Bander, do you always make shit up and put it like other people said it?  There is a good reason to quote people, so you don't just make up this bullshit and pretend that they said it.

I've never used the word blitzkreg.  Hell, if you actually took 5 minutes out of your otherwise worthless life, you would see that I've been wanting to hear more too, and that I also thought sending in peacekeepers is a good idea, just that I think it wouldn't work.

But no, you have to make shit up, trying to make me look bloodthristy, because you are just looking to start more flames.

Yes true Iraq HAS to destroy all WMD and agree not to produce anything, but the one part that is wrong, is the part where you say "Sorry Iraq doesnt have to proof it..." the thing is, Iraq HAS to prove they are disarming, in order for the U.N to lift the sanctions which were placed on Iraq after the Gulf War. All they have to do is prove to the world that they dont produce these weapons and this would end. If Iraq claims they have none of these, why can't they prove it? They have failed to turn over 30,000 chem warheads i believe. So if Iraq doesn't want war, just turn over the information, instead of trying to play stupid. And yes we should have proof of their deceiving, but as earlier stated, Powell has turned over a bunch of evidence of Iraq avoiding inspectors, moving sites, and other links with terrorist.

And I have also told about how stubborn Iraq is and how they will never let go of their lies, so I won't get into that.

mauti,

i suggest you read this: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

it is a copy of the latest UN resolution on iraq (1441) that was endorsed by the UN security council, including china, russia and france. the paragraphs beginning with "deploring" seem particularily pertinent to me. now you have it in the exact words of the UN: iraq is not living up to its obligations!

now, from what we know of saddam hussein's previous behaviour in international politics, including the 1990/91 fiasco and his dealings with the UN? that he only responds to force and threats, and that even then, he only gives in at the 11th hour when he has played all his cards and has to save his ass.

given that, and the fact that the entire UN security council agrees that his behavior is not acceptable, how are we going to get him to obey this resolution if not by the threat of military force and the willingness to back those threats up if necessary? diplomacy and sweet talking didnt get him out of kuwait and it wont get him to comply now either!

about the press thing: the only reason i went in on that is chose the ny times out of all the newspapers in the US as an example of non-objective journalism and "only trying to raise the hate". if you look at their op-ed page (or the front page for that matter) youll find they are very critical of the administration and anything but pro-war or US propaganda. now, if you were talking of time magazine (a subsidiary of aol-timewarner, same as CNN) that is a completely different story and i have to say that there i basically agree with you.

i actually prefer the european press myself, not because it isnt biased or slanted in any way (generally speaking, it is), but rather because it is far more inquisitive and usually goes deeper than the american press, in my opinion. at the same time  i pay attention to the american press as well however to get a picture of the whole story, as you were saying. my sources are usually the bbc, www.spiegel.de, the economist and google news is cool too.

anyways, i respect your opinions as well, and its important that people stand up and raise their concerns because the possibility of war is somthing all reasonable people want to avoid as much as is possible. nobody, apart from the real meatheads, wants war at all costs. but there is no use in categorically excluding the possibily of using armed force, unless we are living in a perfect world where no one can hurt anyone else. that most certainly isnt the case so we have to be ready to defend our security by, when needed, flexing military muscle and when not, using diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. right now, the US government, which has access to a hell of a lot more information than any of us, thinks that the first option is needed and i happen to agree with them based on the the document i quoted at the beginning of my post and what iraq's general attitude towards the UN has been.

It's an fact (an scientific fact!) that only stupid europeans sailed to amerika 300 years ago.........well , thats one  fact we "all" know for 100%....... the other fact we all know is that europe doesn't get that much oil as the USA, wich is the only reason france tries to slow down the "commercial" for the US-army.
not because of PEACE(wuhahaha)...It's so funny that US-people think that europeans are afraid of war.....(good propaganda from junior)
no one killed so many people like european countries(that's nothing to be proud of it; don't get me wrong G.W bush influenced people) ... so the US has been attacked for only one time in it's hole "history"........people don't know how to handle that-> they have extrem FEAR....(even bigger than of black people )....an with fear you can't make an uninfluenced opinion when junior is talking to you  on TV (every day)

It makes no sence to be against the USA , beacause this war is an RUMSFELD-war,  (reliable since 25 years->vietnam...no one can stop Donald )
but it's also extremly stupid to think an war will stop terrorism......it's just an economy-fresh up

Well Mauti, I don't think your analogy fits the situation.  It would be more like the polliceman pulled you over for doing something wrong, you admitted to having a kilo of drugs.  He said he wouldn't punish you for those if you proved that you destroyed them before he cam back, but when he came back, you claimed it was only a few ounces, and didn't have any proof that you said you'd give.

