I see on the news that the US says Iraq is not cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
Could someone explain to me exactly HOW they are not cooperating

Good question. The U.S. has chosen an assertion that anyone can debate, perhaps so they can’t be proven wrong. Here’s a Google search ( http://www.google.com/search?as_q=iraq+cooperating+&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=weapons+inspectors&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=m6&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cnn.com&safe=images) on Iraqi cooperation where all sources are CNN. Click on the Advanced Search link at the top of the page to add or remove sources.

In 1991 Iraq was told by the U.N. to disarm. 12 years later he still hasn't - despite years of U.N. weapons inspectors. This indicates non cooperation at the very least,don't you think??

Reid,

Could someone explain to me exactly HOW they are not cooperating

Iraq is cooperating, but not completely.

On the positive side:

1) Iraq is not restricting access to sites.

2) Iraq is now allowing aerial surveilance.

3) Iraq is encouraging Iraqi scientists to have private interviews with weapons inspectors.

4) Iraq has provided information about its past WMD program.

On the negative side:

1) Iraq has not accounted for all of the chemical and biological weapons in previous reports (Iraq claims that it destroyed the weapons, but presented no evidence).

2) Iraq is building missiles that may exceed the 150 km limit that was imposed by the UN in 1991. (Iraq claims that when guidance systems are installed in missiles, the missiles range will be under 150 km).

According to Germany, France, and Russia, even though Iraq isn't in complete compliance with the UN resolution, it's still getting a passing grade. According to the U.S. and U.K., since Iraq isn't in complete compliance, it failed the test.

One more thing, since no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the inspectors, Germany, France, and Russia assume that Iraq is "innocent until proven guilty". On the other hand, the U.S. and the U.K. assume that Iraq is "guilty until proven innocent".

Tom

Prosoothus, good summary. Still, no reason whatsoever to start bombing. That thing with the missiles is just stupid

Reid,

That thing with the missiles is just stupid

Yes, especially since Iraq declared those missiles in its weapons decleration, and if the weapons inspectors find that the missiles exceed the 150 km range, they'll just destroy them. I see no (legitimate) reason for war, either.

Tom

Iraq is in material breach of a variety of UN resolutions ment to disarm it most specifically by not taking the inspectors to their banned weaponry and simply saying, "Here they are. They're all yours. We don't want them anymore."

UN inspectors aren't supposed to be detectives, they're supposed to be inspecting the weapons Iraq is feeling compelled to show them straight out.

It's nice to know that after the US goes to Iraq and does the UN's job for it it can blithly ignore any retributive UN resolutions -- with Iraq-like indifference -- as being nothing more than the toothless growlings of institutional impotence.

Iraq is doing every single thing required in its dealings with the UN inspectors. They have failed in only one area: they have not fully accounted for weapons which were known to exist more then ten years ago. Yes, that's right, they are about to be attacked because they did not keep perfectly thorough records of their process of destroying things. The bureaucrat in the whitehouse is making war on bad record-keeping.

Yeah, that reminds me of the US’s heated calls for Vietnam to account for every single MIA, presumably even those whose bodies disintegrated in friendly fire. Clinton put an end to that nonsense.

If I were Hussein I certainly wouldn’t have destroyed those weapons. Why comply with an agreement made under duress when compliance would allow someone else to more easily steal the country? The US isn’t concerned about compliance for defensive reasons. They want to know where those weapons are so they won’t be subjected to them when they invade.

Originally posted by Adam
Iraq is doing every single thing required in its dealings with the UN inspectors.

I believe Iraq said they would allow flyovers only if the no-fly zones were eliminated, and that scientists could be interviewed if the Iraqis were allowed to tape the conversations. The US didn't say the latter was unacceptable; Blix did.

They have failed in only one area: they have not fully accounted for weapons which were known to exist more then ten years ago. Yes, that's right, they are about to be attacked because they did not keep perfectly thorough records of their process of destroying things. The bureaucrat in the whitehouse is making war on bad record-keeping.

Well, you would think when it was a matter of WMDs, and the Iraqis were supposed to be complying with a UN resolution, that they would have been real sticklers about keeping efficient records. Surely they weren't so stupid as to think they would never have to account for the weapons.

what about the ones bombed in the last war?

what if those who knew the stuff was killed

sort of hard to keep records when people r getting blown up

Iraq is doing every single thing required in its dealings with the UN inspectors.
Not.

