The looming war is not needed

[hudini36]

The inspections appear to be working. Iraq at this point in time appears to pose no threat to the world. inspections can and should be given the time they need to succeed.

Attacking Iraq based upon a first strike policy breaks the traditional view of the USA supporting international law. I grant that the USA at times has not lived up to this image. The Gulf of Tonkin incident comes clearly to mind.

Risking the destruction of the Iraqi oil fields, the world's economy, and antipathy from the Muslim world
for solely personal reasons is foolhardy in my opinion.

If Saddam Hussein is contained, and affectively disarmed by the inspection process, then I believe no rush to attack should traspire. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the UN, nor the United States, should not continue to pressure Iraq for compliance. Certainly a years difference in time with 250,000 American military personnel posed to invade at any time, would be a small price to pay regarding housing and maintaining a large military presence in the region to show the world that the USA is a just society. I repeat that the inspections should be allowed to go forth.

North Korea is another beast entirely. Perhaps pre-emptive air strikes against their nuclear reactors would be appropriate in short order.

[Jimbo]

hudini36 wrote "The inspections appear to be working. Anything after this statement cannot have much basis in reality.

[hudini36]

Why is that? Because they haven't found anything? Do you really want the USA to be looked upon by the rest of the world as a country that attacks without provocation? The only superpowers to do that in the last century were Germany and the Soviet Union. Obviously, you have fascist tendencies.

[Jimbo]

I "obviously have facist tendencies"? Get a grip! What I obviously have is a realistic understanding that Saddam is better at hiding than the bugged UN inspectors are at seeking.

[wren]

"Why is that? Because they haven't found anything? Do you really want the USA to be looked upon by the rest of the world as a country that attacks without provocation? The only superpowers to do that in the last century were Germany and the Soviet Union. Obviously, you have fascist tendencies."

Let me answer your question with a question: true the inspectors haven't found anything, but do you--in your wildest imagination--believe that's because there is nothing there? Further, the United States could not function if it lived only in worry over what other countries might think of us. But if we did, we would know the world would be sooo grateful if we took out this monster. The most greatful of all would be the people of Iraq. Of course my response is moot because your premise is wrong--we have been provoked. Furthermore, the list of superpowers in the last century to attack without provocation is quite a bit longer than Germany and the Soviet Union. (Remember Pearl Harbor?) And by the way, how is that relevent? Just for accuracy, please note that the Soviet Union was never a fascist country, it was a communist country. Their arch enemies were the fascists. Lastly, how is name calling ("fascist tendencies") when someone disagrees with you helpful?

Are you sorry we got involved in Kosovo, or Afghanistan?

[brad]

'Are you sorry we got involved in Kosovo'

its confirmed dyncorp is involved in white slavery/ prostituition over there.

so if you like 12 year old girls for 5 bucks or whatever then i guess youre glad we're over there.

[hudini36]

I'm aware that Nazi's are right wing and that communists
are left wing. I guess that makes the USA look as though it is tilting to fascism. The USA has not been provoked, nor attacked by Iraq. The truth about 9/11 is that 100k was wired to Atta by the ISI one week before the event. That happens to be Pakistani intelligence. Saudis comprise the alleged hijackers. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. The Bush family through the Carlyle group was doing business for years with the Bin Laden family. They stopped about a month after 9-11.
At Least the Justice Dept didn't have to seize Carlyle assets like did with Prescott Bush's company in 1943 under the trading with the enemy statutes.(Brown Brothers Harriman subsidiaries continued to trade with the Nazis through 1943)

I do stand corrected that Japan also initiated unprovoked attacks in the 20th century. They were fascists, too. It isn't very good company that the USA will be joining soon.

On a side note, heroin production and exports have tripled
out of Afghanistan since US troops invaded. I wonder who might be allowing that?

[Clarkmeister]

"On a side note, heroin production and exports have tripled
out of Afghanistan since US troops invaded"

Seriously now. You can't really expect to throw BS like this up without citing a source now, can you?

[adios]

"If Saddam Hussein is contained, and affectively disarmed by the inspection process, then I believe no rush to attack should traspire."

It would be much appreciated if someone could explain this concept of containment to me in relation to Hussein and Iraq. If the UN allows Saddam to break the rules and follow the ones he wants to follow isn't he, Saddam, in effect making the rules or at the very least regnotiating the rules? I keep reading that he won't let a U2 spy plane fly over certain areas of Iraq to do inspections. Supposedly this is in direct violation of the UN regulations. Also is there any doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction?

[nicky g]

No country in the world would permit spy planes to fly over it. It makes no diffference, as Iraq doesn't have the capability to prevent them from flying.

Israel and Morroco have been in violation of many UN resolutions for far longer than Iraq. Resolutions incidentally that the US did not see fit to veto, and hence cannot blame the nature of the UN (eg non-democracies allowed to participate etc). Noone does anything about it, even though Morrocco for example could easily be forced to comply with resolutions on Western Sahara, for example. Not only are these not enforced but both coutnries are major beneficiaries of US aid and support. The idea that the Bush administration, or any other recent US adminisration, have the slightest respect for UN resolutions, or indeed any international agreements, is laughable. They're may be reasons for that, but either way, it's true. The war has nothing to do with enforcing UN resolutions, and when it starts the UN won't be involved, and the international community only in the most token of fashions.