UN Security Council Approves Resolution on Iraq

Note the interesting deference to the 'full report from inspectors,' though -- exactly how long is that supposed to take?

as for how long, I'm still saying after Ramadam next year, unless the US economy has a bad christmas in which case it'll be january next year.

They also want to avoid an Afghanistan/Iran situation where a secularist government falls under foreign pressure only to be replaced by religious hardliners, which is worse. A bet lots of funny stuff is going on on that one.

Most of the jerky citizens agitating for war probably assume that Iraq is a bunch of "crazy fundamentalists" "like Afghanistan". Saddam is a local thug that would never risk his power by attacking America. If he hadn't made the mistake of thinking that nobody would care about Kuwait, we would not even be talking about him right now.

You're right to suggest that a larger power making its intentions known doesn't have to rely on it as much. However, at the same time it gives the opponent plenty of chances to try other things to build domestic support, shore up its defenses as it can, play its international cards, etc. So there is something to be said for not completely telegraphing every move.

BOOOOOOO!

See?

*gives Dan all his WMDs and oil reserves*

The more prepared for war Saddam is, the more losses America will take. I am sure we will still "win", whatever good that will do, but...

(not being snarky, just trying to post in brief moments away from coworkers who blab on endlessly about their idiot lives.)

Also, 9/11 was not a military strike!

I think the dead people in the PENTAGON might have something to say about that.

all of the options are no good.

g, you are otm, though. it seems liek we determine who we want to beat up, and then find a reason to do it after the fact. I am sure that if the "nuclear threat" angle hand't worked, bush would have found another reason to attack.

Also, do you write for the Guardian? I mean, if Saddam is found to have some huge nuclear arsenal under his bed, you'd think maybe people would be upset with the U.N. for dragging its feet, in particular France and Russia. I guess this doesn't fit the "whatever outcome, it's Bush's/America's fault."

If he hadn't made the mistake of thinking that nobody would care about Kuwait, we would not even be talking about him right now.

This is totally untrue. See: oil.

also, if there was actual proof that this nuclear arsenal existed, then I would certainly reconsider my position. I don't think we are going to find the proof by simply bombing Iraq. I am glad weapons inspectors are going back in. I am unsure to what extent the UN dragged their feet, as I got the impression that the US was holding up the process by demanding a more extensive resolution. If Iraq does prove to have serious nuclear capabilites, I would have no idea as to what should be done. therefore, I would not be able to blame Bush for not doing what I want him to do.

you may be right about the oil thing. I just think that, at least, the rhetoric would be different, and the US would probably try to resolve the issue diplomatically because it would be much harder to rally support for a war (assuming that there are no nukes).

Brilliant. Right up there with "Why don't we invade Israel?" It's true that the US is the first nation in history to develop alliances, and to prefer those nations within its alliance to have certain weapons while condemning those nations hostile to the alliance for (potentially) having the same, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

anyway, yeah, that was ott. sorry g.

There is not much to be gained by his having nuclear weapons and declaring them - it would hugely increase the chance of a first strike against him (tho not neccessarily by the US) and by the logic of the current situation pitch him into a confrontation he couldn't win.

He is playing a very weak hand - but his best option is to keep people thinking and not knowing that he has these weapons, giving him an element of deterrent whether he deserves it or not. Semi-conclusive investigations which find no weapons but leave some doubts would do this. Saddam wants to play a waiting game and hope that his enemies find themselves out of power or lacking home support for a war.

On the other hand if Saddam did have nuclear weapons and declared that he did the only responsible course of action for the international community is to make sure they are not used. Attacking him doesn't achieve this: this is why nobody is talking about war with North Korea currently. America surely is assuming he doesn't have a nuclear arsenal as yet or it wouldn't be moving vast numbers of troops within range of it. They want him out before he can get useable WMDs, not because he is a maniac who would use them but because he is an evil and shrewd man who would use the verified threat of them to make himself internationally untouchable.