Rivers of blood

[Don K Dyck]

Re: Re: Re: Rivers of blood

There's a vision:

RED an Don bent over awaiting the Al Samoud "3" of Hussein...

Now I can go to work with the knowledge that RED and Don are doing their part for "world piece"... Because I must serve my masters you know....

Geez, Tungwagger . . . if your brain was as good as your av then you would really have something to talk about . . . oh . . . the Nurembergdefence failed, you know . . . the soldier who obeys the command to kill innocent civilians is equally guilty with the officer who gave it . . . remember William Calley at Mai Lae??

 

[sufisaint]

Re: Re: Re: Sufi

Hi Sufisaint . . . your posts to this thread seem to be a little juxtaposed . . . are you saying

"Go to war to create peace"

OR is it

"Go to war to prevent death and destruction"

OR is it

"Go to war to wreak vengance upon a regime that the U$ put in place and supplied with biological and chemical weapons to kill the dissidents under the regime"

OR is it

"Go to war to take the undevleoped oil reserves and secure the U$ oil supply for about 40 years"?

I am just a little confused by your statements . . .

That war and peace are opposites, like light and darkness, each creates the other and destroys the other. All things move between there opposites...all things move in the rhythm of waves...even thoughts..thesis to antithesis to new thesis. In this case the war that will hapen will eventuallywill lead to greater peace and that will eventually lead to another war...this is not just theory this is human history. Saddam has gone over the line ..time for correction...at some point in history so will the US and it will be corrected...the trick is to see the truth, reality, and pick the side that speaks the trurth to you. I still see US as still free and Saddam's regime as not...I think the facts support this...I live in the US, I am a sufi, I am armed to protect myself, I make choices in my life, noone fucks with me...if I lived in Iran, I would be aa heretic, I would be a criminal for possing arms and I would be fighting for my life. Only in strength does one find peace.

 

[Alyx]

Once again, with feeling!

I'm not for a war with Iraq, but I understand why the U.S. and British governments think it's necessary (at least to some extent). For those of you don't, here's a little information that may or may not help. Just as a warning, this is a LONG post. I’m sorry for it’s length…I can get a bit “windy” at times!


If you haven't read Resolution 1441, go educate yourselves and learn what's going on and why!

Relevant points of: U.N Resolution 1441 - December 20, 2002

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. ... further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


Hans Blix has stated that for every Al-Samoud 2 missile destroyed by Iraq, another is built. And while he's pleased to see that Iraq is, at least on the surface, starting to comply with the U.N. Resolutions, they are still not fully cooperating with inspectors.

There is more going on here than what meets the eye. A recently declassified document may help bring this subject into focus a bit more. The "Cluster Document" (You can read part of it here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80523,00.html) "has been used by inspectors to monitor and keep track of weapons Iraq is believed to possess, its cooperation with inspectors and its degree of compliance with Resolution 1441 and earlier resolutions."

This is from the Cluster Document:

"In 2003, after a confrontation with inspectors, Iraq turned over the "Iraqi Air Force" document, which disclosed 6,500 bombs armed with 1,000 tons of mustard gas, contradicting earlier chemical-weapons declarations.”

"According to the cluster document, UNMOVIC also believes that Iraq has tanks specially equipped for spraying chemical and biological weapons as well as several types of "unmanned aerial vehicles," which can spray the agents. "

“It says Iraq has continued to illegally pursue warheads designed for chemical and biological weapons, along with "Scud-type" missiles, propellants and launching capabilities, all of which are banned and were supposed to be destroyed."

Funny, Iraq said it no longer had chemical weapons. But then, just because he smiles and allows U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, we should believe what he tells us, right?

Another point. Before the U.S. and British governments pushed for action, before Bush went to the U.N. and told the member nations to get a backbone, Iraq refused to comply with anything. The U.N. inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Yep, that's the action of a country willing to live up to the cease-fire agreement that ended the Gulf War all right. Once the troop build-up began, Iraq, to some extent, started to comply and live up to his obligations as spelled out in the cease-fire agreement and in all the resolutions the U.N. passed in regards to Iraq. Do you honestly think Iraq would be complying now, if there weren't 300,000 + troops massed on it's border, when they haven't done so in the last TWELVE YEARS?

