[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Here's a query - would you still endorse war if Congress approval was not granted?
*No, only under an extreme condition(s). The current Iraq resolution sent to congress in it's current form is unacceptable and should be changed until it is voted on. Additional there is no reason to rush congress to vote on the resolution. *
Not to get on your nerves or anything, but, the US bent the agreement of the resolutions; irrespective of this fact, however, it wouldn't justify Iraq spying on the US.
*Iraq bent them (the rules) before anyone else did, I know that sounds childish but that is the truth. *
.....Should Israel obey this Resolution?
*Israel should be treated as a seperate issue since it is. *
If the US/UK are unsuccessful in mandating (by the Security Council) an attack on Iraq, then would you still support it?
*Let's first see what the UN comes up with, If Saddam follows the resolution fully then this question won't have to be answered. *
UnderTheDome,
Thank you for your reply.
i will take it as an assumption that you believe in the validity of Blair's dossier. You believe that Iraq has been secretly producing WMD all these years, that it is hell-bent on keeping these arsenals hidden from the prying eyes of inspectors. Hence Iraq poses a tangible threat to the world and therefore the necessity for a pre-emptive assault. Right?
Now, if the above is accurate - if truly Hussein has built up a frighteningly large stock of WMD, if he has the capabilities of utilizing those weapons against Israel or the US - does not this prove that so far US policy vis-a-vis Iraq has represented a catastrophic failure. Isn't it time for a change? No less than the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright herself admitted publicly that 500,000 children have died in Iraq due to the economic embargo; 500,000 is half the population of the Canadian city i am living in. You're telling me that, even after these 500,000 childrens' deaths, after 12 years of a policy where we have starved and malnourished thousands of children, Hussein STILL possesses biological weapons of destruction ? That he might possess the capabilities for producing nuclear weapons ? So what does that prove - that US policy vis-a-vis Iraq thus far has been successful or unsuccessful in "containing" Sad-damn?
For pete's sake what other type of proof does one require to arrive at the conclusion that the 12 year-long policies towards Iraq have represented a failure; have economic sanctions worked in strengthening Hussein ? The answer to this can only be 'yes' because according to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Hussein is still madly producing WMD. So obviously, something has gone very wrong here... and it has cost "us" nothing to make this mistake, but it has cost 500,000 innocent children their lives.
Solution, IMHO, is rather simple: lift ALL aspects of the economic embargo immediately; partake in the reparations and reconstruction of this country; demand that Iraq implement Resolution 687 if the Resolution is implemented wholly, i.e., meaning that Israel and Turkey also be stripped of their WMD.
*Israel should be treated as a seperate issue since it is. *
Sorry, how separately should it be treated ? (Precisely speaking, i mean).
Do you believe that an attack on Iraq will further regional and global stability?