"Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly"

Okay -- it isn't Unilateral. There are only 6 nations formally opposed to this action; 6 nations that are officially neutral; and 45 nations that have committed troops and supplies to the action.

Please explain how this is "Unilateral"?

Sifmole: I don't know where you get your numbers from. In the formally against camp you can find France, Russia, China, India (that's already half the world's population), the entirety of Africa except Ethipia (pro-war), Rwanda (neutral), and Somalia (no officially recognised government), most of South America except Bolivia and another small one, plus traditional US partners such as Mexico and Canada. That's way more than 45 nations, the "commitment" of which is in most cases laughable. Please unplug your brain from CNN and start informing yourself.

Ask: "What better way to make attacks on and in the U.S. relatively legitimate?"

Well the truth is that it makes any attack by Iraq or its allies on the USA and participating attackers perfectly legal. The USA is illegally attacking an independent state, which means any retaliation is in fact considered legitimate.

darobin: "The USA is illegally attacking an independent state, which means any retaliation is in fact considered legitimate."

That was indeed my point.

Sifmole: Okay, so maybe uni-lateral isn't technically correct. However, I don't believe the population in any of the "supporting" countries are giving any support. Is that wrong?

- ask

Ask writes: What a #!@$%$# lie. He is not reluctant. He is overeager!

Overeager?

Iraq has not lived up to any of it's agreements made after they were defeated in the Gulf War. The parties never signed a peace agreement, just an armistice. The conditions were that the hostilities would begin again if the commitments were not kept. They were warned in 1992 about serious consequences. It's about time something be done.

I fail to see how this is overeager.

The US and it's allies have worked for months within the UN framework, but it became clear that the other nations and Blix didn't want to live up to the commitments they had made with Resolution 1441. Nobody seriously believes that Iraq had taken the opportunity to immediately, proactively and completely disarm, but people like Blix wanted to look the other way.

All the while, as many Iraqi's die every month from sanctions as did in the Gulf War combined. Somehow the humanitarian oil money isn't getting to the sick and starving people of Iraq. The situation was intolerable and couldn't be allowed to continue.

We just can't wait any longer, no matter how many lucrative contracts the French have with Saddam Hussein.

I must say I do agree with Jordan.

I think it's going to be interesting to see if the missiles that Iraq fired on Kuwait City this morning where in fact in breach of UN resolutions and something that Hans Blix's team should have found.

Jordan writes: "We just can't wait any longer, no matter how many lucrative contracts the French have with Saddam Hussein"

Ooooh! The BDBS (braindead bullshit) argument again! So, of Iraq and the USA, with which does France have the more lucrative contracts? By what margin? So if France's motivations were commercial, on which side would France end up? See how the world is different when you THINK? It's not that hard for fuck's sake.

You may also wish to consider that disarming a country is not something that happens in CNN time. It takes months, perhaps years. By all accounts it was working, if slowly. There is no reason to go to war on that account. If I were Saddam, what I'd be doing right now is get factories that create weapons of mass destruction in working order ASAP and get to work at full-regime.

Thomas: may I interest you in some geography lessons? Kuwait is small enough that you could throw a stone accross it. Missiles able to reach anywhere in Kuwait from the iraqi border are highly unlikely of being long-range ones of the kind that were forbidden to Iraq.

darobin writes:The USA is illegally attacking an independent state, which means any retaliation is in fact considered legitimate.

There's really no legal authority under which these things can be decided.

You might think the UN is this legal authority, but nobody really has historically. It's only when the US feels we need to protect ourselves that this legitimacy canard is thrown up.

France didn't have UN sanction when it when into the Ivory Coast. NATO didn't have UN sanction when it went into Kosovo. In fact, the only military actions ever sanctioned by the UN were the Korean War (and this would never have happened had the Soviet representative not walked out in a), the First Gulf War and the Afghanistan conflict.

I don't recall anyone ever bringing up this absurd "legitimacy" issue until the current Iraq situation.

If there's anything illegitimate it's the Security Council unanimously signing on to Resolution 1441 and failing to follow up on its clear provisions.

darobin writes: Ooooh! The BDBS (braindead bullshit) argument again! So, of Iraq and the USA, with which does France have the more lucrative contracts?

Ooooh! The childish name calling has begun. When you can't argue the points, just label your opponent's arguments as braindead bullshit.

The fact is that French interests have contracts with Saddam Hussein directly that become invalid if he's removed.

I don't know of any French contracts in the US that have been canceled. I doubt there will be any.

