Not sure what point you are trying to make dianavan (13 Nov 05 - 11:48 PM)

"One important point - THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE IS THERE AT THE REQUEST OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT.

The U.N., "...adopted a resolution extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year and allowing for a review of that mandate at any time, no later than mid-June 2006, or for its termination, at the request of the Iraqi Government."

It might have been a different story if the request had come from the U.S. so I don't think thats much of a blessing, do you?"

What request are you saying should have come from the US? Are you saying that the ultimate decision whether or not the MNF remains in Iraq should be taken by somebody other than the elected Government of Iraq?

The MNF is definitely present in Iraq at the request of the interim Iraqi Government, and will, in all probability, remain there for some time at the request of the elected Iraqi Government after 15th December this year. They are definitely there with the blessing of the UNSC, because if they weren't the UN would have the job dumped in their laps and at present the UN are to busy doing nothing about situations in Sudan (Darfur) and along the Ethiopian/Eritrean border to have to bother with doing nothing in Iraq.

I believe if you check through your posts you will find that to Iran in particular and to all other nations in the world you advocate the pursuit and acquisition of nuclear weapons as quickly as posible.

With regard to Bobert's question regarding the possible assassination of Saddam Hussein. Bobert is wrong his question has been answered many many times - He just didn't like the answers. But one more time: The assassination of Saddam Hussein would have accomplished absolutely nothing, it would not have changed the regime in power in Iraq, it could possibly have made matters worse in as much that Saddam would have been replaced by one of his sons, who were reportedly much worse that Saddam. Pointers to the likelyhood of that answer panning out as stated - look what happened in Syria when old man Assad died - did the Ba'athist Party remain in power (YES) did they cast round the loyal party members and make a list of potential candidates to take up the Presidency, or did they just hand it over to Assad's son (They did the latter)

On the benefits, if anyone cares to look at the numbers of suicide bombings in Israel in the four years prior to March 2003 and the number of incidents since you will find a marked reduction - anything to do with the ending of Saddam's funding and severe curtailing of support being received from Syria? The end of Syria's occupation of the Lebanon. Libyan renunciation of their WMD programme.