He's there, he's potentially dangerous, he's clever, and Dubyah sees him as a great war card to play before the November elections in the US. :D What should be done by the rest of the world to Hussain, if anything?

Heh, with all the fuss about Bin Laden going on, I nearly forgot about Hussein. :D

I don't know. If he is really a threat (I'm not informed enough to be the judge of that myself, so I'll keep my head low here), then something must be done about him. But can anything be done if he doesn't actively provoke something?

<font color=orange>Build up the opposition party, then take him out and install a new DEMOCRATICALLY elected Government (under UN management), after all the brewhaha settles down. (can't believe I said under UN management! Bunch of imbeciles there!) Hopefully, you could capture him and try him for crimes against humanity for what all he did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians that fell into his clutches at one time or another. If not, well a 10 cent bullet would surffice.</font>

Well, what can he do? He ain't stupid enough to launch whatever weapons(Nuclear or Bio) he managed to keep hidden from the US on the west and he hardly has the money to activly sponsor terrorist organisations. So if Bush decides to attack him, I hope he has a good reason rather then re-elections.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
He's there, he's potentially dangerous, he's clever, and Dubyah sees him as a great war card to play before the November elections in the US. :D What should be done by the rest of the world to Hussain, if anything?<hr></blockquote>

What would you do? Try to cut a deal with him? Maybe give him a hug and say we understand? And don't go throwing election tactics complaints around..Tom Daschell has the worst of the lot there. The plans to hit Saddam were on the board more than a year ago. It isnt a new plan.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dreamer128:
Well, what can he do? He ain't stupid enough to launch whatever weapons(Nuclear or Bio) he managed to keep hidden from the US on the west and he hardly has the money to activly sponsor terrorist organisations. So if Bush decides to attack him, I hope he has a good reason rather then re-elections.<hr></blockquote>


Simple, he recruits two fanatics who want to die for Allah, gives each of them a suitcase full of biological agents then has them travel thru europe then to america releasing deadly viri whereever he wants to do harm. Or he recruits someone to smuggle a tactical nuke into Isreal touching off a major catastrophe....what can he do??? quite a lot actually. And it would all be very hard to pin on him. That man is a very scarey man...and anyone who knows what they are talking about, knows this too.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
What would you do? Try to cut a deal with him? Maybe give him a hug and say we understand? And don't go throwing election tactics complaints around..Tom Daschell has the worst of the lot there. The plans to hit Saddam were on the board more than a year ago. It isnt a new plan.<hr></blockquote>

Magik, you seem to have a predilection for telling me what I'm thinking. ;) In fact, I've favored taking him out since day one, and said so when Dubyah's daddy made the mistake of letting him stay in power--the sooner Hussain's gone, the better. I'd appreciate your not trying to judge my reactions in advance, based upon stereotypes.

But I do think Dubyah's timing it for the elections, the proof of which is that he could very well have avoided even discussing it until after November, if he were truly serious and comprehended the political ramifications of such an action.

As for plans to hit Hussain, don't you remember when the issue of who was responsible for the horrible September bombings came up, and Hussain's name was mentioned? The State Department said there as no reason to believe he was involved. End of story. Only now, with a need to keep the President's approval ratings high, is the idea of an invasion being floated. Such is my take, at least; and I wouldn't be so cynical--or shall we say, realistic--about this administration, if it hadn't given what IMO is ample demonstration of its willingness to dovetail all politicies to winning the next election.

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

Sorry to inject a level of reality into this otherwise quite nice discussion but good ole Hussein hasn't actually got any weapons. Pretty much every weapons inspector has said so since day one. He definately does not have the capacity to produce or fire any weapons of mass desctruction and 95% of all other weapons are accounted for. This doesn't even mean that he has the other 5% hidden, just that we haven't found them yet. It is a big country in pretty much complete chaos after 10 years of bombing. I am surprised we have found even that many normal weapons.

What should be done? We should stop the sanctions, stop the bombing and let the Iraqis decide what they want to do. If we keep playing god like this then of course we are going to get ourselves hated and attacked. Continuing action against him when we simply don't need to is frankly madness. That is my opinion and it is not born out of gainsay anti-americanism as Britain has been involved in this since day one as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Sorry to inject a level of reality into this otherwise quite nice discussion but good ole Hussein hasn't actually got any weapons. Pretty much every weapons inspector has said so since day one. He definately does not have the capacity to produce or fire any weapons of mass desctruction and 95% of all other weapons are accounted for. This doesn't even mean that he has the other 5% hidden, just that we haven't found them yet. It is a big country in pretty much complete chaos after 10 years of bombing. I am surprised we have found even that many normal weapons.

