The looming war is not needed

[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.

[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?

[andyfox]

"he won't let a U2 spy plane fly over certain areas of Iraq"

-Would you allow a spy plane to fly over your country if it was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops from the most powerful country in the history of the world who had been threatening you with war continuously for many months?

[Jimbo]

"Would you allow a spy plane to fly over your country if it was surrounded by hundreds of thousands of troops from the most powerful country in the history of the world who had been threatening you with war continuously for many months?"

andy get back to me on that one. I am still trying to raise the down payment for my own little country. But I bet Ray Zee wouldn't! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Chris Alger]

Attacking Iraq unilaterally would also violate international law, specifically Article 51 of the UN Charter. To answer your question, containment means being put in a box. Iraq has no ability to attack anyone without suffering a devastating retalliation, so it is fully contained.

I don't believe that many accept the notion that violating international law provides a prima facie case for war. With as much logic one could argue that if the police catch you speeding and you do it again, that their failure to firebomb your house allows you to "break the rules and follow the one [you] want to follow."

"Also is there any doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction?"

I think there's at least doubt. Over 500 UNSCOM site inspections, numerous defectors and continuous satellite photography have no revealed any proof that he has them, although Iraq hasn't "accounted" for the destruction of all of them, yet there's general agreement that nearly all of the CBW's he used to have have been destroyed.

Yet you find no room for even doubt? Honestly, how much of this stems from the fact that our government keeps saying so in the news?

[Jimbo]

Chris wrote "yet there's general agreement that nearly all of the CBW's he used to have have been destroyed." General agreement among whom? The French, Germans, Russians, liberals and you? Yeah that is a credible group!!

[nicky g]

There is general agreement that 95% of the WMDs he had were destroyed, by everyone including the US. The weapons inspectors prior to 1998 verified it. The question is what happened to the other 5% and whether he produced or acquired any more since. That's twice you've been scathingly dismissive of something that even the warmongers don't actually dispute. There's no need, really. Though even so, I don't see what makes the Bush government any more credible than the French or Germans.

[Jimbo]

That's twice you've been scathingly dismissive of something that even the warmongers don't actually dispute. Only twice, gosh I am behind on that particular subject. There's no need, really. Really? What if I believe a casual reader might believe the inacuracies without a 2nd opinion? Though even so, I don't see what makes the Bush government any more credible than the French or Germans Could that be because you are living in Europe and I am not? Or perhaps it is because the French have billions invested in Iraq and are attempting to protect their investment. As for the Germans they still have a long way to go to earn credibility on any subject involving world politics.

As far as " only 5% of the WMD's are unaccounted for" Everything I have read or heard says you have the percentages backwards including quotes from Hans (sp?) Blick. Even if you were correct 5% of way too much of something very bad is still pretty darn bad.

[nicky g]

"Even if you were correct 5% of way too much of something very bad is still pretty darn bad."

I am correct. I'm not disputing that would be bad. It's spelt Blix. What he was referring to is the possibilty that what the inspectors have found this time round is only the tip of the iceberg of what is currently held; what I am referring to, and I believe you were disputing, is the WMDs that Iraq was known to have prior to the 1st Gulf War and original inspections.

"Or perhaps it is because the French have billions invested in Iraq and are attempting to protect their investment."
Maybe it is that. I'm not saying they're particularly more credible. You'd have to be blind though to not see the Bush government's interest in Iraqi oil. Why is it that you impute a fnancial concern (lrgely to do with oil) to the motives of the French, but not to a government that is stuffed full of people with a string of close ties to and former employment in the US oil industry? i don't see that you can have it both ways.

[Jimbo]

"Why is it that you impute a fnancial concern (lrgely to do with oil) to the motives of the French, but not to a government that is stuffed full of people with a string of close ties to and former employment in the US oil industry?" I can see why you question the motives of our government. My reasoning is twofold:
1) There are currently and for the forseeable future planty of oil reserves available without going to war for oil.
2) If oil was our primary concern we would have taken care of Saddam during the previos Bush administration. Same family connections after all.

I must wonder why you do not believe that we are both truly concerned about WMD attacks and why we should let Saddam break the terms of his Gulf war (unconditional) surrender well as the latest UN resolution regarding Iraq. Personally if someone consistently lied to me for over a decade eventually I will punish them if only to prevent future potential damage.