Weapons of Mass Destruction

[kitten]

so what happens if coalition forces *don't* find any WMD other than what was already located?

will the general public ever know about it? will the coalition leaders as assume that Saddam gave them all to Al Quaida? those opposed to the war will have a field day with that...

thoughts?

 

[chickenman]

if they don't then they'll concentrate on the idea of "regime change"

 

[ACougar]

WMD in the hands of the wrong people are a threat to the American people and American Supremicy. They are not however the real reasons were invading Iraq or we would have invaded Pakistan and North Korea long ago. I would think that unless Sadam is a complete idiot there will be no WMD to be found or he will attempt to employ them against United States forces.

 

[kitten]

I agree with you, Cougar. now for another thought...once the Iraq war is over, will the US and the Coalition of the Willing go after every other country who is in violation of a UN resolution, including Israel?

Rumsfeld was just asked live on CNN if any WMD have been found. he says "the task is to remove this regime and then go about looking for WMD".

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 11:41 AM kitten said this in Post #4

I agree with you, Cougar. now for another thought...once the Iraq war is over, will the US and the Coalition of the Willing go after every other country who is in violation of a UN resolution, including Israel?

Wrong, the UN does not have a resolution against Israel on the same level as the ones against Iraq.

The US is going after Saddam for refusing to abide by the resolution, for refusing to cooperate.
Already he has used weapons he shouldn't have. He won't use WMDs until the very end, if at all.

He wants to play the victim until it's all over.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Wrong, the UN does not have a resolution against Israel on the same level as the ones against Iraq.

The US is going after Saddam for refusing to abide by the resolution, for refusing to cooperate.
Already he has used weapons he shouldn't have. He won't use WMDs until the very end, if at all.

He wants to play the victim until it's all over.

I agree with you Stray. Also lets remember Saddam didn't sign a truce or tready in 1991 but a cease fire under the condition and only under the condition that he would disarm. This was to be varified by the UN inspectors and up till now no evidence has even suggested in the slightest that he has destroyed his WMD. With or without a UN resolution Saddam has violated the cease fire agreement which means hostilities should resume.

Now why only 40 some countries involved? Because the UN doesn't want to inforce what they say on paper!

 

[kitten]

why does the resolution have to be at the same level? are UN resolutions like the US's misdemeanors v. felonies?

 

[ACougar]

Today at 10:59 AM kitten said this in Post #7

why does the resolution have to be at the same level? are UN resolutions like the US's misdemeanors v. felonies?

The UN Resolutions against Israel are just as serious, more numerous and have been ignored for much longer than 12 years.  If anything the UN resolutions against Israel are more serious.  On the other hand, a state of war between Israel and the United States never existed and a cease fire was never declared on condition that Israel comply with UN resolutions.  The majority of the world or the UN may not be in favor of a war in Iraq, however technicaly the war never ended and the United States is simply using that technicality to justify removing Sadam Hussain.

I've parts of resolution 242 at the bottom of this post to show that the UN resolutions against Israel are indeed serious.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
November 22, 1967

• Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day. This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades.

<B>The Security Council,</B> Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
   • Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
   • Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity
   • For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
   • For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
   • For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

&nbsp;

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40

 

[kitten]

very interesting - thank you

there's so much more to this whole situation than meets the eye - it seems that the supporters and the protesters each have valid reasons for their positions on the subject.

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 12:19 PM ACougar said this in Post #8





The UN Resolutions against Israel are just as serious, more numerous and have been ignored for much longer than 12 years.&nbsp; If anything the UN resolutions against Israel are more serious.&nbsp; On&nbsp;the other hand, a state of war between Israel and the United States never existed and a cease fire was never declared on condition that Israel comply with UN resolutions.&nbsp; The majority of the world or the UN may not be in favor of a war in Iraq, however technicaly the war never ended and the United States is simply using that technicality to justify removing Sadam Hussain.

That is absolutely false. The resolutiosn against Israel are CHAPTER SIX, The resolutiosn against Saddam are CHAPTER SEVEN.

Kitten, in response to what you said, the difference between the levels are like a Congressional Recommendation and a Congressional LAW.

The ones against Israel are not as serious and do not call for action against Israel for failing to meet the recommendations.

Cougar, I challange you to show me one resolution against Israel they have broken that calls for military action for failure.

 

[ACougar]

You know as well as I do that we (the United States) would never allow such a resolution to pass. I consider resolution 242 to be at least as serious because it is over 50 years old. Illegaly occupying land for over 50 years seems to be a pretty serious offense to me.

 

[kitten]

thanks, stray -

 

[stray bullet]

Today at 12:55 PM ACougar said this in Post #11

You know as well as I do that we (the United States) would never allow such a resolution to pass. I consider resolution 242 to be at least as serious because it is over 50 years old. Illegaly occupying land for over 50 years seems to be a pretty serious offense to me.

Regardless, your claim that we should go after Israel is completely off

There is no Chapter 7 resolution against them and thus, no action can be taken.

 

[ACougar]

Today at 12:39 PM stray bullet said this in Post #13



Regardless, your claim that we should go after Israel is completely off

There is no Chapter 7 resolution against them and thus, no action can be taken.

I never called for military action against Israel, however I would like to see us stop supporting terrorist states like Israel until they mend thier ways.&nbsp; Being slightly less evil than the PLO isn't sufficent justification to support them to the tune of 6 Billion dollars a year.