Now I don't follow your reasoning. So France and Russia (BTW, Russia has not been 'Soviet Union' for a while ;) ) support the 'peacefully disarmement' cause because .. they want to loot after the war that they do not support ? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ffccff">You are right Russia is not the Soviet any more...Old habbits die hard..forgive me a life time of habit there [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for my point, it is in the French and Russian and to a degree German interest to the tune of several BILLION dollars worth of equipment and financing that Saddam not torch the refineries and wells like he did in Kuwait. if he does this those three countries and Egypt I believe stand to loose the most in a $$$$ kind of way.</font>

[ 02-28-2003, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Wait for an international agreement before readying for war is also an option, you know. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying that 10 years isn't long enough to wait? My problem with waiting is once you start... it's hard to decide to stop waiting and do something. If Bush hadn't started pushing the issue, the situation in IRAQ today would be no different than it was one, two or five years ago. Except of course for the fact that he's been rearming, persueing WMD's, and would have continued to do so.

So while I agree with world sentiment on inspection time, IMO Bush and Blair have done much doing more than forcing Iraq back to the table... they've also forced the rest of the world back to the table. IMO if Bush backs off and agrees to give inspectors time at the behest of the world, it's perfectly reasonable to expect those requesting time to help pay for the resources that are doing their job for them (which is enforcing UN mandated disarmament of Iraq). Inspectors do part of that job (discovery), but the other parts (that enable the inspectors to discover, and insure that action is taken based on what is discovered) are only happening because of 200,000 young heavily armed men and women looking in Iraqs direction menacingly [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Guys, we're going off on relatively easily-solved tangents.

1. MagiK, the UN Charter and many of its *thousands* of treaties say a member state will get UN approval before it breaks the rule of member states making war against each other. There's not a law, per se, there is a CONTRACT (treaty). The US, as well as many other nations, break this contract too much for my tastes, but it is there.

2. Moiraine, I whole-heartedly support the need for UN approval of the use of military force regaring Iraq. It's called Resolution 1441, and it is the most recent resolution in a long line of resolutions spanning 12 years regardig Iraq. At some point, enough is enough. The UN gave the USA the approval to say enough is enough and use force. The USA hasn't yet because, even though it has approval, it seeks the coalition support of its allies, such as France and Germany. It does this for diplomatic reasons, but nothing is stopping the tanks from rolling right now other than the USA's willingness to address the concerns of other nations.

There is no proof that Iraq has been rearming or pursueing WOMDs. That's to the inspectors to prove or disprove. It is highly unwise to act before the inspectors have given their final reports.

IF the UN mandates an army force THEN it is normal that the UN nations pay for that force. Where are we going if every nation starts its own war on its own decision, and asks everybody else to pay for it afterwards ? You can't have both the butter and the money to buy it. ;)

Besides, why exactly are we all focused on Iraq, and why now ? Lots of studies prove that there are other nations where the situation is much more prone to threaten the world stability. Lots of studies also prove that Iraq was much more dangerous 14 years ago than it is now.

Maybe the UN will retroactively decide that the UN nations have to concur to the bill for the unilateral deployment of the US army. In that case, I will agree these nations will have to defer to the UN decision. Not before though. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Moiraine, you should see the documentaries of US troops in the gulf over the last 10 years. The "snapshots" of the life of soldiers just begain airing as a prime time TV show here last night.

Every week, every day, the US naval forces "babysitting" Iraq inspect ships inbound and outbound. Every week, every day, they find contraband: illegal weapons going in and illegal oil (i.e. sold or traded for money or weapons and not compliant under the mandated UN "oil for food" program). It is the world's largest singular smuggling operation. Oh, and let's not forget all the drugs - including such nasties as crack. If you haven't seen the footage you don't understand.

The USA is the one "containing" him, and our troops die in some way or another (accidents, etc) all the time. As a US citizen, I'm sick and tired of footing the bill, both in money and in human life, for containing the despot who really doesn't threaten me nearly as much as he threatens the nations around him. How many of my fellow Americans will the world demand we toss to the wind in the name of silly diplomacy? I know the answer: all of them. Every frets over Iraqi lives, but for some reason only the USA is concerned about its own folks. :(

<font color="#ffccff">Moiraine, there is no proof of him rearming? Well as TL stated US Navy ships catch stuff going in all the time, there is no gaurentee we catch it all, plus how do you prove he is rearming when there is no evidence that he ever DISARMED? There was a reason why the inspectors left in 1998, and it is not that SH threw them out.

**On a side note, I have really been enjoying this debate, no personal attacks, no name calling. I like it [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Wow I get a compliment from MagiK ! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon10.gif :eek:

I have to go now, dinner time here, that does NOT mean you had the last word and I won't answer your last post. ;)

<font color="#ffccff">Well Lady Moiraine, while I disagree with you all the time, you have my respect because you rarely make the issue personal and are usually posting new information for me, that I have not had before. So I salute you as a worthy opponent ;) And I know I don't have the last word...heck in 7 years of marriage, I never had the last word, why would this place be any different :D

Have a good diner.</font>

All those missiles that Iraq is supposed to start destroying were acquired since 91. There's plenty of evidence that Iraq is rearming... but in any event, you're argument is based on "until there's proof we can't do anything", however before we did something there was NO way for us to ever get proof (since Iraq threw out the inspectors). You're argument if followed would have resulted in inaction until Iraq acted agressively with their newly acquired nukes, or did somethine equally onerous to call attention to themselves. This sort of pacifist (sp?) policy has historically failed again and again and again... "those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them".

If the UN is paralyzed by politics and beaurocracy then it's up to member states to act if that's the only way to accomplish the goal of insureing the security of said member states. IF the UN wishes to affect change in the behavior of member states who are acting to protect themselves, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the UN to accept fiscal responsibility for charges incurred due to the required schedule changes. If delaying the war costs the US 25B over what immediate action would have cost... the UN should pay for it. Paying for actual costs of the conflict are arguable, but if we sit for 6 months leering accross the border because the UN has requested it... the world community should pay for those 6 months.

I can't say why Bush decided to act now, but the fact remains that he has. In any event Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later. Iraq now might be less dangerous than 12 years ago... but Iraq with 1 nuclear weapon and the capability to produce more is significantly MORE dangerous.

I agree that payment should be offered by the UN... it seems to me to be a fair enticement to Bush to get a delay. Right now he's under a lot of fiscal pressure, so I'm sure the cost of the war (or at least the US citizens impression of the cost of the war) factors into his willingness to wait. In any event, the horse is out of the barn as they say, and 200,000 men aren't going to be kept in limbo indefinitely... in order to salvage what little cooperation seems to exist in the international community I think it would be a positive step to see those who want more time to offer substance instead of just complaining about how the "doers" are going about getting the job done (that EVERYONE admits needs doing, if one is to take the joint French/German/Russian document at face value).

[ 02-28-2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Actually 'the world' might end up paying some of the bills for the Iraq-show - if only to keep the US economy from going belly up. 25-50 billion $ is a lot of money for a country with a massive defecit and stagnant economy.