The United States of America has gone mad

Cork

I am no apologist for Saddam. He used chemical weapons on his own people. UN inspectors are looking for arms out there at the moment. I am sure - the UN has better things to be doing than searching Iraq.

The truth is Saddam cannot be trusted.

He is making up more excuses than a 5 year old toddler.

Sanctions which have killed 500,000 children and only stengthened Saddams power base

This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating.

Where does Saddam get money for his lifestlye.

It is about time that this dictator got his comeuppance.

The Saint

"This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating."

I didnt know UNICEF did propaganda!

Cork

Which country has been involved in most military conflicts and coups in the last century? The good old USA.

[Soundbite removed - Gandalf]

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
"This is propaganda - The food for Oil Programme has been in operating."

I didnt know UNICEF did propaganda!

If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?

The Saint

"Thank God, for the USA - They rebuilt Germany afer ww2 & bailed us out aganist Hitler."

I think that you'll find that the Russians did a hell of a lot more against the Nazis than the Americans did. Anyway WWI, WWII and Bosnia, OK thats three. But what about Chile, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Venezuela ect ect. The list goes on and on. America has been involved in morally corrupt wars since the end of WWII. America has no moral compass, only a financial, they do whats good for them at the time and take none of the blame when it inevitably goes horribly wrong.

Hobart

If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?

Economic sanctions on this country have only hurt the People of Iraq, Not Saddam. As far as I can see Iraq is complying with the UN resolution. So in answer to your question, Leave them alone. As simple as that.

As I have stated Iraq is of no military threat to the UK or USA. It is of no more threat to it's neighbours than they are to it. So just leave them alone.

The Saint

"If you're against economic sanctions, and you're against military action, how do you suggest the UN enforce its resolutions against Iraq? Or do you want to leave Saddam a free hand to do as he likes?"

No. Keep inspections going indefinitely, get food to the starving. Start opposition parties in the country and try to start an internal coup instesd of leaving all of the Shi'ites to be massacred by Saddam so the US can have an Iron Fisted dictator to keep the country stable. I dont think bombibg civilians will help. It will breed more resentment to the west and cause a surge in terrorism.

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
Keep inspections going indefinitely,

Inspections are taking place at the moment. However, having inspectors in the country is useless unless they have Iraqi cooperation. Hopefully the Iraqis will continue to cooperate with the inspectors and we can avoid war.

get food to the starving.

Already being done by the oil-for-food program.

To date, some $41 billion worth of contracts for humanitarian supplies and equipment have been approved. Supplies and equipment worth almost $26 billion have been delivered to Iraq, while another $10.5 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment are in the production and delivery pipeline.

Start opposition parties in the country and try to start an internal coup

The US has backed numerous coup attempts in Iraq since the Gulf war. All have failed (one example). It's obvious that Saddam has such a tight grip on power that any such coup attempt is doomed.

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Yeah I think your 100% right there. Though I think hoping for pro west opposition parties might be a bit of an impossible task.

Saddam cannot be trusted for sure and he needs to be removed from his powerbase. However the whole gassing issue confuses me. Is it the fact that he used gas is the problem or the fact that he killed his own people? UK used gas before and neither the US or the UK has a clean slate on massacres either! Also they developed these weapons in the first place! Why did the UK and US develop them if not to use them! Which is the same argument being used against Saddam!

All that said Saddam needs to be removed, hes a madman.

I would guess that , various weapons are developed in respose to others developing them, or the risk that they would and mainly as a deterent, but shouldn't be used against your own citizens, thats not civilized.
It would be excellent at this stage for all concerned, if,full co-operation was achieved with the weapons inspectors as a start, lessening the justification if any for war.

But as I said earlier, it's my view that the U.S needs an incentive to get involved in world conflicts and thats understandable from their point of view, the grief wouldn't be worth it otherwise.
It's also understandable from their point of view that they might want to be pro active in the worlds largest oil producing region, in an effort to keep supplies flowing.
Whether it's necessary,though requires a crystal Ball.
Again from my perspective anyhow, rather than speculating( although very suspicious), I'm reserving judgement, untill all reports are on the table.
My suspicions as to what WMD's are in Iraq or at least the ingredients for them , being fed by the fact that the inspectors were turfed out for so long.