If the U.N. is unwilling to live up to its responsibilities as laid out in it's own resolutions, the U.N. needs to be disbanded. It's weight as the leading world body will be nothing more than a cocktail party joke (rather like NATO)!

As for the U.S. "giving" itself veto powers, learn your history. The five allied nations of WWII decided, as the principle members, that they would have permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and veto capabilities. The U.S. didn't GIVE itself anything. The five principle members decided together and all received the same thing!

I’ll end this on one last note: War hasn't broken out yet folks. France will most likely veto the latest amendment by the British. The U.S. hasn't come out and said it WILL attack. Only that it's an option.

~Alyx~

 

[teddybear4play]

So if you're in such wholehearted agreement with the U.S./UK premise, why do you disagree with their conclusion?

TB4p

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rivers of blood

Geez, Tungwagger . . . if your brain was as good as your av then you would really have something to talk about . . . oh . . . the Nurembergdefence failed, you know . . . the soldier who obeys the command to kill innocent civilians is equally guilty with the officer who gave it . . . remember William Calley at Mai Lae??

Is this the point where I am supposed to hang my head in shame because I am a citizen of the U.S.? And happen to think that good or bad I wouldn't want to live anywhere else?

Just because I have a life away from Lit and don't spend all my free time attacking the country I live in doesn't necessarily equate with a low IQ.

There are fucked up aspects in every walk of life, not all can be placed on the doorstep of the U.S. as you and RED seem to think.

I am a realist in the knowledge that regardless of what links I may provide, or the cognitive approach to a well reasoned argument disputing the crap that you and RED spew forth on a daily basis, would serve no purpose. The only time you two are capable of a reasoned discussion is when you have agreeing points of views with others.

You and RED are so redundant in your arguments that levity is the only thing that could possibly awaken you two from your own "delusions of Grandeur"...

Have a nice day FuckWad...From a devoted "AmeriKKKan"

 

[Alyx]

TB4p

I'm assuming your question was for me. If not, sorry!

Just because I can understand the need for something, does not mean I agree with it. While I understand the U.S./U.K. reasons, I don't have to like the end result, if it does lead to war.

I understand the need to pay my taxes. I certainly don't like writing out the check though!

I understand the need to go to the dentist. But I hate the pain involved.

Just because we dislike or are against something, doesn't mean it's not necessary or understandable (assuming you educate yourself on the topic). I do NOT want to go to war. I do NOT want to see body counts on T.V. at night. I do NOT want to go through any more terrorist acts, which will likely increase in the event of war.

So, while I may understand the reasons behind the action, I do not WANT it to happen. Is that understandable? Does it make sense? *Shrugs* I don't know. But it's the way I feel.

~Alyx~

 

[teddybear4play]

Yes, it was for you. Many posters here don't bother quoting from or otherwise acknowledging the post right above them; it's just assumed to be given that if you're responding directly, it's to the person who posted immediately before.

Well, nobody wants any of those things, least of all the people responsible for putting our brave men and women in harm's way.

I don't want war, but I believe it to be the far better option than a WMD-armed Saddam Hussein politically strengthened by facing down the UN 17 times and winning them all.

Just as you don't want to visit your dentist, but would far prefer it to rotted teeth.

The problem is that the anti-war people don't recognize that there are things much, much worse than armed conflict. The French, in particular, who are so concerned with paper-pushing processes and think that war represents "a failure of diplomacy," should of all peoples understand that there comes a line of demarcation where no diplomacy will work and war must be an exercisable option.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

The problem is that the anti-war people don't recognize that there are things much, much worse than armed conflict. The French, in particular, who are so concerned with paper-pushing processes and think that war represents "a failure of diplomacy," should of all peoples understand that there comes a line of demarcation where no diplomacy will work and war must be an exercisable option.

TB4p

And the problem with Bush's America is that it did not even try the diplomatic route. It was war or nothing from the word go.

