Bush says he respectfully disagree with those who say peace is the answer. It's not much, but it's something. There are many people who disagree without any respect for those who oppose war.
He's trying to get a new UN resolution passed. That's also somewhat of a good thing. Whatever we do, we need world support. Of course, Bush may just send troops in anyway.
Russia and China are opposed to war now and are pushing to allow inspectors to continue their work. That's also a relief, from the standpoint that one theory had China and Russia were hoping to get us drawn into a war (see: North Korea), so they could gain the upper hand.
There's talk about giving Iraq a specific time-frame to comply with inspectors. But nobody can prove they haven't complied. I feel there is only one choice (according to international law): keep inspectors at it, and take action if they find anything.
If we believe Hussein is hiding something, then we must take action right now - no "time-frame."
Should Hussein be barred from having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?
If he should be barred from having them, what actions should be taken against him if he is found to have some? What actions should be taken to prevent him from getting them?
Do you believe he'd use them if he had them?
He's trying to get a new UN resolution passed. That's also somewhat of a good thing. Whatever we do, we need world support. Of course, Bush may just send troops in anyway.
Russia and China are opposed to war now and are pushing to allow inspectors to continue their work. That's also a relief, from the standpoint that one theory had China and Russia were hoping to get us drawn into a war (see: North Korea), so they could gain the upper hand.
There's talk about giving Iraq a specific time-frame to comply with inspectors. But nobody can prove they haven't complied. I feel there is only one choice (according to international law): keep inspectors at it, and take action if they find anything.
If we believe Hussein is hiding something, then we must take action right now - no "time-frame."
Should Hussein be barred from having chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?
If he should be barred from having them, what actions should be taken against him if he is found to have some? What actions should be taken to prevent him from getting them?
Do you believe he'd use them if he had them?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 06:07 am (UTC)From:If there is a "regime change", who decides who the new regime is?
What if a new regime tries to aquire such weapons, or allows the existing ones (if they exist) to be used by terrorists?
The terrorists will find intervention in the Middle East unacceptable and mount further attacks in response. Oops - that wasn't a question.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 06:41 am (UTC)From:We know that a unilateral intervention will intensify anti-American sentiment. No one knows how many new terrorists it will produce. Al-Qaeda will attack at any opportunity. I'm worried about free lancers that may not hate the US now, but will in a year or so... enough to want to kill Americans.
The last time the inspectors left 1998, it was in part due to US threats to bomb military targets. Inspections won't work if Saddam sees them as surveillance in preparation for war, and now he cannot see them any other way. It's complex, but we can't view it in a vacuum devoid of world opinion.
Do you believe he'd use them if he had them?
Date: 2003-02-19 10:06 am (UTC)From:Re: Do you believe he'd use them if he had them?
Date: 2003-02-19 10:41 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 10:47 am (UTC)From:these guys are a bit dated, but they do provide many facts on weapons programs throughout the world http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/index.html
Re: Do you believe he'd use them if he had them?
Date: 2003-02-23 08:52 pm (UTC)From:It wasn't a banned agent, but just because it wasn't banned doesn't mean it wasn't a weapon.