What should be done? We should stop the sanctions, stop the bombing and let the Iraqis decide what they want to do. If we keep playing god like this then of course we are going to get ourselves hated and attacked. Continuing action against him when we simply don't need to is frankly madness. That is my opinion and it is not born out of gainsay anti-americanism as Britain has been involved in this since day one as well.<hr></blockquote>

Took the words right out of my mouth Barry! Very nice put ;)

<font color = lightgreen>Hussein is a non-entity in world politics anymore. The only reason to talk about him is for sound bytes in the news or to genereate public response. It is only a matter of time before one of his generals ousts him in a coup.</font>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Sorry to inject a level of reality into this otherwise quite nice discussion but good ole Hussein hasn't actually got any weapons. Pretty much every weapons inspector has said so since day one. He definately does not have the capacity to produce or fire any weapons of mass desctruction and 95% of all other weapons are accounted for. This doesn't even mean that he has the other 5% hidden, just that we haven't found them yet. It is a big country in pretty much complete chaos after 10 years of bombing. I am surprised we have found even that many normal weapons.

What should be done? We should stop the sanctions, stop the bombing and let the Iraqis decide what they want to do. If we keep playing god like this then of course we are going to get ourselves hated and attacked. Continuing action against him when we simply don't need to is frankly madness. That is my opinion and it is not born out of gainsay anti-americanism as Britain has been involved in this since day one as well.<hr></blockquote>

Wrongo Barry The UN inspectors said he doesnt have weapons in the places he allowed them to go..He did however kick them out several times untill he could clean up the fascility that was going to be visited, the UN inspectors have Lodged so many protests and have made many reports that they were unable to complete the inspections. There is a really good Non-fiction novel writen by one of the lead inspectors out...dont remember the name but it detailed how the UN inspectors were time and again put off, diverted, harrassed, intimidated and threatened...I wouldnt bet YOUR life that Saddam has no weapons dude.

Where do I ge toff on acting like a knowit all on threats to the USA?? its cause I was in the business [img]smile.gif[/img] it was my life. You should appreciate the intelligence work being done on everyones behalf by the USA and its soldiers and intelligence agents. Do NOT dismiss their warnings, for the last 12 years people were blowing off the intel community, slashing their budgets and resources and Sept. 11th was the result.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Azred:
<font color = lightgreen>Hussein is a non-entity in world politics anymore. The only reason to talk about him is for sound bytes in the news or to genereate public response. It is only a matter of time before one of his generals ousts him in a coup.</font><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly what I was thinking. Instead of getting our hands dirty, like we attempted to do with Castro. (Many assasination failures on that one. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) Just let country do the dirty work for us. There may be a few general's that don't like Hussein, but as far as I know he's well liked in his country.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
Do NOT dismiss their warnings, for the last 12 years people were blowing off the intel community, slashing their budgets and resources and Sept. 11th was the result.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm not 100% sure that funding intel better would've stopped it happening actually.
Hey Regin, how come he took the words out of both of our mouths???
Maybe Barry is some strange mind reading, voice-stealing alien...
or maybe not...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:


Well, I'm not 100% sure that funding intel better would've stopped it happening actually.
Hey Regin, how come he took the words out of both of our mouths???
Maybe Barry is some strange mind reading, voice-stealing alien...
or maybe not...<hr></blockquote>


:D You might be surprised at just how many things DIDN't happen during the 80's due to our intel agencies. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well I still stand on my viewpoint, but hopefully that is true about stopping other things... one disaster is enough frankly.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Wrongo Barry The UN inspectors said he doesnt have weapons in the places he allowed them to go..He did however kick them out several times untill he could clean up the fascility that was going to be visited, the UN inspectors have Lodged so many protests and have made many reports that they were unable to complete the inspections. There is a really good Non-fiction novel writen by one of the lead inspectors out...dont remember the name but it detailed how the UN inspectors were time and again put off, diverted, harrassed, intimidated and threatened...I wouldnt bet YOUR life that Saddam has no weapons dude.<hr></blockquote>

Well, as far as I know that is partially correct. The *US* in spectors were not allowed in certain areas as they were caught spying in other areas. They were diverted, harrassed, intimidated, and threatened yes, but that was not what I was talking about. The *UN* weapon inspectors were allowed in pretty much everywhere except for private residences (which they are pretty sure would not contain weapons in the first place due to simple logistical problems in then getting the damn things to somewhere where you could fire them).