I cannot see Iraq posing a threat to anyone else outside of his immediate neighbourhood. With the majority of world opinion against the US it's probable that all those who oppose you also think Iraq poses no threat.

Only America thinks Iraq does. Now even to the "pro-war to save the world" group that has to sound a bit thin as an excuse to invade a country where untold numbers of civilian deaths are likely to happen within the first 48 hours...

ppman

 

[Tungwagger]

And the problem with Bush's America is that it did not even try the diplomatic route. It was war or nothing from the word go.

I cannot see Iraq posing a threat to anyone else outside of his immediate neighbourhood. With the majority of world opinion against the US it's probable that all those who oppose you also think Iraq poses no threat.

Only America thinks Iraq does. Now even to the "pro-war to save the world" group that has to sound a bit thin as an excuse to invade a country where untold numbers of civilian deaths are likely to happen within the first 48 hours...

ppman

The first "shot" in this so called "war" has yet to be fired.

So your claim that with Bush it was war from the word "go", is at the very least, disingenuous.

To this point, Bush and Co. have been working the diplomatic channels in order to convince the UN to enforce 1441.

Sorry that you don't see the correlation between 16 earlier resolutions, the 17th currently being non-enforced, and the subsequent 18th already announced by France that they will veto. Is it any wonder why Bush and a lot of Americans are forming the opinion that the UN is rapidly becoming irrelevant?

As a father, my daughter understands that in order to get the things she wants, she is required to do her chores. If I have to keep telling her to do her chores or the goodies will be withheld, but let her slide repeatedly and still come through with the goodies, it makes me seem like an incredible bully to suddenly feel a need to enforce the rules once again.

But that's ok...the U.S., as long as it's the biggest kid on the block, is always going to be the one who gets picked first for all the sporting games, and the first to be condemned for it being unfair because we just happen to have the ability to hit harder than anyone else.

 

[teddybear4play]

And the problem with Bush's America is that it did not even try the diplomatic route. It was war or nothing from the word go.

You want a route? Here's a goddamn diplomatic highway:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, 8 November 2002

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Diplomacy has been tried, on multiple occasions, and each has brought little more than a resounding failure on all counts. There's no point to continuing diplomacy, because the future of that seems to be pretty clear: a 47th resolution, somewhere in the year 2025, which needs its first two pages to list all the previous resolutions Iraq remains in violation of.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

You want a route? Here's a goddamn diplomatic highway:

Diplomacy has been tried, on multiple occasions, and each has brought little more than a resounding failure on all counts. There's no point to continuing diplomacy, because the future of that seems to be pretty clear: a 47th resolution, somewhere in the year 2025, which needs its first two pages to list all the previous resolutions Iraq remains in violation of.

TB4p

We're talking about Bush not any previous leaders of the US or any updates to previous Resolutions.

Bush has only waited for Resolution 1441 because he was forced into it by Blair.

Bush didn't go that way himself. No way. That nutcase would have been bombing Baghdad before Christmas if he had his way. But because he had no other ally other than Blair and Blair couldn't make any move until some sort of International backing was given, Bush had to wait.

Just as he has to wait for a 2nd Resolution now. Without one Blair's support could easily crumple under extreme anti-war protests in the UK.

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

We're talking about Bush not any previous leaders of the US or any updates to previous Resolutions.

Bush has only waited for Resolution 1441 because he was forced into it by Blair.

Bush didn't go that way himself. No way. That nutcase would have been bombing Baghdad before Christmas if he had his way. But because he had no other ally other than Blair and Blair couldn't make any move until some sort of International backing was given, Bush had to wait.

You are such a moron it's infuriating.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

You are such a moron it's infuriating.

TB4p

His speech doesn't do anything but show he made one...

It's the reason he made it you should consider.

Both the US and the UK are acting illegally with their patrols of the no-fly zones. Blair didn't want any further illegal acts and so he insisted the UN became involved in the war with Iraq.

Unfortunately for both they didn't get the support they expected and now Blair is under further pressure in the UK to keep trying the UN route. And Bush has to wait because he has no other substantial support around...

ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

His speech doesn't do anything but show he made one...

It's the reason he made it you should consider.

