Quote:
Originally posted by tw
The UN resolution was carefully worded so that the US could not unilaterally attack Iraq. But then why would we attack a nation that does not threaten us? It makes one wonder the direct relationship between those who purchase Listerene and those who advocate a unilateral (iilegal) attack on Iraq.
|
Iraq may not threaten us at this moment. I'll give you that. They may in the near future if they develop the weapons they are hoping to. If they arent developing WOMD they shouldnt have a problem with NON-US inspectors to verify this. Once they have them, we're all screwed any way you look at it.
Why is it that Iraq's illegal act of not allowing inspectors ANYWHERE they want to go not play in your argument that the <I>attack</I> is illegal? If we we didnt have these assurances in the cease-fire agreement from 1991, I would be much more likely to agree with your anti Iraq war sentiments.
I do realize that to a large degree politics is religion to many people. That's fine. It seems to me though that the people opposed to Bush are simply bitter leftist democrats that are trying to kill his approval with the American people. That to is fine but dont think we cant see through you. And yes , I know, not everyone here is from the US. I have never met a right wing foreigner though so please, step forward if you are out there, I'd really like to meet you.
Finally, I think that most of the public in the US does not want to stampede over Iraq and kill thousands of servicemen, women and children. What we fear is that Iraq will build some really nasty weopons and , as we have recently seen, use them against us. We believe Saddam can't be trusted and we need to use force becuase the wimps at the UN wont. Why even HAVE the UN if they cant enforce their OWN resolutions?