" Well one is because Iraq has existing resolutions against them. For 10 years and 17-18 resolutions Iraq has been asked to comply and they have not. "
Good job at not answering the question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there. As well as the terror he supports. Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy. After all Iraq will not comply and Saddam is in little danger of losing power. So the stalemate will only continue. So ... why let it? Should we wait a year or two and then do something? 10 years? 20 years? What's the point in that?
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there. As well as the terror he supports. Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy. After all Iraq will not comply and Saddam is in little danger of losing power. So the stalemate will only continue. So ... why let it? Should we wait a year or two and then do something? 10 years? 20 years? What's the point in that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the U.N. has had doubts about this war from the begining. It's the U.S. that's really pushing for this. So how does that validate your explanation?
About the other part.......the why not now should be because we should be concentrating on our lousy economic situation here at home instead of spending more money. Look at the last one. 37 billion and what did it get us? Did it get us Bin Laden? Nope. Did it bolster the economy? I don't think so. Will this new war help? Well gas prices are already going up.
Plus we get into the why didn't we do this back in the early 90's question which I know you don't like.
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
<hr></blockquote>
So do a lot of countries. It's pretty clear that Israel has been worse on this end.
Regardless, this attack was decided outside of the UN and it was only Powell that convinced Bush to work for UN support because doing it outside of the UN, as was the original plan promoted by Wolfowitz, was too unilateral. The resolutions are not the motivation for war, they are a political tool for deflecting criticism. You are not dealing with the issues.
The fact that you cite this demonstrates how little you have really looked at the decision-making process.
[quote]
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there.
<hr></blockquote>
this makes no sense
[quote]
As well as the terror he supports.
<hr></blockquote>
This is obviously not an issue for our policy makers considering our new massive middle east base is in Qatar, a country whose royal family continues to 'fund terrorism' including al-qaeda groups. Not to mention everything surrounding pakistan and the saudis.
[quote]
Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
<hr></blockquote>
1. national sovereignty
2. the US is not in charge of the world and it is a dangerous to believe it is.
[quote]
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy.<hr></blockquote>
it seems like it must not be that easy for you since I've already answered that question.
And the bulk of the question posed was: "with so many other countries just as bad or worse out there."
Comments
__________________
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Yeah right!
or am I immediately considered an anti-semite for even bringing up their record?
<strong>and what about Israel and resolutions . . . . is that ever a question?
or am I immediately considered an anti-semite for even bringing up their record?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well said.
The number of UN violations by Israel is 62. I cannot recall since when though.
Also: It looks as if Iraq is going to destroy those al Samoud missiles after all:
<a href="http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top World News&s1=blk&tp=ad_t opright_topworld&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_win dex&bt=ad_position1_windex&box=ad_box_all&tag=worl dnews&middle=ad_frame2_windex&s=APl4Z8hOlSXJhcSB0" target="_blank">http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top World News&s1=blk&tp=ad_t opright_topworld&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_win dex&bt=ad_position1_windex&box=ad_box_all&tag=worl dnews&middle=ad_frame2_windex&s=APl4Z8hOlSXJhcSB0</a>
Although why they are considered such a big deal is bizarre.
<a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/000703.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/000703.htm</a>;
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>and what about Israel and resolutions . . . . is that ever a question?
or am I immediately considered an anti-semite for even bringing up their record?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are dozens, here is an important one:
<a href="http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cgt0"; target="_blank">UN Resolutions</a>
If the U.S. does not get clear U.N. approval, they will be in violation of some of the same
( e.g. Res 3314 "no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military
or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression") Resolutions.
But then again, the US may already be in violation because I can't find what U.N.
Resolution gave approval of the No-fly zone enforcement.
To keep with the thread.
War right now is a terrific idea.
Once we are in control of the IRAQI oil we will greatly stabilize the value of the dollar.
Just the talk of war is putting more money in my pocket.
It will either greatly help the tensions in the Middle East, or it will start a great holy war
that will keep me gainfully employed for many many years.
EDIT: Wide format bad
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
<strong>
Good job at not answering the question.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there. As well as the terror he supports. Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy. After all Iraq will not comply and Saddam is in little danger of losing power. So the stalemate will only continue. So ... why let it? Should we wait a year or two and then do something? 10 years? 20 years? What's the point in that?
<strong>
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there. As well as the terror he supports. Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy. After all Iraq will not comply and Saddam is in little danger of losing power. So the stalemate will only continue. So ... why let it? Should we wait a year or two and then do something? 10 years? 20 years? What's the point in that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the U.N. has had doubts about this war from the begining. It's the U.S. that's really pushing for this. So how does that validate your explanation?
About the other part.......the why not now should be because we should be concentrating on our lousy economic situation here at home instead of spending more money. Look at the last one. 37 billion and what did it get us? Did it get us Bin Laden? Nope. Did it bolster the economy? I don't think so. Will this new war help? Well gas prices are already going up.
Plus we get into the why didn't we do this back in the early 90's question which I know you don't like.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>hey Sam, can you clean up your link? or a mod?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes please. Learn <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=ubb_code_page"; target="_blank">UBB code</a>
g
Sigh. I answered part of the question. Why Iraq? Because he has a long list of UN resolutions against him. So I did answer part of it.
<hr></blockquote>
So do a lot of countries. It's pretty clear that Israel has been worse on this end.
Regardless, this attack was decided outside of the UN and it was only Powell that convinced Bush to work for UN support because doing it outside of the UN, as was the original plan promoted by Wolfowitz, was too unilateral. The resolutions are not the motivation for war, they are a political tool for deflecting criticism. You are not dealing with the issues.
The fact that you cite this demonstrates how little you have really looked at the decision-making process.
[quote]
Another reason is that the US and UK are already there.
<hr></blockquote>
this makes no sense
[quote]
As well as the terror he supports.
<hr></blockquote>
This is obviously not an issue for our policy makers considering our new massive middle east base is in Qatar, a country whose royal family continues to 'fund terrorism' including al-qaeda groups. Not to mention everything surrounding pakistan and the saudis.
[quote]
Not to mention the conditions of the people of Iraq.
<hr></blockquote>
1. national sovereignty
2. the US is not in charge of the world and it is a dangerous to believe it is.
[quote]
I didn't answer "why now". I could say, "why not now" but that would be too easy.<hr></blockquote>
it seems like it must not be that easy for you since I've already answered that question.
And the bulk of the question posed was: "with so many other countries just as bad or worse out there."
So again, good job at not answering the question.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>