I have considered it, and I've concluded that he made it because he wished to include the UN from Moment One. You concluded a long time ago that Bush is a bloodthirsty bastard, so you're connecting dots that aren't there.

Both the US and the UK are acting illegally with their patrols of the no-fly zones. Blair didn't want any further illegal acts and so he insisted the UN became involved in the war with Iraq.

Unfortunately for both they didn't get the support they expected and now Blair is under further pressure in the UK to keep trying the UN route. And Bush has to wait because he has no other substantial support around...

If Bush is so itching to go to war, why did we even bother letting Tony Blair go out on his ever-so-delicate limb and risk having his government fall to be replaced by someone even further left than they are right now?

We had all the necessary justification for invasion when Bush made that speech. We had further reason after the passage of 1441. There can ONLY be ONE reason why George W. Bush chose to temper his rush in order to go through international channels: because that's the way HE wanted it.

TB4p

 

[p_p_man]

If Bush is so itching to go to war, why did we even bother letting Tony Blair go out on his ever-so-delicate limb and risk having his government fall to be replaced by someone even further left than they are right now?

TB4p

Simply because Blair is his only ally of any substance at the moment. He has been from the very first day after 9/11 when he said the UK stood "shoulder to shoulder" with the US. The people of the UK were as surprised as anyone that Blair came out with a statement like that without any consultation. However we let it run to see where it would go.

Afghanistan occurred and the first signs of visible protest came to the fore when Blair continued to support Bush despite the way the war was handled. Blair by now either didn't see the warning signs or chose to ignore them thinking all opposition would melt away eventually. Well it didn't and now with Iraq Blair is in big trouble politically.

All Bush is doing by going to the UN is helping Blair out. OK he may think it wouldn't be such a bad thing to look statesmanlike but it's his pal Blair, who desparately needs his help, he's doing it for.

If a new Resolution is passed giving the green light for war the majority of the UK will support it (I'm quoting from polls here) but if it fails...

Bush is holding on, although he doesn't have to, to give Blair as much chance as possible...

Personally I think they're both barking up the wrong tree...

ppman

 

[Alyx]

TB4P

The problem with most anti-war folks is they don't bother to learn the facts behind the situation. They hear the word "war", and start screaming "No!". Many folks, even some posting on this board, may be aware of Resolution 1441, but have never bothered to read and understand it. They don't bother to learn about the cease-fire agreement or Iraq's many violations.

As for the French... as I stated in another post, the French have financial dealings with Iraq, so to me, their stand is suspect. They are not doing what's right, they are doing what's economically sound for their own country's bottom line.

I hate war. I loath the very concept of it. But I understand its need. When men of good conscious have exhausted all means of a peaceful settlement...or in this case, when the cease-fire agreement and the U.N.'s resolutions are ignored...then it's time to look for another solution to the problem. Is the answer war? I don't know. That's probably why I'm not in government *Grin*. But sanctions haven't worked. Inspections haven't worked. Resolutions haven't worked. 300,000+ troops massed on the border? Iraq, on the surface at least, is starting to comply. So perhaps force is the only way.

History will judge the men involved in this situation. If war breaks out and there are few casualties, history will be kind. If war breaks out and there is a slaughter of innocents or military lives, history will be harsh. IF war breaks out, I will support those who fight and hope they come home safely.

However....I STILL don't have to LIKE it. Anyone who enjoy's war is just too twisted for words.

 

[miles]

Just as you don't want to visit your dentist, but would far prefer it to rotted teeth.

TB4p

If you're talking about ppland, you have that backwards.

 

[teddybear4play]

All Bush is doing by going to the UN is helping Blair out. OK he may think it wouldn't be such a bad thing to look statesmanlike but it's his pal Blair, who desparately needs his help, he's doing it for.

If a new Resolution is passed giving the green light for war the majority of the UK will support it (I'm quoting from polls here) but if it fails...

Bush is holding on, although he doesn't have to, to give Blair as much chance as possible...

Personally I think they're both barking up the wrong tree...

I think this new resolution is only to keep Blair's end tight, but we wouldn't have risked sinking his political career just for the handful of troops they contribute.

