by James S » Feb 16, 2003 @ 5:25pm
There is no evidence of WMD. I'm not saying he doesn't have them. But there is zero evidence. There's evidence for anthrax and chemical and bio weapons, but those aren't WMDs. They're against the agreement, but they're not WMD.
Also, the US has broken MANY MANY of the agreements in the same UN treaty with Iraq. Our little stunt, presenting all that "evidence," which was quite interesting, infront of a UN meeting was against the agreement. Anyone with information is supposed to discretely give the information to the weapons inspectors ONLY. Also, we're constantly flying over the no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, which is part of the agreement, also. We're actually bombing their AA and radar sites daily, which is against the agreement. So if you want to talk about not being in compliance with UN agreements, then don't just turn a blind eye to what the US is doing.
It does offer a solution. WAITING just a little bit longer and letting the UN do THEIR job until there is some kind of evidence at all in the least will prolong war just a little longer, offer some sort of REASON as to why we're attacking, and give us time to think. We could send in assassins, snipers, spies, any of that covert stuff. Why bring in the GI when all we need to do is take out one man? Or just bomb him from 50,000 feet.
I am far from a peace marcher, and I know that Iraq has violated the UN agreement, but that's the UN AGREEMENT! NOT THE US AGREEMENT! We should not attack on our own to defend an agreement that we didn't even make and that the people that did make don't feel it's the right time to do anything. I just want to know the options and reasons. You, however, are all about war. I'm looking at both sides. All you're doing is saying "to heck with it, they've done SOMETHING wrong, so lets just bomb them."
You say he's willing to attack his neighbours, but do you take them into consideration when you decide to start a war with him? Saddam will just start firing off missiles at any innocent nation nearby, just to make us feel like it's our fault that they're now in the war, too. And what about terrorists from Iraq walking into a shopping mall and taking 30 people with him or her to the afterlife? If Saddam DOES have these weapons that you affirmatively profess then why do you want to give Saddam the chance to bring them into play? Think about what will happen before you act. That's all I'm doing, and it's what everyone should do, but obviously doesn't. That's why were in this mess right now. If we could have taken Saddam out before then we wouldn't be in this mess right now. We should have thought before we acted instead of just acting.
Now isn't the 1990s, and more time for inspection will bring something to light. Iraq is helping the inspectors more and more each day. Under threat of the UK, the US, and UN aggression they are beginning to comply. They can't just do it all in one day. That's not how politics work, to begin with, and to end with you would be suspicious if they suddenly came into complete compliance.
The point isn't whether we "need" the UN for military support. The point is that the UN is the largest and only global peace keeping organization, one in which we hold a permanent seat. If we go against the UN then we've lost that seat, including our global authority with it. We become worse than Saddam, a rogue nation that uses brute force an action to get what it wants ... all in the name of "peace." What a joke. Again, THINK before you just act. It's all one big political game, and you bulking at those that do things for political reasons is exactly why you can't understand how things work.
War is NOT necessary ... yet. Maybe in 2 months it will be necessary, maybe tomorrow it will be. But NOT RIGHT NOW it isn't.
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~sonne/james/tag.gif">
