How does a war against Iraq affect you?
-
Thomas George wrote: Also, I do not think that civilian casualities are a criteria here. Because, half a million children died in the last 10 years, because of embargo I'd like to chime in on this quote. Yes, children have died because of the embargo. However, the embargo is in place because SH has failed to live up to the agreements made during the Cease Fire Agreement at the end of the Gulf War. My opinion. -Sean ---- Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein. I saw a woman wearing a sweatshirt with 'Guess' on it. I said, "Thyroid problem?" -- Emo Philips. Love is two minutes, 52 seconds of squishing noises. -- Johnny Rotten.
I do not mean to blame US or UN for the death of Iraqi children; Saddam himself is to blame, and I think he doesn't care. He would, perhaps, be happy that he has something that he has one more item for his anti-US propaganda. What I mean is, war does not necessarily mean more casualities, especially since children are dying everyday. But, I am wary of US setting a pre-emptive strike precedent. North Korea could attack S Korea or vice-versa on the basis of a perceived threat. India could attack Pak or vice-versa. Now, there international opposition to aggression is a major factor that causes these hostilities to remain subdued. US, as a super power, does not need to care much about that; but, in my opinion, the precedent set would be harmful in the long run. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
brianwelsch wrote: This may seem unrelated, but How many people would like to see a single world government at some point? A one world government is inevitable. The question is who,what and when, not if. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: A one world government is inevitable. Why? Mike
-
Brit wrote: Saddam might mind his own business and we shouldn't pre-emptively strike when there may, in fact, be no real danger (to us). Or maybe not. Brit wrote: An attack on Iraq will certainly result in civilians casualties ( and if #1 is correct, they may be killed unnecessarily ). Innocents will die if your first assumption is wrong. Will you stand up and accept responsibility for their deaths? Or blame the U.S. for not acting? Brit wrote: War with Iraq could inflame an already angry Arab population. So? They insist on being angry for the most lunatic of reasons, might as well give them a rational reason for it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Or maybe not. Errrr make that PROBABLY not! Stan Shannon wrote: Or blame the U.S. for not acting? This is the damn Catch-22 Americians have to live with I guess. I would rather act first. Stan Shannon wrote: They insist on being angry for the most lunatic of reasons I agree here also. They have been doing nothing but fighting amonst themselves (and others) for too many years. I often wonder if they even know what it is like NOT to fight. Maybe they know nothing else. Maybe we should drop a few thousand X-Boxes on them instead of bombs. Might keep them occupied.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
US can be proactive. But, it is far more dangerous to set a premptive strike precedent. It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. Iraq attacked Kuwait US led forces acting on a UN resolution drives Iraq out If US attacks Iraq (without providing enough evidence to convince other nations), what should UN do? Whatever it should do, it CAN do nothing. Then UN does not exist anymore, for all practical purposes. The precdent of a perceived threat justifying a pre-emptive strike has already been established by that action. If US proves Iraqi involvement in 9/11, or if it had enough evidence, would Bush be talking now? He would have gone straight there. The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. IMO, perception of threat is not enough. Showing how real the threat is, to others is important too. Who all will they go after? The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. Why? Both these countries are nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Both are dictatorships. I have difficulty understanding the logic. I am certain that this will come back to bite US in the long run. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. They don't anyway. After 10 year of Iraq thumbing it's nose at resolutions nothing happened until GWB forced the issue. Thomas George wrote: The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. "We" don't know what evidence exists or has been shown to the other permanent members of the Security Council. If I were an Iraqi who escaped from Iraq without my family would it be fair for the US to let the New York Times know what I gave to the US? The answer is no. Thomas George wrote: The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. I would wager they are next unless China reins them in. Don't you suspect that is why their shipment of scuds was stopped - to send a message? I'll have to correct myself, I personally believe the shipment was stopped so the scuds could be "tagged" then followed via satellite once they are delivered. Mike
-
Beware, Saddam may be hatching a ploy. His compliance does not come from a good natured disposition. His compliance is reluctant and really only came after unyielding pressure from the US. We should not interpret his compliance to indicate a reformed Saddam. Saddam has time on his side. The inspections are done in fervor now, but what about 8 years later. Will the US still have the strength to insist upon inspections. The US may become distracted and the insistence for inspections will grow lax. Then Saddam would have an opportunity to rebuild his arsenal and gather maybe a nuclear warhead or two. Will the US commitment to inspections last until Saddam dies of old age? Maybe inspections will have to continue with Saddam's son. Perhaps the US will elect a new president who believes in a reformable Saddam, just like the president who believed in a reformable North Korea. Political winds change, and US foreign policy will ebb and flow. Saddam will wait for opportunities to come to him.
