If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iraq agrees to the unconditional return of UN inspectors
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The US is digging itself into a hole once again because they cant tell the truth. If they had said from the beginning that they wanted Saddam out because he was a threat to them then that would be fine with me. Unfortunately they werent honest and claimed to be doing it for the good of the Iraqis and the poor opressed kurds :rolleyes:
It's not like they're harbouring large numbers of Al-Qaeda terrorists or anything
Absolutely.
I tend to agree with those anti-war protestors who were on the TV with Donald Rumsfeld last night chanting "Inspection, not war!"
and if those inspections discover that not only is he trying to secretly devlop more WMD, but that he is also trying to hide what he has...?
War then, or will you find another reason not to do what needs to be done?
What if we destroy them all (unlikely), do you suggest that we walk away knowing that once sanction are lifted he will be able to develop them without restriction..?
This is why we need to look at the regime there, not just because he may have WMD now, not just because he is an oppressor, not becuase he is dangerous, but because he can never be trusted, because he will do whatever he feels necessary to achieve his goals. He has shown that in the past and we fought a war over it. By denying the opportunity to sort this out once and for all right now we just store up problems for the future.
This is why I use the 1930s comparison. We didn't deal with a situation when it was relatively minor, and it blew up in our faces. I would hate to see the same thing happen again.
Does this make Saddam anyone's darling, of course not. But it does remove any moral authority either the US or Britain may claim in invading Iraq. Its time some honest world leaders stood up and told our respective leaders to take their seats and behave themselves.
This matter should be handled ONLY by the UN through inspections and if it is proven absolutely necessary, some form of extradition and international court trial (not on US soil). Having said that however, if in the course of any serious investigation any documented links with past US administrations or government agents emerge, they too should be arrested for crimes against humanity in order to be truly just in the matter.
Yes, I remember how it was US foreign p[olicy to encourage the use of WMB against the Kurds...
So, the argument is that we provided WMD just so that we could attack him at a later date?
Surely, if anything, it makes us responsible for sorting the problem out...
Do you think he will hand himself over? If not, who will go and get him? Seeing as you rule out US/UK intervention because we "created" the problem...
and then you wonder why I make my commens about the International Court.
If a man shoots someone, do we charge the person who sold the gun, or even the manufacturers?
We imposed sanctions on his country, and enforced them, for a time. Then he saw his chance to flout the sanctions and international law, and in 5 years created one of the most powerful war machines the world has ever witnessed, and started a war that resulted in the deaths of 60 million people including the 5 million that the innoucous corporal murdered.
Fast forward to 1991. In 1991 we defeat a madman, with relatively little cost and impose sanctions and restrictions on his country. He gets pissed off, and in 1998 begins to flout the sanctions.
Now it is 2002, and we have 2 options. Do nothing, or destroy the madman.
If we do nothing, how many people may die in the next few years? Saddam, like Hitler will seize the oppotunity to use his new weapons and will use them on the innocent civilians of either the neighbouring countries, Israel, or the UK. There is a possibility that BILLIONS will die if we stand back and do nothing until it is too late. So far the number of deaths from the last war is about 100,000 over 12 years. If Saddam gets his chance that number will die within seconds unless we stop him.
It's more than that, even with conservative estimates. But they are just estimates of course.
The Kurds and any attacks on them are irrelevant to this issue and you know that too. Continually bringing it up only adds to the hypocrisy, since we aren't attacking and overthrowing Turkey for exactly the same reason.
Now its being reported that the US may well block any UN investigation if they dont give Bush a new resolution. Now since when is the UN supposed to be the United "AMERICAN" Nations??? Why is the world community tolerating this kind of undemocratic authoritarian blackmailing of a world body, especially by an administration that has consistently been spewing its rhetoric about being Democratic-loving and Freedom-loving????
Enough is enough, how anyone in the world can consider Saddam (a pathetic little local Bully with no infrastructure) to be anywhere near the threat to democracy, freedom, and peace as are Bush and his cronies, completely boggles me.
Whowhere, you cannot compare Pre-WWII German industrial capacity to that of Iraq in any way shape or form. Pick a new comparison, this one is flawed from the start.
So, are you suggesting that the US ordered the attack, or took any part in it?
On what basis are you arguing your case?
Even though they show that Saddam is willing to gas people, and relatively recently...
It is now suggested that Russian will block any resolution because Saddam has agreed to weapons inspectors. Since when has it been the United Russian Nations?...
Or are we only allowed to criticise the US?
Its all about international agreement, I agree there, but there are five permanent members of the security council, and that includes one of the biggest abusers of human rights (China) who also aren't exactly democratic...
And how exactly is Bush avoiding democratic means?
You are right, they don't have the massive capacity, but then you don't need it to build WMD...
Why?
