To Americans and the rest of the world...

[Jaguar]

Europe isn't supporting Saddam.

Why then, is the Iraqi armed forces equipped with Mirage F1s, T-55s, and AK-47s?

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, poor drake.. someone points out that your endless jabs at french people are , besides no longer original at all, becoming offensive.

I don't hate the French people; I hate French foreign policy...

if what you want is 100% disarmemant of Iraq, no isnpections will, without Iraqi help, never work.

Exactly. The UN has demanded complete (100%) disarmament and inspections will never achieve that. Why give them more time if they are doomed to failure?

Since I don't give a damn about 100% disarmement... blah blah blah

Who cares what you think? I'm going off what the stated goals of the United Nations are...

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Why then, is the Iraqi armed forces equipped with Mirage F1s, T-55s, and AK-47s?

Same reason that Iran was flying F-14s!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Since I don't give a damn about 100% disarmement... blah blah blah

Who cares what you think? I'm going off what the stated goals of the United Nations are...

Resolution 1441 has no defined timetable with a clear end attached to it.. and besides, what legitimacy do you have for regime change, if the only aim of the UN is disarmament?

[Drake Tungsten]

Resolution 1441 has no defined timetable with a clear end attached to it...

1441 called for immediate and complete cooperation, not limited cooperation a few months down the road.

and besides, what legitimacy do you have for regime change, if the only aim of the UN is disarmament?

If the regime refuses to disarm, then they must be removed. There's no other way to achieve the UN's stated goal of complete disarmament.

[GePap]

Didn't the resolution call for a report to be handed in in late march? Obviuosly 1441 did not think "immidiate" meant just a few days. Again, no actual timetable was handed in...

As for the notion that Only regime change leads to disarmement..how so? according to the amdin. they "know" were so many of these things are. Bomb sites, invade, quarentine the regime, search for the sites, once you have found them, leave. What happens to the reigme during that time, or after, well, that's not our issue. That is fundamentally different than conquest, followed by setting up a new regime.

And besides, according to the UN system, any of the five veto powers have the ability to cancel any action. So, if any of the Veto nations blocks action, well the system worked as it was intended and writen to work. Whether that is helpful to any of the ohter veto powers or non-veto members..well, tough luck.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're just making crap up now, GePap...

[GePap]

Or you just ran out of quips...

The UN system allows any of the great veto powers to block any action they think is aaginst thier interests..period. That is the meaning of the veto. If 3 of the five veto members think invading Iraq and the aftermath is a greater danger to international peace and security (and thier own) than letting Iraq keep hwta it has, it is their right to block any action. The Us in fact is the master of this. if you ever see 14-1 resolutions that failed, 90% of the time, it was the US who vetoed it.

As for disarmement does not equal regime change: Destroying Iraqs WMD and toppling the Bathist rule is not synonimous Dont like saddam? There Quisay, and Uday....

So no, regime chance and disarmement are not the same goal.

[South killer]

Bush doesn't care about dictatorships. The only thing he wants is to implant a puppet government, so usa can control the oil reserves.
-If usa cares about democracy, why it doesn't talk about other countries that are in a worse situation than irak? (saudi arabia, and others)????
-Because this governments are controlled by USA and obey the us government.

That's what usa has done all it's history, implanting puppet dicatorships (want examples: Pinochet in Chile, Batista in Cuba, Hussein in Irak and many others...)
I don't think hussein is a real threat to the world, and i don't think irak has links with Al-Quaeda. It's all an excuse for USA to seize control of the region. The most sad part is that there actually *are* people that agree with usa going to war and believe Bush.

Without meaning to be rude, this is one of the most ill-informed, stupid posts I have read on this subject.

perhaps you are the ill-informed

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by curtsibling
To kill the cobra you must strike off it's head.

The head of this cobra is Saddam, he is a loon that must go.

And Mr Drake, please don't give us the French whine.

Taking out regimes is against international law, you should know this because no country can go arround deposing or changing governments at will.

And Saddam is no threat to world peace compared to the U.S. You want to kill the cobra? Strike at D.C. instead...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Why then, is the Iraqi armed forces equipped with Mirage F1s, T-55s, and AK-47s?

T-55s and Ak-47's are russian not european (european being referred to as EU or euro Nato).

And just who supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war?? Gimme a U.... gimme a S....

[flash9286]

France broke the treaty ending the gulf war, by letting one of there companys sell weapons to Iraq

[MrFun]

The United States makes alliances with dictators who have committed crimes against humanity.

So is the United States the bad guy?

Considering we were allies with Sadaam Hueissen in the 1980's with Rumsfeld shaking Sadaam's hand and then giving Iraq chemical weapons at that time . . . .

I get tired of this sheer hypocritical claim that my country is "liberating people from dictatorships" in other parts of the world.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Master Zen And Saddam is no threat to world peace compared to the U.S. You want to kill the cobra? Strike at D.C. instead...

That would be the eagle, not the cobra.

I didn't state that Saddam was a threat, only a loon.
I was speaking from a military standpoint.

The war is a sham in my view.

And to be honest, I am a bit wary of a hardcore religious type being in charge of over 16,000 nukular weapons.

[curtsibling]

Selling of weapons has been part of the 'great game' since the napoleonic era.

All nations are guilty of this merciless trade.

And no nation has the right to be 'gung-holier than thou' about it.

USA, France, Britain, Germany and Russia...All weapon-selling scoundrels!