Iraq agrees to destroy missiles

[Velociryx]

Yes, I have read it.

And you know what?

Sometimes, war is a tool to bring peace. Ask your fellow comrades about that....

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, I have read it.

And you know what?

Sometimes, war is a tool to bring peace.

Yes, and Chaos is Order. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Chaos is Order.

You know something about Chaos Theory, then?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Edan
You know something about Chaos Theory, then?

Yeah, it´s a collection of mathematical descriptions of not too particular importance, posing as a ground-breaking new theory.

[GePap]

The problem with the admin and its supporters is that they put up several reasons for war, all of which are not consistent: one day the admin. says that if Iraq disarms fully, then war is off, then they say it is our mission to liberate Iraq and bring freedom to the region: those are not fully equal aims. Make up your minds people!

According to reports, there will be a meeting tomorrow to discuss the how's and when's of these missiles being destroyed.

I also see a fundamental logics problem which no one supporting this war seem to want to deal with: we are told we can't continue this process of inspections cause Saddam has shown for 12 years he won't: so, his past action is a proof of possible future action(he won't disarm). Of course, the afct that for 12 years he hasn't given WMD ot any terrorist group, Al Qaeda, Palestinian, Lebanese, whatever, simply can't be seen as proof he won't in the future. Thus, when it comes to terrorist, his previous actions simply can't be seen as a reliable way of guaging his future action... Why this is true, we are never to be told, of course.

[KrazyHorse]

This is incorrect. The inspectors job is to verify the destruction of WMD. Period. Iraq is to provide evidence of destruction or the inspectors are to oversee destruction. This is their only mandate.

WRT military force. "Serious consequences" are called for in the resolution for non-compliance. This term has been interpreted to mean use of force by not only the US, but the other members of the UNSC as well. The question that France has is on timing. They believe that there is a chance that the destruction of banned weapons can take place without use of force at this time . The US simply disagrees.

Wrongo. The inspectors are and always have been playing a game to keep Saddam's nose mostly clean. Nobody expects perfect compliance unless they have an ulterior motive (i.e. a crappy cassus belli)...

[Dinner]

Read 1441 Frogger you'll find you're mistaken. UNSC resolution 1441 calls on Saddam to turn over his WoMD or to provide evidience they have been destroyed. The UN can prove they existed as late as 1998 yet Iraq hasn't produced the weapons nor has it attempted to provide anything to show they have been destroyed. Saddam just continues to claim all his WoMD were volintarially destroyed in 1991; of course no one saw this and Saddam asks us to take his word for it.

1441 is very specific; read it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Let's face it, for an outstanding majority of people here, the UN is just a cheap way to legitimize his motives and delegitimze the others' motives.

Has it, in fact, rather than theory, ever been anything more?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Read 1441 Frogger. You'll find your wrong.

I know what 1441 says. I think you're missing my point.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Frogger
I know what 1441 says. I think you're missing my point.

That is possible. Can you repeat it so we can both be clear on it?

[KrazyHorse]

The inspectors are and always have been playing a game to keep Saddam's nose mostly clean. Nobody expects perfect compliance unless they have an ulterior motive (i.e. a crappy cassus belli)...

[Edan]

Wrongo. The inspectors are and always have been playing a game to keep Saddam's nose mostly clean. Nobody expects perfect compliance unless they have an ulterior motive (i.e. a crappy cassus belli)...

I guess those inspectors have an ulterior motive, or else they would be reporting that, "Hey, Saddam hasn't been perfectly in compliance, but he's abided by the resolution and been hip cause his nose is mostly clean, and thats cool, daddio..."

[Edan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Yeah, it´s a collection of mathematical descriptions of not too particular importance, posing as a ground-breaking new theory.

Actually, it's of quite a bit of importance and ramification in math and the sciences, but it's also quickly becoming off topic...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ozz


9/11 and Saddam are not proven related.
US international policy depends on the individual
president? This has been building for years.

Turkey - military occupation of N. Cyprus.

(edit - wrong smilie)

Thanks on the Turkey bit. I'll look it up.

Ozz, whether Saddam was involved in 9/11 is not the issue. 9/11 reduced America's tolerance to security threats to America to very close to zero. That is what is different.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Vel :
I think you're the only one to care about the UN in this whole issue.
As far as I've seen, both parties use the UN when they feel it's adapted. I am impressed by the amount of UN-haters who say "we can't let the UN being disrespected by Iraq" to justify an agression. The very same will say "UN is just a bunch of Frenchized sissies" should it refuse the war, and will support a unilateral attack from the US the same.

And I'm sure you'll see many pro-peace people harshly criticizing the UN if it supports war. I already foresee all the critics about backstage negociations, which decide everything in the interests of the powerful, and not in the interests of world peace

Let's face it, for an outstanding majority of people here, the UN is just a cheap way to legitimize his motives and delegitimze the others' motives.

Actually, Spiffor, if I had a choice, I would declare war on France, Germany , Austria and Belgium. Never have I had such anger for other countries as I do for these countries. Saddam is a small menance compared to Chirac and crew.