Now, I'll give you the words right from Blix.  Yes, I watched this live again so that I could judge for myslef and not just take the clips from the news.

Blix said that in the declaration submitted by Iraq (in response to the USA's pressure) back in December, they omitted data needed to account for their past stocks of anthrax, VX gas and long range missiles.  And for the really good part, I'll quote him:

"Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it," he said. "Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."

So you can see where the UN stands on who has to prove it.  Iraq.

Other things I noticed:
Half the ambassadors weren't listening or taking notes (Powell was taking a shit load of notes).  They read from prepared speaches after Blix.  They had made up their minds before Blix ever came to the table.  That's bullshit, no matter which side of the argument you are on.

Of note for those that will say the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, they did find things that are proscribed, just not full weapons.  Like rocket engines 5 times more powerful then allowed.

One thing I found very funny was that the aluminum tubes that much hub-bub is about.  Some people claim that these are built to the specs to use in the purification of uranium.  Iraq says it's just for building missile casings.  Well, the UN told them to destroy those before because that was for the making of missle casing that they aren't allowed to have anyway.  Classic.

One thing I found disturbing is how few actual inspectors there are in the 250 people there, and how few inspections they've done.  I don't consider 400 inspections in a country the size of Iraq to be a big number.  I could hide anything from 100 inspectors in just the city of Detroit, let alone the whole state.

A last thought.  Things that the UN has been wanting for over 10 years they are just starting to get.  U2 fly overs, the ability to interview people without observers, for Saddam to declare it illegal to import or produce WMD's (he did that about an hour before Blix started today).  Does anyone think that Iraq finally gave into any of these things for any reason other then the looming threat of war?  They still have much more to do to keep up their end, so it's not time to back off either in my opinion.  If they come clean with all their responsibilities then war should be avoided.  Iraq is making steps in the right direction, but it has much further to go, and I don't think they are going to continue without that gun to their back (they have caved more in the last few months then in the previous 10 years, there is a reason for it.)

LOL Abe, I started with an anology closer to yours, but had to shorten it because my post was too long.  But you are right, it's still more accurate your way.

Great analogies bucc, abe!

I've been thinking about this whole Iraq thing a lot recently, it's hard not to. It's become clear to me that military action will probably be neccesary in Iraq. It saddens me to say this because I hate war and up to this point I've been against taking military action in Iraq. I just didn't see why NOW was so important, containment just seemed like a better alternative.

Two things came together today to change my mind. Powell's speech today before the UN was one, a movie called "The Pianist" is the other. Powell's speech helped me realize that the burden of proof is on Iraq to come clean, we already fought one war over this if it takes a second war to finish it, that's entirely Saddam's fault. He is the one who is making it neccessary to take military action. If he would just cooperate completly there would be no need for violence.

The Pianist reminded me of the brutality of the german army during the occupation of Poland in WW2. It reminded me that we, not as Americans or Europeans, but as Members of the Human Race, have a moral responsibility to stop atrocities from happening. To stand by and let a government in power brutalize a people is inexcusable. The people of Iraq cannot wait any longer to be freed from Saddam's terrible power!

Now, that said, does this mean I think we should attack right now? No. I am all for giving one last chance, Saddam has had 12 years of last chances so what's the hurt in one more? Give him one more chance: Immeadiatly (within 24 hours) disclose the location of ALL banned materials. This is not negotiable. If he does not comply, fuck him.

I just want to post that I am really happy that we could discuss out a topic without ending in a flamewar.

Although probably none didn't change their opinions I think most see the picture from all sites now and also learned some interesting facts .

I hope we'll see more of those high quality discussions here.

Bye,

Mauti