Nantuko: Yes.. it is was a clear violation of the treaty... and well, is that really a just cause for war? Look back 100 years ago, when America was first emerging as a world power. The United States goes to war to defend "oppressed" Cubans from their Spanish rulers. A few months later, a peace treaty is signed, but no Cubans are even allowed to have a say in the provisions. Even during the war, the Cubans are kept from fighting. And because of that great Platt Amendment that the Americans forced Cuba to sign, the US was given a free ticket to re-invade and force their own whims upon Cuba whenever necessary. Another instance in New Granada (Columbia), where New Granada wouldn't sell land for 20 mil. for a canal to be built across the North/South American connector, the US began a "revolution" in without a single cassualty, the New Granada's army was bribed, and Panama was formed and sold the land... and all this in violation of of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, in which the US and Britain promised neither country would maintain control of an intercontinental canal in the Americas (such as Panama Canal). Or if you want something a little more recent, how about that Treaty of Versailles that insisted that WWI was all Germany's fault, completly neglecting the fact that all of the European powers allowed the disaster to come about, and maintaining that Germany could only have a small standing force, scarcely the size of a militia, as well as pay enourmous amounts of money to the Allies, resulting in nearly a world-wide depression.

*And as a side note, the Allies were responsible for the complete destruction of the Ottoman Empire (insited rebellions), creating much of the chaos you see today.

Anyways, my point is this: Treatys are broken all the time, they're an impermanent thing to "keep the peace" for a while. The winning countrys (such as the Allies in WWI), determine the treaties, and decide the provisions to be as unfair at whim. The Pursian Gulf treaty proves all of this by showing not only the point made by Finnegan, that it is impossible for a band of inspectors to actually find these weapons, but also outragous that one country (the US) would violate another country's soverienty by enforcing such an idiotic act for the sheer reason that "we won, therefore we can do whatever the #### we feel like."

my second point: The idea of the US, or any country being able to police the world is ridiculous. Saadam is brutal, a dictator, and by all means, psycotic. And where does the US fall into this? Aside from keeping out cars going... no where. Some sort of "world council", such as the UN? The best thing you've got... but no mater what you chose (abstinance, interferrence, some "world court"), unpredictable #### can and will happen in any case, and the best approach should try to be as unbiased as possible.

my third point: Helping people? Give me a break... I know sending food and radios via air droop may sound good and all... but what people in Afaghanastan, Iraq, and the ###### places of the world need is commerce. Fix that, and at least they've got a chance at not ending up with 6 million people starving during the winter. But why doesn't the US do that? As big and down on monopolys as the US is, it's just being a hypocrit. By this constant policing the world, it is the world monopoly, and doublessly will do everything in its power to keep it that way. If other countrys are all of a sudden making their own cloths and soda factories, then the US commerce goes way down the #### hole.

I don't expect you to believe anything I've said here today, just try and interpret it without being clouded by all those years of propaganda. :biggrin:

Finnegan: Yes... all good points. Don't be fooled by what I've been saying in this topic... by all means, he does deserve to be removed, I have made no opposition to that. Everything I have problems with is US policy.

Just one question though... how would ousting him actually help the Iraqi people? Usually when one facist dictator is taken out of power, (and perhaps even a provisional government put in place), history has shown that these don't tend to last in economically poor countries, and soon another military leader rises and takes over (such as what happened with Germany following WWI). The successes that we have had turn into places like Japan and South Korea... economically benefiting, but still under US "guidance" and protection, completly succeptible to outside attacks (North Korea for one).



Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 21 2003 at 20:59