You must be from Mars. I understand the air there has almost no free oxygen near the ground.

Reid, the way i see it, it doesn't matter if Iraq is not complying, even if they DID have weapons of mass destruction, and here are some real simple reasons why anyone can see my point of view:

a. Iraq has never hurt us in any way, period. MAYBE they have tried screwing us over by threatening to shut off oil connections, but that's info you'd have to dig pretty deep for i suspect.

b. Iraq is no more a threat to us than our own government, or our own citizens. war is a pretty scary thing when you think about it... it can break out anywhere at anytime. all one has to do is learn how to make a bomb, make it and blow themselves up taking others down with them, like those crazy Taliban guys. it's always been that way. the whole war on terror is this brand new PR thing that has one purpose only: rallying support for (yet another) Middle Eastern invasion.

c. the U.S. gov't is crying because they are losing control over the world. awwwee, poor widdle united states of shit can't go around bullying people for their lunch money anymore. poor widdle united states of shit has to start facing realitya nd get off it's high horse.



yes, i am denouncing our country as a sovereign nation. we're a filthy stain on the carpet of life.

well, aside from all those cool protesters who risked going to jail today. :D

"REID: Iraq not cooperating, please explain... "

It is a nonsense, because it is logical impossible to proof a negation: how can somobody proof that he do not have a given item? It is against any basic concept of logic and justice, but this is not important. There is no proof about the existence of any WMD in Irak, but this is also not important, many will be imported and "discovered" after the invasion.
The whole affair is a pretext - idiotic - for a pure aggresive war, designed for (1) control of the oil reserves, and (2) remaping the area.
The long - and lasting- effect, will be an intense hate against everything american. We are raising a whole world against us, and have no excuse other than the stupidity of our officials.
The slogan of "war of eliberation" it is also a cheap propaganda piece, in which only the politicians and media seems to believe.

Regards,
Cornelius.

How are they not cooperating? They STILL have our oil under their sand.

From: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

Security Council
4707th Meeting (AM)

IRAQ COOPERATING WITH DISARMAMENT PROCEDURES, BUT MANY BANNED WEAPONS REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR, INSPECTORS TELL SECURITY COUNCIL

‘Immediate, Unconditional and Active’ Cooperation Needed to Resolve Questions; France, China, Russian Federation, Germany Support Continued Inspection Process

The heads of the weapons inspections regime in Iraq reported to the Security Council today that procedural cooperation in the disarmament process in Iraq continued to improve in recent weeks, and to date they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but many banned weapons remained unaccounted for and that could only be resolved through Iraq’s “immediate, unconditional and active” cooperation.

The Council was meeting for the first time since United States Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case for disarming Iraq by forcelast week, presenting evidence intended to show Iraq was deceiving inspectors in its determination to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The inspections began on

27 November and were authorized by resolution 1441, which gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” dating to 1991 and the end of the Persian Gulf war.

The Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), Hans Blix, who last briefed the Council on

27 January, said more than 400 inspections at 300 sites had been conducted without notice, access was almost always provided promptly, and there was no convincing evidence that Iraq knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The recent acceptance of aerial surveillance and interviews of scientists without witnesses, as well as appointment by Iraq of a second commission entrusted with relevant documentation search, had also been positive developments.



http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/reports2.html
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6179&Cr=Iraq&Cr1=inspect
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6169&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

Originally posted by Asguard
what about the ones bombed in the last war?

what if those who knew the stuff was killed

sort of hard to keep records when people r getting blown up

The last war was in '91. The records should be from any post-'98 destruction of weapons, the year the last inspectors were kicked out of Iraq after reporting that Iraq had large amounts of WMDs. Those are the weapons that there should be records for showing they were destroyed. Iraq is not providing documentation of their destruction. I'm all for avoiding war too, but I don't think continuing to poke through buildings are going to find anything. These things are in all likelihood located in those deep bunkers. Dr. Khidhir Hamza, the former head of Saddam's nuclear program, said that the program is still ongoing and that is a clear threat to the West. While I can understand an anti-war sentiment among people, I really don't understand the naivety by so many that Saddam is simply an innocent victim of Bush's aggression.

http://www.perspicacityonline.com/207/Iraq20716.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/hamza011222.htm

"These things are in all likelihood located in those deep bunkers."

