The UN, US and Iraq IV

is not {ptht~!}

sofia wrote



Which is the logic of what I am saying. Iraq has not been disarmed, until the weapons are found and disarmed. Am I making myself clear?

If Iraq never had any illegal weapons to be disarmed of in the first place then the whole concept of disarming Iraq is a nonsense. Its quite impossible in fact.

What a pity all those people had to die in a futile attempt to achieve the impossible.

The iraqi government has been de-seated, but if there were weapons, they are still there.

Well, Bush is so keep to find them so that he can use them against the next country he is planning to invade.

Save on shipping costs

That's right! Use the iraqi WMD on Iran!

The logic is that for over a decade, Saddam defied and mocked the UN, its resolutions, and its sanctions. Given a second opportunity to comply, he persisted in his former manner. Containment, sanctions, and inspections clearly were inneffective. An ultimatum to cease, desist, and vacate the premises was issued, which ultimatum likewise was defied. Now, "Please don't do that", "Show me what you have in your hand", and "Get out of town" didn't work. It became necessary to shoot the sumbitch.

et tu timber ?

Timber - as was stated above, the resolution was issued by the UN, not the US. It's like the police force jumping into an FBI investigation with all guns firing.

Steve--
<squaring shoulders>
If you remove a gov., you have surely disarmed that gov.

Have I made myself clear?
-------------
LittleK--
<relaxing shoulders>
Weapons hidden by a deposed dictator are not at the disposal of anyone. The state of Iraq does not have weapons at their disposal. The state of Iraq is disarmed. Impotent.

This sums up the whole war on terror.

Hmmm, if the weapons are found by the rebeling factions you don't think that they will 1. use them or 2. give them to someone who will (and I don't mean us).

This is possible, but very unlikely, as chemical and any nuclear components require more than average knowledge to put together and use. However, if this did happen, it would not be by the govt of Iraq-- It would be, as I said before, perpetrated by terrorists...

If, when the Iraqi people elect their new govt., and it puts together weapons--then, Iraq would cease to be disarmed.

I think this line of discussion misses the fact that for disarmament to have occured the arms had to have existed.

Two other points that Sophia disputes. A free country demands a free press, free of state control and political interference from the government. The current American/Iraqi administration in Baghdad has just banned al Jazeera because it doesn't like what they report.

Is Iraq free? You can't even say its free of Saddam because we haven't captured him. Its Saddam who's still free, moreover many Iraqi are living in a permanent state of dread (not liberation) because they think he might come back.

We have failed to pump the oil. Seems self evident to me. This from the guardian

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1021068,00.html

Oil prices rise after Iraq pipeline sabotage

Monday August 18, 2003

World oil prices came under pressure today after saboteurs blew up a vital oil pipeline in northern Iraq for a second time.
The pipeline, from Iraq's Kirkuk oil fields to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, reopened last Wednesday for the first time since US and British troops toppled Saddam Hussein. However, just two days later, it was shut down again after a bomb attack.
As the initial fire was being brought under control, a second blaze yesterday broke out a few miles away. Officials said that they suspected another attack by saboteurs.
Following the latest attack, the price of crude oil on the New York mercantile exchange for delivery in September rose by 31 cents per barrel to $31.36 (£19.68), while October Brent crude was up 39 cents to $29.20.

Which you have FAILED to do

Craven adding a little napalm to the fire?

Craven--

In this case, logically, I don't think you have to touch weapons to disarm a gov.

You have two factors: arms and the gov. Take either out of the picture, and you have disarmed. We took the gov out.

A free country does whatever the hell it wants to do. The Iraqi Council was pissed that al-Jazeera seemed to be cheerleading murder of Iraqi citizens, who are working toward self-determination of their country.

It was their right to address it. Hopefully, after the gov is up and running, they will be more tolerant of opposing voices--but this is what so many of you wanted... A governmet of, by and for Iraqis. Well, this is what they decided to do.

You were prepared for them to form a theocracy... Why is this choice so shocking?

Iraq's interim Governing Council has urged the United States to give Iraqis sovereign control of their country as soon as possible.

The Council has blamed the current lawlessness in the country on its exclusion from key post-war security decisions.

"You were prepared for them to form a theocracy"

No I wasn't, where on earth did you get that from? If truth be known I would rather have the secular regime of Saddam than the mad mullahs in control.