quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit that is still not an excuse.. 9/11 was terrorism.. how in the world is iraq going to attack the US.. he didnt even mention how they could do it.. and didnt even proove that they do have chemical weapons.. no immediate threat.. no reason to go to war.. conclusion dont go to war really it is that simple.. the UN would have handled the situation fine.. in a more respectable humane manner

He didn't have to prove there were chemical weapons ... Iraq's lack of full compliance with inspections is reason enough to invalidate the truce agreement. There are no degrees of freedom in this. Iraq is either fully complying or they are not. They have played games the past 11 years ... finally, when directly threatened with stiff consequences they still play games. They give up supposed "concessions" only when tension builds up, when they are not even concessions at all. They were demands that they failed to uphold. If you call the UN taking 11 years to handle a situation just fine, without resolution, I would hate to see a situation that the UN is not handling fine. Also it's not a question about immediate threat. The situation demands that there be NO threat. None whatsoever as stipulated by the truce agreement! Saying otherwise would be similar to saying that acting against germany in 1936 would be wrong. That action should only be taken in 1939 when they actually CONSTITUTED a threat.

Yes yes, I know that Iraq is nothing like Germany, I'm merely using it as an example. In 1936 France had a MUCH larger army than Germany and could have defeated them easily when the rhineland was remilitarized. However, the French did nothing until ... well until Germany invaded France. The point I'm getting at is that it's negligent to await until IMMEDIATE threats occur. Because typically at that point immediate threats become actual threats.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The point I'm getting at is that it's negligent to await until IMMEDIATE threats occur. Because typically at that point immediate threats become actual threats.

YES IT IS

if someone is prone to murder someone you dont charge him guilty with murder.. you investigate and give counciling or something.. you dont give them the death sentance

When iraq is suspected of using weapons of mass destruction.. you go about the UN process and investigate.. if they dont comply.. slightly increase the intensity of investigations.. DO NOT go to war and eliminate their army/ take over the country

they were even complying.. they started destroying the missles and so forth


and how IS iraq a threat to the US.. compared to other countries

the fact is they are not.. and the reason for going to war was not justified

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit YES IT IS if someone is prone to murder someone you dont charge him guilty with murder.. you investigate and give counciling or something.. you dont give them the death sentance When iraq is suspected of using weapons of mass destruction.. you go about the UN process and investigate.. if they dont comply.. slightly increase the intensity of investigations.. DO NOT go to war and eliminate their army/ take over the country they were even complying.. they started destroying the missles and so forth and how IS iraq a threat to the US.. compared to other countries the fact is they are not.. and the reason for going to war was not justified

I've used this analogy before but, instead envisioning Iraq as an innocent man, envision it as a convicted felon that is out on parole. In such circumstances they either comply with the conditions of the parole or they go back to jail. There are no ifs, ands, buts about it ... if a you find that a parolee has a gun do you let me him off the hook if he offers to give it up and swears that he doesn't have anymore?

And I've never said that Iraq posed a threat to the US. He does however pose a threat to the region.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And I've never said that Iraq posed a threat to the US. He does however pose a threat to the region.

THATS NOT the reason however that the president has fooled the people into going to war about tho.. he is claiming that iraq is a danger to the western world

they are a long way from developing arms that would be able to accomplish this.. :P so it is totally not practical...

so when you are putting the person on parol back in jail.. make sure you have a reason for putting him back in jail instead of beating around the bush..

where is the evidence?

supicion is not enough

and as well.. war is a much bigger deal!