Anyone should be able to answer why Saddam shouldn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Because he'll use them... infact he has.
10 years or so before the Gulf War there was this thing called the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq showed then they were capable of using chemical weapons in a wartime situation. Not only that, the wartime situation was INSTIGATED by Iraq. Iraq invaded Iran during a time of "relative" peace between the two countries.
Then 10 years after that, Iraq invades Kuwait. I seem to remember something about oil fields being set on fire and causing HORRIBLE ecological damage. Hmmmmm.
After the Gulf War, the UN came up with the resolution for him to disarm. Now 12 years after that, the US has stepped up and finally said "Hey, this guy has had 12 years to comply, and he hasn't". Infact statements from 1 year ago have shown that Saddam was openly lieing to the world community about the weapons they now say they DO have. And the only reason they are "complying" to ANY extent now, is because the threat of force looms over Saddam.
Yeah, this is a guy who should remain in power.
---------
As for France, I'm sure economics comes into play in their yellow streak, BUT the biggest thing is that France has a pretty high muslim population. While the majority obviously aren't extremists, they don't want to risk the chance of upsetting their large muslim population. They like to look at the problem as, MUSLIMS vs USA, and that it isn't their problem. Well, Saddam's past actions speak louder than words. If not for the US, trust me, other nations WOULD consider Saddam their problem.
He proclaimed on national tv that in the last election he won 100% of the people's vote. :-| How happy do you think most Iraqi's are with him in power? Do you seriously think they have the option of voicing their opinion of Saddam if their opinion is ANYTHING other than adoration?
Sorry, Saddam to me is the biggest frickin blemish on the human race at the moment. I gets emotional about the turd.
----
As for North Korea, how exactly is Kim a bleeding-heart liberal? I'm sure his friends and all the people directly beneath him receive preferential treatment. Infact, all the handpicked heads of the North Korean army are all friends of his. Sounds very humanitarian to me, I mean you would only stack the army so they are completely obediant to you if you were one of the greatest humanitarians on the planet. I'm sure the half of North Korea that are currently starving causes him to toss and turn ALL night.
I mean, it's obvious in how N. Korea is trying to escalate the situation by restarting more shut down facilities, test firing rockets into the ocean between them and Japan, that it's the best interests of EVERYONE that Kim is looking out for.
Kim's all about the bling-bling here people, he's trying to force the US into economic concessions at a time when the US is concerned with matters on the other side of the planet. He's a greedy little c_nt, plain and simple.
Beyond that, have you seen anything on NOrth Korean television lately? I have, because I'm living in SHanghai. You'd be surprised what the North Korean people are being told about the situation. How the US is escalating things, and so on and so forth.
The biggest problem I see with North Korea isn't that they'd actually use nukes against the US, they could only hit California. If they did attack, they'd hit Japan and S. Korea. But thats not in the cards. Hard to get rich that way if you are Kim. Nope, any weapons they develop will be going on the black market. Guess who's itching to get weapons of mass destruction?
I'll give you a hint. The majority of the world's muslims do NOT live in the Middle East. They live in South East Asia. The MAJORITY of extreme muslims are now in South East Asia (Malaysia, Phillipines, Indonesia, etc). Ready to guess yet?
-------------
As for the whole Islam vs US issue, I saw an interesting CNN feature. They covered the Hadj (not sure of spelling), a holy pilgramige in the Middle East. They asked some of the pilgrims questions about the possibility of war in Iraq and what they thought about it. The response I heard the most, and thought the most ludicrous was:
"If you attack 1 nation of Islam, you attack ALL of Islam"
That reasoning is SCARY.
Why?
Because it shows how fanatical some factions of Islam are about the US. Because when possed the question "Well, if the above is true, then if 1 Islamic nation funds and harbors terrorists who kill innocent people, is ALL of Islam to blame?" they most assuradely would answer NO.
Either you are a coheisive whole or not. The US isn't fighting ISLAM. The leaders who are fearful of being ousted want you to believe that... and the SCARY thing is, most people seem to believe their leaders. But then, when your leaders control all of the news media, what else are you expected to believe (remember in the Gulf War, the US dropped pamphlets and radios).
---
Either you use the balls you got, and stop evil men like Saddam from becoming bigger threats now, or you deal with the consequences. Bush and Blair aren't helping their careers by their current stances are they? I'm sure the French leader is as well as the German. Blair and Bush have the balls to stand up and say, listen the current method of enforcing the policy in Iraq isn't working, they've had 12 years, enough is enough. In this respect they are showing themselves to be men of courage. A trait I find lacking in ALOT of world leaders right now.
Ack... I'll keep ranting and raving and be late for work if I dont' quit.
Yes, French Fries - Freedom Fries is hilarious. Just like Hamburger to Salisbury Sandwich in WW2.
And poutine is a CANADIAN creation, not French. And most Canadians don't like the French either, especially those who call themselves CANADIAN but seem to think they deserve special treatment. I spit on BILINGUALITY.
I spit - haockputwoo