h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What I seem to get from many here is a belief that any action against Iraq should be initiated by the UN. What I have watched happen over the last decade is a country who is ruled by a iron handed dictator {as bad as any in history} These sanctions while an inconvience to Saddam are killing Iraqie citizens. If memory serves me right this all came about a little over a decade ago when Iraq under the leader ship of Saddam Hussien invaded a sovereign nation Kuwait. After a coalition of countrys [with the UN's blessings] defeated Iraq and liberated Kuwait, the regime that ran that country surrendered and agreed to certain conditions to be overseen by the UN. One of those being not to produce or harbor WMP and admitting UN weapons inspectors {giving them unrestricted access} to insure compliance. Saddam blocked these weapon inspectors ability to do their job for years and for the last 4 years has denied their entrance into Iraq. This is in direct violation of UN mandates.
This violation caused the santions now in place to be imposed.
Saddan has effectivly thumbed his nose at the UN. The UN has sat by and in effect done nothing other than issue occasional statements. my question is can we trust the UN to do anything other than to issue statements.

I think the UN will probably support action for the reasons you mentioned, and then the floodgates open against Saddam.

I have 'eard a rumour that they actually captured Saddam in his mansion, but let him go, because of 'better the devil you know'...

... and a war must be conducted justly, with a just cause...

I still don't see what it had to do with the link I posted. Which was about a tory minister saying Iraq had missiles with the range to reach europe and the UK.

But anyway...

I remember a report that stated that the CIA had tracked him down and were going to direct an airstrike against him but Frm. President Clinton denied the request because there was a valuable artifact in his mansion- a piccasso or perhaps somthing by Da Vinchi- and consiquently Saddam lived. This was either at the very end of the Gulf War or just after it ended.

If that was at the end of the gulf was wouldn't it have been Bush senior, not Clinton? The CIA tracked him to his mansion? Go CIA! I'd never have thought of looking there.

STARBIRTH:"country who is ruled by a iron handed dictator {as bad as any in history}"

With possibly the exception of the leader of China. To hark back to Bluesshark's point, he's been responsible for millions of deaths in Tibet. the US are cosying up to him with trade agreements now. This would rather undermine any 'moral' reasons to topple SH. Or is this behaviour acceptable when a country is above a certain size?

This whole affair smacks of old time adventurism.

Iraq = oil = war
Tibet = mountains = nothing.

you're forgetting

Iraq = laughable third-world client army

China = one of the most powerful countries in the world.

Btw, I don't like this "we shouldn't do anything with this dictator because we won't stand up to this dictator" logic. If we took that as a moral stand, we would have let Hitler kill all those poor people because it would be hypocritical to fight him whilst allying with Stalin. Think about it.

I think a more honest awnswer is:

Iraq = Reprehenshible Human rights violations and a potential threat to US {state sponsored terrorism/development of WMD that may find there way to terrorist groups}

Tibet = reprehensible Human Rights violations.

sorry #569 was in reply to #567

"Btw, I don't like this "we shouldn't do anything with this dictator because we won't stand up to this dictator" logic. If we took that as a moral stand, we would have let Hitler kill all those poor people because it would be hypocritical to fight him whilst allying with Stalin. Think about it."

I have thought about it Zagreb. WWII was a different kettle of fish - Hitler was invading almost every country in Europe - a very different story. The difference between China and Iraq is merely that of size. What I am naively asking for is a little honesty. Why is one lot allowed to get away with it and not another? The answer? USA can beat one in a fight but not the other. It's a deflection. And while we're bandying the "we" about, are you going to pick up your gun and fight the good fight?
Just asking, of course...

"I think a more honest awnswer is:

Iraq = Reprehenshible Human rights violations and a potential threat to US {state sponsored terrorism/development of WMD that may find there way to terrorist groups}

Tibet = reprehensible Human Rights violations. "

I think a much more honest answer is

"Iraq = Reprehenshible Human rights violations and a potential threat to US {ALLEGED state sponsored terrorism/development of WMD that may find there way to terrorist groups}+ a lot of oil.

Tibet = reprehensible Human Rights violations. And China has a big army. "

China not only has a big army, they also have weapons of mass destruction. Now we "suspect" that Iraq has "some kind" and "some number" of like weapons, but we're damn well sure that China has these weapons.

China also voiced their opposition to military action against Iraq (joining other countries like India and Pakistan who incidentally also have neuclear weapons).

One question I have is HOW opposed is China to military action against Iraq?

I think China is just flexing it's diplomatic muscles. I don't think they really care who runs Iraq. Iraq was once a suitable client-state that would buy Chinese equipment, but I think they're too poor to afford that to a degree that China would intervene to defend it's market.

>Snails are lovely if correctly prepared!
http://www.thegutsygourmet.net/france.html
We love them in France!They go very well with some Vosne-Rosmanee but you might prefer a budweiser or a coke...
Problem is,with the help of the climate change,you will rapidly have to go for farmed snails before another animal species disappear...
A suivre,<

Actually I like them also. Sorry no beer or coke in the house. Do have a 1950 Chateau Guiraud but I really prefer Ice water.

um... That thread's down the hall and to the righ a bit

>I think a more honest awnswer is:

Iraq = Reprehenshible Human rights violations and a potential threat to US {state sponsored terrorism/development of WMD that may find there way to terrorist groups}

Tibet = reprehensible Human Rights violations. "

I think a much more honest answer is

"Iraq = Reprehenshible Human rights violations and a potential threat to US {ALLEGED state sponsored terrorism/development of WMD that may find there way to terrorist groups}+ a lot of oil.

Tibet = reprehensible Human Rights violations. And China has a big army. " <


And your point O green one?

>um... That thread's down the hall and to the righ a bit <

just answering a question asked of me

There are two main problems with war... escalation, because if everyone gangs up on Saddam, is he more or less likely to use these fabled weapons of Mass Destruction?

Also...War: what is it good for?