The Iraq Thread

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Feb. 06 2003,12:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how many diplomats in the League of Nations in the 1930s used similar logic to allow German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to go unpunished.<span id='postcolor'>

With the little difference, that Germany was a big player, on political, economic and military sectors. Nobody wanted to mess with them and so the other left them alone. You really can't compare todays Iraq with Germany of that time.<span id='postcolor'>

Germany? Big player?! Gee, I thought that's part of what the League was supposed to keep in check, certainly militarily, in the first place.

Quick! How big a player do you have to be, just for example, to have terrorists walk around spreading smallpox or bubonic plague spores?

[WhoCares 0]

I didn't want to create in the first post, but...

How big do you have to be today, to threaten other countries with war, no matter whether sanctioned by the UN or not?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Feb. 06 2003,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How big do you have to be today, to threaten other countries with war, no matter whether sanctioned by the UN or not?<span id='postcolor'>

So what's your point? Leave "so called shrimps" alone because they're underqualified?

[WhoCares 0]

For sure not. But we should also have a very critical look on the things, the big fishes are doing.

I don't see, why the US is suddenly so hasty. It is not like there is any significant change in the iraqi behaviour in the last two years, compared to the ten years before. Not that I promote a.k.o. status quo, but I definatly don't see a reason for a war...

[Guest]

A questuion Avon:

Are you for a military action against Iraq? (Including the risk that Saddam may take it out on Israel)

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are you for a military action against Iraq? (Including the risk that Saddam may take it out on Israel)<span id='postcolor'>

It was "less" for it before Powell addressed the UN. I am more in agreement with and understanding of the US position now than before yesterday.

The risk you refer to has only gotten greater as time continues to pass.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,12<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The risk you refer to has only gotten greater as time continues to pass.<span id='postcolor'>

As I see it Saddam will become dangerous if cornered. If he was to take it out on Israel before a US attack, Europe and ther rest of the UN would side with the US at once.

If he is attacked first on the other hand, he has nothing to lose. His rocketing of Israel almost broke the coallition the last Gulf War and then it was far stronger then it is today.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was "less" for it before Powell addressed the UN. I am more in agreement with and understanding of the US position now than before yesterday.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's very curious how people can see the same thing and come to entirely different conclusions. I thought that Powell's presentation, although effectful and dramatic was just the rehashing of old arguments and that there was no introduction of real hard evidence that would justify a war. Sure, he made a credible point that Iraqi officials have at least on some occasions lied. But that should hardly come as a surprise. The speculations on the bio and chem weapons, not to mention nuclear weapons and terrorist ties were just speculation. Nobody in the intelligence business would ever consider such "evidence" be anything more then speculations.

So the question that remains is if Iraq lying is a serious enough violation of the 1441 to start dropping bombs.

For anything else these two things are IMO required to justify a war:

1) Proof of possession of forbidden weapons

2) Proof of intent of using them

I must give Powell one point though. I can't remember when I last time laughed as much as when he showed the drawings of the assumed mobile labs. I am surprised that he could keep a straight face!

[brgnorway 0]

Several pages back I stated that US policy of preemptive actions is a dangorous high risk game. As we all know the upcoming war on Iraq is not at all about oil (sarcasm anyone). Surely, the only way a nation in the so called "axis of evil" can protect itself from US "preemptive attacks" is to develope nuclear weapons - and fast that is too!

We know North Korea most probably already have two nuclear warheads and that they are currently developing missiles to deliver such weapons. US is also losing credibility in dealing with North Korea because they fear a "total war", and is pathetically enough supporting a diplomatic solution - unlike the situation with Iraq.

Well, here is more for warmongering US - "wanna taste your own medicine? :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2731305.stm

No wonder most of the world are being afraid by US policy - it certainly makes the world a less safe place to be!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I see it Saddam will become dangerous if cornered.<span id='postcolor'>

As I see iy, he's been dangerous all along.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If he was to take it out on Israel before a US attack, Europe and ther rest of the UN would side with the US at once.<span id='postcolor'>

Nothing like preventative medicine, my doctor always says.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If he is attacked first on the other hand, he has nothing to lose.<span id='postcolor'>

But the people of Iraq do. So do his henchmen and their underlings.