...where they pose no threat justifying invasion.

Maybe I'm reaching saturation, talking, protesting, thinking. I feel much of the hair-splitting finer points of truth about Iraqi weapons has little bearing on the future.

Multiply all of Saddam's weapons a hundredfold, and they compare patheticly to the retaliations that will answer American occupations in the Middle East.

America is so tragicly distracted. The United States' special relationship with Israel now includes identical mentalities in top leadership, that the Arab world will be subdued by force and threats. On this course, Americans will soon be living as Israelis do: Afraid, volatile, "addicted to WMDs" (to borrow a phrase) and mobilized military at a level they cannot sustain psychologically or economically. Israel is drowning, and may pull the U.S. down with her. And as the U.S. begins to founder, she is taking down the U.N. and NATO. I have a sense that a new geopolitical shakedown is about to result in a new landscape.

*ding*"Ladies and Gentleman, please fasten your seatbelts. It's going to get a little, uh, bumpy."

Originally posted by hypewaders
...where they pose no threat justifying invasion.

Won't argue that. But if Bush backs off and inspections continue without cooperation what will happen? They won't find anything, and eventually Saddam will feel safe enough to boot out inspectors once again. In the meantime, Saddam can continue with his underground nuclear program. Even German intelligence reports say he will have usable nukes by 2005. So eventually this process will have to start all over again, but this time Saddam will be in a much stronger position. I wish inspections would work, but I don't think so. I wish Saddam would agree to vacate his throne and go into exile, but I don't think so. His former top man says he will be inclined to use a nuke. I think it would be suicidal, but who knows his mind?

America is so tragicly distracted. The United States' special relationship with Israel now includes identical mentalities in top leadership, that the Arab world will be subdued by force and threats. On this course, Americans will soon be living as Israelis do: Afraid, volatile, "addicted to WMDs" (to borrow a phrase) and mobilized military at a level they cannot sustain psychologically or economically.

Tragically true.

Israel is drowning, and may pull the U.S. down with her. And as the U.S. begins to founder, she is taking down the U.N. and NATO. I have a sense that a new geopolitical shakedown is about to result in a new landscape.

The UN has been a failure in major crises anyway. Perhaps it is time for a restructuring of NATO anyway. However, NATO has survived serious disagreements before. In '56, it was the US opposed to Britain and France, when they backed Israel's attack on the Sinai, because the Britain and France wanted control of the Suez back after Nasser nationalized it. It caused a serious rift in NATO at the time. Democracies generally weather their differences because in the long run they still share so many common interests

*ding*"Ladies and Gentleman, please fasten your seatbelts. It's going to get a little, uh, bumpy."

And pass the popcorn.

why is it such a big deal that saddam has WMD? so what? that doesn't mean he's gonna use them, it just means he's becoming just as powerful as other nations who possess WMD.

and if possessing WMD is such a crime according to the UN, then why are we allowed to build them? why are we allowed to used Depleted Uranium, which is a WMD (very toxic and to date still cannot be controlled, but still being used irrespronsibly by the U.S.)? why why why??

we just aren't even acting fair about this at all.

"And pass the popcorn."
Mangled people ruin my appetite, though.

"if Bush backs off and inspections continue without cooperation what will happen?"
Thankfully, not very much- present level of cooperation is sufficient.

"German intelligence reports say he will have usable nukes by 2005."
Saddam is contained, watched, and vulnerable. His organization cannot aquire and assemble the materials in secret. His Evil Underground Lair is spy-novel nonsense. IF the West showed wisdom and restraint, Saddam's many enemies (let's not forget Qaeda in this respect either) will likely take care of him.

Coldrake, don't forget what unspeakable things Fidel Castro may be doing in his Secret Labs :bugeye:

We have an easy choice at this juncture, proven effective with past containments:

Let it be:cool:

Isn't it interesting that Mr. G seems to have made like a tree and split (or made like a banana and leaved) after Adam made that post... maybe he's an illiterate retard? ;)

Easy, now-- I'd welcome him back. it gets boring "preaching to the choir"

The hell-bent Busheviks are being exposed for obstructing the inspections process:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=378163

GB-GIL Trans-global:
Isn't it interesting that Mr. G seems to have...
Seem whatever suits you according to your personal needs.
I don't find that particularly interesting. But if it floats your boat, well, who am I to argue?