I have heard that the oil contracts the Total and others had with Saddam Hussein personnally amounted to >50 Billion US$.

darobin: It takes months, perhaps years. By all accounts it was working, if slowly.

"By all accounts"? Let me remind you that 1441 required immediate, proactive cooperation, and a 60/90 day timescale for reporting on progress. Blix himself labeled the December 8th declaration by Iraq as non-responsive. Iraq should have been labeled in Material Breach at that point.

So, they destroyed a few missiles. It was clear that they were playing their old games again and Blix was cooperating. Blix had inspected NO military deployments, even though 1441 did not rule this out. US intelligence believes that much of the WMD are in missiles and bombs now with the Iraqi units. These were never looked at.

Of 500 sites US intelligence gave to UNMOVIC to investigate, they looked at 50. Mostly, they spent their time spinning their wheels looking at sites that had been investigated in the '90s. Any fool would know that these would have been cleaned up by now, especially with the long notice Iraq was given.

Let me remind you that inspections have NEVER worked.

The UNSCOM inspections of Iraq didn't work. The UNSCOM inspections found practically nothing until defectors told them where to look, when UNSCOM looked into this Iraq suddenly stopped cooperating with inspections. Is there really any reason to believe that Iraq would have acted differently this time? Really?

Korean inspections by the IAEA were a complete joke, Inspections after WWI were useless. This is why we didn't depend on inspections to "work", the International Community REQUIRED Iraq to completely, immediately and proactively cooperate with the destruction of WMD that the UNSCOM inspectors had found in 1998 when Iraq suddenly stopped cooperating with inspections.

Failing this cooperation, the International community had committed to serious consequences. I'm sorry, I don't consider repeated visits from that nice Mr. Blix to be a serious consequence.

darobin:
First, you have lost much position by entering name calling and belitteling others who hold opposing viewpoints.

Now..
ou may also wish to consider that disarming a country is not something that happens in CNN time.

Yeah, ya know that is true; do you think 12 years is enough time to have at least started? Because you see at the end of the Gulf War ( 12 years ago -- real time, not CNN time ) Saddam signed an agreement that he would disarm. This obviously has not occured as Hans Blix found weapons which violated the terms of this agreement.

So, how long does it take?

Brilliant Mistake
How appropriate for the times:

He thought he was the King of America
Where they pour Coca Cola just like vintage wine
Now I try hard not to become hysterical
But I'm not sure if I am laughing or crying
I wish that I could push a button
And talk in the past and not the present tense
And watch this hurtin' feeling disappear
Like it was common sense
It was a fine idea at the time
Now it's a brilliant mistake

She said that she was working for the ABC News
It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use
Her perfume was unspeakable
It lingered in the air
Like her artificial laughter
Her mementos of affairs
"Oh" I said "I see you know him"
"Isn't that very fortunate for you"
And she showed me his calling card
He came third or fourth and there were more than one or two
He was a fine idea at the time
Now he's a brilliant mistake

He thought he was the King of America
But it was just a boulevard of broken dreams
A trick they do with mirrors and with chemicals
The words of love in whispers
And the acts of love in screams
I wish that I could push a button
And talk in the past and not the present tense
And watch this lovin' feeling disappear
Like it was common sense
I was a fine idea at the time
Now I'm a brilliant mistake

by Elvis Costello

Hej Ask!
Du har da i det mindste fået en del mennesker engagerede! Det er altid noget! Desvärre synes jeg at de tänker fejl!
Leela

I totally agree with you, Bjorn.

For the rest of you: how 'bout we turned it completely around and looked at the whole stinkin' mess from a different perspective... If the attack wasn't unilateral, but the populace of each and every country whose soldiers joined those of the USA was AGAINST the war, what do you make of it? What is the logical answer? Yeah, right, you do have brains: those governments have economical interest in the US - they are, like all politicians (especially on the right end of the political spectrum), spineless douchebags and care for nothing else than power, money, oil (to put it simply).

US attack on Iraq is unilateral from the perspective of at least trying to think in the 'democratic' way and counting in civilian voices and wasn't unilateral from the perspective of disgusting politicians who didn't give a flying fuck about democracy or the opinion of its people and joined the ILLEGAL US AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ.

You might not consider the UN as the foremost international authority, but it doesn't mean it is NOT the foremost international authority. Au contrare - it is. It might not work the way it should all the time (US has worked long and hard to discredit UN), but it still is THE FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITY, whether you yankies like it or not.

US is the hegemony, US is the modern day Roman Empire and as such it will crumble down with enormous shame and lingering stench.

Howgh.