Surrender is an option. Saddam isn't a diety and millions of people will not miss him.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His rocketing of Israel almost broke the coallition the last Gulf War and then it was far stronger then it is today.<span id='postcolor'>

The makeup of today's "coalition" is totally different. In this regard, there's nothing to break up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nobody in the intelligence business would ever consider such "evidence" be anything more then speculations.<span id='postcolor'>

I assume the US is extremly hesitant in handing over information for security and tactical purposes. I tired long ago of all the oil business conspiracy theories.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So the question that remains is if Iraq lying is a serious enough violation of the 1441 to start dropping bombs.

For anything else these two things are IMO required to justify a war:

1) Proof of possession of forbidden weapons

2) Proof of intent of using them<span id='postcolor'>

To quote from The EYES ABROAD column, by BRET STEPHENS, in the Jerusalem Post (subscribers only):

"Indeed, as things now stand, it is the US that is calling for the enforcement of UN Resolution 1441, while France, Germany and other countries find reasons to move the goal posts and prevaricate. Thus, in making the case for giving inspections more time, Dominique de Villepin argues that the mere presence of inspectors successfully contains Iraq's military ambitions. "We know for a fact that Iraq's WMD programs are being blocked, even frozen," he said. Adds German diplomat Karsten D. Voigt: "We know about containment. We lived with it for 50 years. It worked. And at the end, we got regime change."

That Germany is willing to wait a half century for Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse is itself revealing. More significant, however, is that the aim of Resolution 1441 is not Iraq's containment, but its disarmament, barring which the country would suffer "serious consequences." As chief weapons' inspector Hans Blix's report this week to the Security Council made clear, Iraq has not complied, meaning it is in material breach of the resolution. Now it is Germany and France, not the US, that are refusing to enforce international law."

[Longinius 1]

"I assume the US is extremly hesitant in handing over information for security and tactical purposes. I tired long ago of all the oil business conspiracy theories."

So you don't think it has anything at all to do with oil?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 06 2003,13:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you don't think it has anything at all to do with oil?<span id='postcolor'>

No.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Surrender is an option. Saddam isn't a diety and millions of people will not miss him.<span id='postcolor'>

If PLO offered the Israeli government: Give us Sharon's head on a platter and we'll stop the suicide bombings. Would the government of Israel accpet?

Iraq is very tied to Saddam Hussein. It's none of our business to dictate their internal political system.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The makeup of today's "coalition" is totally different. In this regard, there's nothing to break up.

<span id='postcolor'>

How about bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Indeed, as things now stand, it is the US that is calling for the enforcement of UN Resolution 1441, while France, Germany and other countries find reasons to move the goal posts and prevaricate. Thus, in making the case for giving inspections more time, Dominique de Villepin argues that the mere presence of inspectors successfully contains Iraq's military ambitions. "We know for a fact that Iraq's WMD programs are being blocked, even frozen," he said. Adds German diplomat Karsten D. Voigt: "We know about containment. We lived with it for 50 years. It worked. And at the end, we got regime change."

That Germany is willing to wait a half century for Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse is itself revealing. More significant, however, is that the aim of Resolution 1441 is not Iraq's containment, but its disarmament, barring which the country would suffer "serious consequences." As chief weapons' inspector Hans Blix's report this week to the Security Council made clear, Iraq has not complied, meaning it is in material breach of the resolution. Now it is Germany and France, not the US, that are refusing to enforce international law."<span id='postcolor'>

Well, that's an editorial and as such it is biased, incomplete and often incorrect. The 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm and the inspectors to verify the disarmament. There is no time limit on that. If Iraq violates the resolution it will face "serious consequences". That is what has been agreed by all.

The discssion that remains is:

1) Have the inspectors found evidence that Iraq has no intention of disarming. - USA says yes. Europe says no. Blix says: need more time.

2) What are "serious consequences"? USA says war, France says "draft of another resolution".

USA is not breaking international law yet but if they go to war without a UN approval, they will. Germany and France are working well within the rules of the UN. Even if Saddam showed off his nukes and said that he would blow up the entire world - and France would veto a military intervention - it would not be a violation of international law on France's side. The US has used that numerous times against resolutions drafted against Israel.

Attacking another country without the approval of the UN would however be a violation of international law.

[Longinius 1]

Avon,

And you don't find it at all strange that the US Government has strong ties to the oil industry? Right down to Bush and most of his staff?