Prewar Germany's industry was in ruins, as was that of most of Europe. It had an economy on the brink of total disaster and what was thought of at the time an inability to wage another war. It took Hitler 5 years to build up an army strong enough to conquer mainland Europe. All Saddam has to do is bide his time until he has a few nukes and the ability to deliver them, a task which is much easier than sending hordes of troops to invade Kuwait again. So far it has only been 4 years since we last checked his country for WMD's. How long do you think he needs?
As for the UN, it is not any single nation's right Russia, America or otherwise to block the decisions of a supposedly democratic body. Single vetos only prove authoritarian control rather than common consensus rules at the UN. And that undermines the credibility of the institution far more than what Bush & Co. are claiming would undermine its credibility (namely not going along with what America wants).
Whowhere, Pre WWII germany was indeed in ECONOMIC ruins, but that has nothing to do with industrial capacity and infrastructure, both of which WERE ready and waiting for a nut like Hitler to vamp up output. Saddam neither has nor is likely to get even close to that era of output under the current state of Iraqi deprivation. All this "might, could, possibly in the future" crap is no grounds for launching further destruction on a war weary civilain population unless the agressors want to prove themselves as evil and conniving as Saddam himself.
Perhaps you also advocate that we should round up anyone who looks like they might commit a crime at some future date and lock them all away? Some form of justice that would be.
Oh and as for claiming that the gassing of the kurds was recent, need i remind you that it was two decades ago during the 80's and with no protest coming from the US until several years later. So once again this pre text is utter crap.
Since when?
I know she suggested that the US wouldn't intervene in his attempts to get what he thought he had a right to - diplomatically. I'm not aware that she ever said - Go ahead, invade (in so many words)...
and if you ignore what happened then you aren't willing to learn from the past. I have never said that this is the reason why we should intervene, just that it is one of the reasons...
I'm sorry but it is their right. Whether you like it or not.
I repeat, He doesn't need to. One lab is all he needs...
:banghead:
1930s Germany. Repeating mistakes. Proven history.
APart from pointing out the differing magnitudes I will just point you to look at one law - Conspiracy.
I said relatively recently. It is amazing that you dismiss this as being ages ago, but bring up US supplying the weapons which must have happened before. Surely that is also irrelevant then...
I happen to be firmly of the opinion that much has to change in the way policy is conducted if our Western democracies (or Republics if you will) wish to inspire the future direction of the planet rather than its future demise.
If you feel that youre banging your head against a wall, join the club, I at least share that sentiment with you.
The fact that they do have the veto, makes it their right to use it.
What you are arguing for is the right to be removed. How would you replace it?
This is probably the only point of mine which you picked up on. Even then it was the sentiment more than what I said, which was to point out that the international community has been here before...
Ignoring history and management principles in the process.
Mind finding me a time when there has NOT been a war on this planet?
Much as I dislike the current US administration (believe me I do, even if in this event I support their aims), I dislike the UN more. Give me an example of where their intervention has prevented a massacre or famine etc...
I'm sure I can find two where they failed for each success...
One need only look at Afghanistan and all the promises made of rebuilding after we "bombed it back into the stone age" )as I believe the rhetoris of the time announced), and what is being done now that we wiped out the Taliban and sent Al Queda running? Nothing is the answer. Nothing but meagre handouts which are woefully inadequate to ensure lasting peace and stability there.
Now you want the US to make a potentially bigger mess? Fine, watch them go home after and do nothing to bring stability to the yet another part of the Middle East.
Lets look at Afghanistan, where I know that there isn't a utopia, but put it this was the Afghan aren't exactly worse off are they? The fact that you mention them today, when just 18 months ago you wouldn't have even considered their position under the Taliban, is a start.
Of course the fact that the Taliban are no longer in power. Still can't give the US any credit for that, can we?
How about I bring up the obvious one of Europe 1941-1945, I have a feeling that the US was involved in that, also Asia at the same time.
Grenada, Serbia to name two.
Hell I could even add Korea to that list.
Now your turn...you've certainly had time to think about it now....
Good luck changing the behavior of people worldwide. :rolleyes:
Uh...WWII?
Actually MoK, it's all well and good that the Taliban are removed, but without much more stability and reconstruction there soon, the USA's handpicked new govt there will only be toppled as have so many other imposed governments before them. Already the factionalism of the warlords and their clans is starting to reassert itself. It's also a fact that if the Taliban had accepted the money offered by the Bush administration for the oil pipeline to be built from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, they would still be in power today, Al Queda or no Al Queda. Planning for that invasion began even before 9/11.
Yes, so much easier then to claim that the US has been unsuccessful, if you rule out their major success.
Sorry, did the Marshall Plan exists in 1939 then? I didn't realise that it did.
I don't doubt planning took place before 11/9, in fact I would be surprised if the US didn't have a plan to invade most of the countries in the world, in some form or another. That is what the forces planning team are there to do.
BTW I would like to congratulate you on completely sidestepping the examples I gave and your ability to avoid my question about the UN completely.