Basically all I know MagiK is that every UN weapon inspector I have seen giving an interview and every report I have seen (usually summarised via a newspaper as I don't have the kind of time or technical knowledge to decipher the real thing) seems to indicate that he has no power to threaten us whatsoever. He has no weapons and no way of using them if he did. We are flogging a dead horse with this one.

Talthry and Regin - Curses! The secret is out! Gotta run...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


Well, as far as I know that is partially correct. The *US* in spectors were not allowed in certain areas as they were caught spying in other areas. They were diverted, harrassed, intimidated, and threatened yes, but that was not what I was talking about. The *UN* weapon inspectors were allowed in pretty much everywhere except for private residences (which they are pretty sure would not contain weapons in the first place due to simple logistical problems in then getting the damn things to somewhere where you could fire them).

Basically all I know MagiK is that every UN weapon inspector I have seen giving an interview and every report I have seen (usually summarised via a newspaper as I don't have the kind of time or technical knowledge to decipher the real thing) seems to indicate that he has no power to threaten us whatsoever. He has no weapons and no way of using them if he did. We are flogging a dead horse with this one.

Talthry and Regin - Curses! The secret is out! Gotta run...<hr></blockquote>


Im a bit curious...how can inspectors who have the right to go anywhere they see fit because they won the war be guilty of spying?? Iraq lost any rights it had to privacy when they illegally invaded kuwait.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
for the last 12 years people were blowing off the intel community, slashing their budgets and resources and Sept. 11th was the result.<hr></blockquote> That's close Majik, there was never enough "saving face elements" along with identity factors given to these people that would rectify the situation.
It was 1yr and a day when the Taliban blew up one of two anceint Buddha Statue's. This sent off big messages in the Art world but for some reason the majority of the public thought it was a religion re-nouncing or something like that.
I know for a fact that alot of members here shuttered a bit and LOA even posted a concerning message about the craziness that would be involved to do this. If people would have saw a generation of people who had "0" respect for their past and only trained for war, death, and desilation.. the funds would have been frozen imediately.
The world is closing in you guys, hold on.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Sorry to inject a level of reality into this otherwise quite nice discussion but good ole Hussein hasn't actually got any weapons. Pretty much every weapons inspector has said so since day one. He definately does not have the capacity to produce or fire any weapons of mass desctruction and 95% of all other weapons are accounted for. This doesn't even mean that he has the other 5% hidden, just that we haven't found them yet. It is a big country in pretty much complete chaos after 10 years of bombing. I am surprised we have found even that many normal weapons.

What should be done? We should stop the sanctions, stop the bombing and let the Iraqis decide what they want to do. If we keep playing god like this then of course we are going to get ourselves hated and attacked. Continuing action against him when we simply don't need to is frankly madness. That is my opinion and it is not born out of gainsay anti-americanism as Britain has been involved in this since day one as well.<hr></blockquote>


Um Barry....weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for years, because Saddam refused them access to facilities. His violation of that part of the cease-fire was enough then, and is enough now to resume military action, on whatever scale necessary, in order to resume the inspections.

After the Gulf War inspectors did find enough militarized Botulism to kill every man, woman, and child on the Earth 3 times. Of course, the Iraqies aren't the only ones who believe in being able to kill everyone on Earth more than once. ;)

Inspectors did not find nuclear weapons materials (maybe because they weren't allow access?), but did find huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these were attached to scud missles, though they were not found on the launchers, if I remember correctly. And let us not forget, he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. I'm sure his Kurdish countrymen would be willing to tell you he knows how to make chemical/biological weapons, has access to the materials, and isn't afraid to use them. ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


Well, as far as I know that is partially correct. The *US* in spectors were not allowed in certain areas as they were caught spying in other areas. [/i]<hr></blockquote>

Barry, I know the US can do bad things, but do you really believe Saddam's claim of spying by the inspectors? What would they be trying to spy on other than his weapons ability? That claim holds about as much water as as trespassing charge against the UN for it's involvement. How many months was he given to evacuate Kuwait before the bombing started?

