Why does it matter?

[Wutang]

Schroeder backed himself into a corner when he got elected on the "anti war" platform. That seriously limits his options on dealing with Iraq.

The German conservative groups are severely criticizing him right now for his stance.

Once the Iraq issue is over, I'm not sure if the Bush Admin will trust him anymore.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: They havent said Saddam was a 'good' guy. But lets look at the facts. They have vetoed every resoulution to remove him. They have billion dollar oil contracts with him. They are very vocal about there anti war stance. Witch is fine, but it all adds up. They obviously want him to stay in power.

Facts????? Would you care to mention a single proposed resolution concerning Iraq that France have vetoed. (BTW Germany is a temporary member of the UN Secuerity Council and doesn't have a veto). They have threathed to veto a resolution calling for war against Iraq.

They 'they want him to stay in power' have been covered by Davros

P.S. And the US is the most prolific user of UN-vetos - it has used it's power more than the four other permanent members combined.

[skywalker]

I just heard on NPR that Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary)says that the goal of the United Kingdom was for Iraq to disarm-not regime change. He said that the UK has no problem if Saddam stays in power after a possible war, as long as he has no WOMD.

I did not know this.

Mark

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: Facts????? Would you care to mention a single proposed resolution concerning Iraq that France have vetoed. (BTW Germany is a temporary member of the UN Secuerity Council and doesn't have a veto). They have threathed to veto a resolution calling for war against Iraq. They 'they want him to stay in power' have been covered by Davros P.S. And the US is the most prolific user of UN-vetos - it has used it's power more than the four other permanent members combined.[/QB]

Yes your right, they have only threanted the to veto to go to war with Iraq. But all that is off topic anyway.

Again I ask-

Why does it matter when he did the crime. He still did it, its still the same guy.

[ 03-07-2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Davros: Not participating in a war (or not being visually active in removing him) does not constitute proof of your original question (ie Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office?). I believe whichever way you look at it, this statement remains false. [/QB]

What do you exacley mean by this Davros? I think we are misunderstanding each other somewhere.

[Animal]

Well, after reading all of these posts, I've come to one conclusion.

I agree with you, Iron Ranger, to a certain point. (Excuse my typing if it's messy, I broke two fingers today so typing is a little difficult.) Saddam is Saddam and will probably never change, but what exactly has Saddam done to you and I, and the West in general. As selfish as it may seem, I don't think it is up to the US, Canada, Britain or any other country for that matter, to decide what we should do about Iraq. It is none of our business. When Iraq, gets tired of Saddam they will do something about it for themselves, and we have to let that happen. You respect things a lot more if you earn them, rather than being given to you.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Animal: Well, after reading all of these posts, I've come to one conclusion. I agree with you, Iron Ranger, to a certain point. (Excuse my typing if it's messy, I broke two fingers today so typing is a little difficult.) Saddam is Saddam and will probably never change, but what exactly has Saddam done to you and I, and the West in general. As selfish as it may seem, I don't think it is up to the US, Canada, Britain or any other country for that matter, to decide what we should do about Iraq. It is none of our business. When Iraq, gets tired of Saddam they will do something about it for themselves, and we have to let that happen. You respect things a lot more if you earn them, rather than being given to you.

To the best of my knowledge, Animal, Saddam has not had a direct hand in any action against the U.S. (I may be wrong, I just can't think of any "events" that were directly linked to him).

But Saddam DOES have biological and chemical weapons and he has proven he will use them against anyone percieved as an enemy. While his ties to Osama Bin Laden may be indirect...he certainly has stronger ties with other terrorist groups. Given this support network, along with the existing B&C weapons he has used in the past) - it is reasonable to assume that at least some of these B&C weapons could be used in future terrorist attacks against the U.S. That does make it "our business" to see that he is disarmed and removed from power.

Now I have a question for all those opposed to the war. Since most people agree that Saddam should be removed from power, exactly what type of "action" do you propose to accomplish this? (other than war)?

[Iron_Ranger]

Heh, you know Cerek, I kept meaning to ask that question at the end of all my posts, but I keep forgetting among typing out all the other things.

Animal- By doing that you are demanding a tradgey to happen amongst the US, Canada or Britian. Maybe I am a war monger, but I would much rather remove Saddam before a terroist attack rather then after.

You said it your self, Saddam is Saddam. He has done it in the past, and you know the saying, history repeats its self. Whos to say he wont do it again?

Would yo instead rather wait for him too use nerve gas on Toronto then remove him now?

Doesnt it basily boil down to-

Whats wrose, hundereds of guranteed deaths, or thousands of poetential ones? Tough question isnt it? And isnt that the question we face.

Of course thats ignoring the deaths that have already been caused by Saddam Hussien. And ignoring the several UN resolutions he has ignored.

[Chewbacca]

Why let any evil human rights viiolating tyrant stay in power? Perhaps the carnage of war is a greater evil than the ruling of a few tyrants in isolated countries. If the carnage of war is a lesser evil in the situation then the logic becomes different. Whichever, the massive death and instability caused by war is in no way good.

If it is proven conclusivly that Saddam has mass stockpiles of womd and/or is actively selling these womd to terrorists or planning to use them then he maybe the greater evil, but that has not been conclusively proven...yet.

It also has not been proven that the current U.N. inspection efforts will fail in determining Saddam's womd capabilities.

The carnage of war now is a greater evil that Saddam's sins of the past.

My .02, anyone have change for a nickel? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: It also has not been proven that the current U.N. inspection efforts will fail in determining Saddam's womd capabilities.

And if the current U.N. Inspection efforts successfully determine that Saddam DOES have extensive WoMD capability, what solution would you propose to remedy the situation?

Saddam has already proven he will NOT comply with requests - or even demands - that these weapons be completely destroyed. After 1991, Hussein openly defied the U.N. Inspectors. They were granted very limited access to certain buildings and were completely denied access to others (presumably because Saddam hadn't had a chance to move and/or hide his weapons that quickly after the war). He continually stonewalled, side-tracked, and stymied their efforts to find his stockpile of weapons. Then, in 1998, Hussein ordered them to leave his country.

Hans Blix did note that the Iraq has "increased it's cooperation" with U.N. inspectors since the end of January...but he admitted there were still some "issues" that required further discussion with Iraq in order to be cleared up. Interestingly enough, the "increased cooperation" of the Iraqi's seems to occur very shortly after the U.S. buildup of military troops and equipment along their borders.

So, even if the inspectors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein does have a cache' of WoMd....what difference will that really make? Saddam won't step down from power, nor will he just "hand over" his weapons.

I ask again....what "non-agressive" methods could be taken to remove Saddam from power and to destroy his WoMD?