Will USA attack Israel next?

[gunkulator]

However, it would be plain wrong to pretend the inspectors made no progress, or to pretend the Iraqis weren't complying at all (sure, they were caught red-handed and had a massive military pressure, sure they did not cooperate willingly).
The destruction of the Al-Samoud 2 is what I call slow progress.

IIRC, at the end of Gulf War I, the Iraqis agreed to full compliance within weeks, not years. Surely Saddam's snubbing of the UN, including the expulsion of UN inspectors in the 90's is the very essence of non-compliance.

I'm against the war too but please let's not fool ourselves that Saddam is some sort of innocent in these matters. IMHO, he is personally responsible for the noncompliance and the continued UN sanctions against the Iraq, not to mention genocide and aggressive war against Iran - and probably much much more.

[Spiffor]

With the renewed inspection regime and the military pressure from USUK, Saddam was forced to cooperate, and he did so everytime he was caught red-handed.

The very combination inspectors + military pressure gave the consitions for a slow but peaceful disaramament of Iraq, with Saddam having no other choice but to let his dear weapons go whenever they were found.

Saddam is scum, and probably hated to do the little cooperation he did. But this little cooperation allowed slow progress on the disarmament front.

Not that it is any important : the disarmament thing was a mere excuse for the war to be rubberstamped by the UN.

[gunkulator]

Yes, containment was working well until Bush and co. decided they wanted in on the action. OTOH ol' Saddam was clearly dragging his feet and based on this, it is credible to believe he is hiding illegal WOMD. Meanwhile he buys off the French, Germans and Russians with lucrative contracts to the point where they have to make contorted Clinton style word twisting excuses when the US shows that Saddam is not serious about disarmament.

The US is no better. Bush's oil buddies are undoubtably miffed that they aren't seeing a penny from Iraq. Here's a sure fire prediction: Whatever new regime replaces Saddam will be far more friendly to US companies than Saddam.

[Az]

"dragging his feet"?
he kicked the inspectors out in 98'.

[Frogman]

Of course actually attacking a nuclear power is out of the question. Thats why all these countries want one. Sheesh, can't people tell sarcasm, look at the title of this thread.

We've been sorry we didn't get Saddam in GW1 as soon as we ended the war. Go back and listen to some of Clinton's comments and you'll realize this isn't a Bush issue or even a republican issue. Bush just has the balls to go for it.

Spiffor, I know a second resolution was needed, but when key members of the security council won't agree to any resolution that would call for force in case of noncompliance regardless of timetable, there was no point. We understood severe consequences in 1441 to be the use of force. What did france, Germany and Russia think it was? 1441 is irrelevant now, and in fact, it was irrelevant when it was passed. What difference does it make whether Iraq complies or not if there is no penalty?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel
"dragging his feet"?
he kicked the inspectors out in 98'.

The Reason Saddam used for expelling the UN INspectors was, that the CIA would use the Inspections to gather informations useful for killing Saddam.

I wonder how much of this reproaches is true and how much false accusation.

Further Informations here:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/iraq-j07.shtml

[Az]

well, hardly an unbiased source.

[gunkulator]

You mean the US is gathering intelligence data in Iraq? Shocking! Come now, most gov'ts are doing the same things to each other all over the world. This mock outrage from France and Russia is pure hypocrisy.

Any in case, most of the accusations are pure speculation. It was in the interests of both France and Russia for inspectors to be gone so that they could start up the money machine again.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Frogman
Of course actually attacking a nuclear power is out of the question. Thats why all these countries want one. Sheesh, can't people tell sarcasm, look at the title of this thread.

We've been sorry we didn't get Saddam in GW1 as soon as we ended the war. Go back and listen to some of Clinton's comments and you'll realize this isn't a Bush issue or even a republican issue. Bush just has the balls to go for it.

Spiffor, I know a second resolution was needed, but when key members of the security council won't agree to any resolution that would call for force in case of noncompliance regardless of timetable, there was no point. We understood severe consequences in 1441 to be the use of force. What did france, Germany and Russia think it was? 1441 is irrelevant now, and in fact, it was irrelevant when it was passed. What difference does it make whether Iraq complies or not if there is no penalty?