Wellcome back!

To be bored, too? No doubt.

Originally posted by hypewaders
Coldrake, don't forget what unspeakable things Fidel Castro may be doing in his Secret Labs :bugeye:

Fidel lost his patron when the USSR imploded. He has no money. Saddam still has his buddy Chirac and billions of dollars through oil sales that should have been feeding his people. And those $$$ just light up Chirac's beady blue eyes.

Saddam is contained, watched, and vulnerable. His organization cannot aquire and assemble the materials in secret. His Evil Underground Lair is spy-novel nonsense.

His former weapons chief seems to disagree with you.

IF the West showed wisdom and restraint, Saddam's many enemies (let's not forget Qaeda in this respect either) will likely take care of him.

Yes, they've been so close for so long. But unless they take out the regime he will simply be replaced by his son. And that will sure be better.

We have an easy choice at this juncture, proven effective with past containments

...he said as he marched into the sea.:rolleyes:

"We have an easy choice at this juncture, proven effective with past containments"

Remember the USSR?

My feet are dry.

His former weapons chief seems to disagree with you.
he's just on a different payroll now. (edit)... than he was before.
Left meself wide open there;)

Originally posted by Coldrake
While I can understand an anti-war sentiment among people, I really don't understand the naivety by so many that Saddam is simply an innocent victim of Bush's aggression.

Exactly, people are so nescient it is laughable.

"Let's not invade them since they did not keep track of their WMD's." :rolleyes:

He is already guilty of having WMD's and we want proof that these WMD's are obliterated - no proof, we attack.

Give me a damn break, which country is stupid enough to believe that? Why would you not keep a record of your WMD's?

It is frivolous, Sadam is not innocent, he needs to die.

Why is the U.S. so concerned about Sadam having WMD's? Because he has used it before and won't hesitate to use them again.

Why is there a no-fly zone between Turkey and Iraq? The Curbs (whatever they are called) are being oppressed and killed by Sadam since they want to have a voice in the Iraq government.

U.S. should invade, establish a democracy and everything will become better.

Look at Afghanistan for crying out loud, everyone say the exact same thing as they say about Iraq right now. Don't attack, look at Afghanistan now, how are they doing?

Admit it, the world will become better if it was just like the U.S. Democracy is the best form of government period.

"Why is the U.S. so concerned about Sadam having WMD's? Because he has used it before and won't hesitate to use them again."

He hesitated all the way through Gulf War 1, and for the past 12 years. Back in the 80's, he did use them, criminally- courtesy of US supply and intelligence.

"Look at Afghanistan for crying out loud, everyone say the exact same thing as they say about Iraq right now. Don't attack, look at Afghanistan now, how are they doing?"

They are trying to pick up the pieces as they have after every war. They have no central government as after every war. Many are freezing, starving, and dying of curable disease as after every war. Fundamentalists like the Taliban are returning as after every war. Foreigners have little concern for them as after every war. A puppet regime is in Kabul as before every next war.

"U.S. should invade, establish a democracy and everything will become better."
Who's sounding nescient now? Do you know the demographics of Iraq, or the history of US intervention?

"Admit it, the world will become better if it was just like the U.S."
:bugeye:

what agreesive controling and ignoring every international law?????

Originally posted by hypewaders
"We have an easy choice at this juncture, proven effective with past containments"

Remember the USSR?

My feet are dry.

Containing the Soviets during the days of MAD is hardly the same as the baby-handling of Iraq as proposed by his friends. With the exception of the Carter era, we played hardball with the USSR. If not for MAD it's likely we would have attempted to change that regime too.

*And a quick edit: We did try and change the Soviet regime in 1919 after WWI; the Brtitish talked the US into committing troops along with Britain and France into Russia to attempt to help the non-Bolsheviks replace the Reds with a White government. It was a half-assed attempt, it failed, and it took another 70 years for the totalitarian state to collapse.

he's just on a different payroll now. (edit)... than he was before.
Left meself wide open there;)

Ah yes. The old 'sold out for money' response. Always on the left wingers' excuse shelf and readily usable when no other explanation will fit. :p

we will eventually prove that he does have the wmd's when he starts using them against us. until then he will continue to play hide and seek with the u.n. inspectors. just a matter of time.

"If not for MAD..."

