[Dutch]

QMPZ, no offense, but this is getting really tough to argue and counter argue, so I'll pull out some good ones and answer and if I missed anything you care to hear an opinion on, please point it out.

[EDIT: I lied, I made another dynast thread.]

This is the crux of the debate I suppose. You argue for war based upon the previous existence of

something with no current proof while I argue no war until it is proven AND Iraq then refuses to

comply. That's right, BOTH conditions should be true.

This is what makes me so baffled. If people truly believed this and truly cared, where the hell were they for the last 12 years? I don't have a great memory, but I sure as hell remember a couple of weeks ago people protesting the USA for threatening war, but I don't remember anybody in the USA and Europe protesting in force about UN Sanctions on Iraq or Hussein waging war on his own people. Remember, there have been many anti-US government reports that have accussed Sanctions (not Hussein) of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people by neglecting them during the last 12 years. I'd provide proof, but the victims are dead, their families unable to speak, and Saddam isn't exactly reporting his own findings to the "Give peace a chance" foundation.

I think you agree that war does not destroy WMD, right? Isn't that the point?

I think you are confused by thinking removing the current Iraqi regime would fail to open up doors. I do not believe you would think that, however.

...because you apparently think 300,000 troops (who I can only assume do not have the equal training and expertise that a weapons inspector does) is plenty to increase the rate of destruction... or are they only effective with
guns ablaze?

They are not inspectors, that was being sarcastic. However, we found quite a bit more about Al Qaeda once we got a real process of investigation started. The military action only allowed us the opportunity and without it, we would still have no clue about Al Qaeda and they would be plotting more devastation and not hiding and running.

France, Germany, Russia, and China (probably others) have all suggested increased inspectors.

Yes, like Cuba, North Korea, Iran... if you think the countries you mentioned are the subject matter experts on the Iraq situation, I would find it amazing to know what you think the USA, UK, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Eastern Europe,Israel, Kuwait, (and probably others) might be considered.

that exceeded UN reg's by 15 miles in some cases, not having the ~800 mile range Powell told the UN Sec Council) being destroyed and inspectors

You are assuming again that the Iraqi's are in full compliance and the inspectors have found everything...

And we all know of course that Saddam kicked out inspectors in 1998, but it would appear that there was some form of cooperation (be it poor or good I have no idea, but it seems it was somewhat effective) for ~6 years.

The UN inspectors left in protest after the Clinton administration was so frustrated with the lack of cooperation on the part of the Iraqi's... so we are straight on that.

Sort of like we hear that the war is to protect the American way of life and our homeland over and over again?

I think we hear that sometimes war in neccessary to defend freedom because so many hate us for it.

The human rights angle is a crock and you know it.

In this case, it sure seems so, but to tell me that you care about not going to war and encourage nations like Iraq to continue killing their own citizens as long as ours don't die...is hypocracy.

Nobody argues he's a good man, he's evil, but there are many evil men out there in control of nations killing innocents but there are no US troops on their borders... in fact we but oil from some of them and call them allies.

Who? But if it is about oil? What is the motivation? Oil contracts to Cheney? I think ensuring the oil market remains stable and fair would have more to do with it, but then again, I trust Bush, like I trusted Clinton. Perhaps Clinton was holding Iraq in place all those years in case Bush Jr. was elected and got Cheney and job in the White House? Ah, conspiracy theories, the're always fun!

This situation is documented, the ties are long standing, many of the players are the same as Gulf War 1, and you continue to turn a blind eye. How do you 'explain' these things away?

Well, you might have to ask 8 years of Bill Clinton and 8 years of UN sanctions. (I only blame Clinton in retrospect, I didn't suggest we end sanctions back then. I've changed my mind. Hatred is growing like a cancer in the middle east, and something has to be done about it.) 8 years is a long time to breed hatred for the USA and I think we saw the benefit of that hatred on 9/11/01. Was Iraq involved in that? Well, you would suggest that since he says "No", that he wasn't. But his country does have Al Qaeda operatives in the northeastern part of the country, just south of the Kurds. But you'll have to trust Colin Powell when he says that, and the Senators on the Armed Services Committee.

I merely pointed out that the first Bush administration encouraged it and left them to be defeated

You are suggesting one of two things. That the Bush administation not encourage them? That the Bush administration should encourage them and break the UN agreement by supporting further war after Kuwait was liberated? Because if it's the latter, I agree with you. If it's the former, it was a risk with great rewards. All risks are bad when they fail.

It wasn't because of Hitler murdering the Jews, it was the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor; up till then the US was not involved in WWII. So you can stop with the 'holier than thou' routine in respect to WWII.

Much like Hussein, Hitler didn't exactly advertise! We didn't know that was going on. And now you are bashing the US for their motivations in WWII???? When does it stop?

So now you are presupposing how I feel about other nations. You've consistently increased your personal attacks through this post.

Yes, Australia's Government is based fundamentally on the same beliefs and principals as the United States Government. The rules and opportunities that allowed George Bush to become president in the USA apply to a similar minded man in Australia or Europe. If I have offended you, good, you deserved it. But my unfriendliness is directed squarely at your viewpoints.

NK was a nation in need of energy. Bush comes into office and doesn't follow through with the deal, names NK as an axis-of-evil, and now refuses to even directly talk to NK.

NK is a nation in need of everything (just so you are corrected). Bush doesn't follow through with what deal? NK is very much our enemy. Been so for 50 years. They sell ballistic missles, knowledge, and weaponry on the black market. That is well documented. And now we discover they are reactivating nuclear power plants with the capabilities of pumping out roughly 10 nuclear bombs a year and it's George Bush's fault? People just don't go absolutely pychiopathic because there feelings get hurt. I don't see France flipping out and selling their nuclear weapons...but with NK, it's a possability.

