Forums | MacLife

1. There's no evidence that Iraq has WMD.

2. There's no evidence that Iraq has any links to 9/11 or al Quaeda.

3. Iraq is cooperating with the UN, and is therefore not violating UN resolutions.

4. Any violations of the UN resolutions right now are minor and technical, and hardly justification for war (the US is going to start a war because some crappy missile goes 150 km and not 100 km?)

5. Few countries consider Iraq a threat.

6. Many, perhaps most countries believe the US has artificially sparked this crisis.

7. Many, perhaps most countries distrust the US motives in this matter, just as the US distrusts the motives of its critics.

8. All the reasons that I've seen for attacking Iraq apply to any number of countries.

9. The UN was created to prevent war, and will only become irrelevant if people refuse to settle their differences there, and resort instead to the battlefield. France and Germany aren't doing that. The US is.

10. I'm due for a major flame-job as a result of this post. Here's hoping there's some actual discussion among the insults.

uh...that is just flat out wrong.  According to the UN, Iraq has violated every single resolution.

It's allowing the inspectors in, and the inspectors say they're making progress. Therefore the process is working. And haven't you said the UN is irrelevant? If so, how can its resolutions justify a war? And what about my other points?

1. There's no evidence that Iraq has WMD.

2. There's no evidence that Iraq has any links to 9/11 or al Quaeda.

3. Iraq is cooperating with the UN, and is therefore not violating UN resolutions.

4. Any violations of the UN resolutions right now are minor and technical, and hardly justification for war (the US is going to start a war because some crappy missile goes 150 km and not 100 km?)

5. Few countries consider Iraq a threat.

6. Many, perhaps most countries believe the US has artificially sparked this crisis.

7. Many, perhaps most countries distrust the US motives in this matter, just as the US distrusts the motives of its critics.

8. All the reasons that I've seen for attacking Iraq apply to any number of countries.

9. The UN was created to prevent war, and will only become irrelevant if people refuse to settle their differences there, and resort instead to the battlefield. France and Germany aren't doing that. The US is.

10. I'm due for a major flame-job as a result of this post. Here's hoping there's some actual discussion among the insults.

uh...that is just flat out wrong.  According to the UN, Iraq has violated every single resolution.

It's allowing the inspectors in, and the inspectors say they're making progress. Therefore the process is working. And haven't you said the UN is irrelevant? If so, how can its resolutions justify a war? And what about my other points?

Logical fallacy.  I never said breaking the resolutions justified a war.  I've stated on several occassions that I'm wishy-washy on the whole war with Iraq thing.  I'd much rather see an alternative solution. 

However, that is beside the point.  1441 was drawn up because the UN came to the conclusion that Iraq has violated every single resolution passed in its regards since the Gulf War. 

As far as UN obsolecence(sp)...yes, I believe the UN is quickly making itself irrevelant.

Once the inspectors are "done," do you honestly think Saddam will refrain from restarting his WMD programs?  If so, what the past 12 years makes him so trustworthy?

But for now, you agree that Iraq is currently cooperating with the UN?

No.