We have MAD now and evermore. It would not take ICBMs to destroy the USA. Hatred is the danger: The means of murder and destruction are forever accessible to anyone possessed with enough anger, given present and future technology/transportation.

ok, The Chosen... you apparently haven't done much study into this subject, so it's easy to see that you are just falling for all the pro-war propaganda.

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Give me a damn break, which country is stupid enough to believe that? Why would you not keep a record of your WMD's?

It is frivolous, Sadam is not innocent, he needs to die.


that's just absurd. nobody needs to die. helped to see the light of peace, yes, maybe even hospitalized for being insane and out of control, but death and destruction is not the answer when you're goal is peace, which is why Bush has been saying he wants to invade.


Why is the U.S. so concerned about Sadam having WMD's? Because he has used it before and won't hesitate to use them again.


actually, so has the U.S. remember the a-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; remember Agent Orange (a supposed 'accident') and Napalm in Vietnam; and most recently remember Depleted Uranium in the Gulf War. these are all weapons of mass destruction, the effect of which people still suffer from to this day.

Bush was even talking about 'mini-nukes', trying to make nuking sound 'safe', when in reality, when you drop a nuke, radiation from it gets into the atmosphere and spreads around the world. and if you drop a bunch of them, it's like, why not just drop one big one?? anyways, it's not a mystery to me why there is so much cancer in the world today, and the people developing this shit are U.S. companies like Monsanto aiding the U.S. gov't and military.


Why is there a no-fly zone between Turkey and Iraq? The Curbs (whatever they are called) are being oppressed and killed by Sadam since they want to have a voice in the Iraq government.

U.S. should invade, establish a democracy and everything will become better.

Look at Afghanistan for crying out loud, everyone say the exact same thing as they say about Iraq right now. Don't attack, look at Afghanistan now, how are they doing?

Admit it, the world will become better if it was just like the U.S. Democracy is the best form of government period.

see, you just don't know shit about this subject, do you? let me give you a crash course in Middle Eastern affairs...

the Middle East is currently becoming a wasteland of contaminated soil, infestations of landmines and various other booby-traps, people are dying of starvation, disease and bombs, all because of two major things: oil and power.

the Middle East is a gateway to conquering Eurasia. it's got tons of oil and it's connected to every other major nation of the continent. in the past few decades, Russia and Pakistan have been tearing Afghanistan to shreds while the Taliban is brainwashing people with extreme fundamental religious docterines and gaining control over Afghanistan. Russia, Pakistan and the Taliban all are immediate residents of the area and have immediate interest in controlling it. So, as far as the U.S. in concerened, we really shouldn't even be sticking our noses in there, save for the possibility that the Taliban was behind 911.

the Northern Alliance, on the other hand, is a group of Afghani people who just want their country back, and instead have been used as pawns by the U.S. and Pakistan for at least 15 years. they had a strong and passionate, patriotic leader, Massoud, who simply wanted people to be able to live there freely as they had for centuries. his arch enemy was Osama bin Laden, who sent over two suicide bombers and killed Massoud right before 911. the Northern Alliance then had no leader, the Taliban regained control over Afghanistan, and the rest is where we're at right now with them. the crazy part is that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. GAVE $43 MILLION IN CASH to the Taliban in May of 2001, supposedly to help with a drought at the time.

now, as for Iraq... you have what used to be an insignificant political structure suddenly getting access to technology and weapons from somewhere over the past few decades. hmmm... let's see where they got it from.. RUSSIA, the UNITED STATES and GERMANY. anyone see a pattern here?? Iraq is pissed off because they, like Afghanistan, are being set up left and right. they get their military trained by us, we sell them bombs, then we send in weapons inspectors saying they're breaking the law. meanwhile, we don't pay them enough for their oil which is where the U.S. gets most of its oil from.

so, i say forget all this about a totalitarian gov't in Iraq or setting up democracy over there. it's bullshit. our country back home isn't even democratic anymore and our civil rights are being taken away in the name of this so-called war on terrorism, while the Middle East, which used to be a beautiful place, is now getting destroyed, the culprets holding themselves unaccountable for the
destruction.

yeah, you can blame Saddam and the Taliban, and i do too. but it's not just him, it's Russia, the U.S., Pakistan, Isreal, and now Britain (no surprise there).

....

