That list is obviously padded in order to reach a nice round number. Some of those questions are just plain stupid. But for the hell of it, here's a quick commentary on all of them anyway.
1.If George W. Bush is willing to wage war with Iraq, regardless of a United Nations Resolution supporting such a war, Why did Bush spend Monday desperately lobbying for U.N. Security Council Votes?
Because it is preferable to have the broadest international support possible. "Preferable" and "necessary" are not synonyms. Further, there is nothing to be lost by making such attempts. Diplomats get paid whether they are negotiating or not.
2.Our Government says ?Iraq is a threat to its neighbors?. So, why is only one of those neighbors, ?Kuwait?, open to giving the U.S. support? (to date, no neighboring nation is supplying troops)
How do you define "neighbors"? Those countries with shared borders? That makes Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran. Guess why Iran and Jordan and Syria choose not to supply troops. And who says "support" is restricted to supplying troops? Does anyone really believe there aren't enough US troops to get the job done?
3.Bush said ?Saddam Hussein may provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations hostile to the United States?. Can anyone provide any information supporting the fact that Hussein has in fact offered any weapons of mass destruction to any terrorist organization to be used outside of Iraq?s national border?
I can't. Intelligence agencies of various countries perhaps can, if they feel it is in their interests to do so.
4.Government officials have stated, ?We don?t know where the weapons are, but we?ll know if he (Hussein) disarms.? If we don?t know where the weapons are located, how will we know if and when he has actually disarmed them?
It is not necessary to know precisely where each weapon is at any given moment; all that is necessary is for Hussein to provide credible proof of the destruction of X quantities of Y type of weapons. If X and Y match the information the US believes to be accurate, voila.
5. Bush has stated that the potential war against Iraq is part of the ?War On Terror?. Our allies (and most of the world) gave their full support in this war after September 11, 2001. Why are many of these same nations (that have been assisting in this ?war on terror?) refusing to assist in the War Against Iraq?
Perhaps because many of them don't see Hussein as a terrorist? Perhaps because some of them (Russia and France, for example) are known to have "sweetheart deals" for oil development in place already with Hussein that would not be honored by a new regime.
6.As our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, action was taken immediately against Afghanistan with no prior approval sought from the United Nations. If this is a war for our self-defense, again ? why seek U.N. approval for action?
See answer to #1.
7. Why has the major news media, to this point, failed to take any government official to task for the sharp increase in fuel prices?
I don't know. Ask them. What has that got to do with anything? If the price of fuel is a consideration, wouldn't it be better to have Iraq's full production available to all as soon as possible?
8. U.N. Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction, yet clearly is not willing to enforce that mandate. Why should we?
Because if the US doesn't, no one else will. More to the point, no one else can. That doesn't mean that the US must enforce it, of course, but if no one enforces it, what's the point of making resolutions in the first place? Disband the UN and turn the UN complex in New York into a luxury hotel, I say.
9. If WMD?s can be given to terrorists to be used on U.S. soil, how will destroying Saddam?s regime cause those terrorists to willingly relinquish those weapons?
Clearly it can't, if they have them in their hands already. What has that got to do with anything?
10. Will this coming war halt the steady decline of the U.S. Dollar against other currencies?
Almost certainly. If it doesn't, so what?
11. Why does a brutal dictator allow his citizens to purchase firearms?
Because any of his citizens who try to turn them against the ruling regime will be killed and every member of their family tortured.
12. If Iraqi citizens fight back against a foreign military occupation with the firearms they?ve purchased, will they be considered ?terrorists??
Nope. They will be considered combatants.
13. If Iraqi soldiers are already surrendering, why not take them into custody rather than sending them back across the border?
Given the source of that rumor, I think it unlikely such a thing even occurred. You will note that the British department of Defense denied the incident took place, and no other journalist has substantiated the story. If the story is true, ask the English why they didn't do that. Don't ask Bush.
14. If Iraq has ties to terrorists, and must be removed from power by force, why is Yasser Arafat still breathing, and why does this country seek peace whenever Israel gets close to Arafat?s neck?
There's a lot of terrorists in the world. They can't all be removed simultaneously. Besides, the terrorist connection is a side issue with the Iraq situation. The main issue is Iraq's refusal to fulfill the conditions of the 1991 surrender agreement.
15. If the Bush Administration has evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to the attacks on September 11, 2001, would it not better his position to release at least some of that information to the public to build support?
Perhaps, if doing so would not place an intelligence source in peril. However, even if Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks, there are other reasons for deposing him. See answer to #14.
16. A previous ?complaint? the U.S. government had against Iraq was their ?refusal? to allow U-2 spy planes over a country in which the U.S. controls two-thirds of the air space. Since when has the U.S. government asked permission to fly a spy plane over another country?
Never. So what?
17. Over the weekend, North Korea threaten to attack, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C if their nuclear facilities are attacked (or if any sanctions are applied on them). This while Iraq is destroying missiles with a range slightly greater than 155 miles. Please explain why Iraq is more of a ?threat? to our freedom than North Korea at this time.
Perhaps North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq. If so, they will be dealt with as well. Hussein will be deposed long before the North Koreans can build their first bomb.
18. After the ?regime change? in Iraq, how willing will the citizens of a war torn country be to ?freely? elect people favorable to their occupiers...
Who knows? Whoever they elect it is unlikely he will be worse than Hussein. As well, whoever they elect will not possess weapons of mass destruction.
... and will they have to surrender their personal weapons?
Probably. How does that make them worse off than Australians or English?
19. Iraq is accused of murdering its own citizens. Fair enough. But has the United States ever gone to war (including the threatened use of nuclear weapons) due an enemy nation ?murdering its own citizens??
Apart from Nazi Germany or Korea or Viet Nam? And the US has not threatened first use of WMD in Iraq.
20. After we win this war, will there be peace?
In Iraq? Yes. In Angola and Chechnya and Israel and North Korea and the Philippines and everywhere else in the world? Unlikely. So what?
pinky
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Learyfan
adrug 
Edit 
Reply 
schmutzen
1 2 all )
wingnutx
Murex
PsiloKitten
pattern
puscle
Learyfan