seriously.

Quoting:


I must have missed this in my high school history class.  Could you explain what it means?  Thanks!  :)
End Quote

More than happy to, Earl.  Here's a link to a the full text, below is the section I was referring to.  These lines were delivered in Eisenhower's last message to the nation as president.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Quoting:

if thats what you believe, then there's no changing your mind I guess.



are you serious?  Do some research, seriously.
End Quote

Actually, as a college professor of Latin American history, I've done lots of research, and much of it on U.S. foreign policy.  And the recond stinks if you impose any moral standard.  We have supported some of the bloodiest dictators and oppessive regimes this planet has ever seen.  So I find Dubya's pontification on Saadam to be a bit shallow.  When we were on his side, as in his war against Iran, he was a good guy, even though he used poison gas etc. against the Iranis - and we helped fund that effort to the tune of something like $35 million.  I might also add that he actually asked our ambassador if we would approve of a "rectification of borders" before invading Kiwait - our ambassador said OK.  Maybe YOU should do some research my friend!!!!

Quoting:


Don Carlos, you're going to find some people are deluded into thinking we're (the USA) always right. Of course I know exactly what you and Steve_H are referring to, but when trying to explain this to others... what's the use? Let the blind lead the blind and hope things will get better IN SPITE of our stupid, inept, greedy, corrupt leaders. I'll be damned if I'm going to support that fratboy moron and his band of scoundrels on their little expedition into manifest destiny. I feel sorry for the poor fools who think they're serving a greater purpose when they're just pawns in some rich-man's scheme. How pathetic.
End Quote

yikes...and the claws come out.

TB I was waiting for your usual anti-American Bush-bashing rheoric.  You never cease to amaze me.

Quoting:



yikes...and the claws come out.

TB I was waiting for your usual anti-American Bush-bashing rheoric.  You never cease to amaze me.
End Quote

Quoting:
That pic under your name looked like saddam when i first saw it. And then it reminded me of the time when Saddam was friends with the US back in the 70s. When the US gave Saddam all his weapons and training.


End Quote

its a viscious circle, you are right.  But, mistakes were made, and now we have to deal with it.  Just as Clinton gave N Korea all their nuclear facilities, and now we are dealing with that.  

Quoting:
  IMO, this war is not in any way about justice or the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Consider that his butchery and expansinist policies were good enough for us when we poured  billions of dollars into the grinder to support his little war with Iran. And why was it good enough then?  Because Iran was run by a tyrant who overthrew a tyrant (Shah Reza Pahlavi) who built what was once the world's third-strongest army but would give Americans and Brits good prices on petroleum and attempted to Westernize. Saddam's aggression and brutality was acceptable when it was intended to harass those who tampered with American petroleum dependence. The Taliban was good enough when the US was recruiting Islamic militants to fight the Afghan/Soviet War. In other words, repressive ideology and brutality were a good thing when aimed at the godless Communists.End Quote

You forgot to mention that we were allies with the godless Communists during World War II.  But presenting a litany of embarassing alliances doesn't address the issue.  Oil is a vital resource, and the west has shown precious little urgency in weaning itself from its dependence on it.  The United States has also shown a distressing expediency in their choice of allies.
What would you have, though?  The terrorists responsible for 9/11 were funded by someone, organized by someone, armed by someone.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think that, unchecked, Iraq could serve as an armory and supplier of terrorists.  The justice in this case is national security.  

Quoting:   If Americans ever moved for just and proper cause, we would have stopped Pol Pot, would have conducted ourselves differently in Vietnam and Laos, would have acted against Balkan atrocities before we did, and sought before now a solution to the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.End Quote

Again, save Vietnam, these are cases where American didn't have a vital national security issue at stake.  

Quoting:   We would have bombed London by now for injustices in Ireland, and would be presently preparing invasions of North Korea, India, and Pakistan if we acted with consistency.End Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon has invasion plans on file for North Korea, India, and Pakistan.