Emcee Lam wrote: Will the US commitment to inspections last until Saddam dies of old age? Maybe inspections will have to continue with Saddam's son. Thsi is why I think we need to HOLD Iraq. Not just run in, slap them on the face, act nice, shake hands and call it a day. We need to make a decision that we could never and can never trust him (or any puppet leader that we might think about putting in his place) and just control the damn country. The US acts too nice sometimes. We took Japan then handed them our money on a silver platter to let them rebuild. We took germany and then backed off. I don't think that we can afford to do the same thing here. Do not get me wrong. I have nothing against Japan or Germany at all. I just think that the purpose of winning a war is to WIN. A total win. Not a slap and run. All winning then leaving does is allow those bitter about loosing to slowly and secretly build arms against you. Something that we can not afford to let haoppen again. This is my biggest fear of Afganastan. We clean house all but for a few low lives, then leave in the sake of peace for the new puppettleader. 10 years from now we are right back where we started. If SH wants to show that he is a reformed leader, I woul dtake nothing more than his resignation to proove that. If he really wants to convince me that his only interests are that of his people then step aside, give up the wealth and pass it all on to the people he cares so much about.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
Do you really believe that? That's no mocking, it's a serious question. It's been tried before. Numerous times. All have failed. Why now?
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
I has to be wanted. A time will come when all people will realize that we need to behave as a team. Far too many people put thier ethinc backgrounds, thier religion, and thier own personal ideals infront of them and build a wall with them. The others in the past have failed because the world was not ready. When the world is ready the world will ask. Are we ready now? NO.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
I think many people who don't want a war against Saddam don't understand who he is or what his intentions are. Saddam envisions himself as the re-incarnated Nebuchadnezzer (who conquered all the Middle East around 600 BC), and his goals are the same -- conquest of the entire Middle East. He's rebuilt the city of Babylon (former capital of the empire) and someday hopes to rule the whole Middle East from there, just like Neb. When he threatens both Israel and many of the Muslim nations (like S.A.), do you really think he wants to just be left alone. Is SH really getting a raw deal? The US could've nuked him w/o warning. Instead, the US decided to go the UN route, which is usually anti-US anyway... doesn't make sense to me that he's getting a raw deal. Of course he has WMD -- if he was only a two years away from them over 10 years ago, and then we left him alone for 4 years, most likely the first thing he did was re-start the programs. Why did SH stonewall and protest about the inspectors in the first place if he has nothing to hide? Ever notice how he now has dozens of palaces, some of which used to be military complexes? Nothing going on there at all! For Saddam, it would be advantageous to use terrorists to distribute his WMD -- terrorists are stateless, and if there's little or no paper trail, how could the US tie terrorist acts back to him? If he goes head-to-head with the US, he'll lose. But if he uses terrorism to cripple the US economy and infrastructure -- he'll fair a lot better. What does a 12,000 POS doc from Iraq mean if it doesn't tell the truth? It could be 100,000 and it wouldn't make a difference. I'm sure the US is able to obtain import records of many of the materials into Iraq, and when things don't add up, it'll put more suspicion on SH. Iraq spent a ton of $$$, and all of a sudden they decided not to pursue it anymore when they were so close? I don't buy it.... Also, in spite of the media reports, I think that the US-British intelligence is strong enough such that when Iraq denies having WMD, we hand our 12,000+ page document to the UN and people will realize what a threat he really is. It's beyond my understanding that people blame the embargo on "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi deaths. Saddam has literally billions of dollars, yet his people starve!! Seems to me that a nation's leaders should take care of their people out of their own pocket first, before another nation sends them relief money. If there was no embargo on Iraq, would that really make a diff
Amen Mike
-
Thomas George wrote: It sidelines the UN, and all UN resolutions will have no meaning. They don't anyway. After 10 year of Iraq thumbing it's nose at resolutions nothing happened until GWB forced the issue. Thomas George wrote: The fact is, US has not been able to show the evidence about Iraqi involvement, as it had about Afghanistan. "We" don't know what evidence exists or has been shown to the other permanent members of the Security Council. If I were an Iraqi who escaped from Iraq without my family would it be fair for the US to let the New York Times know what I gave to the US? The answer is no. Thomas George wrote: The N Korea - Pak nuclear equation, brought forward by CIA, is being sidelined. I would wager they are next unless China reins them in. Don't you suspect that is why their shipment of scuds was stopped - to send a message? I'll have to correct myself, I personally believe the shipment was stopped so the scuds could be "tagged" then followed via satellite once they are delivered. Mike
