Originally posted by educatedfilm
LOL, it's very easy to make them look shifty, it's been done by your media to your own senators/ heads of state over very minor things, the examples are too many to list.. but Watergate is a very good example... To my knowledge they are complying as far as they can...

Watergate is a good example of what that relates to this discussion? The US media burning a sitting president alive? I really don't see how this helps your case.
As for Iraq's compliance, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have both said that Iraq needs to do more to comply. To use some direct quotes...
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the lacing enrichment of uranium, support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring papers from their workplaces.
"On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
and...
"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can. Rather, it is a process of verification for the purpose of building confidence."-Hans Blix

"Why is every interview the UN weapons inspectors conducts observed by atleast one but usually more members of Saddam's secret police"
Because they want to make sure (first hand) nothing is planted... It's VERY easy to take a cotton swab with a very low concentration of something like Vx, and just smear it in a basement, then come back and say "LOOK! TRACES OF VX!!!"... they have to be monitered and i dont see why that is an unreasonable thing...

Pah-lease. If it's so reasonable, why didn't the Ukranians or the South Africans (or the North Koreans for Christ's sakes) try it? And why aren't Iraqi citizens allowed to speak their mind to reporters? Maybe some answers can be found here

"You know that if Israel were to pull something like this you'd be all over them"
?? I dont really get this comment... Isreal is a totally different matter, it has nuclear weapons in our midst, has a hard line government that still firmly beleive in the nile to the uphrates doctrine, it has one of the worst human rights records in the region... and what have we done officailly? Nothing... Poeple get so mad and wound up, they join the fanatics and totally go wrong.. But the amount of force they can summon is nothing compared to isreal's army...
Boxing iraq into a corner, and if saddam has WMDs as alledged, they are really risking an exchange with isreal...

My point was that if the UN were demanding Israel to account for some incident (say, deaths in a refugee camp, something potentially very ugly), and allow UN investigators unlimited access to interview people involved, the place(s) "it" allegedly happened, etc but pulled the tricks the Iraqis are using right now, you'd be all over their case. It screams "WE'RE HIDING SOMETHING" and it makes no sense for somebody in a position to have to prove their innosence to use those tactics.

"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"
Are you sure your not talking about the plauge? Cos small pox is contagous, but not like that... Small pox is also very potent in spreading fear, because it causes boils, and disfiguration...
Still, IMHO, there's no way in hell small pox could be made in the conditions iraq are under at the mo..

It was Small Pox, and it did wipe out vast numbers of Native Americans very quickly. Also, virii and bacteria aren't paticuarly difficult to grow. Especially bacteria.

"The policy change absolutely should have been made four years ago."
Why? the iraq's haven't done anything new in more than four years... we're told to just accept at face value, that there is something happening, and we must as citizen of democratic nations (US+UK) simply believe and follow with out question.. (tony blair has had a right bitch at "cynics")

Four years ago Iraq expelled UN inspectors from the country leaving the inspection process incomplete (as it is still incomplete today. US and UK forces launched air strikes in retaliation (Operation Desert Fox), but never went the extra step of removing Saddam from power as I beleive they should of under the terms ending the Gulf War. However, I've pointed out many times why Clinton didn't do it.

"1). Some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power are Iraqi refugees."
oh you surprise me there... I thought you could see that these refugees are potential new leaders of iraq! :) does it make sense now?

Don't you want a say in the affairs of your own country?

"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.""
Lol, there's a reason for that, the poeple that are in power at the mo, are going out in a few weeks... hmmm, I wonder why this is? INTERNATIONAL LAW?! THE HELL WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, just like as it's ever been... And we'll probably come back to this point in 6 months... Mark my words, Iraq will be just like Saudi... with a pretenous puppet leader, that looks docile and pleasant, selling oil cheap to "freinds", while butchering their own poeple.

The Saudis sell oil at the market price (just like everybody else) and as a member of OPEC see to it that oil prices stay profitable.

"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?"
Yep, i was, and you'll also remember i had a good ol' fashioned bitch at the fact that the sanctions weren't benifiting the iraq's and needed some changing. I didn't say the US should carpet bomb bagdad in the name of freedom...
The reason the iraq's are starving is not because of suddam but because of the poeple who put the sanctions. Basically Keep saddam contained, but for the love of good let food and medicine in! Either that or lift sanctions all together... Saddam is effectively neutered, he cant do sh*t. I'd be more worried about resentment of the Saudi regime and the US's backing to said regime in Saudi (remember sept 11? what's been done about that? oh just blanket blackout of the subject.) What i'm saying is get the US admin to take a more humanitarain side to thier foriegn policies, and not just cold hearted pragmatism, whith some idealised public releases...

If Saddam hadn't of invaded Kuwait, the sanctions would never have been put in place. If he had cooperated with the Weapons Inspectors the sanctions could have been lifted a decade ago. I consider him fully responsible for his people's plight. Next, the reason why sanctions are tight is that the looser the constraints, the easier it is to smuggle things into the country that aren't supposed to be in the country. As it is, several nations are reported to have been selling weapons and weapons related materials to Iraq despite the sanctions.
Next, you accuse the US media of distorting the truth when you specifically use the words " carpet bomb bagdad in the name of freedom" is a blatant distortion of US military doctrine. Not even in World War II did the US use carpet bombing (the British did though), and since then has persued "precision bombing" with great fervor. It makes more sense for many reasons, mostly in overall efficiency and to minimize civillian casualties (because frankly, it helps nobody to kill any more civillians than neccessary). In the Gulf War, Iraqi civillian casualties were relatively light, even in spite of Saddam placing civillians in military targets for propoganda purposes.

The fact is, it's better for virtually everbody (except Saddam a few Ba'ath party members) for Saddam and his government to be out of power. I can see no justification for allowing him to stay in power and every time I've tried to do so, I've felt like I was justifying murder.

And, I've held this opinion a lot longer than GW Bush has been the president.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-03-2003 at 07:10 PM]