Quoting:   If we acted with compassion, the Cold War would never have come about.
  And imagine that: a world in which Arab nations have not been undermined by the Cold War, in which Latin America was not a microdrama and, well ... I still don't know what to do about Africa. Americans, by supporting tyrants in Africa, have assisted in causing much human misery.
  If we acted with intelligence, we wouldn't be tied up in a holy war in which yer either "with-us-or-against-us".
  This is a petrol and culture war, damn skippy.
  That's the kicker-most of us know it's about petroleum, but what I can't figure out for the life of me is why so few Americans care.
  Peace is within human capability. It just doesn't fit well on a ledger sheet when we presuppose the necessity of winners and losers.
End Quote

The holy war has been declared against us.  Are you saying we are so morally stained by past behavior that we have no grounds for engaging in this war?  Oil is as vital to developed nations as water.  America's leaders first responsibility is to their people.  9/11 brought the threat of terrorists home with shuddering impact.  You've placed the burden of war squarely on America's shoulders.  What about Hussein?  Does he have a responsibility to avoid this war?  

Quoting:
We would have bombed London by now for injustices in Ireland
End Quote

Oh, come come - you'd have been better off bombing republican bits of NI unless you could send your bombs back thirty years (or three hundred, if you want when it would actually have made a difference).

Quoting:
The holy war has been declared against us.
End Quote

Not by Iraq.  Stop seeing yourself as a victim in this.

Quoting:
Are you saying we are so morally stained by past behavior that we have no grounds for engaging in this war?
End Quote

I think that's precisely what he's saying - and you know what?  He's 100% accurate in his assessment.

Quoting:
Oil is as vital to developed nations as water.  America's leaders first responsibility is to their people.  9/11 brought the threat of terrorists home with shuddering impact.  You've placed the burden of war squarely on America's shoulders.  What about Hussein?  Does he have a responsibility to avoid this war?  
End Quote

That's a non sequitur of staggering proportions: what you're saying in the first two sentences is that America's leaders should be able to invade any country they like to ensure your oil supply... and in the following sentence invoking an event which has no relationship to the previous one except to try and gain a bit of moral credibility which just ain't there.

Question for you: three thousand innocent people died in the World Trade Centre - how many thousands more will die in the event of an invasion of Iraq?  If I hear one more American trying to use 9/11 as justification for invasion, I'll try to think up a suitable end to this sentence

Phil

Quoting:
Question for you: three thousand innocent people died in the World Trade Centre - how many thousands more will die in the event of an invasion of Iraq?  If I hear one more American trying to use 9/11 as justification for invasion, I'll try to think up a suitable end to this sentence

Phil
End Quote

No offense Phil, but if some yahoo decided to ram a plane into Big Ben, wouldn't you be a little ticked off too?

Quoting:
No offense Phil, but if some yahoo decided to ram a plane into Big Ben, wouldn't you be a little ticked off too?
End Quote

No offence taken, but it still wouldn't make me want to invade a country that didn't have anything to do with the event, killing more innocents that the original did...

Phil

Quoting:
Not by Iraq.  Stop seeing yourself as a victim in this.End Quote

I was responding to Dave's "If we acted with intelligence, we wouldn't be tied up in a holy war in which yer either "with-us-or-against-us"."  
The bombing of the World Trade Center was as much a declaration of war as the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was.  And saying Iraq did not become our enemy after 9/11 is like saying Germany was not our foe immediately after Pearl Harbor.  The ally of our enemy is our enemy.  

Quoting:Are you saying we are so morally stained by past behavior that we have no grounds for engaging in this war?

I think that's precisely what he's saying - and you know what?  He's 100% accurate in his assessment.End Quote

Really?  Can you bring a nation to the bar that has the moral standing the United States lacks?  One that we might model our behavior on.
Iraq, perhaps?  Great Britain?  Germany?  Russia?  Chile?  
You surely can't be saying that because terrorists don't represent a traditional nation/state that every nation, sufficiently provoked, can't go after and attempt to neutralize nation sponsors of terrorists?  

Quoting:Oil is as vital to developed nations as water.  America's leaders first responsibility is to their people.  9/11 brought the threat of terrorists home with shuddering impact.  You've placed the burden of war squarely on America's shoulders.  What about Hussein?  Does he have a responsibility to avoid this war?  
That's a non sequitur of staggering proportions: what you're saying in the first two sentences is that America's leaders should be able to invade any country they like to ensure your oil supply... and in the following sentence invoking an event which has no relationship to the previous one except to try and gain a bit of moral credibility which just ain't there.End Quote

Dave said the potential Iraqi war is not "just," presumably because of the moral trough the United States is in.  If the United States has pursued her self interests in foreign affairs, that makes her no different than any nation that exists or has ever existed.  Every nation is selfish in the foreign market, and every nation should be.  As to invading any country to ensure the oil continues to flow...   Iraq makes weapons of mass destruction.  If there were no presumption of complicity in the terror network Iraq wouldn't be the focus of US hostile intentions.   In my opinion, there's a reasonable presumption that Hussein's weapons will be used against his western enemies.  
I wasn't trying to gain credibility by invoking Hussein.  I was just wondering if the moral censors are as outraged by Iraq's transgression as they are by the United States.  Both sides of this topic have a terrible tendency towards myopia when it comes to assessing the other side.  

