1441 mandates that Iraq disarm or provide proof of same. A number of proscribed weapons were found by the inspectors including the upgraded Al Samud II missiles that Iraq actually admitted were a violation. This demonstated the Regime's inability to TELL THE TRUTH even after 12 years of urging by the international community. Seriously man, what part of untrustworthy do you not understand?
Out of the two options given to Iraq, the first is to 'disarm'. If Iraq chooses this option, it is in effect complying with the resolution. This option comes into play only in the case where Iraq posesses these weapons. Disarmement is impossible without prior armement. (duh). If war was to waged upon the
discovery of weapons, what was the point of giving Iraq the option of disarming? The resolution should have, in that case, asked Iraq to provide proof that it does not posess any prohibited weapons, and in the case that it failed to do so or weapons were found, Iraq would be attacked. If the US intended to attack upon the discovery of weapons, I don't see a reason behind their agreeing to 1441.
Their balance of power (both have nuclear weapons) will protect them unless their leaders become mentally unstable. Saddam is mentally unstable and there is no balance of power between the US and Iraq. Therefor we act preemptively.
Firstly, 'Saddam is mentally unstable' is a blanket statement, an unsubstantiated remark - a supposition, to put it in words more familiar. Liars and moustached men are not always mentally unstable.
Moreover, according to what you say, this tyrannical dictator who disrupts world peace and shakes off international law could exist in his utterly evil existence had he been able to match the military might of the USA?
And, by the way - a factual error. India is far more advanced than Pakistan militarily. It is in possession of more and better nukes, and militarily outclasses Pakistan. If the mere possession of nukes balances power, the US and Pakistan would be balanced in power. Would that mean that if Pakistan was a threat to the US, say on account of the religous parties that are now partially in power, it would be ignored and the security of the American people would not be guaranteed in the manner it is guaranteed now? I'm sure you President does not agree with you.
I don't understand this. Would you please restate this?
My interpretation to what you said, when you said,
'And because we have the capability of disarming Saddam by force with minimal loss of life on our side, we have decided to do so' was that you are implying that the US has taken this up because it is capable, and those who oppose it do it because they are incapable.
You've dealt with my response to this interpretation, so it does not really matter. This was just to clarify. Moving on,
Your analogy is inncorrect. You assume that the UN is a fair court respected in the world community as one that can enforce it's mandates. The UN has proven that it is a paper tiger with no more ability to enforce it's regulations than the debating society that it is.
Two possibilities we have here.
1- The UN commands respect and is to be obeyed. In that case, my analogy stands.
2- The UN does not command respect and can be overlooked and its resolutions need not be necessarily complied with. In that case, let's look at history. The 91 attacks on Iraq were in compliance with UN resolutions. (Several UN resolutions were passed, placing trade embargos and demanding Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait by 15 January, 1991 or to prepare for war). The ceasefire agreement you talk about was signed under the UN. It was under the UN that Iraq ever agreed to destroy its WMDs, if it had any. It was under the UN that Iraq agreed to cease its nuclear weapon programs.
If the UN is that flawed a party, and no one is under an obligation to abide by it, Iraq is no exception. It can walk over resolutions the same way the US can walk over 1441. According to you, Iraq does not need to follow agreements regarding destruction of its WMDs.
Back to square one. And that's square imperialism.
Accept it. If this war is justified, we're entering the colonial era again. A France and a Germany can find so many threats around the world. And act unilaterally to eliminate these threats.
Reminds me of another deceased friend of ours. Adolf, was it?
