Michael Doelle wrote:

You do realize you're sitting in a country, relying on media that is against
the events currently going on, right?  You do realize that your media is no
more reliable or unbiased than anybody elses, right?

>Right.  Let's look back at a few facts:
1. The U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction and other
weapons related violations of U.N. resolutions that had not been enforced in
more
than 10 years.<

None have been found, but that's why the weapons inspectors were there,
after all. Until Shrub decided that he didn't care about WMD anyway.

Your information conflicts with U.S. media reports of findings of the
inspection teams.  U.S. media coverage included pictures of missiles that
your information says weren't found.

>2. The U.S. said that Sadaam suppports terrorism and, as a result, the
> U.S. was more concerned about the weapons that were in Iraq than the would
have
> been if they were in a less critical country.<

'Less critical",  as in Pakistan or Saudi?  Most people in DC know, that
Saddam has no links to Al-Qaida. The poor forgeries that were presented to
the UNSC underlined that point. Conclusion: no proof available beyond "we
know sumpin, but we can't tell ya".

Less critical as in any country that currently has weapons of mass
destruction.  Iraq is not the only country that's got them and not the only
country that's in violation of U.N. resolutions.  They're just the one that
combines their demonstrated willingness to use them against others, support
of terrorism and Sadaam.

>3. The U.S. asked the U.N. to enforce the sanctions that were part of the
resolutions they had passed and failed to enforce and the U.N. did . . .
well, the U.N. did nothing.<

Nonsense, UNMOVIC has been quite successful. So were the previous
inspections. Madass is the most disarmed dictator around.

Sadaam says he's disarmed.  Evidence says otherwise.  It isn't my fault you
did see the pictures.

>4. A man living in Israel, who told you about the gas masks sitting in his
living room, told you only a little about how bad it is to live next door
to
a terrorist country, one that has openly stated that he, his country and
his
religion are targets of his hate.<

I value his views. But Saddam hasn't been a serious threat to Israel since
Desert Storm.

I value them too.  Define serious threat.  Ask Kuty if those gas masks are
there just on the off chance that somebody will break wind in the
neighborhood.

He was in the 80s, back when "we" still needed him against
Iran. Let's see, the US goes to Baghdad, another dictator get's installed.
Needs to be protected against the evil Iranians and, of course, against
Turkey. Gets lots of weapons, etc., etc., back to square one.

Isn't a shame that the much smarter German and French governments won't have
anything to do with the outcome.  They've done so well in similar
situations.

 can not legally be in Iraq, that have been fired from Iraq,
into his country, civilian areas of his country, without regard for how
many or who dies.<

And anyway, the absolute last thing the US-UK
coalition needs, are overtones that they are somehow fighting on behalf of
Israel.

The statement is, we'll oppose terrorism where ever it occurs.  That applies
to those that attack Israel, just like it does to those that attacked us and
those that may attack others.

>6. The news has told you about missiles fired by Iraq in this war, that by
U.N. resolutions, can not legally be in Iraq.<

No SCUDs were fired so far. And since the inpectors weren't given time to
find them all, what the hell are you complaining about anyway? Iraq cannot
use what they have to defend?

Your news reports differ from mine and I'm not complaining.  I'm supporting
what is going on now.  If I recall correctly, it is you who is complaining.

>7. Hopefully, the news has also told you about the perimeter around Bagdad
that, according to Iraq communications, if crossed, will result in use of
chemical or biological weapons.<

So far, that's mainly propaganda from Baghdad. Iraq probably still has some
chem weapons stashed away. Which most likely would have been found by UN
inspectors.

Sure they would have been.  We all know how difficult it is to hide
something from a few people when you only have an entire country to hide it
in.

>Which of the issues has the U.S. failed to confirm?<

What?

Not what, which.

>You say that the world as a whole sees this as an imperialist move by the
U.S.<

That's pretty much correct.

That's pretty much your opinion.

>1. France, who does not back the invasion, is known to have substantial,
that's substantial to France, contracts with Iraq for goods and materials
that have already been supplied to Iraq, in return for oil which France
does
not yet have.  Do you suppose it is coincidence that they fail to back
U.N.
resolutions that they helped formulate?  Do you maybe think that it's not
the U.S. whose primary concern is oil, but France?<

The major Iraqi trade partner as of January 2003 was the US, go check the
CIA fact book on-line. LUK-Oil and some French companies are indeed
exploring Iraqi oil. Nothing illegal about it, all UN sanctioned. Not what
uncle Rush told you, eh? And if the oil is no object in this campaign, how
come tha Rummy is telling Jacques, that he's going to lose all those juicy
contracts? Halliburton already acquired the first contracts as we speak. UN
oil-for-food is being revived. According to the UN Charter, the occupying
force is responsible for feeding the occupied people. But what the hey, let
them pay for it themselves.

I don't recall saying it was illegal.  Are you claiming information that
France has sold signficant goods to Iraq in return for oil that they won't
get if Sadaam is removed is inaccurate or is that what you call "exploring"?

Since when did you speak for the world as a whole?  Count the number of
votes in the U.N. and you tell us who the "world as a whole" sides with.
Tell me how you think the vote would go if the U.S. stopped all foreign aid
to countries that did not vote with us, diverting it to countries that have
proven to be willing to stand at our side when necessary or, better yet,
diverting it back to our own people.<

No shit. How many votes would you get, if you didn't bribe most of them
into voting for you. And you grossly overestimate the volume of US aid
anyway. Go to the OECD web pages and have a look. Norway, Holland, Japan,
Germany, etc., etc. pay a LOT more than the US per capita. Can you name the
4 major receipients of US aid? Homework for you.

Feel free to give the bribes back any time you chose.

>3. When was the last time you can recall that the U.S. has taken military
action in a country, any country, and retained control of that country or
its assets?<

All of Central America, just as an example.

Which part of Central America did the U.S. retain control of?

>  What, if anything, makes you think it will be different this time. <

No reason to think so at all. But we can talk about it again in about a
year or so. If Iraq is an independent democracy then I'll eat my hat and
invite you over to be a witness.

I can't guarantee that Iraq will be an independent democracy.  How about you
eat your hat if they are simply not owned by the imperialist U.S. you seem
so sure is a reality?  One thing is certain, though.  If it were dependent
on France or Germany's actions, Iraq would be sure to be just what it is
now.

> Did you happen to notice that France, you know, the country that
wanted no part of the war, wants very much to be part of the reconstruction
of Iraq after the war.  Do you suppose their might be motives there that
you
should be concerned about, like imperialism perhaps . . . or oil?<

Umm, if Iraq indeed becomes an independent Democracy, who should decide on
who they can trade with?

I didn't say trade, did I?

You got that backwards anyway, it's the US that have stated that the
international community should contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq. So
if France pays, maybe they
should also get some contracts? No?

Correct, my answer is No.

> ...  given the way that France and a few other
countries have failed to back U.N. resolutions in the past and in this
case,
I think I'll forgive my country for acting in a way that might, note only
might, not have been the best or only way to deal with a problem that
desperately need to be dealt with.

Translation: they failed to give the Neocon War Party a blank cheque and
will be dealt with later.

Funny, I can't find any of those words in my statements.  I only find your
bias or at least that of your country's media.  Perhaps you sould, as they
say, remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the splinter
from mine.

>Maybe the next terrorist action on a 9/11 scale will be in one of those
countries that things Sadaam is not enough of a problem to require a
solution.<

You wish. Rest snipped.

Not me.  My wish is for the problem was removed.  It appears to be your wish
that it be allowed to continue.

Lee