Every Brit should watch the video of or read the transcript of Jack Straw's speech before the Security Council yesterday.

TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Re: TB4P

The problem with most anti-war folks is they don't bother to learn the facts behind the situation.

Hi Alyx . . . and many supporters of the U$-Iraq Imperialist War for Control of Undeveloped Middle East Oil Reserves are too lazy to analyse the facts for themselves, preferring the jingoistic mob media propaganda version.

The first casualties in war are truth and facts, look and the war sports death scores from Vietnam . . . they bore no relationship to what actually happened. Now look at the U$ supply of crude oil.

1. The oilfields in continental U$ are depleted and the remaining reserves are too costly to develop at this time.

2. The cost of developing the Alaskan fields is about $US 6 per barrel compared with less than a dollar per barrel for the Iraq fields.

3. The Iraq oil reserves are 112 BILLION barrels proven, or 40 years supply for the U$ with another 112 BILLION barrels unproven. This is about 35% of the world's known undeveloped oil reserves.

4. The U$ economy is in a shambles. Without the "war effort" the economy is going backwards. The government subsidies for U$ primary producers and inefficient manufacturing industries are costing thousands per job created, and inflating prices for most consumer goods.

5. The $US 514 TRILLION "war budget" announced recently will keep the U$ budget out of balance for about a decade, or more. So much for Congress keeping spending under control.

6. The misnamed Patriot Act and Home Defense Act give demonstrably inefficient security agencies unfettered powers of arrest and detention without notification or legal representation. These powers may be applied against any and every American citizen, regardless of political affiliation. Hard won common law rights have been ripped out of the American legal system with these two pieces of legislation.

7. There are many comparisons made between Nazi Germany and the Dubyah Shrub appointed Administration. It is worth reading the history of the rise of the Nazis to democratic power then Fuehrerstat (sp?) without legal rights for citizens.

8. The U$ has recently introduced discriminatory laws requiring certain racial groups to register with the government. In 1942, loyal Japanese Americans were stripped of their legal rights and property before internment. Will this happen under Dubyah Shrub?

One thing is certain. The anti-war folks are aware that unless we learn from the history of previous generations, then this generation is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[REDWAVE]

Hi, Don!

Oil, global hegemony (I love saying that!), distraction from the social and economic crisis at home, an excuse for repression of dissidents-- it's a strategic grand slam!

 

[Tungwagger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rivers of blood

There are fucked up aspects in every walk of life, not all can be placed on the doorstep of the U.S. as you and RED seem to think.

I am a realist in the knowledge that regardless of what links I may provide, or the cognitive approach to a well reasoned argument disputing the crap that you and RED spew forth on a daily basis, would serve no purpose. The only time you two are capable of a reasoned discussion is when you have agreeing points of views with others.

You and RED are so redundant in your arguments that levity is the only thing that could possibly awaken you two from your own "delusions of Grandeur"...

The above two posts sums up my earlier post which has been C&P'ed.....

Plus it gives me another freakin' post....

 

[Alyx]

Let's try to keep this on track, shall we? The U.S. isn't perfect. Neither is Canada, Australia, France, Germany the U.K. etc.

However, when Canada breaks wind, the rest of the world says "Did you hear something?" When the U.S. breaks wind, the rest of the world stands up and says "What did you just do!?"

Fact: Iraq is in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441 and it's cease-fire agreement.

Fact: The U.N. was not living up to it's obligation to bring Iraq into complience with 1441.

Fact: If the U.N. doesn't act, it can no longer be concidered the leading world forum it was intended to be. It will have the same geo-political power as the Japanese Whaling Association.

The inspection process wasn't working until 300,000+ troops were parked on Iraq's border. Now, Iraq seems to be complying rather quickly, to an extent. Isn't that amazing? If that's what it takes, then leave the troops on the border until Iraq is in complience!

As I pointed out before, we are not at war yet. It looks like the U.S. couldn't get the votes it needed, so didn't call for a vote in the Security Council (WooHoo!).