Originally posted by zechaeriah
ok, The Chosen... you apparently haven't done much study into this subject, so it's easy to see that you are just falling for all the pro-war propaganda.

Definitely not, I have many reasons to support the war. Democracy needs to be established in Iraq and that is my firm opinion that once demcracy is established everything will be fine.

Sadam suppresses his own people, all the money from the oil that he receives, why isn't Iraq's economy doing great?.

If democracy was installed, you will see that everyone will benefit. Afghanistan is improving greatly, they have a central government, slightly unstable, but once stable they can get back on their own two feet and the U.S. may leave.

I personally don't even want the war because I don't want the U.S. wasting its money establishing more bases around the world. Germany, Korea (where I live), etc. We have secured democracy for those respective nations and respect their sovereignty. Once Germany is stable, we will leave. Once South Korea and North Korea have stable relations, we will leave.

Why is South Korea doing so well??? They are open to the world, they have a DEMOCRACY, they don't brainwash their own people, they don't practice isolationism, unlike their North Korean counterparts.

North Korea also must become a democracy, I can't imagine so many refugees trying to flee from what i like to call, "hell."

that's just absurd. nobody needs to die. helped to see the light of peace, yes, maybe even hospitalized for being insane and out of control, but death and destruction is not the answer when you're goal is peace, which is why Bush has been saying he wants to invade.

actually, so has the U.S. remember the a-bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; remember Agent Orange (a supposed 'accident') and Napalm in Vietnam; and most recently remember Depleted Uranium in the Gulf War. these are all weapons of mass destruction, the effect of which people still suffer from to this day.

I agree with you, but the Nuke on Japan is a sensitive issue, is was a World War. We don't want mad men having WMD's because we don't want another World War that could result in a nuclear war.

Bush was even talking about 'mini-nukes', trying to make nuking sound 'safe', when in reality, when you drop a nuke, radiation from it gets into the atmosphere and spreads around the world. and if you drop a bunch of them, it's like, why not just drop one big one?? anyways, it's not a mystery to me why there is so much cancer in the world today, and the people developing this shit are U.S. companies like Monsanto aiding the U.S. gov't and military.

Bush talked about "mini nukes"? Where? Reference the link. I don't support that at all, period.

see, you just don't know shit about this subject, do you? let me give you a crash course in Middle Eastern affairs...

the Middle East is currently becoming a wasteland of contaminated soil, infestations of landmines and various other booby-traps, people are dying of starvation, disease and bombs, all because of two major things: oil and power.

And if the US intervenes, things will improve, you just watch.

I mean, who cares and leave them in their sorry state of affairs?

I don't want the US wasting its money on the Middle East, but it will be for the better good of the world.

the Middle East is a gateway to conquering Eurasia. it's got tons of oil and it's connected to every other major nation of the continent. in the past few decades, Russia and Pakistan have been tearing Afghanistan to shreds while the Taliban is brainwashing people with extreme fundamental religious docterines and gaining control over Afghanistan. Russia, Pakistan and the Taliban all are immediate residents of the area and have immediate interest in controlling it. So, as far as the U.S. in concerened, we really shouldn't even be sticking our noses in there, save for the possibility that the Taliban was behind 911.

Taliban has lost in Afghanistan.

the Northern Alliance, on the other hand, is a group of Afghani people who just want their country back, and instead have been used as pawns by the U.S. and Pakistan for at least 15 years. they had a strong and passionate, patriotic leader, Massoud, who simply wanted people to be able to live there freely as they had for centuries. his arch enemy was Osama bin Laden, who sent over two suicide bombers and killed Massoud right before 911. the Northern Alliance then had no leader, the Taliban regained control over Afghanistan, and the rest is where we're at right now with them. the crazy part is that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. GAVE $43 MILLION IN CASH to the Taliban in May of 2001, supposedly to help with a drought at the time.

That was back then and yes the CIA even trained Osama Bin Laden, but later he got out of control and started attacking the US's allies, etc. You know the story. We orginially HELPED him to fight off the Soviet Union.

We have always tried to HELP, you are being cynical and thinking we just want that oil. Why the fuck are we sending food and supplies over there to the poverished people?