Keep in mind, this is the same guy who initially claimed the invasion of Kuwait was to prevent a Kuwaiti invasion of Iraq, which was before he deciding he was doing it because Kuwait was stealing his oil, which was before he claimed Kuwait was actually a historical part of Iraq and he was performing a "re-unification".

Honestly Barry, the inspectors job was to spy on his weapons making ability. Only I wouldn't call it spying, since he agreed to it in order to stop the war.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

Basically all I know MagiK is that every UN weapon inspector I have seen giving an interview and every report I have seen (usually summarised via a newspaper as I don't have the kind of time or technical knowledge to decipher the real thing) seems to indicate that he has no power to threaten us whatsoever. He has no weapons and no way of using them if he did. We are flogging a dead horse with this one./i]<hr></blockquote>

The reports I've seen indicate his conventional military is no longer an immedidate threat to others. They place his conventional military at less than a third of his pre-Kuwait excursion, but conventional weapons aren't the problem. He never allowed the UN inspectors to clairify he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction or the ability to create them (beyond what was initially found).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fable:
He's there, he's potentially dangerous, he's clever, and Dubyah sees him as a great war card to play before the November elections in the US. :D What should be done by the rest of the world to Hussain, if anything?<hr></blockquote>


I don't think it's the "war card". Saddam's fate has been discussed and threats have been made against him for the last decade. Nothing new here, with the exception that something may actually happen.

I think the the world(US included) should do what it said it would do at the end of the Gulf War. Ensure that Iraq is not a threat on any level. If Iraq has not been forced into submission by loosely enforced sanctions, then the sanctions should be tightened and everyone should participate. Just because it's been nearly a decade since the end of the Gulf War, doesn't mean Iraq shouldn't be forced to submit. Many think, well since it's been so long let's just let them off the hook. I think that's as wrong as ending the war against Iraq early for political reasons.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



Im a bit curious...how can inspectors who have the right to go anywhere they see fit because they won the war be guilty of spying?? Iraq lost any rights it had to privacy when they illegally invaded kuwait.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, he illegally invaded Kuwait on US funds. We were sending funds to support him 'til he decided to invade Kuwait, which would drive up the price of oil, so we moved in. It's all money; and seeing as how our bombings keep the Iraquis out of the world scene, I don't think they'll be stopped. As long as Iraq stays with a shattered infrastructure, more money goes to the US for our goods and services.

The bombings should be let up and Iraq should be able to have some democracy without US serving as Big Brother. Like Barry said, they're no threat. They couldn't fire those weapons even if they had them, and they don't.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SSJ4Sephiroth:


Actually, he illegally invaded Kuwait on US funds. We were sending funds to support him 'til he decided to invade Kuwait, which would drive up the price of oil, so we moved in. It's all money; and seeing as how our bombings keep the Iraquis out of the world scene, I don't think they'll be stopped. As long as Iraq stays with a shattered infrastructure, more money goes to the US for our goods and services.

The bombings should be let up and Iraq should be able to have some democracy without US serving as Big Brother. Like Barry said, they're no threat. They couldn't fire those weapons even if they had them, and they don't.<hr></blockquote>

No one denies the US supported Iraq against Iran. When he turned against Kuwait we didn't stand beside him.

What things was your country buying from Iraq then that they now buy from the US? Oil? I doubt it.

Iraq isn't being constantly bombed and when bombing does take place it isn't just the US. Britain is still involved as well. The bombings in Iraq are against illegal anti-aircraft weapons sites, etc. Sites which have been deemed illegal under previous UN resolutions.

The US doesn't want to run Iraq. By all means, let them have a democratically elected government under the UN. The US has been the major UN player in Afghanistan, but we didn't setup the provisional government there. We support it, but they are under UN protection.


BTW, Barry didn't say they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he said he hadn't seen anything to convince him, but you, nor I, nor Barry is really in a position to know.

