Originally posted by educatedfilm
The idea that you can prove you DONT have something is an insult, because when it comes to some thing like a nation it is IMPOSSIBLE... No country can PROVE that they aren't hiding anything... It should be innocent till proven guilty..

Then why are they acting like they are hiding something? Why is every interview the UN weapons inspectors conducts observed by atleast one but usually more members of Saddam's secret police? Why are foreign reporters always escorted? Why isn't Saddam allowing U-2 overflights? Why would this be, and how can you suggest it doesn't discredit Iraq's case? You know that if Israel were to pull something like this you'd be all over them.

The concept of small pox attack is blatant scare mongering, small pox is not easy produce (i'll stick my neck out, to go as far say niegh on impossible) , and it sure as hell is not easy to spread, even though they tell you all you need is one terrorist to start it all... true, one guy can start it, but although he may come into contact with alot of poeple, very few will be actaully affected, secondly my parents generation are vacinated against it..

Small Pox is incredibly easy to spread, ask anybody of Native American descent. Just a few blankets that had been used in a Brittish hospital was enough to virtually wipe out entire tribes. In an unprotected population, Small Pox can and will spread rapidly. Now while your parents may have been vaccinated, not everybody in their generation was (say, in American where Small Pox was erradicated early), and almost nobody in our generation has been vaccinated. Now I introduced Small Pox as an example. Iraq's documentation submitted to the inspectors a few months ago doesn't include any mention of TONS of biological and chemical weapons (including Small Pox, Anthrax, Botulism, and VX Nerve Gas) that weapons inspectors knew about four years ago.

The thing is, there is no change within the last 2 or 3 years that justifies this sudden change in policy... oh except that Bush got elected...

The policy change absolutely should have been made four years ago.

Saddam is not a nice guy by an means, however he is VERY unpredictable, and one of the worst things you could do is to box him into a corner.. if he has WMD the US risks an attack on isreal... but dont think the current admin hasn't taken that into account, because they know he hasn't got anything that's of anyreal threat...
THey are complying with the inspectors, and that should be enough to avert a war... but nope, the inspectors cant pump oil... send in the troops followed by the tycoons...

1). Some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power are Iraqi refugees.
2). What statute under international law would allow US oil companies to seize Iraqi wells? To quote one British guy I've been debating this with on another board, "I do actually have to commend the US government for not striking exploration deals with Iraq." But to a point I've raised a few times here, Iraq's oil wealth is currently going to France, Germany, and Russia, not to the Iraqi people. Wouldn't they and their economy be much better off if they could export their own oil and reap the benefits themselves?
3). Weren't you pointing out a few months ago that Iraqis are starving because of the sanctions neccessary to keep Saddam contained? Are you saying they should starve now that an American president is willing to remove the reason they're in their current delema?