Maybe the second resolution had been more welcome if the american government hadn´t made it clear early on that the only solution to Iraq not complying with the Resolution would be war

[Frogman]

So Proteus, what is the other serious consequence you have in mind? Do you really think there are any other options that would force Saddam to comply if 12 years of sanctions and inpections did not?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Frogman
Of course actually attacking a nuclear power is out of the question. Thats why all these countries want one. Sheesh, can't people tell sarcasm, look at the title of this thread.

Sorry to have taken you seriously about this. But you're new here (hence I don't know for what you stand), and sadly, many people are stupid enough to shout "War to France" without thinking. These wrong appreciations should be gone if you hang in the OT more often.

[Frogman]

Well, most people are idiots so it can be hard to tell sarcasm from stupidity. I'm a vet of plenty of forums and always thought the apolyton crowd was about 20 or 30 points higher in IQ than most other groups. Its the strategy game mind I think.

Anyway, perhaps I'll hang around here a while and get to know some folks. I have a thick skin and can laugh off any flames so take your best shots.

The US/UK forces will win the war. There are three questions that remain; how many lives will be lost in the process, how badly will we have to damage the infrastructure, and how will we piece it together afterwards. If the casualties are light, the damage minimal, and a democracy formed, the next question will be who's next.

Iran and NK are the logical choices but neither of them will be as easy as Iraq. With Afghanistan and Iraq we at least had a fractured populace that was not solidly behind the government.

[Spiffor]

I'd bet the North Koreas hate Kim even more than the Iraqis hate Saddam, if only because they can see how the South or China look like (to them, Manshuria is a paradise of wealth and freedom ).

The real problem with North Korea won't be the population IMHO, but the nuclear threat. The US, and all surrounding countries that'll have to play a role in resolving the crisis (China, Russia, SK, Japan) are being very prudent. Nobody wants to see a nuke fall on Tokyo, Seoul or Beijing.
Iran has the potential to become an American pendant of Soviet's Afghanistan, because I hardly see any major part of the population supporting the American invader. The opposition is fragmented and disagrees on pretty everything. It is marginal too, because the islamist dictatrship is much less bloody or starvy than what you could see in Iraq or NK (I'm not saying the Ayatollahs are nice rulers, they just manage to get things done less violently). Iran could oppose a strong resistance, good weaponry, and hostile population. Better never let a US soldier enter there.

Also, I don't think democracy in Iraq will be enough to go to war elsewhere. Maybe to the Bush admin, but it would be a false impression. Iraq has deep divisions between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, and these divisions are more or less radical. You can expect most parties will have to do with identity, i.e religion or ethnical groups. The parties defending individual rights and economic programmes won't weight much when facing the islamist party, at least at the beginning of the aftermath. The only way to deal with it is for the US to install a puppet regime, that'll respect individual rights unlike Saddam, but whose representativity will be nonexistant.
The US must achieve stability, prosperity, and the end of a bloody despotism in Iraq in order to move on. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush's great ambitions will last, because of the huge costs of such a reconstruction. That's why I still hope the US/UK will call the UN for the recnstruction, as the UN has a much longer attention span than the average politician.

[Frogman]

Is it possible to first strike with the E-bomb and knock out the abiltiy of NK to fight at all? You have to figure the country will have to be rebuilt from the ground up anyway.

I think we are hoping to foist the NK problem on Russia and China to deal with so we won't have to. We didn't have that option in Iraq. Iran is safe, we can't really expect to go in there and do anything. The interesting case will be Cuba after Castro dies. You have to figure we have a plan in place to fix them once he's gone.

[Zevico]

*Israel have broken many more UN-resulutions than Iraq have.

Hasn't the Iraq conflict taught you that the UN counts for nothing (you will take this as supportive to your argument perhaps, but I am also pointing out that their are countries that support terrorism are members of the UN-Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc etc)

*israel have many more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.

Israel has nukes, certainly. I don't know about any other wmd's though (certainly none have been used).

*Sharon is like Saddam accused of genocide.

I think that Sharon is either: 1) made a monumentally stupid mistake; or 2) you are correct. Either way, he shouldn't be the PM of a country, methinks.

*They have oppressed and persecuted the palistinian people for decades.

Decades, eh? Such as when, before the current and previous Intifadas, which count for a few years out of some 5 decades?