What do we do now

[Sonar5 3]

Remember,The press has only been concentrating on One specific resolution. (That of the inspectors) There are many more that he has violated. It is those that will allow us to act if he does not comply.The weapons inspectors are but a small piece of this puzzle. Don't let the press or I sway your judgement. Make sure you understand the resolutions as they will most likely be trumpeted out as the weeks go on.That way you will understand a bit more. It is not all about the inspectors. That is what certain countries like canada, and Germany think it is about, but they are Naive, and in denial, IMHO. Read the resolutions and you will understand.Heck, go read Bush's speech to the UN as he laid out those past resolutions in detail.Regards,JoeHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

[Guest B52Drivr]

As many of you have stated, we have been down this road before. SH agrees to let the inspectors in, then play's ring around the bunkers, stalls, and then kicks the inspectors out. All the while, he is building his weapons, and hiding them most well.Anyone who DOES NOT think this is happening is looking in the rearview miror, or smoking something which is affecting their judgment. This guy has a track record of doing this and he will continue to do this unill he is stopped . . .either by a coup by his own people or someone else, (read that the US) moving in and doing away with him.He has no redeamable values . . . he is a terrorist with a title, and he likes it that way. Now, to those who say we should just leave the situation alone, I say this: When he does get his nukes in a row, he will point them -- and we all know where he will point them. Israel has just about had it, (read that: Bagdad could end up being a glass parking lot), and that, my friends, is the beginning of the end.I believe, (just my humble .02cents worth) that the United States should follow the UN and send the weapons inspectors, while at the same time sending in special teams which will hunt down this guy, and put him in his place, (read that, in a 3x6 wooden box), and try to give that country the peace which has evaded them for so long.It will not be easy, but nothing worth doing is easy . . . it is the job of the entire world, want it or not, in this age of nuclear weapons, to make sure that they are not used!As a former combat pilot who has seen more than his share of action, I am not one who desires war. War is a most terrible thing, with most terrible results, however, some times, war is the only way to get rid of an individual and his cohoarts, who regard war as just the price of doing business. And lets not forget that this individual, supports terrorism in every way he can. His own people have suffered terribly at his hand--even his own family have been the objects of his terrorism.If, SH would leave the rest of the world alone, then I would be tempted to say; "well, its up to the people of Iraq to get rid of him . . ." but he won't . . .we saw what happened during the Gulf War, and as Stormin Norman said, "...if we don't get this guy, we'll just have to go get him and do this again in five years . .." No one on this forum would be more pleased than I, for the weapon inspectors to enter Iraq, not find anything, and we would all know that this is true and this issue would be a done deal . . . unfortunately, I don't believe that will be the case . . . and I can only ask the Good Lord to Bless America and her allies to do the job to free the people of Iraq from this tryant for good . . . before he has the chance to use a nuclear weapon against one of his neighbors and perpetuate more terrorism.Best to all,Clayton T. DopkeMajor, USAF (retired)"Drac"B52Drivr@aol.com

[Guest]

Ihor wrote:"What goes on inside the borders of Iraq is no ones business!"First, and perhaps most importantly, what goes on within Iraq's borders is SPECIFICALLY our business because, as a term of the cease-fire of the Gulf War, Iraq unconditionally agreed to subject itself to inspections and to disarm itself of biological and chemical weapons. It has NOT complied with the agreements it made, which means that the U.S. can stop the 10-year-old cease-fire at any point. The Gulf War was not "ended" with a peace treaty. Technically, a state of war still exists, and hostilities could legally have been resumed as soon as the agreements were broken years ago.Next, threat levels. For nations that are not run by madmen (and I do believe that using chemical weapons on his own people ... a fact which has been documented and on film, not just hearsay) counts as actions of a madman ... allowing them to develop weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated by the rest of the world. Iraq has demonstrated that it poses a threat to its neighbors. If you doubt this, ask Kuwait. With missile-deliverable chemical, biological, and (soon, according to Hussein's own former scientists) nuclear weapons, the threat he poses to his close (and not so close) neighbors is intense. Specifically speaking of the U.S., the fact that Iraq has ties with terrorists -- as apparently described in great detail in a dossier being prepared in England -- puts them SQUARELY on a very specific list. Right after our towers and the military headquarters of all our armed forces were attacked, the U.S. President said that any person or nation who harbored and/or gave comfort or aid to terrorists were going to be taken care of. In this specific instance, the U.S.'s own national security is specifically at risk.Tangentially, as mentioned above, Iraq is a threat to its neighbors, several of which are military or political or economic allies of the U.S. It is quite likely that we have mutual defense agreements that could be in play. I don't know for a fact.Saddam could stave off any and all military action by unilaterally complying with the agreements he signed 10 years ago.He signed the agreement.He chose (and still chooses) to break his word.If hostilities resume to keep him in check, it's only due to his own inaction.--Tony

[gosta 0]

>>That way you will understand a bit more. It is not all about the inspectors. That is what certain countries like canada, and Germany think it is about, but they are Naive, and in denial, IMHO.<

[Sonar5 3]

Gosta, what can I say. You are a smart wonderful person. Have a day,JoeHere are Picture Galleries of My Trip out west in 2002.Gallery #1 Pima Air & Space Museum + AMARC (Boneyard) at Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson, Arizona. (over 240 Pictures)http://www.pbase.com/sonar5/pimaamarc

[Guest]

Thanks Tony but I don't read Arabic, how about a translationNo comprehendum quotam estRopem kangaroo downus sportam! (Crocodile Dundee Circa 1989)Cookie

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"....Let Saddam do in his country what he wants, if the people don't want him anymore, he'll be vanished in no time. No one can stand up to some several millions of unhappy people...."I disagree.... The people in Iraq are so repressed, they are powerless to fight back. Machine guns and gas are quite effective, even against millions of unhappy people, and Saddam knows how to gas his own people--he's proven that. Why do you think Saddam lives underground? And most of the Arabs, Europeans, and Asians have turned a blind eye to what's going on there...after all, there's his oil to think of.... It is often said that Europe and Asia would suffer much more than the U.S. if Saddam were to cut off oil exports... One of the reasons why I think they're a bit soft on him... But I do agree that it's not the U.S's job to force democracy on another country. On the other hand, if Saddam and his regime have even the slightest connection to any part of 9/11, his regime (but not Iraq) should be destroyed. To heck with the U.N.... It's our right as a country to defend ourselves against any attack, and demonstrate to the world that we will avenge any attack we can't defend. The U.N. certainly won't do it for us. I am almost certain that Saddam aided the 9/11 terrorists--he certainly applauded them. And to this day, most of the Arab world (and many Asians and Europeans) still tries to rationalize 9/11 against how we are disliked. Why should we care about their opinions--which basically aid and comfort our enemy? When such opinions are voiced about 9/11, how credible can the same people's opinions be in regards to Saddam?You do raise an interesting point. If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and he used them internally in Iraq to defeat an invading army, would he be justified? I think he would be, given it's his own country... But is he worthy of negotiation? IMHO, no...he's been given too many chances, and all he is doing is manipulating any fool willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I wish the U.S. would walk away, and let him overrun the Middle East, and threaten Eastern Europe, Russia, Pakistan, India. Because that's where his weapons will be targeted first.... And he is growing old, and I suspect wants to cement his legacy soon...