Here’s the plan lets just sit back and see if he kills a couple of a thousand people. No. If we have learned anything from September 11 let it be that we cannot sit idly by and watch innocent people die. The guy is a wack job and needs to be taken out. How many more people have to die before everyone gets behinds this effort. It’s time to take out the trash! If you don’t want to be considered a threat show every one that your not. Sadam has not done this and probably will not. Playing wait and see does not work anymore. The world has to act!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

If Iraq has not been forced into submission by loosely enforced sanctions, then the sanctions should be tightened and everyone should participate.<hr></blockquote>

Please tell me you are kidding about tightened sanctions :(

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


:D You might be surprised at just how many things DIDN't happen during the 80's due to our intel agencies. [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

yes, during the 70s and 80s a lot of people werent mass murdered in nicaragua, argentina, chile and other center and south american countries thanks to the benevolent american intel agency and the school of the americas, a place were most wannabes dictators went to learn and train in the fine art of genocide of their own people.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by nick1979:
The world has to act!<hr></blockquote>

From what I've been reading the US will have to act unilaterally on this one.

http://www.joecartoon.com/cartoons/osamabox.html

Here is a pretty good idea (at the end) it's pretty gruesome so you younger folks probably shouldn't see it... but you will anyway so...
[img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



Um Barry....weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for years, because Saddam refused them access to facilities. His violation of that part of the cease-fire was enough then, and is enough now to resume military action, on whatever scale necessary, in order to resume the inspections.

After the Gulf War inspectors did find enough militarized Botulism to kill every man, woman, and child on the Earth 3 times. Of course, the Iraqies aren't the only ones who believe in being able to kill everyone on Earth more than once. ;)

Inspectors did not find nuclear weapons materials (maybe because they weren't allow access?), but did find huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Some of these were attached to scud missles, though they were not found on the launchers, if I remember correctly. And let us not forget, he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. I'm sure his Kurdish countrymen would be willing to tell you he knows how to make chemical/biological weapons, has access to the materials, and isn't afraid to use them. ;) <hr></blockquote>

Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion!

Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind.

Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


Please tell me you are kidding about tightened sanctions :( <hr></blockquote>


Sorry Azure, but I'm not kidding. Tightening the sanctions doesn't mean we don't allow anything to come into the country. The sanctions should be enforced until the inspectors are allowed access. I don't mean the UN should no longer allow Iraq to use it's funds for humanitarian items, but instead, that they should not have access to anything else.

Does Iraq really need access to more weapons?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


Right - back after a good nights sleep to return to this discussion!

Ronn, Saddam did not refuse them access to the country. I believe he signed a treaty allowing them in pretty much everywhere except private residences. A lot as been said about how the weapons could have been hidden inside these buildings. The weapons inspectors don't seem to think that was practical and it does slightly beggar belief if we are now going to ignore what they say. Eventually the weapons inspectors were pulled out. Why? The pressure apparently came from the other end, not Hussein. This admittedly leaves open the problem of why the West want the weapons inspectors out. I have my own theory but I would generate far too much flaming if I posted it. Suffice to say that any war that happens will not be out of self -defence in my mind.

Also, I never said that Saddam never had weapons. I said that 95% of all weapons had been accounted for by now. So he had them 10 years ago - we have dealt with the problem and don't need to attack him now for it. The primary concern here is whether or not he is dangerous and everything I have seen suggests he is not. As you say, none of us can be sure. But just what are you willing to risk to prove it when we are already almost certain? All the evidence points to there being no need for a war. All the evidence points to there being a war about to happen. Does this not add up to anyone else? Am I the only one having problems with it?<hr></blockquote>

Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Saddam did refuse access to more than private residences. Several facilities that were to be investigated refused access. A great trick he used was denying access for a week or two, and then allowing the inspectors in. Well, two weeks would be plenty of time to remove any illegal operations.<hr></blockquote>

Apparently, and this is once again coming from weapons inspectors, he refused access when they tried to break the treaty by entering what he defined as private residences. So the West will say that he was obviously classifying missile silos as residences. Apparently this is not the case. When the inspectors tried to enter buildings like villas and mansions they were refused entry as this was obviously against the treaty in question. So this got a bad press for various reasons, no one liking a mass murderer and all that. But still the weapons inspectors are pretty certain that they got all of his weapons and the buildings they couldn't get in are just not practical for storing weapons.

So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain?

