[Bobboau]

yes Isrial is the big point here, Sadam is paying suicide bombers $10-20,000 each

once Sadam fall then only Iran will be a major suporter of palistinian violence, and after the next mass murder that is going to happen the moment the first bomb falls on an Iraqi SAM launcher has died down for about a year, I think we might just see some realy talks start over there

the big three points why I am in suport of the Iraq war are:
1) Sadam is suporting terrorism, this includes palisinians, Al Qada, and the repression of his own people
2) it will give us a major stratigic advantige when we start to deal with Iran
3) WMD

[Stryke 9]

I'd note that there really isn't any evidence for two of those, but I'd be wasting my time, wouldn't I?

Or did they actually find something about the Al Qaeda thing? I still doubt it...

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
I'd note that there really isn't any evidence for two of those, but I'd be wasting my time, wouldn't I?

Or did they actually find something about the Al Qaeda thing? I still doubt it...

no, as much as i hate to agree with you, there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is a propaganda tool to help sway the public towards the war.

[Stryke 9]

In all fairness, he is big on the Israel thing, but all he does is pay the families to help them recover financially from the loss (lot like insurance, except there's no guarantees for a specific family that they'll get it if their kid blows himself up). And the MDW thing... a couple of blurry photos. Great.

[Bobboau]

if you despute Al qada what is the other one you don't agree with

there is no doubt that he is suporting terrorism (ie other than just Al Qada), that he has WMD, and it is a major stratigic advantage if we were to invade Iran

WMD the inspectors before 98 found tons and tons of the stuff, he has yet to prove that he destroied all of it,
we don't need to prove he didn't

[Stryke 9]

Er... no. There's no conclusive evidence that he doesn't have WMDs. He probably has them anyway, but if we're going to war on a ****ty pretext it better at least be a ****ty factual pretext, and it isn't so far.

[PeachE]

he's big on israel because it gives him power. it's the biggest political cause in the Arab world and even if he is a dictator, he does need at least some public support.

as for the WMD, the argument isn't that he has them, but that he has broken his treaty, which if you read it, he has - there's no doubt that he has. as for evidence that he actually has WMDs, you're right, it's thin. but i think some news agencies were picking up a story at one point that one of his bodyguards turned over information about chemical and biological weapons development. i really can't speak for the validity of this claim, though.

[Stryke 9]

Oh yeah- no question he's broken the treaty. But that's not exactly something you call a war over- I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find a country that ISN'T violating at least one UN treaty. Israel and the US practically flaunt their doing so.

[Bobboau]

well most treatys you could make that claim but when the treaty is a cece-fire agreement that ended a war, when the contry that signed it stops following it (or never started) that is a fairly good case for war IMO

[Stryke 9]

We violate it too, on a regular basis.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
We violate it too, on a regular basis.

Violate what the peace treaty?  Are you talking about the no fly zones and us shooting?  That's actually allowed chief... not to mention it is self defense.

[Bobboau]

ya if you're talking about the NFZs there in the treaty, and we're alowed to bomb anything that tries to shoot us down, now you do have to generaly just take the word of the military on it, wich is something I understand you may not be totaly willing to do

[Falcon X]

However they actually do have proof of that... unless you think they doctor flight information... I mean we are a big propaganda machine.

[PeachE]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Oh yeah- no question he's broken the treaty. But that's not exactly something you call a war over- I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find a country that ISN'T violating at least one UN treaty. Israel and the US practically flaunt their doing so.

actually, that's why we bombed them the last time we were over there. because they violated the treaty.

besides, it's not like the US doesn't have the legal precedent or authority to do this. you can read it for yourself Resolution 1154  states that any violation of previous resolutions would result in the "severest consequences for Iraq"

[Falcon X]

That's why it's been said we dont need another resolution.  Also technically going through the UN is a nicety.  We could attack just because the peace treaty was violated.