Or what is your feeling about Pakistan being nuclear, a nation militarily run?

Well, the first check I think we have to make before going to war with anybody is are they reasonable? Can the be dealt with? And the answer so far with Pakistan's military leader, is yes. Now, we are trying like hell to keep him and his nation stable and I think we have given him about 650 million dollars last year than we used to. It's a big price to pay to keep nuclear nations our friends. If Islamic Fundamentalists take over, we are in a world of hurt, because we get to go to war again, and making friends with Pakistan has surely made India less likely to enjoy our company. You see, the nuclear world, where we let every Tom, Dick, and Harry play with the big boys is going to be a disaster. That is why it is so important to show the world's rogue states that the world isn't playing when some overly aggressive dictator wants to play with nukes.

That's why NK cannot be dealt with financially, because the price will be too high and the message would be all wrong.

Well, I guess killing Iraqi citizens is cool with you too, or do you think those missiles and bombs won't kill any?

In the long run, a lot less. That's the core difference between my argument and yours. You think only short term. You care more about that short term spike in statistics than in the long haul of millions.

I am ignorant of any liberation movements we've supported, and would appreciate any links to read up on them.

We liberated Afghanistan. Just recently in fact. Dominican Republic (or is that Haiti?), Grenada, Cuba (in the past).

If we effectively put Saddam in power to confront Iran when it was convenient for us, why is it we cannot effectively empower Saddam's enemies to remove him from power?

We didn't put Saddam in power. But yes, after the fall of the Shaw of Iran, the fundamentalist regime of the Ayatollah Komeni posed a serious threat to US interests and the hostage taking and the large anti-US movements caused quite an effect on the US Administrations back then. So they supported Saddam Hussein, an unknown, who was not tied to fundamentalism, as a worthwhile risk. When risks don't pan out, they are failures, not conspiracy.

Let Iraqi's gain their freedom with full support, but not at the risk of American lives when there is no threat to America.

Well, thank God the Soviet Union collapsed so Cuba became a non player. But I'm not waiting for Islamic Fundamentalism to collapse in the middle east. Aint' happening, not without moving forward with relations. And that simply won't happen until Hussein is removed and the Israeli/Palestinian issue is resolved.

Let me help you out. "Remember to remove the words 'NERVE AGENT' from all your computer files."

Iraqi officer prior to this round of inspections.

---in response to Iraqi officers removing the words "Nerve Agent" from their records and Jack Straw saying "IF" Iraq gets ahold of WMD.

Thanks for helping me. You didn't answer my question, but whatever.

I think I answered the question clearly. The word "IF" has no meaning. I find it very irresponsible for France, German, Russia, China, (and probably others) to endorse the use of sanctions on Iraq all these years over unlikely possibilities. Don't you?

Nobody is suggesting stop pressuring Iraq to disarm, you seem to equate anti-war with letting Saddam run roughshod and unchecked.

Good, we agree. I'm not pro-war. Like the top General of the Turkish military said. [paraphrased as close to correctness as possible]"They say Turkey is 94% opposed to war. That is incorrect, we are 100% opposed to war. But we have to understand that this is not a decision between war and peace, good and bad....but a decision between war and greater war, bad and worse."

I agree with that.

war is the only answer for you.

And I gave you 12 years to come up with an alternate plan. Times up, Iraq has been playing for real all this time, you weren't.

When all that evidence comes pouring out about where all these weapons are that will still mean war,

What should it mean?

when inspectors find weapons that are banned by the UN resolution that will still mean war,

What should it mean?

every time Saddam does provide something that is requested it is deemed 'deceipt' rather than compliance and thus means war.

And thus means war is an assumption. We have never threatened to go to war because he offered us a nugget. We don't want full compliance, we need it. Nuggets provided by Saddam to make you clap aren't doing anybody any good.

I suggest the solution is to provide the apparent intelligence to inspectors and let them do their job and destroy the weapons,

Okay, intelligence brief number one. Saddam Hussein is in Bahgdad. Round him up right now for crimes against humanity by using Chemical and Biological weapons on the people of Iran and Iraq. Other than that, I can't tell you that the US intelligence is dynamically 100% accurate, I'm sure it's not even close. Now you see it, now you don't is more like it. It's very difficult to spot something, tell a UN inspector in a bugged hotel room, and have them drive to an empty location. And the weapons/equipment/whatever somebody once knew was present is gone. However, I wish it were that easy, we could wipe out Drug Lords and Mafia's at the same time!

if/when they find weapons let them destroy them and find more, when Saddam provides something follow up on it, ask more questions, and keep up the pressure.

It will never happen. People will forget. That's part of the game. People always forget. It's silly now isn't it that we are wanting inspections on a country that was defeated 12 years ago. Well, we have forgotten that they never held there end of the bargain. Many have forgotten. And the UN will soon forget again. Just like Hussein predicts.

If/when Saddam launches an attack on another sovereign nation then it's time for military action,

And then what? We can bomb the hell out of his cities and armies again? And he rebuilds again and accepts and punishment the world community gives him, so he can fight another day? That's cowardice.

if he's tied to a terrorist attack then take action...

Too late.

Why is this a concept that is so hard to understand? Or is it that the real goal is war, not disarmament?

The goal is to save lives at the expense of a few and allow democratic societies on the planet to maintain their pursuit of happiness and freedom.