UN has meaning only when the powerful countries that make it up want it to be successful. Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? Was it not their responsibility too (although it was never theirs alone)? They make up 20% of the veto power of the security council. UN does not have an army. The members make the enforcement possible. As regards UN resolution violations, Israel is in violation of many resolutions. US supports them. The no-fly zone on Iraq could have been made into a UN resolution to give it legitimacy; but US and Britain chose not to. The major powers continuously take steps that erode UN; and then they claim UN does nothing! A team is only as good as its members. The evidence need not be in NY Times. UN did not approve action in Afghanistan based on reports from NY times; neither did the administration have to convince you or me. The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. If they had as compelling an evidence as with Al-Qaeda and Taliban, we would already be in a US-Iraq war. That is the biggest evidence that US has not been able to link Iraq with terrorism in any diplomatic forum. This is also the reason why WMD and UN resolutions which US did not care for so long have come to the fore. It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. Russia supports US based on its support in Chechnya. How else can you explain a sudden reversal of stand regarding Chechnya leading up to the UN resolution? No member in UN will be able to hold off action, if there was compelling proof. In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I wonder hOW many countries are currently paying for US troops to be stationed on their soil? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
Yeah, and I'm sure the soldiers also provide a nice contribution to the local economy. Regards, Alvaro
Well done is better than well said. -- Benjamin Franklin (I actually prefer medium-well.)
-
I has to be wanted. A time will come when all people will realize that we need to behave as a team. Far too many people put thier ethinc backgrounds, thier religion, and thier own personal ideals infront of them and build a wall with them. The others in the past have failed because the world was not ready. When the world is ready the world will ask. Are we ready now? NO.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
-
I think many people who don't want a war against Saddam don't understand who he is or what his intentions are. Saddam envisions himself as the re-incarnated Nebuchadnezzer (who conquered all the Middle East around 600 BC), and his goals are the same -- conquest of the entire Middle East. He's rebuilt the city of Babylon (former capital of the empire) and someday hopes to rule the whole Middle East from there, just like Neb. When he threatens both Israel and many of the Muslim nations (like S.A.), do you really think he wants to just be left alone. Is SH really getting a raw deal? The US could've nuked him w/o warning. Instead, the US decided to go the UN route, which is usually anti-US anyway... doesn't make sense to me that he's getting a raw deal. Of course he has WMD -- if he was only a two years away from them over 10 years ago, and then we left him alone for 4 years, most likely the first thing he did was re-start the programs. Why did SH stonewall and protest about the inspectors in the first place if he has nothing to hide? Ever notice how he now has dozens of palaces, some of which used to be military complexes? Nothing going on there at all! For Saddam, it would be advantageous to use terrorists to distribute his WMD -- terrorists are stateless, and if there's little or no paper trail, how could the US tie terrorist acts back to him? If he goes head-to-head with the US, he'll lose. But if he uses terrorism to cripple the US economy and infrastructure -- he'll fair a lot better. What does a 12,000 POS doc from Iraq mean if it doesn't tell the truth? It could be 100,000 and it wouldn't make a difference. I'm sure the US is able to obtain import records of many of the materials into Iraq, and when things don't add up, it'll put more suspicion on SH. Iraq spent a ton of $$$, and all of a sudden they decided not to pursue it anymore when they were so close? I don't buy it.... Also, in spite of the media reports, I think that the US-British intelligence is strong enough such that when Iraq denies having WMD, we hand our 12,000+ page document to the UN and people will realize what a threat he really is. It's beyond my understanding that people blame the embargo on "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi deaths. Saddam has literally billions of dollars, yet his people starve!! Seems to me that a nation's leaders should take care of their people out of their own pocket first, before another nation sends them relief money. If there was no embargo on Iraq, would that really make a diff
-
UN has meaning only when the powerful countries that make it up want it to be successful. Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? Was it not their responsibility too (although it was never theirs alone)? They make up 20% of the veto power of the security council. UN does not have an army. The members make the enforcement possible. As regards UN resolution violations, Israel is in violation of many resolutions. US supports them. The no-fly zone on Iraq could have been made into a UN resolution to give it legitimacy; but US and Britain chose not to. The major powers continuously take steps that erode UN; and then they claim UN does nothing! A team is only as good as its members. The evidence need not be in NY Times. UN did not approve action in Afghanistan based on reports from NY times; neither did the administration have to convince you or me. The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. If they had as compelling an evidence as with Al-Qaeda and Taliban, we would already be in a US-Iraq war. That is the biggest evidence that US has not been able to link Iraq with terrorism in any diplomatic forum. This is also the reason why WMD and UN resolutions which US did not care for so long have come to the fore. It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. Russia supports US based on its support in Chechnya. How else can you