Which companies do you think will take over the oil production in Iraq once Saddam has been defeated? Domestic ones or American ones?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Surrender is an option. Saddam isn't a diety and millions of people will not miss him.<span id='postcolor'>

If PLO offered the Israeli government: Give us Sharon's head on a platter and we'll stop the suicide bombings. Would the government of Israel accpet?<span id='postcolor'>

You can do better than this, Denoir. Israel is not in Iraq's position, just as America is not in Iraq's position.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is very tied to Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. Remove the threat of Saddam's torture and death and watch what happens.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's none of our business to dictate their internal political system.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam's violation on WMD possesion and his waystations for international terrorists have extended this past Iraq's borders.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc?<span id='postcolor'>

They're the second in line to benefit from Saddam's demise. Just look at yesterday's news about the Saudis blatantly suggesting that Iraqi officers betray Saddam and they'll be guaranteed amnesty.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, that's an editorial and as such it is biased, incomplete and often incorrect.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Information without interpretation is worthless. You have to put things into context.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm and the inspectors to verify the disarmament. There is no time limit on that. If Iraq violates the resolution it will face "serious consequences". That is what has been agreed by all.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is in violation of items 3, 4, 5, 7, possibly 8, 9, 10, and 13 of resolution 1441.

Time's up.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The discssion that remains is:

1) Have the inspectors found evidence that Iraq has no intention of disarming. - USA says yes. Europe says no. Blix says: need more time.<span id='postcolor'>

That is not the point of r.1441. 1441 and previous resolutions require Iraq to explain what's happened to all the WMD materials that were previously documented by the UN years ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) What are "serious consequences"? USA says war, France says "draft of another resolution".<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Maybe we should take about this over a glass of Merlot and some camembert.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA is not breaking international law yet but if they go to war without a UN approval, they will.<span id='postcolor'>

No they won't.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Germany and France are working well within the rules of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

/visions of eunochs

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even if Saddam showed off his nukes and said that he would blow up the entire world - and France would veto a military intervention - it would not be a violation of international law on France's side.<span id='postcolor'>

For this example, you're at a point where I must paraphrase another American: "Frankly, Denoir, I don't give a damn!"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US has used that numerous times against resolutions drafted against Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I'm glad to see both of us have a total lack of faith - in opposite directions, of course.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 06 2003,13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you don't find it at all strange that the US Government has strong ties to the oil industry? Right down to Bush and most of his staff?<span id='postcolor'>

I found that bad from the first time it was reported, before there was a 9/11, before there was an Axis of Evil and before Bush was even elected.

This is not news. This is a badly balanced team. Between that and saying that they're out for black gold in them hills of Iraq is ludicrous.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which companies do you think will take over the oil production in Iraq once Saddam has been defeated? Domestic ones or American ones?<span id='postcolor'>

Domestic, US, French, Dutch, British, Russian. They're all potential players.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Feb. 06 2003,01:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My question is, how many times does Iraq need to be found guilty?  They were guilty in '91, they were guilty in '98, they are guilty now...<span id='postcolor'>

Well first of all, let's assume that your question is not just some trivial hyped up rhetoric and that you really seek an answer.

Probably there's no rule, so I suppose it relies a lot on precedent.  Which means we have to look at what other nations usually get away with.  And I hope you'll agree that the number should not depend on whether or not a nation is a close ally of the US.

You sure you want to go down this path?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Surrender is an option. Saddam isn't a diety and millions of people will not miss him.<span id='postcolor'>

If PLO offered the Israeli government: Give us Sharon's head on a platter and we'll stop the suicide bombings. Would the government of Israel accpet?<span id='postcolor'>

You can do better than this, Denoir. Israel is not in Iraq's position, just as America is not in Iraq's position.<span id='postcolor'>

I am just exemplifying that a governmet will seldom abandon its principles and ideology because of a practical gain. This is especially true for Iraq where Saddam *is* the government.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc?<span id='postcolor'>

They're the second in line to benefit from Saddam's demise. Just look at yesterday's news about the Saudis blatantly suggesting that Iraqi officers betray Saddam and they'll be guaranteed amnesty.<span id='postcolor'>

Yet all Iraq's neighbours are against a war on Iraq (with the notable exception of Kuwait, I think). Even Iran says that they want a peaceful solution. It doesn't really seem like they think that they need to be saved from Saddam, now does it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, that's an editorial and as such it is biased, incomplete and often incorrect.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Information without interpretation is worthless. You have to put things into context.<span id='postcolor'>

*cough*

<span id='postcolor'>

I stand by both statements. The fact that information without interpretation is worthless doesn't mean that all interpretations are good!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA is not breaking international law yet but if they go to war without a UN approval, they will.<span id='postcolor'>

No they won't.

