**** you Iraq, we want to fight you

[Gaffer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm

I mean, what on earth do the West want!!! The Iraqs have agreed to let weapons inspectors in, and now no=one believes they are serious!!!

**** this man, I'm turning Muslim

[Wally Pipp]

... and henceforth will be known as Al Chaffer

[Nightwalker83]

Originally posted by Gaffer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm

I mean, what on earth do the West want!!! The Iraqs have agreed to let weapons inspectors in, and now no=one believes they are serious!!!

**** this man, I'm turning Muslim

Blair, Bush and Howard are brother

[plenderj]

US, Britain and Russia have veto.
So if there is a vote done, Russia can veto it.

And then supposedly china and france welcome it, and want to see iraq held to their word.
So it would be very dangerous for the US to attack I think...

[OrdinaryGuy]

its simply impossible for the US to attack now.. Saddam is playing his cards well... trying to buy time.. I doubt he'll let them in...

gaffer, dont keep such one sided views. I am strongly for military action against Iraq and what Saddam did now could ruin any chances of punishing him. Im ready for a debate on this if u wanna take me on...

[plenderj]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Im ready for a debate on this if u wanna take me on...

No Yash.

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
gaffer, dont keep such one sided views. I am strongly for military action against Iraq

Well, there's ****ing hippocracy if I ever did see it

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Gaffer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm

I mean, what on earth do the West want!!! The Iraqs have agreed to let weapons inspectors in, and now no=one believes they are serious!!!

**** this man, I'm turning Muslim

Iraq has said this multiple times and have a perfect record of backing out of it since 1996. It is understandable that no one believes them. The west wants a New UN resolution to make sure Iraq makes good on their end of the deal. What's wrong with making them hold up their end of the deal?

Gaffer, Muslims aren't supposed to drink beer. good luck with your new spiritual calling. Man you need a vacation. You are way to uptight latley.

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Iraq has said this multiple times and have a perfect record of backing out of it since 1996. It is understandable that no one believes them. The west wants a New UN resolution to make sure Iraq makes good on their end of the deal. What's wrong with making them hold up their end of the deal?

Gaffer, Muslims aren't supposed to drink beer. good luck with your new spiritual calling. Man you need a vacation. You are way to uptight latley.

Yep I need a holiday, tis true. However, I have cause to be uptight about such things as this, especially when I read this from the Lead story on BBC:

"The Bush administration is moving quickly to get domestic backing for a possible US attack on Iraq, despite Baghdad's offer to let weapons inspectors back in. "

The west want to make sure Iraq makes good on their end of the deal? It looks very much like the "west", or certainly certain memebers of the west, wish to bomb the bejeesus out of Iraq, regardless of how they comply with UN regulations.

This is not calm and collected pressure on a naughty country, this is pure bullying...

[Xanith]

When Iraq surrendered to the international coalition lead by the US in the Gulf War one of the conditions to that surrender was to allow weapons inspectors in the country so Iraq could not rebuild its biological, chemical, and nuclear programs ("weapons of mass destruction" as the media likes to label them).

Iraq has done nothing but use stall tactics and run arounds in the past when it came to weapons inspections. I expect this is more of the same and because of this I don’t blame the US and the UK of being skeptical of what Iraq is saying now.

The only reason Saddam is around today is because of the surrender agreement and Iraq's promise not to peruse aggression against its neighbors by allowing inspectors in. If he’s willing to do that now I say great. However if he doesn’t allow the inspectors unfettered access like they are promising the US and its allies have every right to bomb Iraq and take out Saddam.

Maybe if The Versailles Treaty was enforced and preemptive actions taken against Germany before they were allowed to amass and build such a huge military machine WWII might have actually be averted. They say history repeats itself. I can see this happening if Iraq is left alone to its own devices.

X

[Wally Pipp]

You are a bad man Al Chaffer ! Doubting your closest allies like that. You ought to be crucified. Shame on you ...

[MasterBlaster]

He's Muslim now Wally. They have far more creative ways to off someone than hanging on a cross.

[DiGiTaIErRoR]

You can't convert to being a muslim.

You're born into it.

[nabeels786]

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
You can't convert to being a muslim.

You're born into it.

[MasterBlaster]

Muhamed Ali?
Kareem Abdul Jabar?
John Walker?
Aminah Assilmi?

