Hi Teribus,

Thank you for your responses.

Here are mine:

There is no great love between all the member nations in the UN and Saddam but at the same time the US is pressuring the UN an inordinate amount. It still wields a great deal of influence. If this new resolution is accepted, it will be because of the US pressure and influence.

The US has not forced the UN to go to war as of yet. To do so would be irresponsible. So far the US has attempted to abide by the UN decisions but that could soon change. I'm not sure that the UN approves of the Bush Administration bombings.

A speculative question as to whether Iraq would have invited the UN weapons teams in at the behest of the US can be answered speculatively only. They might have if Bush hadn't pressed for war.

The UN shows great responsibility in keeping the weapons inspections in place. It has deterred Saddam. He hasn't attacked any country since. They should stay in place as long as it takes to deter him. Bush Administration is trying to thwart this.

The inspectors are not up against a total brick wall. Saddam has complied with some of the demands. The problem here is that he is as clever as he is vicious and knows that he can create unwilling allies with other Arab nations because the Bush Administration insists on it's war.

I believe the sanctions need to be rethought. They are affecting the Iraqi people and not Saddam. The UN has done a great service through it's "nothing" which is restraint from damaging the world community through a senseless and ill-thought out war with no "exit strategy" or concern for the Iraqi people. One only needs to look at the present state of Afghanistan as an indication of Bush foreign policy.

We don't really know what's going on in Iraq because CNN, the Fox News and other sources of information are not reporting it accurately, probably because they don't know and receive their information from the White House.

As to the comparison with Bosnia, here we have a centuries-old conflict between the Catholic, Serbian Orthodox and Muslim community which has not abated and can't be bombed out of existence. It's not a good idea to bomb Rwanda, either.

Rhetorical question: can you bomb a country into a democracy?

The UN might be able to supply some concrete solutions if the Bush Administration gives up it's imperial view of the world.
Let the weapons inspectors do their job. It's working.

Saddam's goals are to mobilize his dictatorship. No question about that. Any rational person would not support this. The inspections are a valid deterrant.

Sources for anonymous articles determining the use of DU in weaponry should be disclosed and analyzed for it's propaganda value. It is apparent that today, neither shells or tanks are being used by the Bush Administration in Iraq, but bombs are containing DU.

The sources for the statistics submitted as to the population growth of Iraq have not been submitted. It stands to reason that the statistical data is questionable as it always is when used to foster a specific agenda. The 500,000 children who are being horribly anhilated in Iraq is something that is hard to refute.

Forms of the Bush Administration's repressive actions include as the article stated, bombing water treatment plants leaving the Iraqi people to suffer disease and death, the use of DU in bombs and the complete disregard for any concern about these people after a protracted war has been conducted. Muscling the UN to comply with the Bush Administration's war is repressive.

Teribus I said "<<"It's funny how history evades people nowadays.">>
You said,"Couldn't agree with you more - It seems to have eluded you completely."

This is an ad hominum (or more correctly contra-hominum) argument that wins no points.

As to Reagan's involvement with Saddam one has only to look at the Iran-Contra hearings to see how Reagan lied to the American people about funneling money from South America to support Saddam in the 1980's as a deterrant to the Ayatollah in Iran. Military technology such as biological warfare was shared with Saddam at that time. In this way, Reagan put Saddam on the military map.

The Bush Administration is actively engaged in a propaganda war to bolster a physical war in Iraq and is attempting to sell it to the American people.

Any information deemed to "fly in the face of known, established
or verifiable fact" has yet to be rebutted by concrete evidence and citation of sources. These sources also must be examined as to their propaganda content.

Frank Hamilton