I will address issues raised by sylvanus .. all the quotes I take from his above post.
Germany and France have their own vested interest (oil exports and arms imports) in Iraq
Is it not feasible to you there may have deeper ethical concerns? .. the same can be said for the US aggression against Iraq .. 'its all about the Oil' .. I dont buy it either way .. imho it oversimplifies the issues concerning opponents to War in Iraq and .. the concerns of much of the thinking global population imho.
France has no problems with aggression when it suits their means.
Neither does the US and history can demonstrate that equally aswell.
Ask Greenpeace. How dovish Germany is
We dont need to really? do we? But Germany arent setting themselves up as the 'righteous nation' .. they have valid concerns .. it may pay to listen to them and give them some consideration.
The UN doesn't need the US to be ineffectual; quite the reverse.
which is my point precisely .. if any one is guilty of undermining the effectiveness of the UN it would be a power like the US turning its back on a UN mandate and acting unilaterally.
Iraqi compliance [which] has been inconstant
. Blix reported both sides of the spectrum in his address to the security council several weeks back .. he had concerns that needed addressing and he brought them to the table .. he now claims the opposite. That cooperation has improved and the process is functioning. However if Iraq is not fully complying the Security Council will receive such reports of non-compliance and I dont have a problem with a War on Iraq if mandated by the UN.
However, Bush doesnt seem to be giving the process the time it requires to complete its mandated role. He instigated the process and as such the process should be allowed to be completed.
But no .. if the US are going to strike .. they must strike soon before climatic changes create unrelenting difficulties for an invading force.
War is rarely raised because of the actions of a country's civilians.
umm .. yeah .. no arguement there .. *shrug*
(It's not paranoia if they are out to get you).
mmm .. I see!
So Iraq is out to get you?
Has Iraq declared this at sometime I am not aware of? They have endured US instigated sanctions for nigh on 2 decades .. as a result there has been significant suffering in Iraq .. did they threaten US soil?
The point is there have been no threats .. the whole aggression against Iraq is based on the US need to pre-empt an Iraqi threat. The US administration has declared the need to execute the 'Doctrine of Pre-emption' to cover that. It is no secret .. but its important to not get lost in the spin the media place on the issue.
The whole push for an act of pre-emption originates from a fear that Iraq may threaten the US .. not from any real threat directed at the US .. if this were so do you think any one would oppose US action against Iraq? No .. I dont think so .. not even the UN I wager.
It is the same fear and paranoia that was evident in the days of the Cold War .. with the same kinds of actions being taken. Have we learned nothing?
If these people would rebel against their oppressors, war would not be necessary.
But havent you just said on the other hand that Hussein is in control of immense armaments? And is a rogue etc? And you expect civillians unequipped to match such an opponent in a civil uprising?
Sure I guess it would be great if they did and succeeded.
Sadly, Saddam will likely conscript them by the thousands to act as missile absorbers.
pfft!! ..
missile absorbers!!!???? hahahaha .. he will need tens of thousands .. he will probably be feeding them up now .. the fat ones will absorb more!!
And no right-minded muslim of fanatical tendencies would ever commit suicide to strike Israel or America???
Your sarchasm misses the point Sylvanus .. Hussein is not a islamic fanatic .. he has never shown to be interested in religion .. just power .. as you have said yourself
(he's a tyrant, but not a religious one).
you cant have it both ways.
Just today inspectors found Iraqi missiles that exceed the UN mandated range.
well isnt that the point of the disarmament process? If breaches are detected they will be brought to the attention of the Security Council .. and the UN is at liberty to mandate action for Hussein's forceable disarmament.
in fact, the only stabilizing factor in the region since 1967 has been Israel's air superiority.
Sure Israel brings stabilisation to the region because of its greater might .. dominance .. but thats the only or even preferred kind of stability the region needs at the end of the day .. is it?
Yes the whole region has always been plagued with unrest.
[Israel] kept them at it by not dying en masse like the evil zionists were supposed to. This is still an ostensible goal of Hussein (among others)
you must have access to intelligence not made widely available .. I have not heard any substance for such allegations regarding the Iraqi agenda. Since when did the arab world expect the evil zionists to die en masse .. no arguement with Palestine wanting that now
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
.. but it was Palestine [call it what you will] who negotiated with the British to limit the numbers of Jewish refugees into the region .. Palestine always hoped for statehood .. and also remember that the Jewish ousted the British from the region via a number of acts of terrorism .. [or maybe they would prefer to call it freedom fighting *shrug*]
I fail to see the difference of this possible future and the present.
Regrettably it would seem you do.
The country can only be helped by rebuilding the infrastructure from the ground up.
why would the infrastructure require rebuilding? given that avoiding war may not require this?
A war on two fronts is never a good idea
yep and you can bet Korea is counting heavily on that.
We were dealing with Iraq before it was revealed that N. Korea had tampered with the seals on their reactors. This kind of multinational operation requires momentum, so we can't really just tell everyone to sit and wait while we handle Korea.
You were dealing with the possible threat of Iraq before the Koreans announced they possessed and would heighten their potential to be a real threat. The reason the US are handling Korea with kid gloves and respect is because they have nuclear capability ..
If a mad man has a gun .. you dont lurch at him and to grab it .. unless you have a death wish
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
.. you talk him down .. calm him .. defuse the situation .. as best you can .. if this doesnt work .. you call in the squat team and take him down .. its not a sound rationale to launch a frontal attack on an unpredictable unstable element.
The US .. is handling Korea like this .. calmly and taking diplomatic steps to attempt to calm this 'evil nation' [George Bush's axis of evil nations member]
As one would expect .. but what does that imply about Iraq?
And if the US had invaded Germany before 6 million lives were lost? It is a black mark on our record that we did not act until Pearl Harbor. Even despite what we didn't know, what we did know was still equivalent to Iraq's treatment of the Kurds.
Right .. but Germany did take the aggressive stance and invaded Poland .. and this kind of aggression was met with the then allied forces declaring war against Germany .. the US
were aware a long time prior to their hands being forced [Pearl Harbour] what Nazi Germany stood for and withstood countless appeals from the allied forces for assistance, of then Britain, France and Russia predominantly .. to assist them against Hitler's expansionist regime ..
but thats all history now .. and the US did join the allied forces and a great victory was secured.
Hitler is not a synonym for Hussein .. no matter how evil they both are .. they are also vastly different beings .. Hussein albeit he was quite expansionist .. he has sat dormant since he had the stuffings kicked out of him following Kuwait. If he is the threat the US admin want us to believe .. allow the inspectors to disarm Iraq ..
Despite my hawkish approach to the subject, I do not want war.
I think Hussein has to go, even if I believe our leaders might have made this an issue for the wrong reasons.
I share your belief .. and even though I do .. how we do it is important .. because whatever happens will set a precedent for future actions .. and this concerns me deeply.
I would fully support the international effort if the UN wasn't so timid in performing and enforcing its own mandates.
Me too .. but I dont perceive Blix as timid at all .. he is prepared to lay the Iraqi head on the chopping block if they are not co-operating appropriately .. in which case the US and the international community will have complete justification in acting against Iraq militarily under a UN mandate.
The question is, what would SRD do (considering his role as a conscientous objector)?
This is a question worth pondering .. I would be very interested in knowing the answer. I have been so heavily influenced in my thinking by SRD .. what I have learned through his amazing works .. that I prefer a peaceful resolution of disarmament to the WMD dispute with Iraq.