[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Bush isn't trying to "avenge" the attacks.

That is completely false, since those are almost Bush's very own words. Here is a <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/11/181118.shtml">headline</a> from the far-right Newsmax at the 1-year anniversary of the attacks (i.e. not just said in anger immediately afterwards), and here is a Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2Bbush+%2Bavenge">search</a> following that up.

The Bush administration seems to have made great strides in swaying world opinion on this situation of late, instead of caving in at the first sign of resistance.

The foreign press and foreign public opinion remains in the vast majority against an American bombing/invasion of Iraq. People sympathise with the 9/11 deaths, but they won't accept retaliation against Iraq as a means of avenging that. If anything, public opinion is moving further against an American war in Iraq.

But as a very last resort, if the UN fails us, we must be prepared to act in our own interests. Having the world behind us is great, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should just lay down and do whatever the world body wants.

Iraq is a sovereign country; as long as they comply with UN resolutions, there is nothing the US can do, and Bush actually knows that. With Germany about to chair the UN Security Council, Iraq appearing to follow the resolutions, and with Bush having refused to congratulate the German chancellor's re-election victory, thus sending diplomatic sparks flying between Germany and the US (some of Bush's and Ari Fleischer's quotations on that matter during the last week were particularly venomous), this could get interesting. To use your own words, "Bush has made great strides in" being offensive to the country whose support he is pleading for.

Originally posted by Undertoad
[jaguar] weapons of mass destruction! On his own people! oh by the way we sold them to him and authorised thier use on Iran...

(Undertoad) Nuh-uh.

It is difficult to accept the truth if it conflicts with your emotional world view. The US support in providing 'weapons of mass destruction' to Iraq in the fight against Iran is well-documented in Congress yearbooks. Those are very thick, hard-bound yearly summaries of speeches/committee meetings held by the US House and the US Senate, I believe they are published by the Library of Congress. I studied them myself as part of my degree; go to your largest local public library, and ask the librarian if they have those. (I am uncertain on what the exact title is, but they definitely exist) Get the 1982/83 volume (it has a green hard cover, I believe they all do), and skim for Iraq. You will find references in meetings where US support with weapons deliveries is outright stated, but specifics regarding the weapons are denied.

In the meantime, please address the issue that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi-Arabian, and were acting out of hatred for US support for the feudal Saudi dictatorship.

Originally posted by Tobiasly
This isn't an issue of fairness. "Iraq should have 'em because lots of other countries do too" doesn't work. We had 'em first, and we're bigger and stronger, so now we get veto power (both in the U.N. and in real life) when other regimes who hate us try to build 'em.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.

The UN can't and von't veto Iraq having nuclear weapons (since they don't have any). The US doesn't have veto rights for anything apart from UN Security council resolutions. The US was frothing back when France started testing nuclear weapons again in the mid-90s, and couldn't do anything about it, either.

Lots of regimes have nuclear weapons, and the US can't do anything about it, either. Get used to it. That's why Iraq isn't being invaded right now - because the world isn't having any of it, and Bush isn't enough of an idiot to try to go ahead and annoy everybody. If Iran suddenly announced they had nuclear weapons tomorrow, the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it, either. I am still waiting for Bush to give the go-ahead on Iraq, despite all the sabre-rattling. The reason it hasn't happened is because the UN Security Council won't give a go-ahead, simple as that.

Like it or not, that's the way the real world works.

Not to mention using biological agents on his own people. I'd say that qualifies one for maniac status.

In that case, the US has a long history of 'maniac status', under both Democrats and Republicans. US experimentation with biological and chemical agents on its own citizens is also well-documented, usually in declassified documents. The post scriptum includes several web references, from both left-wing and right-wing sources.

Unfortunately, those Democrats who are interested in winning elections aren't exactly coming out in droves to hang their hats on Gore's words...

In politics, are always those who follow their ideals, and attempt to do what they believe is right, and those who attempt to remain in the populist public eye - with the latter usually being in the great majority. Since nationalism and authoritarianism is in vogue in the US right now, populism follows.

X.

PS:
http://www.radix.net/~jcturner/Church-1.html (this is an actual Senate report)
http://www.fox5dc.com/dynamic/images...whitecoat.html
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...84871580&pwb=1
http://www.eaec.org/biologic.htm
http://www.duotone.com/coldwar/biowarfare/
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/200...omo/index.html