Quoting:Question for you: three thousand innocent people died in the World Trade Centre - how many thousands more will die in the event of an invasion of Iraq?  If I hear one more American trying to use 9/11 as justification for invasion, I'll try to think up a suitable end to this sentenceEnd Quote

I don't know, and that is indeed a haunting question.   In the worst case there will be house to house fighting in Baghdad, and I don't believe many of us would find that tolerable.
It's difficult for me to make the pro-war argument because a week ago I felt differently.  The discovery of the empty warheads just tripped off something in me, and I had to ask, finally, What is Saddam doing to prevent a war?  It is his back against the wall, and it would have been gratifying to everyone if Iraq had aggressively aided the UN inspectors.  So far, that has not been the case.  It has been, and continues to be, within Hussein's power to prevent this war.  The responsibility for it is as much his as anyone's.

Quoting:
The bombing of the World Trade Center was as much a declaration of war as the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was.  And saying Iraq did not become our enemy after 9/11 is like saying Germany was not our foe immediately after Pearl Harbor.  The ally of our enemy is our enemy.  
End Quote

Iraq is not an ally of Al Quaeda - no evidence has been offered about any link between the two, other than that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are rumoured to hate each others guts.

Quoting:
Really?  Can you bring a nation to the bar that has the moral standing the United States lacks?  One that we might model our behavior on.
End Quote

No, there isn't one - that's why the UN is so important in these things.  Unilateral/bilateral action of the sort that GWB/TB desire is made from a position of strength in the world, not moral authority.  They have NO moral authority for this sort of action and should stop pretending they have.

Quoting: Iraq,
You surely can't be saying that because terrorists don't represent a traditional nation/state that every nation, sufficiently provoked, can't go after and attempt to neutralize nation sponsors of terrorists?  
End Quote

You're off on one of your non sequiturs again: there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein sponsors terrorists.  There is however, no dispute that the USA sponsored the Taliban amongst others during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.  By your own reasoning, the USSR would have had a moral justification in invading - it brings me back to the above point, that it has nothing to do with morals or an ethical position.

Quoting:
In my opinion, there's a reasonable presumption that Hussein's weapons will be used against his western enemies.  
End Quote

This, in theory, ought to be the *only* reason for war... having said that, a full scale multi-billion dollar war (oh yes, and some lives might be lost as well) seems a massive overreaction to a "reasonable presumption"... also that that very action is more likely to increase the chances of such weapons being used against us than decrease it.

Quoting:
I was just wondering if the moral censors are as outraged by Iraq's transgression as they are by the United States.  Both sides of this topic have a terrible tendency towards myopia when it comes to assessing the other side.  
...
The discovery of the empty warheads just tripped off something in me, and I had to ask, finally, What is Saddam doing to prevent a war?  It is his back against the wall, and it would have been gratifying to everyone if Iraq had aggressively aided the UN inspectors.  So far, that has not been the case.  It has been, and continues to be, within Hussein's power to prevent this war.  The responsibility for it is as much his as anyone's.
End Quote

He's being an annoying little tosser, a crackpot dictator who has a tendency for self-aggrandisement by saying stupid things about the West and America.  Yes, he's annoying, but the best thing to do with that sort of self-important nincompoop is ignore him - he'll be dead before long anyway.

Phil

Quoting:
Iraq is not an ally of Al Quaeda - no evidence has been offered about any link between the two, other than that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are rumoured to hate each others guts.End Quote

Oh, ok, if a rumor says that, then it must be true.  Rumors are always true, right?

Quoting:You're off on one of your non sequiturs again: there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein sponsors terrorists.End Quote

Wrong.  It is a fact and on record, that since 2000, Saddam has been writing checks worth $25,000 each to families of Palistinian suicide bombers as a sort of 'thanks for your service'.  He has paid out over $10 million to date to them.  They are terrorists, Saddam does support terrorists, there's your evidence.  Even Saddam admitted it.  