explain a sudden reversal of stand regarding Chechnya leading up to the UN resolution? No member in UN will be able to hold off action, if there was compelling proof. In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Thomas George wrote: Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? (Opinion) We had an unprincipled president. Much more interested in looking the part of a leader than actually leading. Thomas George wrote: Israel is in violation of many resolutions. Yes. The UN after pushing the formation of Israel at the end of WWII found itself with a significant number of countries (this time in the east, not Europe) who believed Jews/Israelis/Zionists to be evil. Note that no superpower or Security Council member ever says squat, fairly well proving my point. Thomas George wrote: The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. And we don't know that it wasn't. Otherwise why did they finally agree? Thomas George wrote: It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. I'm all for bombing Pakistan back to the stone age. And I am not quite sure how you find the grease spot that is Osama. Finally, stopping all of Al-Qaeda is impossible as anyone with an ounce of intellect knows. You can't spot or kill something that morphs and move from cave to cave, country to country, hole to hole. But you keep chasing. Thomas George wrote: In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? N Korea is next. Pak will have their turn, watch what happens if militants gain more power there. Mike
-
I has to be wanted. A time will come when all people will realize that we need to behave as a team. Far too many people put thier ethinc backgrounds, thier religion, and thier own personal ideals infront of them and build a wall with them. The others in the past have failed because the world was not ready. When the world is ready the world will ask. Are we ready now? NO.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall."
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things."
Simple. Abolish organised religion. If Christians, Jews and Muslims aren't going to take their blinkers off and realise just how much their religions actually have in common, (as apposed to killing each other over the [relatively] minor differences), then I reckon that the whole damn thing should be scrapped. Come on. After thousands of years we're still at this point. Makes me sick.
-
What if its based on the US's prominence as world police? With more and more involvment from the UN regarding international policy, etc.. Instead of Saddam being an evil ruler, he'd be a mayor gone crazy, and immediately taken out of power no questions. No egos to step on, no sovereign nations to prance around. BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
Thomas George wrote: Why did not US push the security council for 10 years? (Opinion) We had an unprincipled president. Much more interested in looking the part of a leader than actually leading. Thomas George wrote: Israel is in violation of many resolutions. Yes. The UN after pushing the formation of Israel at the end of WWII found itself with a significant number of countries (this time in the east, not Europe) who believed Jews/Israelis/Zionists to be evil. Note that no superpower or Security Council member ever says squat, fairly well proving my point. Thomas George wrote: The evidence can be shown to top-level officials (at the presidential level, if need be) to members including Russia, France and China. And we don't know that it wasn't. Otherwise why did they finally agree? Thomas George wrote: It gives an impression that US is running out of targets and want to cover up their inability to find Osama or completely shutdown Al-Qaeda. I'm all for bombing Pakistan back to the stone age. And I am not quite sure how you find the grease spot that is Osama. Finally, stopping all of Al-Qaeda is impossible as anyone with an ounce of intellect knows. You can't spot or kill something that morphs and move from cave to cave, country to country, hole to hole. But you keep chasing. Thomas George wrote: In the N Korea - Pak situation, Pakistan has been more dangerous because they have made another country nuclear-capable. What guarantee does Bush administration have that it will not go to another? N Korea is next. Pak will have their turn, watch what happens if militants gain more power there. Mike
In Pakistan, militancy is secret-service sponsored. They recently released leaders of a group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is in the US terrorist groups list, citing no evidence. The whole world power equation changed with nuclear weapons; it can change in a day with something else - and it may not necessarily occur in US. All international co-operation should be seen from that perspective. There has to be a world order, where the powerful nations stand by a commitment to make international law - and make it work; and make sure that it applies to themselves too. Until, US, China and Russia takes steps towards that goal, we will see more of these problems. The arrogance of "we can take on anyone else" is a definite road block to any meaningful cooperation. All policies have to take into account a situation where you are no longer the most powerful (it is just a matter of time that this happens) ; and being able to put together a system, where small countries are not bullied around. Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Duh, I'll be at army then and I don't like that, I prefer to work and not to serve. Remember it is a one month every year for you to go to army here (in Israel), regardless if you have finished 3 years service or not, lol. Makes me sad Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer
-
I wonder hOW many countries are currently paying for US troops to be stationed on their soil? BW "Computers are useless. They only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
-