Oil can be a part of it, but it is not the ONLY BIG picture there.

now, as for Iraq... you have what used to be an insignificant political structure suddenly getting access to technology and weapons from somewhere over the past few decades. hmmm... let's see where they got it from.. RUSSIA, the UNITED STATES and GERMANY. anyone see a pattern here?? Iraq is pissed off because they, like Afghanistan, are being set up left and right. they get their military trained by us, we sell them bombs, then we send in weapons inspectors saying they're breaking the law. meanwhile, we don't pay them enough for their oil which is where the U.S. gets most of its oil from.

It's so easy, account for your WMD's you had used. Where are they? Disarm - Iraq: "We don't have them, or we are sorry people that keep bad records." Sounds like deception.

We will see what happens with this whole issue. Once the US establishes a democracy everything will be ok.

The only thing I am concerned for is the Muslim World. Democracy allows for womens to have equal rights and voices, in the Muslim world that is another story.

This is my opinion, but I believe we should trash such religious orthodoxy and embrace democractic views, all are equal.

The Muslim are concerned that the establishment of democracy in Iraq will weaken the Muslim world, that is one reason they do not want war.

so, i say forget all this about a totalitarian gov't in Iraq or setting up democracy over there. it's bullshit. our country back home isn't even democratic anymore and our civil rights are being taken away in the name of this so-called war on terrorism, while the Middle East, which used to be a beautiful place, is now getting destroyed, the culprets holding themselves unaccountable for the
destruction.

We are democractic, what makes you think we aren't. Are we allowed to protest? Yes.

Are people in North Korea allowed to protest? They get jailed or killed.

yeah, you can blame Saddam and the Taliban, and i do too. but it's not just him, it's Russia, the U.S., Pakistan, Isreal, and now Britain (no surprise there).

Yes, everyone is involved and partly all their faults.

money is usless if there is nothing to spend it on and seems to ME that washinton is stoping him spending it

B\W you DO know that the "no fly zones" are a breach of international LAW?

The Chosen, i wrote a lengthy response and totally lost it.

in short, there are plenty of places on the net that talk about the mini nukes thing. it has been mentioned in USA Today and i suspect you would find info about it on alternative media sources such as http://alternet.org , http://indymedia.org and others. a really good alternative talk radio is http://www.radio4all.org/unwelcome which interviews people who have tried to get coverage in major media and have been denied. CNN, MCNBC, TIME, BBC, these are all companies infiltrated by the U.S. and UK gov'ts and i highly doubt you'll hear any real news there regarding foreign affairs. they only tell you what they want you to know.

and this chanting of "everything will be fine once we establish a democracy" makes you sound like a brainwashed fool. and i don't mean that as an insult, i mean that as a heads-up, so i apologize in advance. i just think someone needs to tell you this before you find yourself in the endless black hole of a war-enriched society.

also, you apparently think all Muslim people are the same, are totally ignorant of slave labor and other attrocities plaguing South Korea, and are acting like the U.S. is made of one divine political party who's goal is to help the world.. well, let me advise you to read up on U.S. terrorism.

right now, union workers and leaders are being gunned down in Central and South America simply for asking for better working conditions and better wages. who's doing the killing? the paramilitary, whose leaders are trained by the U.S. in Fort Benning, GA at the School of the Americas.

right now, Afghanistan people are still getting killed by bombs every day, either by the Taliban (U.S. armed and trained) or by landmines and grenades left over from previous attacks by the U.S., Russia, Suadia Arabia and Pakistan. the Afghans are people who just want peace and their country back so they can live again.

right now, the U.S. is pushing for war with Iraq, when people in Iraq are STILL suffering from Depleted Uranium used by the U.S. in the Guld War (not to mention our OWN soldiers who are still suffering from DU, who have still not received medical treatment from the U.S.).

right now, U.S. owned corporations are running slave labor operations in South Korea, Indonesia, all over Africa, China, Central, and South America. all just so you can hold a can of Coke and spill it on your Gap t-shirt and clean it with your Tide detergent.

the U.S. is NOT helping the world right now. well, not the U.S. gov't or multinational corporations at least...

"This is my opinion, but I believe we should trash such religious orthodoxy and embrace democractic views, all are equal."
..."once demcracy is established everything will be fine."

1. We can't establish it.
2. In the present climate, anti-US and ant-Israel sentiment would dominate any Arab democracy (this does not seem to follow your Vision, Chosen)

"Bush talked about "mini nukes"? Where? Reference the link."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
http://www.ananuclear.org/markeyletter.html