LuTze

Wrong. That would be Iraq defending itself from Allied aircraft invading it's airspace whilst enforcing a no-fly zone that has never been sanctioned. Shock horror! An arab country has airliners? Oh my god, they must be planning on crashing them into the ships in the Gulf! They can't be there to move people about or anything, oh no. What? Not necessarily, i'm against any 'solution' that involves the US and UK ignoring the framework of the UN and going it alone. You mean the rebuilding that only US contractors have (already, I might add) been allowed to bid for?

Fantastic argument, truly inspiring. You can't just go around invading any country you please, that is how world wars are started. How would you feel if Russia and China got annoyed with US imperialism, and felt like invading Florida because it happened to 'please' them at the time? Just go away and be quiet please. How exactly is it defence? They haven't attacked you! Yes, it's illegal. International law is decided by the UN, and is (partly) centered around the UN charter. According to the charter, there are two legal ways to go to war. 1) You have a UN resolution, authorising it. 2) It's self defence. Neither are currently the case.

That just brings us back to the point that Iraq hasn't threatened your 'national security' in any way. There is no proven link between them and Al-Queda (In fact, British intelligence has effectively disproved any link). This is an illegal, pre-emptive strike, whichever way you look at it.

No, what you (and us, unfortunately) are doing is ignoring the UN completely. The charter is quite clear. Chapter VII (Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of agression), article 39 states: - "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." With article 42 saying: - "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." So, you're breaking the UN charter, which America has signed up to. Bush can't just 'decide' this sort of thing doesn't apply. Oh, and article 51 states: - "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" But that doesn't apply, seeing as Saddam hasn't attacked you. Read the charter at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ That isn't the reason at all. The no-fly zones have never been sanctioned by the UN. They are enforced by the USA and UK without a UN mandate. Iraq has a perfect right to try and defend it's soverign territory.

You'd have to ask your President that one. I'd suspect it has something to do with "Rebuilding America's Defences" - a report by The Project For The New American Century, written in 2000. One of the more 'disturbing' objectives is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars". It was written by a number of people, six of which have since taken up key defence and foriegn policy within Bush's administration. It also seems to form the blueprint for Bush's National Defence Strategy. You can read it for youself here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Yes, on both sides.

"National Security"? What exactly has Saddam ever done to threaten the USA? We are talking about a pre-emtive strike here, which is a whole different ball game. The UN charter is quite clear, you either have a Security Council resolution authorising force, or it's self defence. That would be interesting. North Korea have over one million ground troops, and China are treaty-bound to protect them. Good luck.

Arts graduates

They must be somewhere, then. The new Mini seems surprisingly popular over the pond.

An obviously fake flag, too. Impressive.

I'd say Win 2k is a pretty big compromise Seriously though, as much as I like Linux it just doesn't cut it for gaming - which is a real shame. Some day, some day.

That is "you're". As in "you are". No, you implied it. See your (as in "your") previous post on the subject: - I notice you made no attempt at all to rebuff my comments on North Korea.

I've been lurking around here for a while, but after reading this I just had to comment. Personally, I find Sayonara³'s comments well thought out and reasoned, backed up with appropriate references. You sir, however, are clearly an idiot. Saying Germany is a permanant member of the UN security council with veto power just shows how ignorant you trully are. Do you have any idea when and why the council was formed? Most unlikely. If you knew just a little about the situation in North Korea, you'd know unification is the last thing "The Great Leader" wants. The inevitable influx of information from the real world would most likely topple his regime. Oh, and in case you missed it the first time around - Iraq does not have nuclear weapons.