Reminds me, of the time when I was a student, and the TV licence inspector came a knocking...
I answered the door, and when We all realised who it was, said "hold on a minute..." leaving the guy standing at the door,from where he could clearly hear us moving furniture( we were in fact using it to block the door into the room where the telly was:D )
We then all disappeared out the back door, leaving the front door open...the man eventually went away, but we got the summons a few weeks later.

Now Sadam has had plenty of time to move the furniture around,and with respect, it wouldn't be in his nature to have an attack of conscience and destroy what he had.
mm

The Saint

"I would guess that , various weapons are developed in respose to others developing them, or the risk that they would and mainly as a deterent, but shouldn't be used against your own citizens, thats not civilized."

If you are referring to the Kurds thats like calling the Palestinians in the WB and Gaza Israelis but in principle I agree.

"My suspicions as to what WMD's are in Iraq or at least the ingredients for them , being fed by the fact that the inspectors were turfed out for so long."

In fact the UN removed the weapons inspectors for their own safety before the US started bombing Iraq. As I said in another thread, it was a day or two before Clintons impeachment hearing, mmm deceptive.

Cork

Sanctions have not worked. If Saddam is does not comply with the UN resolution. I think Saddam needs to go.

The Iraqi people are suffering under him.

The Saint

I agree that he needs to go but killing civilians is not the way.

Cork

Saddam only used chemical weapons on his own people.

I think that Iraq deserves more.

It is easy to sit on the fence but fair play to the US & UK.

Saddam is a cruel, vendictive tin pot dictator.

Who put him there?
I don't care.

What we need now is to get rid of him.

His people are living in fear while he is living in the lap of luxery spending money on himself & his military.

Meh

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Shoot first and ask questions later?

We've had ten years of sanctions, UN resolutions and limited bombing raids. Military action at this stage is hardly "shooting first".

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
We've had ten years of sanctions, UN resolutions and limited bombing raids. Military action at this stage is hardly "shooting first".

No, its more a "continue shooting, and shoot some more".

I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy has failed with Iraq, because you have just accurately described the nature of that diplomacy - limited military action coupled with the UN issuing "orders" on what must be done.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by bonkey
I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy has failed with Iraq

I always get amused by the allegations that diplomacy hasn't been tried with Iraq. Saddam has had ten years of inspections, sanctions, resolutions and finally limited air raids to mend his ways. Yet we're supposed to believe that if we're nice to him for a change he'll turn over a new leaf. Yeah, Saddam is just misunderstood, poor guy...

growler

I nearly choked last night when i heard george pronounce that any iraqi soldier or officer should think twice about obeying orders because they would be charged with war crimes.

this is unbeliveable , surely international law allows a military to defend a sovreign state from invasion (if no un resolution is passed i imagine) but surely a soldier would be obliged to try and kill the enemy ? or be tried as a coward / traitor by his/her own state ?

and didnt america decline to sign up to a treaty recently that would allow us soldiers to be tried for war crimes ?

are there political points awarded for hypocrisy these days or am i missing something ?

Cork

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I don't see anyone defending Saddam, or anyone that has a problem with disposing him or his regime. The problem is with the bombing everyone else to get to him. All that achieves is turning the rest of the population against those doing the bombing.

What are the options:
To wait until Saddam goes into exile or gracefully goes into old age.

I think the world community has eniugh of Saddam and he deserves to go.

Are the Iraqi people expected to wait another 10 , 20 or 30 years?

There has been a lot of inaction.

A lot of inaction has good intentions behind it.

But inaction is only playing into Saddams hands.

Sanctions have not worked. They have not loosened Sammams grasp on power.

I think - Tin Pot Dictators around the world need to be sent a message.

Hobart

But is the question not a bigger one? Are we willing to allow the USA and to a lesser extent the UK, to be the worlds policemen? If the US does not like a certain leader should the West back him to go in and overthrow that government/'dictator'. If the US has certain intrests in that region, should we back them to do the same?

The UN has proved to be sterile when it's comes to agreeing policy. If the the US does not agree with a certain UN policy, well then it vetos it.

gandalf

Cork you are still just posting soundbites. You have not backed up your statements (when asked!), answered peoples points directly on any of your recent posts.

At the moment all I see is you increasing your post count by cutting and pasting the same soundbites over and over !!!

I expect this to change.

Gandalf.

