"
[email protected]" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Could it be they know something you don't? You seem to have no faith in US leaders, but it seems
>> yours have reached the same conclusions.
>>
>If so they should tell - were are the proofs boasted by the US and the UK. Why haven't they just
>pointed the weapons inspectors in the right direction and let them show the world the WOM?
You seem to believe the weapons inspectors. Here's a link to a report summarizing their findings you
may be interested in:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03031018.htm
>BTW. DO you know who supplied Iraq with WOM in the first place. In fact have you seen the pictures
>of **** Cheney smiling big and shakeing hands with Sadam back in the day where the US sold weapons
>to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war?
Sad to think he was the lesser of two evils at the time, huh? You know what they say - the enemy of
your enemy is often your friend. Or not... While you're digging through those old photos, see if you
can find the ones of a smiling Jacques Chirac in the process of selling Iraq a breeder nuclear
reactor. Happily, the Israelis reduced it to a pile of junk before it started churning out
weapons-grade nuclear materials.
>Also - where are the proofs that Iraq somehow has a part in 9/11? If any goverment has a part then
>surely it's the one training Osama Bin Laden back when the US needed him to fight the USSR trying
>to bring order to Afghanistan! The USSR failed and look what happend.
What's your point? We did that to help stretch the USSR's faltering military. It worked. Put 'em out
of business. Again, at the time, OBL was the lesser of two evils. Now the greater of the two evils
is no more, and he's back on top of the list.
>> You know that's not going to happen though. It's clear Saddam won't disarm without force, and
>> it's clear that France (and maybe Russia) will veto any resolution calling for force. Checkmate.
>> This IS the last option, sadly (short of Saddam self-exiling himself, not likely).
>>
>As stated by Bomba the notion of France and others ruling out the use of force for good is an
>oversimplification coming from the white house.
The French position was clear. ANY resolution authorizing force for noncompliance would be veto'd by
the French. They'd then go into another 6 months of inspections and see how that went. Given the
fact they claimed the inspections were "working" (even though Iraq was not cooperating and hadn't
provided any information on the massive known stockpiles of anthrax, VX, etc.). If that's not a
recipe for endless debate and non-action, I don't know what is.
>> The flip side of that coin is the people who don't seem to have a problem with Saddam ignoring 12
>> years and a dozen resolutions, but do seem to have a problem with Bush carrying out the threat
>> contained clearly in resolution 1441.
>>
>How can I not have a problem with the double standards Bush advocate for. Resolution 1441 does not
>okay an attack on Iraq so the US is in violation with international laws while on the same time
>saying it's okay to attack Iraq due to it not following the UN resolutions.
>
>Of course something should be done about Saddam, but I just can't see that we have not other
>options than war.
I'm sure Bush and others (myself included) would like to think there were alternatives. Clearly,
inspections weren't going to work. Iraq was not cooperating, and hadn't given up ANY WMD. Nothing
but force was ever going to get the job done, and there's no reason to wait any longer, IMHO.
>The US is the worlds only super power but seeing how they use the power to say "We know better so
>we don't have to listen to international laws" makes me wonder what is next. Take for example oil
>- what if OPEC decides there is no reason for them to sell their oil at current prices so they
>double their prices, this would wreck havoc on the US economy and hurt the world economy to a
>lesser extent (due to other countries using much less energy per capita). I can easily imagine
>Bush claiming the OPEC price move as being an attack on the american way of life and sending in
>the troops.
I think that's pretty far-fetched. But it would be good for my sales of bicycles! ;-)
>> I respect your opinion, but we (as a civilized world society) need to decide how we're going to
>> deal with the very real threat that WMD pose in the post-9/11 world. What happens if we give Iraq
>> more years, and they DO manage to develop a nuclear weapon?
>
>So what if they do búild the bomb- they would never use it all it would do is to secure a balance
>between them and the other nuclear powers. The
>everyone knows what it is and that using it for attack is a sure way to be destoryed.
In the case of Israel, I agree with you - they have nuclear capability to ensure their survival. I
can't imagine a preemptive nuclear strike from Israel under any circumstances. However, Saddam has
grander plans for the region, and has attacked two of his neighbors in wars of aggression over the
last 20 years. He's used chemical and biological weapons on the Iranians and the Kurdish Iraqis.
This isn't a guy you should trust with nukes.
>> Next time they take Kuwait, they keep it unless you don't mind seeing Tel Aviv melted. Oops.
>
>Like Kuwait is a heavenly democracy.
Oh well then, let's give it back to Iraq and let him set up the rape camps again. What WERE
we thinking?
>Not to mention that Israel was build on terrorisem and that they are killing and violating the
>rights of the original population, using gunships on cars in urban enviroments just the other day
>they shoot a 3 year old girl but I guess she looked threatning.
If by "terrorism" you mean a UN resolution, sure (or are you forgetting your history on the creation
of Israel?).
> Or what about the US peace guard they drove over with a bulldozer - the suicide bombings surely
> aren't acceptable in any way but it is not surprising to me that they happend.
It may surprise you, but laying down in front of a heavily armored bulldozer is a dangerous thing to
do. The visibility from the controls of a NORMAL bulldozer isn't very good.
>What can bring people to become suicides bombers? Living in a safe society where there is a future
>- no. Israel is repeatly crushing any hope for the paelestines, not surprisingly with leaders that
>have commited crimes against humanity on several occasions and the US holding their hand over them
>blocking any UN moves towards controlling and even independent monitoring of the situation. Where
>is the quater million US troops on the Israeli borders demanding they give up the bomb and uphold
>real peace?
The answer to the Palestinian problem is to get the PLO out of the way and get self-determination
for them. They took a huge step in that direction this week, with the appointment of a non-PLO Prime
Minister. Arafat fought giving any real power to the PM, but lost. Arafat is on the way out, so he
will not have any more opportunities to reject peace proposals that he should have taken in a split
second. Those that replace him will end the hostilities by working with the Israelis to eliminate
the terrorists within their borders. Bush supports this all, BTW, and more will be accomplished to
fix the complex problems over the next two years than the last 10.
>> History has shown that appeasing brutal, aggressive dictators is NOT a good idea. History will
>> show soon enough whether Bush, Blair (and your leaders) are right or wrong about Iraq.
>War should be the absolute last mean of solving anything. As I see it turning things around in
>Iraq takes time and killing thousands of soldiers may be a shortcut but it is really justified - I
>think not.
I respect your opinion, but fail to see how anything short of what's about to happen would have
ended the Iraqi standoff, and helped constrain the flow of WMD to those who would use them against
civilians.
Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
My point was that there has never been a chemical terrorist