Quoting:Yes, he's annoying, but the best thing to do with that sort of self-important nincompoop is ignore him - he'll be dead before long anyway.End Quote

I am amazed.  Just "ignore" him?  Are you serious?  Turning a blind eye and just hoping things work out in the end is a foolish and careless attitude.  We aren't dealing with an annoying neighbor across the street, we are dealing with a ruthless dictator who will have no regrets wiping America, and others, off the map.  Thank goodness we didn't adopt your "just ignore him" attitude in WWII.  

Quoting:


What would you have, though?  The terrorists responsible for 9/11 were funded by someone, organized by someone, armed by someone.  It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think that, unchecked, Iraq could serve as an armory and supplier of terrorists.  The justice in this case is national security.
End Quote

 



  If we weren't doing it (A) so poorly, and (B) so right on schedule, I don't think anyone would care (anti-war movement, that is.) But the staffing of the White House is such that two things are apparent: (1) the petroleum industry is a primary concern of the administration, and (2) players in the old meddling are essential to the current plan.  What really chaps a lot of hides, though, is that media sources now suggest such stupefying statistics as half of all Americans might believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the WTC attack. Although I would love to see the actual survey that brought that result, it does highlight the tremendous effort the Bush administration has undertaken to invent reasons for an Iraqi Bush War. If our cause is noble, what's with the horsepucky?
   The Bush administration worked furiously last year to tie bin Laden to Hussein in order to justify the Iraq invasion via the "War on Terror". It's a nice card to play. After all, they're all Muslims, so that must make them one and the same.

Quoting:
Oh, ok, if a rumor says that, then it must be true.  Rumors are always true, right?
End Quote

So you have evidence that there is any link AT ALL between Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin - except the obvious one that they have both received American help, money and arms?

Quoting:
Wrong.  It is a fact and on record, that since 2000, Saddam has been writing checks worth $25,000 each to families of Palistinian suicide bombers as a sort of 'thanks for your service'.  He has paid out over $10 million to date to them.  They are terrorists, Saddam does support terrorists, there's your evidence.  Even Saddam admitted it.  
End Quote

Sorry, that was a badly-made point in my previous message- I was thinking about terrorists who have threatened the USA: the sort of organized Al Quaeda bod doesn't need his 25k blood money; for the people in Palestine, that sort of money could see their family out of hardship, own home, buy a place in Lebanon/Egypt (or any place that isn't Israel) - quite an incentive for a father/elder son who doesn't like the state of his family.

Quoting:
I am amazed.  Just "ignore" him?  Are you serious?  Turning a blind eye and just hoping things work out in the end is a foolish and careless attitude.
End Quote

I didn't say "turn a blind eye"... we (the West, though largely the US) have been keeping an eye on him for quite a while now, he's not been able to regain the sort of military power we thought he had before the Gulf War.  As for foolish and careless, I would say exactly the same about invasion.

Quoting:
Thank goodness we didn't adopt your "just ignore him" attitude in WWII.  
End Quote

Er... you did.  So did we: Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" speech being a classic of the genre.  But just because Hitler invaded Europe after promising he wouldn't, doesn't justify a full-scale invasion of Iraq.

Quoting:
After all, they're all Muslims, so that must make them one and the same.
End Quote

Hussain only plays at being a Muslim, so that he can make the Muslim world take the view that "an attack on Iraq is an attack on Islam".  Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam didn't get religion till about the time of the Gulf War - he certainly didn't seem remotely Islamic during the Iran-Iraq war.  However, he sees the Muslim world as some kind of power base, in the hope that they're too dumb to realize what he is.  Problem comes from ill-educated masses who are prone to believing similarly ignorant imams rather than newspapers/TV etc.  Not that you can believe *them* all the time, but by and large they're a bit more reliable than someone who rarely looks further than their own navel.

Phil

Quoting:

In other news, don't you think Colin Powell would make a good Klingon if we gave him a prosthetic forehead?  ;)


End Quote

Funny!  But he'd need to lose the glasses to look like a true Klingon warrior.  I am watching on TV right now.. Don't know that I will look at him quite the same again.  But seriously,  this is pretty powerful stuff ie. the audiotapes and satellite photos.  I am more curious to hear the other reps and inspectors comments when Powell is through.