Cork

You have not backed up your statements (when asked!), answered peoples points directly on any of your recent posts.

The people of Iraq have a miserable lot. The are ruled by a dictator who has used chemical weapons on them. I know that I am not backing up these. But I think that they are generally accepted.

Are you to put bullet points on your openions?

Are we willing to allow the USA and to a lesser extent the UK, to be the worlds policemen?

Should we wait for the UN or the EU to do something?

The question is:

How are we to get rid of Saddam?


I think nobody wants war - but Saddam has no inclination to compromise or to build bridges.

Gadaffi has. He is trying to mke ammends. What ammends has Saddam made either to the world community or his own people?

How should the UN get rid of this dictator?

Hobart

Originally posted by Cork The question is: How are we to get rid of Saddam?

No it is not. The question should be are we going to allow the USA to dicate the political structure of the world for it's own agenda?

Originally posted by Cork Gadaffi has. He is trying to mke ammends. What ammends has Saddam made either to the world community or his own people?

So by that analagy If Saddam was to give a couple of billion of dollars to, whoever, and promised to be a nice boy and not invade any countries, we would leave him alone?

On one hand you say that we should get rid of him and on the other you seem to offer him a life line. Your message, like DubYa, is far from consistent Cork.

Hobart

And BTW we better put disclaimers on most of our postings

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Cork
The people of Iraq have a miserable lot. The are ruled by a dictator who has used chemical weapons on them.

Fact is, as much as you harp on about him using chemical weapons on his people, that was some time ago. I might as well say the US administration dropped not one, but TWO nuclear bombs on Japan, when they knew one would end the war. Or chastize Churchill for killing hundreds of thousands in the firebombing of Dresden.

If I were to attempt a qualitative measure of human suffering, I would in fact be able to argue that the civilian population suffering most in the Middle East are all *women*- mainly in Saudi Arabia, our biggest ally in the region after Egypt & Israel. I'm not excusing these barbaric acts by any means. I just want to point out that us and the British supplying a megalomaniacal military dictator with WMD after he's just fought a war wasn't the smartest thing really. No smarter than equipping and training Osama Bin-Liner, but that's another story.

Are you to put bullet points on your openions?

No, but it's generally accepted that for a debate to work both sides should at least try to make their arguments clash. If one side departs on a soundbite soliloquy then it's like two ships passing in the night- the debate might as well not exist.

Should we wait for the UN or the EU to do something?

Erm...the UN is doing something actually. You don't think these inspectors are poking around Iraq to relieve the boredom surely? I mean sure they're scientists, but it's not a weekend out :P The EU is made up of memberstates whose goal is NOT a common foreign policy. France & Germany oppose Britain's position, Britain's position opposes that of its public. Interesting little conundrum for the British isn't it.

I think nobody wants war - but Saddam has no inclination to compromise or to build bridges.

Would you negotiate or build bridges with a gun to your head? Any negotiation derived from the use of force is no negotiation at all- it's compliance with a set of directives. If negotiation is really what you're talking about- it hasn't been tried. Hitler wasn't 'negotiating' the return of the Sudetenland when he moved 4 tank divisions to its borders was he?

Gadaffi has. He is trying to mke ammends. What ammends has Saddam made either to the world community or his own people?

Perhaps a better question is: what chance has he been given? Gaddafi has done exactly the same things to his own minorities in terms of chemical wpns etc. But we traded with Libya and engaged them diplomatically. Iraq has NEVER since the gulf war ended, been engaged constructively by anyone outside the Gulf. Libya is being opened up with trade and aid, not bunker-busters (that were used in theatre in Iraq for the first time two weeks ago, on one of a number of routine air-strikes that have been going on since 1991). You see what I'm getting at? But ahhh, if we actually try diplomacy we can't get at the second-largest oil supplies in the world.

How should the UN get rid of this dictator?

The same way we're getting rid of dictators in China, Libya and Myanmar. The same way dictatorships were collapsed in Jordan and Egypt- with constructive engagement, not bully-boy tactics.


Occy

Snowball

Looks like I stating that its true but just backing u up.