<span id='postcolor'>

There is a UN prohibition against the use of force for the adjustment or settlement of "international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace" in the words of the UN. Charter. Articles 3 and 4 of the UN.

The UN charter has been adopted by all its memberes, including the US.

In legal terms a US attack on Iraq (without UN approval) would be just as illegal as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Probably there's no rule, so I suppose it relies a lot on precedent.<span id='postcolor'>

.............. and circumstances.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 06 2003,14:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am just exemplifying that a governmet will seldom abandon its principles and ideology because of a practical gain. This is especially true for Iraq where Saddam *is* the government.<span id='postcolor'>

My point was, especially in the case of such a one man show, that most of his pals around him will choose life (and possibly amnesty) over dying for Saddam.

I've said it before. This is like the scene in The Wizzard of Oz, where Dorothy is cornered on the roof of the Wicked Witch's castle by the witches devoted troops, wheo are at their meanest and ugliest, weapons in hand.

Once Dorothy throws the water bucket and melts the witch, the head guardsman takes off his hat, kneels towards Dorothy and says "Hail to Dorothy! The Wicked Witch is dead!"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yet all Iraq's neighbours are against a war on Iraq (with the notable exception of Kuwait, I think).<span id='postcolor'>

Being against a war and not caring less if Saddam is no more aren't necessarilly a contardiction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a UN prohibition against the use of force for the adjustment or settlement of "international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace" in the words of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

Without going into this much, what if the peace has been breached?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,13:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,14:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Probably there's no rule, so I suppose it relies a lot on precedent.<span id='postcolor'>

.............. and circumstances.<span id='postcolor'>

Nice words, but when was the last time you heard Powell consider the "circumstances" of pre-GW Iraq that led them to invade Kuwait?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice words, but when was the last time you heard Powell consider the "circumstances" of pre-GW Iraq that led them to invade Kuwait?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean Iraq "had to" invade Kuwait?

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 06 2003,07:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am all for eliminating Saddam.   I think the people in Iraq would be far better off without him, his family, and his top cronies.  My problem is that a war will kill a LOT of innocent people.<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder how many diplomats in the League of Nations in the 1930s used similar logic to allow German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to go unpunished.<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting comparison.

What treaty violations by Germany went unpunished?  I'd really like to know?

Did they also fail to prove the decommissioning of WWI stockpiles of gas, etc?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a UN prohibition against the use of force for the adjustment or settlement of "international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace" in the words of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

Without going into this much, what if the peace has been breached?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, it's the UN's decision to say if the peace has been breached. No member state is allowed to take the law in it's own hands. Only direct self defence is allowed. This is very explicitly stated in the UN charter.

As for the Powell speech, I think I must remind everybody of another similar event. Have you heard of the "Tonkin Resolution"? It was drated on August 10, 1964 and was the official approval of a war on Vietnam. The evidence that the US presented was of the Vieatnemese attacking the US Navy at the Gulf of Tonkin. The evidence was compelling - there were pictures, wittness accounts and recordings of radio transmissions. Sounds familiar?

The only problem was that it was entirely faked. There had been no attack but it was all made up by the LBJ administration and the CIA. For those that are not familiar with this incident - it's not some conspiracy theory - the US has officialy acknowledged that it was all fake.

So the idea of the things that Powell presented being faked is not as far fetched as it might seem.

[Longinius 1]

"I found that bad from the first time it was reported, before there was a 9/11, before there was an Axis of Evil and before Bush was even elected."

Bush? Elected...? Uhm, OK

"This is not news. This is a badly balanced team. Between that and saying that they're out for black gold in them hills of Iraq is ludicrous."

I didnt say it was news. Why is it ludicrous? Is it so hard to believe that there are some egoistic, money hungry politicians out there willing to go to great lengths to get even richer and more powerful?

"Domestic, US, French, Dutch, British, Russian. They're all potential players."

Well, time will tell of course. But I am quite sure that American companies will be over represented in the Iraqi oil market.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 06 2003,14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 06 2003,10:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how many diplomats in the League of Nations in the 1930s used similar logic to allow German violations of the Treaty of Versailles to go unpunished.<span id='postcolor'>

Interesting comparison.

What treaty violations by Germany went unpunished?  I'd really like to know?<span id='postcolor'>

I honestly think I can make a living teaching people how to search with Google. Here's a simple sample:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did they also fail to prove the decommissioning of WWI stockpiles of gas, etc?<span id='postcolor'>

What's the matter? Germany didn't do good enough a job as it was?