You are completely missing the point.... The point is, the only reason US acted in Kosovo is because of the threat to US economy. This is proven by the many times something like this or worse has occured in Africa and other places and US chooses to turn a blind eye. If this were about altruism, US would have acted then.
Posted by DP Munky: so i guess saying " all you people get the hell out is bad" but gasing people is ok...alright, makes sense
There are many equally bad dictators in power, yet Bush chooses to go after Saddam? Why is that? If WMD and malevolence were the sole criteria for going to war... we would be fighting wars until the next century.
Again, where the hell does the US get power to say "comply, or regime change"? As I have said before, the UN itself has no authority to enforce anything on non-member nations by itself. So Iraq ignoring resolutions isnt in itself war-worthy.
how are they not, they have been crossing every single line drawn in the sand by the UN, NOT just the US. how can you say, ok mr. you cant do this, or have these weapons, again, and again, and again, 17 times??? so i guess we should just pass another resolution that will get broken AGAIN.
Look, I am all for curbing the proliferation of WMD. But the question is if this was all about WMD, again, why Iraq? There are many other nations that are a much further along in getting or already have WMD. The fact that Bush chooses to go after Iraq implies that there are other motives for doing so. I want to know those motives before I give any support for any wars!
I think an anchorperson touched on it (probably by accident) as to why we go after Iraq, he said that area has high strategic interests... What interests was he referring to? Im not sure, but I would like to know.
another thing, how can people say this is about oil, while in the state of the union address to the nation bush brings up a hybrid car?
I thought this way too for a long time, until I saw a National Geographic documentary about Iraq pre/post Gulf War. Iraq was furiously pursuing WMD then, and there is ample proof of that. US bombing during the Gulf War attempted to put a wrench in his plans, but I was by no means complete.
Posted by Shire: In my opinion it is very strange how Bush treats Iraq, he says they have mass destruction weapons, but can not proof it.
There was also evidence that many of his programs were literally underground, (ie, labs build under unassuming builings, perhaps an explanation for Iraq's recent temple building binge). The fact is, Iraq was highly motivated and working towards developing WMD then, why are we supposed to assume he has just suddenly abandoned his programs now? It is not up to us to prove he has them -- he has an enormous advantage in hiding his programs -- it is up to them to prove they dont have them... which they havent done.
Good question. I think its mostly because of Saddams instability and unpredictability and India's stability and to a lesser extent Pakistans.
Pakistan, India and North-Korea have mass destruction weapons, we know that, but why not treat them like Iraq?
Actually, the CIA stated they have no direct evidence linking and terrorist orgs to Saddam, it has been Bush and his aids that have said so without providing any proof
Posted by KingOfTheWorld: international intellegence and CIA has disclosed that Iraq had some source with in connection with terrorism
No. It has been estimated that the oil in Alaska would support US consumption for only months... hardly a permanent fix.
U.S can use Alaska alone to get oil for its overall national consumption and dont necessary rely on other countries