Who placed Saddam in power? The US
False (sorry man) Sad am ran away from home at the age of 10. He lived in the equivalent or a trailer park.
He moved in with his uncle and was educated by his uncle. To cut a pretty interesting life (I point out that I have the ****) short he evetualy was recognised by the political party (well, they later stormed the goverment and killed everyone so if that is political them yes, political) and asked to kill the current president of Iraq. It failed. Eventualy his party took over, and uncle of his was encharge and he got a job as the leader of the secret police. Sad am slowly took power from his uncle and a few years later he told the old man to retire.
Sad am them called a meeting of all members of the goverment (including his party) and called out the names of those he did not 100% trust. about 70% were killed and all were tourtured for weeks, months or in some cases years.
The ****ed up little puppy took power for him self and ruled with an iron fist.

Who gave Saddam the means to develop WMD? The US, Britain, Germany, ect. True but also Russia and china I think.

Who kept selling him the means to develop WMD even after the gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds and through his worse attrocities? Answer as above. True

Who has vetoed more UN security council resolutions than any other country in the world? The US with Britain in second place.True

Why was Saddam left in place after the first gulf war? The Bush administration said that prefered an Iron fisted dictator in place for stability of the region.True

Which country did nearly a mirror image invasion of another country just a matter of months before Iraq invaded Kuwait? The US when they invaded Panama.True

Which country has supported/installed most recent brutal dictators of recent history? Yip, the US.True. Bush senior recruted, trained and installed Bin laden, his men and armed and financed them.
Mostly unknown fact: The Bushes and the Bin Ladens were close family freinds. Both daddy and son have been over to the Bin Ladens and visaversa.

Which country has been involved in most military conflicts and coups in the last century? The good old USA.True

Which country refuses to allow cheap drugs to be made to be sent to third world countries so they can save millions of lives? The US.True

Which country has the largest stock of WMD in the world and has threatened to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries if deemed fit? Yip the US of A.True

Which country has the largest military budget even though their medical infastructure is in ****, terrible education, rampant racism and areas that are consider to be third world in conditions? AmericaTrue

Which country has no free press with the majority of media outlets being owned by multinationals with strong right wing political ties. The media portrays Americans being fully behind their president about the war on Iraq but in fact is the opposite. Who? You guessed it, Finland.


Only joking, USA.True

I could go on with this for hours but I have work to do. You should do more

The Saint

"I could go on with this for hours but I have work to do. You should do more"

OK heres a few more to keep you amused. I'll leave everyone to fill in the blanks for themselves.



Which country supported and armed the Indonesia invasion of East Timor, which wiped out a quarter of the population of the country?

Which country supported and armed the Turkish armies massacre of the Kurds in Turkey in 1999?

Which country is using the killing of Kurds as one excuse to go to war with Iraq?

Which country has overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world and placed in place brutal dictators. (e.g. Chile, Panama)?

Which country refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court or to be held account for war crimes?

Which country refuses to sign the anti landmine treaty?

Which country refused to sign a UN agreement stating it would abide by international law?

Which country blew up a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians due to the lack of life saving drugs?

Which country refused to sign a UN resolution condemning the massacre of thousands of people in Nicaragua by US troops?

Which is the only western country to have the death penalty?

Which is the only country after Iraq that executes minors and retards?

Which country armed and supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia when over a million people were slaughtered?

Which countries administration sent a private plane all over the US days after Sept 11, when no planes were allowed in the air, to pick up members of the Bin Laden family to take them out of the country?


Just to show the pro war people that this is not a moral country and they are not doing this for moral means. If you think that the US is ding this for the sake of humanity then you are blind.

The people that the US are saying they are going to protect in the region do not want war. They are happy with containment and fear the US imperialist policies and actions more than any action from Iraq. If the US are afraid of WMD getting into the hands of terrorists they should join the orginisation that is trying to clear up all of the nukes in the former Soviet Union (the US gives little or no support to this agency), where most rogue nukes are and Pakistan where there is many terrorists and loose nukes. This is not a war of morality, it is a war of commercial gain. I dont think a military occupation of Iraq shows that the US are doing this for the Iraqi people.

Meh

Originally posted by The Saint
Which countries administration sent a private plane all over the US days after Sept 11, when no planes were allowed in the air, to pick up members of the Bin Laden family to take them out of the country?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

Claim: Two days after September 11 -- while all other planes were grounded -- a secret flight arranged by George W. Bush flew Osama bin Laden's relatives out of the USA.

Status: False.

