Well put BillLiptak. There's a lot to be said for your view. But it isn't the stated view of the US and UK government which claim to be acting to support the UN and does not expected to be treated as a special case.
I'd have to disagree with you on Bush's belief in WMDs. If the French Russian and German governments and 2 million protestors in Europe didn't believe they existd. How could Dubya? An enquiry in the UK said our intelligence services said their knowledge of Iraq was 'sketchy and unreliable'. Blair then went into parliament and said our facts on Iraqs' WMDs are 'wide ranging, detailed and authoritative'.
And the inspectors went to the first 40 sites on the CIA list that America claimed was the most certain to have WMDs. And found nothing. But you didn't re-examine your conclusions.
I'm not bashing America or even as I've made plain Dubya in particular. I'm just trying to make the point that when WE (note I included the UK) decide there should be different rules for us and other ones for everyone else. We can't expect them to listen to us.
Even Mrs Clinton is saying the US should be the ones to guard pakistans nukes and have the right to bomb terrorist bases there. Would you accept a foreign government claiming they should have this right for the US? This is a blessing to Bin Laden. He can say 'look everything I've been telling you is true; the west does intend to attack muslim countries'.
The Sock

By the best evidence possible: He'd USED chemical weapons. Does anyone think he got rid of the knowledge after the first Gulf War? After the inspectors having to provide the Iraqis with forewarning of where the wanted to inspect when and being denied access to sites because they were a "presidential palace"?



IIRC Didn't they find artillery shells for firing chemical weapons?

He certainly had used chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war and on the kurds.
But he was not denying the inspectors access to anywhere and no they did not find chemical artillery shells.
By the way he did have chemical weapons when you liberated Kuwait, but with his army was being massacred on the road to hell he did not dare use them against the US.
Which does make me we wonder why he was suddenly in 2002 supposed to be about to commit suicide for no reason and use them on the US. Quite how he was to get them to the US was never explained. But has anyone ever come up with a motive? And also how with no intelligence in Iraq, you were supposed to know this?
The Sock

N.A.T.O. Policy has always been, and by that I mean France and the United Kingdom, that if ANYONE uses a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon against us WE WILL go NUCLEAR. If Saddam Hussain had used such weapons we would have removed Baghdad from the map. And that policy has been set in stone for at least 40 years. That is because we equate chemical and biological with nuclear.

Note: British policy on the use of nuclear weapons is that the United Kingdom forswears first use of such weapons unless:
1) Such weapons are used against us. Under some circumstances that would include their threatened use.
2) If the safety or survival of the state is threatened.

Arguably any country will the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons has a duty to itself to do so. And ensure that it has the means to deliver them. The same arguement applies to chemical and biological weapons.

The big issue is not the weapons themselves but the intentions of the countries concerned. The most obvious case is that of Iran. Iran considers Israel to be a hostile power. One that it considers to have no right to exist. It is stated Iranian policy that it will destroy Israel if it is able to do so. However Israel is a nuclear power. Israel has always refused to confirm or deny it's nuclear status. Given that the Arab countrys have not made common cause and obliterated Israel, it is overwelming likely that Israel has nuclear weapons and is more than prepared to use them.
However: At present their is no check on Israel deciding to using them as a first strike. Unless other nuclear powers make it clear that they will be attacked. It therefore follows that Iran has to develop weapons as a check.

Now here's the question. Will Iran develop them but foreswear first use or develop them and use them in a genocidal attack?

Logging off for the day. Lets try and keep this debate at this level and not resort to name calling shall we? Maybe for once we can venture into these areas without the moderators having to shut it down?
The Sock

OK,
It really came out a few weeks back what was probably going on in Iraq, and WHY we fell for it..

Two reasons - the first - they WERE doing R&D - more paperwork than anything, so to be ready when the UN bans ended

The second, and more important - Iraq was/is afraid of Iran. They wanted the Irainians to believe that there was a WMD program going on. Sadam believed that it would keep Iran in line, and never believed that the US would invade - no matter what. So Iraq ran a disinformation campaign that they WERE working on WMDs - and we bought it

[quote=TheSock........
You had no choice Germany declared war on you. Unti then you let Britain face Hitler alone for 18 months.
But this is completely irrelevant. Hitler was the aggressor then. You are now. It's absurd to compare Hitler with this wreck of a country with it's half a million children dead through the sanctions, it's rubbish army and no WMDs. Iraq was no threat to anyone. Saddam was safely in his box. He didn't even dare retaliate when the US and UK bombed him
And the Iraquis aren't getting their lives back together; you've killed thousands of them. Made their lives a nightmare and installed a puppet government. [/quote]

Now, who was it that said Brits were well-informed with facts? Look Sock, you ARE anti-American despite your last post. It's ok, I suppose, to dislike us, but don;t come on here and lie about it. Be a man about it.

It's natural to wonder why we really did shoot down that satellite. There could be a thousand different reasons - we can let our minds wander. But when they wander and we open our mouths, then our true character and beliefs slip out for all to hear (or read). Do you not see that? Do you not?

Pardon me? You come in here and repeat a lie that's been perpetuated since 2004 (that "Bush" lied), and slam a country that saved yours (yes saved) not once but twice, then ask others to keep the insults down? There's a joke here - I guess I'm missing it.

KC, it only became public a few weeks ago. Both of those reasons have been written about and columnized to death since about 2002.... maybe before.

O.K. the way this thread has progressed was not the intent of the original post.

We shot down our own satellite because:

1.) It contained valuable, CONFIDENTIAL TOP SECRECT INFORMATION.

2.) If it had crashed it could have been catastrophic. Releasing chemicals that would not be very nice for any of you humans where it might have fallen.

3.) Yes we did prove a point. We all think the cold war is over, it isn't.


So there!!

BTW One Hell of a strike, (at a target going over 18000 miles per hour)

XXXOOOXXX

Blitz