Quite agree, Razor. Why should one tyrannical despot with weapons of mass destruction be able to keep his while he confiscates those of another tyrannical despot?
That is one of the benefits of being the more powerful party.
This guy is actually very smart. I think that should really happen. Get yourselves rid of Bush and all will be well and by the way, destroy your weapons of mass destruction as well.
All will be well for the rest of the world, not for the US. But we want it the other way, so Bush and WMDs stay.
And Warlock, it doesn't matter wether America has nuked anyone recently, the mere possesion of the weapons suggests that given enough provokation, they would. And this should not be allowed.
No-one should posses enough weaponry to annihilate the human race as the only thing such weaponry could ever be used for is precisely that.
Great, so what are you going to do about it?
I thought you were above this "should" and "should not" business; the only things that "should" happen are the things that
are happening.
excuse me, but is there EVIDENCE that he has the weapons? the inspectors found nothing, despite being there for about 2 months (almost 3 i think), having the latest technology and being experts in the field. Just because Saddam refused to cooperate does mean anything. The recently discovered chemical plant is harmless, even the US has confirmed that. If they can start a war without proof, it makes you wonder what else they can do. If suspecting something is enough, then they have a blank cheque for war..
Are "inspectors" capable of doing anything other than wasting time? No, which is why they had so much support from the EU. Read my earlier posts on that to find out why this is so.
The US has NO right to tell another sovereign country what weapons it can and cannot have.
Once again, that's nice, so what are you going to do about it? The US, or any other nation for that matter, has a right to do anything it pleases if it has the capability. This is especially beginning to show now; the rest of the world is whining, but nobody is going to be heading for Iraq to fight for Hussein.
And of course weapons of mass destruction aren't the size of a match so they can just be thrown away and you can't just dig them into a dessert and wait untill the agressors are gone.
Yes you can. I already explained this matter to you in detail in a previous thread on this topic; do you have a short memory or something?
So was Saddam. granted, there were only half the number of candidates to vote for in iraq, but on the other hand 100% of the population voted.
Now this is just funny. That is because anyone foolish enough to vote against him is dead, and only living people's votes count.
-Bush has proclaimed to the world that his opinion is supreme. In naming the "axis of evil", he has basically said "I decide who has what..Korea cant have nukes because I'm the boss, and I decide who is right"
Exactly, because he has the power to do that. If you don't like it, do something about it. That is the way things work in the world.
At any rate, it was the UN which was granted the prerogative to attack or not, and they've decided not to. The US going ahead and doing it in the face of international law is comparable to a cop letting a guy go because there's not any conclusive evidence he's done anything, then a vigilante capturing and lynching the guy because he's pretty sure they guy did whatever it was anyway.
The thing is that in this case, the vigilante is far, far more powerful than the cop, and so has all the real authority (the cop would have authority if he could enforce his demands, but he cannot). Anyway, suppose that they did have UN approval. How would that make any difference at all? Hussein would still not approve of it, and he would actually be taken more seriously because he at least has some credible force to back his opinion.
Poll