Really, how do you expect people to take you seriously if you're going to parrot discredited rumours like this? Next you'll be telling us that 4,000 Jews employed in the WTC stayed at home on 9/11...

If the US are afraid of WMD getting into the hands of terrorists they should join the orginisation that is trying to clear up all of the nukes in the former Soviet Union (the US gives little or no support to this agency),

I'm afraid that's not true either. http://www.psr.org/s11/ctr.html

The United States currently spends about $900 million to $1 billion per year on U.S.-Russian non-proliferation programs. The return on U.S. taxpayers' money spent on these programs has been significant. In addition to reducing the size of offensive strategic weapons and delivery systems in Russia and other FSU states (see table for details), these programs have helped secure 40% of nearly 603 metric tons of excess weapon-usable nuclear material to prevent it from falling into wrong hands. Probably the most significant achievement of this program is the successful removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. At the time the Soviet Union disintegrated, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus respectively possessed the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear arsenals in the world.

I, too, could go on for hours pointing out all the other inaccuracies in your post, but I have work to do.

The Saint

OK, I'll give you the Bin Laden one after a bit of research.

But the US pulled out of the Anti-Balistic Missile treaty and are thinking of pulling out of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Please feel free to point out other inaccuracies in my post, I wish to be enlightened.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Meh
Why on earth would the US government give money and guns to Islamic terrorists?

They have before, or prehaps you missed that whole Iran-Contra affair.

So the situation in Cuba, including the failing economy and the Castro regime's human rights abuses are all a direct result of the US attempts to assasinate Castro 40 years ago.

Try going back further. Putting the human rights abuses aside for a second (as if your going to name call in that area then everyone is guilty). Castro initally got into power due to how America was conducting itself in Cuba. It had chances to mend the split long before the bay of pigs/missile crisis but in those instances politically told Cuba to GFI.

Uh huh. Yeah. And if the USA didn't have sanctions on North Korea

From what I gather NK's WMD program is only starting up part because of the 'Axis of Evil' but also because the US had a treaty to supply NK with oil/food in return for scrapping thier nuclear program. Part of that deal the US had been dragging it's feet for years. So it's not like they are not totally without fault.

Cork

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus


The same way we're getting rid of dictators in China, Libya and Myanmar. The same way dictatorships were collapsed in Jordan and Egypt- with constructive engagement, not bully-boy tactics.


Occy

If the people of Iraq were to wait as long for human rights as the people of Red China - They'll be waiting a long time.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Hobbes
They have before, or prehaps you missed that whole Iran-Contra affair.

Iran-Contra was a product of its time, the Cold War, and it was no better or worse than what the Soviet bloc did. We didn't build the Berlin wall- a little facet of history that Germany still feels today. Well guess what- the Cold War's over. And with a single superpower left, you have an easy target to try and link to past doctrines. Containment and quick-fix regime change were doctrines of the Cold War. Containment is now out the window- you can't contain terrorists or rogue states now that the bar of possible atrocity has been raised. Pre-emption is the only effective means known to deal with absolute terrorism. You can't negotiate with Al-Qaeda or with Saddam Hussein, certainly not in the same way that was possible even at the height of tension with the USSR. Appeasement of these two dangers (a la North Korea) would be equally distasteful to me.

A small aside- With disappointment it's important to note I haven't read a single thread of note on this board aimed at the terrible human rights abuses in China, Russia, Israel or indeed Britain- where the Steven Lawrence inquiry has uncovered institutionalized racism in the police, prisons and civil service. However, none of these nations are true superpowers, so their abuses and shortcomings are left out of our thinking. I'm not whining about unfairness or misrepresentation(this won't be the first European board on which I've seen near-exclusive focus on US policy), just pointing out a pertinent fact- that more threads are started on this board defaming US government abuses (past and present) than even recent and pressing issues in the countries I have mentioned.

While I advocate a slow peaceful change in Iraq, I'll shed few tears if Saddam ends up deposed. Military action, if sanctioned by the UN, is the sanction of the main organ of stability in the international community. A simple majority is easy enough to achieve- chair support and lack of a veto may prove more troublesome. Granted, I am fearful of the instability likely to be caused in the Middle East by such a regime change. However, the fears of Saddam's neighbors, with the exception of Turkey are that their own governments will be under siege from the tides of democracy and freedom. Women in Iraq already enjoy far greater freedoms than in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia where extreme wahabist thought dominates society, repressing women. I would welcome a revolution of equality driven by the proximity of Turkey and Iraq's systems of liberties.