You can convert to most any religon. I was being sarcastic in the first place any way.

[kovan]

Originally posted by Gaffer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2263162.stm

I mean, what on earth do the West want!!! The Iraqs have agreed to let weapons inspectors in, and now no=one believes they are serious!!!

**** this man, I'm turning Muslim

u have to trim ur public hair first

:P

[siyan]

Why is it that the US doesn't just go along with this?

1. If there are weapons, then they will find them and thus have proof, and thus the UN security council will be highly compelled to go along with attack plans.

2. If Iraq is just using a stall tactic and denies entry to inspectors, the UN security council will STILL be pressured to go along with plans

Either way there, the US wins.

However, if there are indeed no weapons, then there is no reason compelling reason to attack. Is the US govt just afraid that they will find nothing and their plans will simply look like a mad ploy to take some crude to the Security Council?

-C

[Bonker Gudd]

This sucks

George Bush has made his mind that he wants a fight

This could end up very messy

[siyan]

Think how much it would suck without the UN.

Sometimes it feels like only the Security Council (and other voices like Germany and Annan) keep the world from blowing up.

-C

[Beacon]

Nah no way Bonker!

He's an idiot but Bush is just doing what every other President\World leader has done when the economy is in\going into recession, going to war.

Except he may not know what he's up against this time!

[siyan]

Originally posted by Beacon
Nah no way Bonker!

He's an idiot but Bush is just doing what every other President\World leader has done when the economy is in\going into recession, going to war.

Except he may not know what he's up against this time!

all boils down to money

-C

[Bonker Gudd]

Saddam Hussain let us off before, he has a lot of **** to throw at us.

We'll pay the price for not getting him ten years ago. Remember that he is a madman, a very madman.

[glyptar]

Originally posted by Siyan
1. If there are weapons, then they will find them and thus have proof, and thus the UN security council will be highly compelled to go along with attack plans.

if they find weapons, they will destroy them, and the UN will not be compelled to go along with attack plans at all. The whole purpose of the attack is to force iraq to give up their weapons, and that mission will already have been completed then.

In my opinion, it is ridiculous that the Bush administration first yells that they will attack unless weapons inspectors are let into iraq again, and now Saddam unconditionally agrees, they look for new excuses to attack anyway. Saddam complied completely with what the US told the world they wanted him to do, now they should see if he lives up to his word, not tell everyone he wont and attack anyway.

Just my 2 cents,
Geerten Vink

[WorkHorse]

Originally posted by siyan
Why is it that the US doesn't just go along with this? 2. If Iraq is just using a stall tactic and denies entry to inspectors, the UN security council will STILL be pressured to go along with plans

I'm not much into politics or mid-east, but I'm think the agreement after Gulf War was that there would be UN inspectors 10 years ago and they are still getting stall tactics.

I image it is something like Iraq only allows inspectors after a fight, then sets limits, then breaks those limits down further so that it would be unreasonable for anyone to go to war over 15 minutes here or 10 feet more that way. That's what I would do too if I wanted to hide "weapons of mass destruction". No one would support war over small stuff and you can keep going back to the negotiating table endlessly.

I think the US is saying they have had enough games. I don't know. Clinton tried to work out peace in Middle East but said it was too hard. Bush seems to going to direct conflict riding on the "war on terrorism".

Seems to me Al Queda and maybe Iraq want to take over Arab lands and create a power unit using their natural resources to benefit their people. Western European countries did this a few hundred years ago when they "conquered" the new world. There was little outside opposition at that time, but now there is a world power structure and you just can't do it anymore. But maybe there should be some concessions for "taker-overs" that got on the boat late?

So, as an American Joe Schmoe it looks to me like Iraq is being nogoodniks and is up to something, but I don't know. In conclusion: I have no idea what should be done. Totally not my job.

If you need a program that can run some numbers for you...

[Wally Pipp]

Don't you just love the irony and the sense of sarcasm around here ...
Note to self : use easily recognisable smileys.

[Wally Pipp]

I know, I know, again lefty propaganda for many of you but I thought it'd make interesting reading :

Where did the WMD come from ?

Interesting note : Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld the Special Emissary for the Middle East at the time who had the task to reopen diplomatic relations ?

[Wally Pipp]

Added annotations and observations ...