[SoLiDUS]

A well written post I delightfully post here for all to read.

[quote:20638]I'm currently watching Scott Ritter on an American news show. He says that while touring for weapon inspections in Iraq, they never told the locals ahead of time where they were going, they made surprise visits, and over five years they didmantled 90 to 95 per cent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production capacity. He says they never in five years saw any evidence whatsoever of any mobile fatories or any kinds, and the USA has never supplied evidence of such.

Now, the UN weapon inspectors were in there doing their jobs. And the USA, not Iraq, ordered them out of Iraq. Since then, Iraq has invited UN weapon inspectors back in. In fact, Iraq sent a letter to the USA Congress inviting them as well to send in their own US weapon inspectors. The USA declined.

Since Scott Ritter has come out and basically completely undermined the already baseless assertions of the US government regarding Iraq and chem/bio weapons, the US government has instead come out with "Iraq may develop nuclear weapons". So, the US government's pretext for war now is the hypothetical future situation in which Iraq might some day develop nuclear weapons. I must say, dozens of nations might some day develop nuclear weapons, and the US is not threatening to attack them, so it doesn't seem a valid excuse for war.

I have heard one US reporter specialising in politics suggest that the US has every right to attack Iraq because Iraq's past performance means they will do it all again. Such as chemical attacks against Iran and against Iraq's kurds. So, is the US saying that the past is a valid excuse for future wars? If so, then surely the US deserves to be attacked for Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the chemical weapons they used in Vietnam. Clearly that is logical. If the US uses the past as an excuse for attacking a nation, then the US must agree that the US deserves to be attacked. Clearly the US is not saying that though.

Iraq does not want war with the USA. Saddam Hussein may be a complete bastard, but he's not a moron. Nobody wants the USA's massive military coming in their front door. Iraq's ambassadors to other nations have repeatedly said they don't want a fight, and have repeatedly invited weapon inspectors to come in and investigate anything they want.

So, what has the US government got? No chemical and biological weapons excuse. The past is an illogical and flimsy line of crap, it doesn't work since that would eman the US deserves to be attacked as well. Iraq doesn't want war. The best the US government can come up with is that maybe, some day, Iraq might have nuclear weapons.

That's it? Iraq might have nukes some day? Well, the USA has heaps of the things, and is the only country to ever use nukes as weapons. And the USA deliberately targeted civilians. Again, Iraq does not want war. Even if they some day develop nukes, does anyone really think they are stupid enough to try delivering one or two with their rather low levels of rocket technology to the USA, with all its defences, and with the USA's ability to pulverise that entire region? It's bollocks.

Is there really any valid, rational excuse for the USA threatening to invade Iraq and kill its people?[/quote:20638]