From what I gather NK's WMD program is only starting up part because of the 'Axis of Evil' but also because the US had a treaty to supply NK with oil/food in return for scrapping thier nuclear program. Part of that deal the US had been dragging it's feet for years. So it's not like they are not totally without fault.

Given that I have never advocated appeasement, I have little sympathy for the N Koreans in this. The practicalities (especially the proximity of China and South Korea) make it extremely unlikely that a war will be fought with the North. However, providing aid as a reward for an obligation North Korea should be undertaking anyway is not how I want my tax money to be spent. Effectively rewarding North Korea for what should be a common-sense policy (nuclear disarmament of a country with singular control of first-strike weapons) will not solve the problem. Until real change is seen in North Korea's political structure, I think aid should be withdrawn. If that results in North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, then so be it. The Indian subcontinent shows well enough that even dictatorial regimes can exercise common sense when faced with a threat of at least equal magnitude.

Posted by Cork:If the people of Iraq were to wait as long for human rights as the people of Red China - They'll be waiting a long time.

Of course they will be- but they won't be at risk of losing their home, loved ones or their own lives. Their country would be in a lot better state with a greater degree of certainty than if invaded. It took the USSR 50 years to shake off the shackles of Stalinism- but it happened with an absolute minimum of blood spilt. If war is the only way and the UN approves it, that's fine- we'll invade and do what needs to be done. But unilateral action sets a dangerous precedent- pre-emption is a necessary evil that nations must undertake when fighting terrorism. Unilateral action against rogue states would be even more aggressive than anything attempted during the Cold War. Rumsfeld and Condi have no problem with such uncharted waters, it's up to the rest of us Americans as citizens to persuade a change of their methods, or at least their minds.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
From what I gather NK's WMD program is only starting up part because of the 'Axis of Evil' but also because the US had a treaty to supply NK with oil/food in return for scrapping thier nuclear program. Part of that deal the US had been dragging it's feet for years. So it's not like they are not totally without fault.

Interestingly, the US maintain that they stopped keeping their side of the bargain because they knew (and occasionally claim - rightly or wrongly - that N.Korea admitted) that North Korea had already restarted its nuclear development program.

Who do we believe? Obviously those who support the US policies will tell us that cleearly we should believe the bastion of democracy over the evil dictatorship, but y'know....sometimes I find such blind acceptance a little bit too much for me to swallow.

After all...Colin Powell stated in a recent press conference that Iraq is currently in material breach of 1441, and has been for the last decade. Considering that 1441 was only passed last November, that the purpose of the weapons inspectors is to determine whether or not Saddam is in material breach, and the fact that the US have singularly failed to lead the weapons inspectors to this stuff that they know about, I'm inclined to think that blind acceptance of the voice of democracy is not really all that wise.

Call me Peter, but I need to see the wound.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I think what he said jc, is that Iraq have been in material breach of the terms of 1441 for the last decade. While this is certainly true, Iraq was under no obligation to adhere to the terms of 1441 until of course it was passed.

Diplomatic parlance can be convoluted and misleading, and General Powell has stepped into the Sec-State's role very convincingly in this regard- that's all this proves

Clintons Cat

Hobbes>From what I gather NK's WMD program is only starting up part because of the 'Axis of Evil' but also because the US had a treaty to supply NK with oil/food in return for scrapping thier nuclear program. Part of that deal the US had been dragging it's feet for years. So it's not like they are not totally without fault.

Good point,South Korea was said to be livid with the Bushes abandonment of the Sunshine Policy and adoptation of the "Axis Of Evil" rhetoric.
One thing that does not suprise me is that North Korea is using the time between the "conclusion" of the Iraq "Crisis"and the "instigation" of a North Korea "Crisis" to attempt to develop a Nuclear Capability.
After all take a look at the treatment of Pakistan and India,over last summers Nuclear Crisis,not only were both states threatening to give their nieghbour a taste of hot flaming nuclear retribution,but far from becoming the worlds pariah states the worlds great democracies (including Britain and the USA)were queing up to sell them Jets,missiles and Ships renegotiate loan repayments along more generous terms ect.
The benifits of membership to the Nuclear Club should be Readily apparent.