trespassers will wrote:nimh wrote:trespassers will wrote:nimh wrote:And who is to decide on the proof he comes with, and on whether it is enough? If it is breaking the UN resolution you are accusing him off, isn't it up to the UN to judge on to what extent he did so, and what the appropriate reaction is?
nimh - Take a look at how South Africa worked pro-actively to show the world it was dismantling its weapons programs for a cue what Saddam promised to do, should be doing, is required to do to remain in power and alive, and will never ever do.
You're ignoring the question. If it is breaking "the world's rules" (i.e., the UN Resolution) one chooses to define as casus belli, who is to decide on that
but "the world"/the UN?
nimh - I am ignoring nothing, nor have I made any suggestion that Hussein has to prove anything to me. I offered you an example of what Hussein could do if he wished to show
the UN, the US, and the entire world that he wishes peace and is disarming or has disarmed.
You
are ignoring the question, and so is maxsdadeo. Both of you have kept on insisting that it is Hussein's failure to meet the requirements of "the UN and the entire world" that provides sufficient and legitimate cause for the kind of attack George Bush is preparing. I ask you: if it is "thumbing his nose" to the UN and "the world" you are accusing him of - if it is his failure to meet
their rules you are formulating as casus belli - if it is "showing the UN that he is disarming" that you offer as the one condition for an attack to be postponed - then who else but this
UN - this "entire world" should the decision be up to? The decision whether it has indeed been enough, that he has been at fault enough to justify starting a war?
At the moment Blix has clearly stated that the co-operation Iraq has started to offer warrants extra time for the UN Inspectors to do their job. In the UN security council, everyone except the US, Spain and Bulgaria agree with him. In the UN as a whole, not to mention public opinion in this "entire world", the majority that thinks there is ground for extended inspections, that thinks the evidence proposed by Powell c.s. on WMD and the Al-Qaeda links are much too unconvincing to justify starting a war, is even bigger.
So - it is one of two. Either what Saddam has done wrong is breaking the UN rules, and then it's up to the UN to decide what the appropriate response is. If the UN should decide there is reason to grant the inspections more time, or that the threat from Iraq is insufficiently acute a priority to warrant a massive war, it is it's
right. If it decides the spurious Al-Qaeda links are unconvincing, or at least pale in comparison to the Al-Qaeda links and bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia; if it decides there is insufficient suspicion that Iraq currently has any WMD, let alone is preparing to use them, and that North Korea should be our prime concern right now, it is its right. And in that case it is not up to one or two individual states to declare it "irrelevant" and venture of on a war of their own, in the name of a world community that does not actually support it.
Or - you'll have to find yourself another argument.
