Maybe if the U.S didn't help Iraq start a bio weapons program during the Iraq Iran war we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not sure that killing sadam would solve anything. Some other ass hole would just take his place.
Printable View
Maybe if the U.S didn't help Iraq start a bio weapons program during the Iraq Iran war we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not sure that killing sadam would solve anything. Some other ass hole would just take his place.
Iraq trading chemical weapons back and forth to Russia? Says who? What do you base your claim on?Quote:
Originally posted by Er0k
erm pakistan isnt near as much a threat. not with iraq trading chemical weapons back and forth to russia.
'They have seen pictures'... did the small capsules contain a text on them saying 'this nerve gas can wipe out a hundred thousand people'? Let's assume you're talking about VX here (the only nerve gass that can do what you claim the gas in those capsules can do), although VX in gas-form is EXTREMELY hard to manufacture.Quote:
as of now there is a chemical stockpile the US knows of but cannot locate in Russia. Apprently they have seen picures, and say that the never gas contained in the small foot or so long capsules is enough to wipe out a hundred thousand ppl.
Russia has never denied it has VX-gas. There are three countries known to possess VX: the US, France and Russia. Iraq used to have VX, but there is NO proof (except for the satellite pictures showing that a factory that USED to manufacture VX, has been re-opened) they got their production back up.
Attacking another country with VX-gas is just as stupid as nuking that country. VX is a weapon of mass destruction, and would only lead to a nuclear counter-attack. Russia ain't that dumb. Iraq ain't that dumb. Iraq doesn't have the means to do it anyways.
But Sadam shot at his daddy in the Gulf war so surely Bush is entitled to start World War III and kill millions of innocent people if it means he can get even with Sadam, isn't he?Quote:
Yeah, I heard Afghanistan. I also heard "smoking gun", and that seems considerably lacking here. I understand that Iraq has been developing these weapons of mass destruction, but we've known that for 11 years. I would really love an offer of proof that something considerable has changed recently to warrant this newfound interest in Iraq other than speculation and stipulation.
The only thing that has changed in the last 11 years to warrent an attack on Iraq is lets see... Oh yea... Three airplanes slamming into buildings in New York and DC... We are already at war folks... Iraq is just the next target on the list in that war... Saddam is a serious threat to the US and to those around him... I for one am not willing to wait untill 100,000 people in New York, DC, or Dallas die from VX nerve agent to say that the US has the right to go in and take out the Iraqi regime...
go to www.propagandamatrix.com and www.infowars.com this might clear up any confusion.
This speach did not get favorable coverage in Europe.
The evidence that has been produced in the public domain is IMHO not compelling - the UK probably went further than the US in publishing its dossier about Iraq.
A one page summary is available at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6141.asp
The UK dossier does show that Saddam is an evil dictator that is prepared to kill his own citizens (including using chemical weapons). But the key question is will he make a pre-emptive strike if he has the capability - after all there are many other regimes in the world that might be prepared to do this.
I think the US strategy is working to a large extent in the sense that it is now likely that there will be a new UN security resolution about the weapons inspectors. The purpose of this would be to ensure that they are able to do their job, and make it harder for Iraq to conceal what they have been up to.
The UN vote comes down to :
China - who will probably abstain.
Russia - who will probably abstain/vote in favour, depending on what Blair and Bush offer.
(Russia wants closer ties with the rest of Europe, and also intends to build an oil pipeline to link with Iraq, and in the event of a regime change wants guarantees that its trading links will be preserved -we'll see what happens when Blair meets him).
France - the joker in the pack who will probably not veto it.
A final point is that the UK has been advised by its top legal experts that it is illegal under international law to take military action against Iraq without UN authorisation. Previous conflicts (The Falklands, Bosnia etc.) have all been supported by UN resolutions.
I oil think oil you're oil being oil a oil little oil niave. What do you think this "war" is really about? I'll give you a clue, it starts with O and ends in IL.Quote:
The only thing that has changed in the last 11 years to warrent an attack on Iraq is lets see... Oh yea... Three airplanes slamming into buildings in New York and DC... We are already at war folks... Iraq is just the next target on the list in that war... Saddam is a serious threat to the US and to those around him... I for one am not willing to wait untill 100,000 people in New York, DC, or Dallas die from VX nerve agent to say that the US has the right to go in and take out the Iraqi regime...
Something like this, you mean? :D
Well, yes this does have something to do with oil, but I’m not sure whether or not that is Bush’s prime motivation or not. The trouble is the evidence that has been produced in the public (I did read all 55 pages of the UK dossier :) ) only shows that this is one of many evil dictators in power around the world who has a chemical/biological capability. Perhaps some of the classified info about an immediate threat is more convincing - I don’t know.
The big difference with Afghanistan was that the ruling Taleban regime openly admitted that it was encouraging, protecting, financing & training people (al quieda) in Afghanistan whose main objective was to murder civilians in the west, especially the US. More to the point, even after 9/11 it publicly stated that it would continue to do so. From a UN/international law perspective (as well as from a moral point of view), this means that the US was well within its rights to attack Afghanistan under the right of any UN member to self defense.
Iraq is in a weak position, because it has obviously failed to comply with the terms of the surrender document and UN resolutions that ended the gulf war. Hence a tough UN resolution authorising military action if Iraq does not co-operate with the weapons inspectors would be my preferred option.
Incidentally the UN resolution does not require Iraq to disarm (that would probably not be a good idea for the stability of the region) - it requires Iraq to disclose and destroy weapons of mass destruction.
I thought this was a very interesting point. Ever noticed that major threats to the United States (well, threats according to the US anyway) come from groups who it has financed/supported in the past? Ever noticed that these apparently altruistic gestures are always solely for the furtherment of the US' agenda? e.g. Islamic extremists in the 1980s to fight against the Soviets (Osama Bin Laden was one of these), coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (later headed by Saddam Hussein) in 1963, support of Iraq during Iraq Iran war (as mentioned by cwk9). Iraq first used chemical weapons in this war in 1984 - in 1987, the US sent the Navy into the Persian Gulf taking Iraq's side in the war. If the US cared that much about biological weapons, they would have done something about it then.Quote:
Originally posted here by cwk9
Maybe if the U.S didn't help Iraq start a bio weapons program during the Iraq Iran war we wouldn't be having this conversation
Some people say, 'well you know, if we [the US] wasn't helping all these countries out, then everyone would be saying we should do something'. Bullshit. If the US wasn't meddling in everyone else's business, the world would be a much better place today. If the CIA hadn't organised coup after coup in other nations, the US wouldn't be dealing with 'terrorism' today.
All I know is, today the US is funding the Iraqi opposition and the Northern Alliance. So don't be too surprised when ten years down the track Iraq and Afghanistan are still 'problems' to the US. You have to let these nations work through their troubles and turmoil, because they will come out stronger and better able to deal with it. If you go in and throw money everywhere, it only solves problems in the short term. Then you have stuff coming back on you later - exactly what is happening now.
Of course, there are other contributing factors (obviously oil and the foothold inside the Middle East attacking Iraq would provide), but I think this aspect of US foreign policy is somewhat responsible for the current problems.
-toad