Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

And when those armed forces met with resistance from Iraqi forces? The problem here is that what you are suggesting as an alternative to a military option is another military option, only one where Iraqi forces are handed a sure victory. (It also assumes that Saddam would simply welcome such inspections. Do you have any reason to think he would allow what you suggest?)

tres and can we assume that using fake/forged documents to make our postion justifies anything? Saddam lies but we don't?

You don't seem to understand basic reality, Dys. It's OKAY for us to lie. God is on our side, lies and all. Right?

After all, Rumpsfelt told use there would be disinformation spread. The thing he didn't say is that disinformation would be the only thing spread (on the farm we call it something different, but this is a family show)

Surely, T.W., in the interests of obtaining urgent support for a second U.N. resolution, all suspected sites known to the intelligence agencies of America, Britain and Israel would have reached the Weapons Inspectors by now?

Yet nothing allegedly hidden by Iraq has been found. Instead, the W.M.D.s coming out of their ears of a few months ago have now become tales of mystery ships, moving laboratories, underground bunkers and disputed links with 9/11 - but no hard evidence.

It is my prediction that the first invasion target will be the oil fields, with the intention of preventing their self-destruction.

Under people like Bill Clinton, America used to be the most popular nation on earth. Only the decisions of the present Administration can have created hatred or changed global perceptions.

Yeah, Where's the beef? c.i.

John, that's because the rest of the world is evil and into pornography. That's why they liked Clinton, the fools. They have no standards. We aim to straighten them out, but good...

Or, it could be that most of the "intelligence" turned over to the inspectors turned out to be false.

Or something.

TW,



...damn.

One or two may find the following extract from the Sunday Herald of interest:

"THE WEST'S BATTLE FOR OIL

Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the hawks

IT is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq. Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.

The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields."

Curious that September 11th and Iraqs alleged links with terrorism are among the political justifications for the invasion?

Ah, September 11. The great "tragedy" of such dubious origins... I'm pretty sure there is a link between Iraq and 9/11 -- but not the one the Bush administration is flogging so persistently...

Not much proof of most things this administration keeps using to justify this war with Iraq. No connection found yet with Al Qaeda, no WMDs, and their connection to nine-eleven. What was the justification for this war again? c.i.

Gollygosh, Cicerone, have you forgotten? Destroy this village to save it? Kill Iraqi civilians to free them from Saddam?

Thanks, Tartar, keep forgetting, because they change it so often. c.i.

I'm sorry, but I just can't subscribe to the "Thousands of Dead Innocent Civilians" argument. Given current technology and tactics, civilians in the vicinity of a war have never been safer since at least the invention of strategic airpower. Unless of course those civilians happen to suffer the consequences of their own goverrnment's atrocity ... a prospect of chilling possibility.

I truly, truly dread that an unparallelled humanitarian calamity may occur, thus in horrible manner fully vindicating The US position. That would be a bitter victory indeed, though in war, no victory is sweet; there are merely differences in bitterness.



timber

"Given current technology and tactics, civilians in the vicinity of a war have never been safer"

and were this to be a conventional war you would be right, but that is not what i expect.

timber, That's always a possibility. Saddam will do almost anything to save his own neck - don't you think? c.i.

Also, during Gulf War I, we bombed a shelter for men, women, and children. Accuracy doesn't assure the right target. c.i.

c.i., that "Shelter" was also a functioning military Command, Control, and Communications node. Saddam put civilians there specifically in hope to embarass his attackers. It worked.



timber

What makes you think he's not going to do that again? Collateral damage? Heck, they're humans just like you and me. Their life is worth equally to anybody else on earth. c.i.

also Gulf War I was over Kuwait, Gulf War II will be over the total destruction of Saddams empire including Saddam, he will have zero inhibitions over who or what is destroyed. I see nothing in common with the 2 wars since Bush announced that his objective is to get Saddam, which i also believe is the hallmark of Bush's stupidy and the major reason the UN has not signed on. When Bush turned this from a war of WoMD to a war on Saddam he lost world credibility and support. He shot himself in the foot but now we will all limp.