IF the U.S. acts without the U.N.'s approval, THEN folks outside the U.S. will have reason to bitch and moan. Until then, clean up the messes in your own countries, without attempting to point out ours. Let us worry about the INTERNAL workings of our country. You don't live here, so worry about your own backyard!

Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

~Alyx~

P.S. Americans tend to band together when attacked from the outside. But if the government steps on our rights, we fight back. Folks who vote to curtail our rights repent in leisure at election time and the Supreme Court has a busy session!

 

[Bobmi357]

Actually, the rest of the world should be breathing a sigh of relief that we're even attempting to bother with a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi issue.

Personally I am not in favor of the US attacking Iraq. HOWEVER, as a born and bred New Yorker, and former office worker in Tower #2 (I worked on the 76th floor there from 1991 to 1993), my initial inclination was to pull out that nuclear arsenel we've got gathering dust, nuke the mideast entirely, including israel and all of the arab states. Problem solved.

I lost four friends, and have another who will be crippled for life. One widow still doesn't have a body to bury. No place for her kids to say "Thats where daddy is buried". People I know and considered as friends are traumatized for life. Businesses I helped are gone.

I am not in favor of the US attacking Iraq. Fuck Iraq, if they are so stupid as to allow themselves to live under that form of government then they don't deserve to be liberated. I also believe bush is using Iraq as a scapegoat because he's been unable to give the people of the USA Osama's head on a pole.

If the US shows what proof it has concerning a link between Osama and Saddam, I might be convinced, but so far I'm not.

Attention: All flames are gleefully ignored.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: TB4P

5. The $US 514 TRILLION "war budget" announced recently will keep the U$ budget out of balance for about a decade, or more. So much for Congress keeping spending under control.

You're off by at least a factor of a thousand here, dingo. Either you're just sloppy with your typing (which I buy on this point), or being intentionally thickheaded (which I believe for the other points).

TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Let's try to keep this on track, shall we? The U.S. isn't perfect. Neither is Canada, Australia, France, Germany the U.K. etc.

However, when Canada breaks wind, the rest of the world says "Did you hear something?" When the U.S. breaks wind, the rest of the world stands up and says "What did you just do!?"

Fact: Iraq is in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441 and it's cease-fire agreement.

Fact: The U.N. was not living up to it's obligation to bring Iraq into complience with 1441.

Fact: If the U.N. doesn't act, it can no longer be concidered the leading world forum it was intended to be. It will have the same geo-political power as the Japanese Whaling Association.

The inspection process wasn't working until 300,000+ troops were parked on Iraq's border. Now, Iraq seems to be complying rather quickly, to an extent. Isn't that amazing? If that's what it takes, then leave the troops on the border until Iraq is in complience!

As I pointed out before, we are not at war yet. It looks like the U.S. couldn't get the votes it needed, so didn't call for a vote in the Security Council (WooHoo!).

IF the U.S. acts without the U.N.'s approval, THEN . . .

~Alyx~

P.S. Americans tend to band together when attacked from the outside. But if the government steps on our rights, we fight back. Folks who vote to curtail our rights repent in leisure at election time and the Supreme Court has a busy session!

Hi Alyx,

If the U$ acts without the UN then the U$ is "A ROGUE STATE".

Furthermore, the U$ score to date includes

1. threats to use nuclear weapons;

2. threats to bomb Baghdad to rubble, necessarily killing many civilians in a population having 50% children . . . very brave . . .

3. plans for at least an 18 month Military Occupation Government in Iraq to transfer ownership or control of the undeveloped oil reserves to AmeriKKKan interests;

4. threats to all other nations of the world in the recent National Defence Policy statement in September 2002;

5. Double-crossing the Kurds who were promised an Independent Kurdistan;

6. and, according to an Oz ABC report last night, a plan to expand Zionist Israel into the Middle East, possibly even to the East Bank and beyond.

Your postscript is interesting. I can only presume that you have not yet read either the misnamed patriot Act or Home Defense Act which strip ALL American citizens of their essential common law rights. Go read them. Check out some of the many legal commentaries on them.

Americans have a major problem . . . it is called the U$ Fourth Reich of the appointed Dubyah Shrub Fundamentalist Christian Administration.