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]</p>

I avoided this thread at first, because the original Post asked what the REST of the world thought should be done about Hussein. As expected, that didn't last very long...so I might as well jump in here too.


<font color="lime">Barry</font>, <font color="cyan">Ronn Bman</font> is 100% correct. Saddam Hussein completely denied UN access to MOST of his "weapons facilities" initially. He did allow them to "inspect" old stations that hadn't been used in years. As <font color="cyan">Ronn</font> pointed out, this was done solely to allow him time to "clean up" the sites the UN wanted to inspect. I remember watching the news reports at the time and ALL the inspectors (not just the US ones...in fact, I believe a Brit rep was the elected spokesperson, but I could be wrong about that)were furious. Saddam was basically thumbing his nose at them and refused to acknowledge their position of authority. He successfully used stalling, threats, and intimidation to keep them out of the places (and NOT just private residences) until he could move WHATEVER was there to a better hiding place.

<font color="orange">Sephorith</font>, you want a democratically elected gov't supported by the Iraqi people...guess what...so do they. Unfortunatley, Saddam has been less than cooperative in stepping aside to allow democracy to have a chance. You say...just leave them alone and eventually one of his generals will kill him...maybe, but I doubt it. Several years ago, his TOP 2 advisors (who also happened to be his son-in-laws) decided to defect to the U.S. He managed to convince one of them to abandon this plan and promised there would be no reprisals if he "returned to the fold"...that son-in-law was dead within a week.

Do NOT underestimate the potential danger this man represents. He has crushed his weaker opponents and weaseled his way out of retribution from superior foes. He is a bomb that is just waiting for the opportunity to explode....and Osama has shown how to strike a major blow against a superior foe without really "getting your hands dirty". This is right up Saddam's alley. He can spread terror and death around the world and claim innocence at the same time.

BTW, <font color="lime">Barry</font>, would you care to provide a list of the "numerous failed assassination attempts against Castro" that you mentioned earlier? The U.S. hasn't made any serious moves against him in over 25 years or so.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


So once again I will re-iterate my major point. The weapons inspectors are pretty unanimous that he is not a threat. They could be wrong but I doubt it, as they went there and Bush and Blair did not. Why are we going to risk a war just to be certain?<hr></blockquote>

Barry, the inspectors and reports I've seen state that they found little after the initial stockpiles, but they always quantify it by saying they were not allowed timely access to some areas and were completely refused other suspected areas. We aren't just talking about storing weapons. We are talking about the facilities used to create such weapons.

You mentioned earlier, they thought they had 95% of his weapons accounted for. Doesn't it make you a bit nervous that, using those figures and initial inspection findings, he still has enough Botulism to kill 15% of the world's population? Of course the Botulism was just part of his biological stockpile, but for some reason that example has stuck with me through the years.

The thought of war is always troublesome, but I don't believe he can be allowed to return to normal international operations until he allows the return of the inspectors.

i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by khazadman:
i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.<hr></blockquote>

absolute nonsense. the governments and puppet regimens the us gov supported were as bad as the ones the soviets did. and sometimes even worse. chile, for example, had an honest and good government in the hands of salvador allende, of the communist party, and was overthrown by the murdered and mumbling idiot pinochet, who killed more than 20,000 persons merely for their ideas, and incarcerated and tortured thousands more.

all with the support of the good old us government with henry kissinger pulling the strings... probably the most cruel, sadistic, and hypocritical person ever to grace big politics (and thats a lot to say).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by khazadman:
i can't be sure,but didn't saddam launch missiles containing chemical weapons against tehran near the end of their war?it's been a few years after all.
and yes some of the governments we supported were not very nice.but compared to the people the soviets and chinese trained,they were a bunch of angels.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but none of them were angels.
I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel:


Sorry, but none of them were angels.
I'm pretty sure you would retract that statement if you knew that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were trained by the americans, to be able to defend themselves against the soviets.<hr></blockquote>

The US didn't fund Osama and his causes specifically. Osama was one of many Mujahadin (sp?) fighters as were many of those who would become Taliban and Northern Alliance. The Taliban didn't form until the early 90's, long after the Soviets pulled out and American support stopped.

Of course, you can really lay all this blame at the doorstep of the French. Without their support, the US couldn't have secured it's independance from Great Britain. ;) :D