The thing is, there was nowhere near the amount of international pressure on saddam to disarm in the past 10 years. And, there haven't been inspectors inside iraq since the 1991 war. To say that he has been actively defying the UN isn't as accuarte as saying, well, the world has been ignoring the area, besides keeping sanctions in place. Once the focus was brought back upon them, the inspectors had nowhere near theamount of time necessary to evaluate the country.
There is an enormous difference between the *threat* of force and the *use* of such force. I dont really understand your position- most people (I believe) who are against the war are for disarmament through diplomatic means, not as we bomb civilians and pummel their country. So what are you saying, that you support the war as it is currently as the only solution?
I guess my question is solution to what? Disarming him? Or removing him from power? Or freeing the iraqi people? Or preventing "WMD" from falling into the hands of terrorists? Or payback for 9/11? I think another reason I am against the war, and other people, is that there seems to be a dozen reasons that people are using to defend the war itself, and instead of defending one reason, they cite another. The worst reason in my opinion, but the one that is used *most often* here in the US is that the war is to combat terrorism and to directly protect american lives after 9.11.
Problem is that this is the least defensible reason, since the majority of hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and there hasn't been one shred of credible evidence linking saddam to 9/11. Whether he would aid terrorists- he gives money to families of palestinian suicide bombers, that is all the evidence there is. ANd that is israel's problem, not ours (in that israel has its own military and can deal with it by stopping the bombers...I doubt the money is the incentive for palestinians to kill israelies...)
As for wmd- well at this point we dont know. Maybe they'll find it and maybe they wont, but it still doesnt change the fact that the inspectors were not given enough time to determine whether he had any, and what state the program was in. There have been numerous refutations of claims iraq has nuclear weapons.
Iraqi freedom? If you believe that then I'd like to sell you some prime real estate, rightoutside of basra. Real prime location, too. The military has already admitted it'll have to have an occupying force of tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand, and cannot see putting the extremely religious shi'ites back into power, or it would turn iraq into iran. This is what the world sees- the americans as invaders trying to force out saddam to take control of the oil. haliburton already has gotten the contracts to rebuild iraq, before the war is a week old.
Removing him from power is a terrible excuse- we don't like someone ruling a country so we try to kill him? Oh wait, we did support that coup in venezuala, too bad it failed.
So who else should we remove? What about Germany- they don't support us? Why not just overthrow every government we come across we don't like? And why is it america that decides? Cause we have the biggest army. Gee...what ancient power does that make us?
If us americans were at *least* given the respect that blair gives the british, then MAYBE more people would support the war. Blair argues that iraq could be the first step in transforming the whole region, but that isn't what bush argues. Our leaders are still focused on non-existant WMD and 9/11.
[ March 26, 2003, 22:57: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]