Massive World Protests Tomorrow

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Darius871
Wasn't the first resort that Saddam would cooperate with the UN inspectors and actively disarm?

Why should he actively disarm, when he is threatened with war?

If you Americans are so hot about disarming, start at home.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Why should he actively disarm, when he is threatened with war?

Threatened with war IF he does not disarm. The threat of war is his only incentive for cooperating.

[Spiffor]

Darius871 : do you think the US had spent so much effort and money just to get a tinpot dictator to disarm ? And do you think the US will send its troops back home if he actually cooperates ?
If the US only wanted disarmament of Iraq, I highly doubt they'd have shown so much force, and such determination to go to war from the beginning. The very fact of waging war must be percieved as good for American interests in the White House.
Otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a commotion when France, Germany and Russia demanded to look for a diplomatic solution.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Spiffor

do you think the US had spent so much effort and money just to get a tinpot dictator to disarm ?

Yes.

Originally posted by Spiffor
And do you think the US will send its troops back home if he actually cooperates ?

Yes, but it's pointless to talk about since we all know he won't cooperate.

Originally posted by Spiffor

If the US only wanted disarmament of Iraq, I highly doubt they'd have shown so much force, and such determination to go to war from the beginning.

The threat was needed to give Saddam incentive to disarm. Answer me this: if the word war had never been used, do you think inspectors would be in Iraq today?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Check this out:

An astonishing display of global people power saw similar sentiments echoed from Bulgaria to Japan. 'I look at Bush but see Hitler,' proclaimed the banner of a protester in Sofia.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896550,00.html

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Darius871
Answer me this: if the word war had never been used, do you think inspectors would be in Iraq today?

Most probably not. If there is no war, but a satisfying disarament from Iraq, I'd congratulate Bush and his team to have solved this crisis, in which the latest 12 years braught nothing but death and famine.
However, as I don't think the US' goal is solely disarmament of Iraq (some talk about a regime change, some talk about having a foot in the area to pressure Saudi, some talk about this, some talk about that...), I don't think the war is avoidable. Except if the US public opinion suddenly becomes rabidly anti-war.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Most probably not. If there is no war, but a satisfying disarament from Iraq, I'd congratulate Bush and his team to have solved this crisis, in which the latest 12 years braught nothing but death and famine.

Well if you would concede this, why not go one step further and agree that whether or not there is a war is Saddam's choice?

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't think the war is avoidable.

Because of Saddam's decision to not comply.

[axi]

There is a global count of demonstrators, and they currently exceed 12.000.000, as news from the Americas are coming in. Of course the estimates change all the time.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=237344&group=webcast

[DinoDoc]

Is there no credible source you could go to for numbers?

[Spiffor]

Sorry if I was unclear.
There are too many reasons to go to war. Even if Saddam cooperated fully (which he'll never do), the US will still bomb Iraq.
The war on Iraq is clearly a Bushie decision, and will happen in all circumstances except one : if the US population becomes rabidly against the war, which will not happen.

[Comrade Tribune]

Yes, the war will happen. The only question is: how much will it backfire? An awful lot, I hope...

[Spiffor]

Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

how likely is it though that they will? What would Iraq have to gain by that?

Terrorists might but as has been proved there is no link between Al-Quaeda ( sp? ) and Iraq, so attacking Iraq would have no effect on them.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

Neither Iraq nor even OBL or whoever you have in mind has the slightest interest in harming Austria. That we are pro-Arab is more or less a given with all parties concerned.

[Spiffor]

Iraq would have nothing to win by using terrorism in Austria (heck, it'd have nothing to win by using terror, wince they invested heavily in classical weaponry instead of terrorism)
But the real backlash you can expect from the slaughter would be more hate from the Arabic World towards the West. The US will be the main target of this terrorism, but other countries will suffer from it too, no doubt.