I have seen a lot of discussion about the U.S. policies towards Iraq. I think a significant majority of the views oppose the US position in this potential war. But why? Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. Do you think that SH does not have WMD? Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic (I wanted to keep this objecctive)? Bob
Bob Flynn wrote: Is it because you think Saddam Hussein is getting a raw deal by the US. The guy is by my eyes a cruel leader, but he has as much right to rule by his rules as any other leader, whatever they work to. I think it's very clear that anybody opposing the US will get a raw deal, Saddam is getting nothing special here. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think that SH does not have WMD? I'm sure he does, but for what intents is far more important. But even then, we have very little moral groud by which to judge them. If he becomes a viable threat then we have a duty to our own societies to provide protection, but to take someone out of the premise that they might one day pose a threat means we'll need to take all all but one human being alive. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think SH will not give those weapons to terrorist? There has yet to be any proof that Iraq has sponsored or aided anti-western terrorists or their organisations since Black September's infamous excursion decades ago. I think Saddam is a very clever man and he knows all too well that doing anything to directly support anti-western terrorists will give his enemies a clean slate to kill him with. Add to this he is a man who must be in complete control, which you cannot get with outlaw groups such as terrorists. He won't supply terrorists with WMD; he has not turned insane yet. But push him and who knows. People in corners have no option other than to meet their cornerer on their own grounds. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think SH just wants to be left alone so that he can go back to minding his own business? I think Saddam wants Iraq and his regieme to become viable players in the Middle East and then the World. Just as every other country utlimately wants. Bob Flynn wrote: Do you think his 12000 page document is a truthful disclosure or just another delaying tactic Again Saddam is not stupid. I do not doubt for a moment what has been submitted (providing we are talking about the final version and not the edited highlights the Americans created) is truthfull and complete. I also have little doubt he has systematically been destroying both produce and evidence of the numerous questionable operations that were being performed, as they are in every country. He's been caught with his pants down and he's cut his own gentitals off to make sure nothing is found when the doct
-
OK OK!! I will admit it for all Americans! We're Imperialists. We want to rule the world!
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Not for all Americans, of course, but for American's goverment and for majority of Americans. You remember CNN stories about Serbs in Balkan wars? I do hope it is not for all Serbs, and I do hope CNN explained it clear to Americans. American's goverment not only want to rule the world, they even have a lot of success in it.
-
I think many people who don't want a war against Saddam don't understand who he is or what his intentions are. Saddam envisions himself as the re-incarnated Nebuchadnezzer (who conquered all the Middle East around 600 BC), and his goals are the same -- conquest of the entire Middle East. He's rebuilt the city of Babylon (former capital of the empire) and someday hopes to rule the whole Middle East from there, just like Neb. When he threatens both Israel and many of the Muslim nations (like S.A.), do you really think he wants to just be left alone. Is SH really getting a raw deal? The US could've nuked him w/o warning. Instead, the US decided to go the UN route, which is usually anti-US anyway... doesn't make sense to me that he's getting a raw deal. Of course he has WMD -- if he was only a two years away from them over 10 years ago, and then we left him alone for 4 years, most likely the first thing he did was re-start the programs. Why did SH stonewall and protest about the inspectors in the first place if he has nothing to hide? Ever notice how he now has dozens of palaces, some of which used to be military complexes? Nothing going on there at all! For Saddam, it would be advantageous to use terrorists to distribute his WMD -- terrorists are stateless, and if there's little or no paper trail, how could the US tie terrorist acts back to him? If he goes head-to-head with the US, he'll lose. But if he uses terrorism to cripple the US economy and infrastructure -- he'll fair a lot better. What does a 12,000 POS doc from Iraq mean if it doesn't tell the truth? It could be 100,000 and it wouldn't make a difference. I'm sure the US is able to obtain import records of many of the materials into Iraq, and when things don't add up, it'll put more suspicion on SH. Iraq spent a ton of $$$, and all of a sudden they decided not to pursue it anymore when they were so close? I don't buy it.... Also, in spite of the media reports, I think that the US-British intelligence is strong enough such that when Iraq denies having WMD, we hand our 12,000+ page document to the UN and people will realize what a threat he really is. It's beyond my understanding that people blame the embargo on "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi deaths. Saddam has literally billions of dollars, yet his people starve!! Seems to me that a nation's leaders should take care of their people out of their own pocket first, before another nation sends them relief money. If there was no embargo on Iraq, would that really make a diff
Chris Hambleton wrote: MUSLIMS -- did the US ever get a thank-you? I thought the national religion in the States was Christianity? :confused:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Live for today and die tomorrow.