atinymonkey

Armenia, it has such a jolly language. I think it's also the word that started the cold war.

Actually, you were right at the 5000 estimate. See attached link http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/16mar03km.html

I think you mean March 1984 for the use of gas against Iranian troops. In March 1988 Hussain was accused of using mustard gas on rebellious Iraqi Kurdish villagers that he thought supported the Iranian's in the conflict. There was not much avalable evidence of the casualties, there is a lot of speculation in that area. I think enough died for the attacks to be classified as a risk (well, more than one casualty would do that). It's a bit of an odd comment for Americans to cite the gas attacks as evidence that Hussain should be deposed, as Regan was giving Hussain the big thumbs up at the time. They were the best of buddies, and we all hated Iran. Now the situation has reversed.

Pointless round about arguments. This is not changing either side’s opinions, just repeating them. To clarify, France will not veto every proposal handed to the UN, it is not their function. They didn't veto the last Gulf war, or run away from Serbia and Croatia. They are, however, a country that will not be pushed into decisions (they are a bit strong willed about that). But I do agree that the US has brought this quite rightly to the center stage. At the expense of the other human right violations, and genuine threats of terrorism, but quite right to force the hand in Iraq.

And yes, I am aware now that war seems unavoidable, it doesn’t mean I have to like it.

To a degree, yes he has violated the treaty. Yes he has gassed his population, yes he rules through terror, yes he is an evil man. He does require removing from power, or restricted to a figurehead while a democratic system is installed. Should America do this? No, it's got nothing to do with the US. Where does Faf get his information on WOMD? Is there a secrect report that only the Americans have seen? Who said the UN were not planning a move against Iraq? Is that the only two options that the US can see? Either the UN continues with negotiations or the US attacks? Bush angry, Bush crash, Bush smash! The UN does have intentions of negating Sadam, directly or indirectly. The plan is to do it without resorting to war if there is a chance to avoid bloodshed. It's pretty bloody unlikely that America can bully UN, it's just making the countries more adamant to ignore the hissy fits coming from the other side of the world.

Fine, great, fantastic, as I said before :- Obviously you understand the fact that the law has not been broken, and that the US are warmongers bringing terror to the middle east, so that's all ok. Because Bush said so. I can relax now.

There is no They in Iraq, it's a dictatorship. Hussain has not complied, it's got nothing to do with Iraq as a country. The population has no say in the arbitrary decisions of the west to drop bombs on them. Bush Snr is hated in Iraq with a passion that exceeds the fear of Hussain. Bush Snr took away the one thing that oppressed people have to hold onto, he took away their hope. The US encouraged an uprising of the people at the end of the last war, to take back their country. When they did rise up and move against Hussain, the US decided that they were no longer interested and left them to face Hussains forces who slaughtered 30 thousand of them. So now, Bush Jnr wants to do it again? Against international law? The one country that the Iraqi people don't trust, wants to "liberate" them again? Oh, well that's just peachy, roll right in their boys and get stuck in. Obviously it's a well thought out plan.

Careful, that's not the reason it stopped. Threaten the nation of Islam and you will cause a widespread retaliation. American troops in the middle east are a very large threat to those countries. Has no one else been worried by Hussains intention to bring the war to the west. This will not be a distant CNN war that you can watch during the MTV ad breaks, this will involve direct attacks on the US and the UK. A direct attack on America is almost assured. This seems to have degenerated into a cat fight, thanks to Pogos mindless drivel. The war, no matter how neccecery, is still illegal and therefore morally wrong.

All of which lead us back to the same point. A war against Iraq with the UN vetoing the action is against international law. It's just that simple. A more interesting developement has emerged now. As the US, UK and Spain can not get the UN support the new plan is to bring peace to Palestinian (!) as a part of a plan to bring peace to the middle east. Happily this includes Iraq, so the plan for war now has a humanitarian slant. To my mind this is childish and just the sort of interference which will unite the middle east against the UK and US. I've gone over my concerns in another thread, but this is getting close to a religious war. A religious war with the middle east is just about the most dangerous thing to get started. It's on the same level as setting off random nuclear wepons in every other US state.

Ah, the confusion is not in the capabilities, or even the intent, but the due process before an invasion. America cannot hold itself up as the world police and expect the world to follow its lead, as has been pointed out before, if it ignores the law. The American legal system is regarded as a flawed (to be polite) system, but to ignore even the rules that the US laws would require ( the provision of proof) is severely undermining the position of the pro war stance. America holds no legal right, or the ability to create a legal right, to instigate a war based on the breaking of rules set by the UN. Only the UN can say that the rules have been breached. It is the most important point about this conflict, it simply is not legal. That's before going into why the reasons for the war are also flawed. It might be easier to think about this from a different point of view, what would America think if Germany decided to start a war and Bush did not support them? I think the US is finding it hard to separate national pride from common sense. I do see Sadam as a threat, but I see threats in a many other places. I'm not about to support breaking the law to fix problems that may only exist in my head.

What if I form up an army and invade Florida? Would I be justified in my war if I found nuclear, biological and conventional weapons? Florida is directly linked to IRA funding in Ireland, which is a confirmed deadly threat to the UK national security, I have concerns that they haven't disarmed despite my forming of Resolution 7986b, which clearly requires the unilateral disarmament of the state. Is there not another course of action we can take? Like ask Sadam to step down? The last war accomplished pretty much nothing apart from freeing Kuwait (which used to be part of Iraq until the UK stepped in) and causing a widespread slaughter. It's the willingness to kill so many people that worries me. Estimates are at half a million deaths for a war against Iraq, is it just not important as long as less than a thousand of those are American or British? Mind you, if I had to make decisions that weighed up human life I'm not sure how I would cope, never mind the lives of a entire nation.

It's possible that there are lifeforms other than carbon based lifeforms, but the most commonly thought of replacement would be a silicon based lifeform. Apart from the Silver Surfer, obviously. But that could well just be a suit. But Data is made of metal, just ask Picard.

In order to knock the Moon off it's trajectory to asteroid would have to be roughly the size of Bolivia. I'm not to hot on eliptical orbits, but I'm fairly sure upsetting the orbit would send the moon flying away from orbit rather than towards us. Anything large enough to push the moon onto the Earth would be right behind the moon and they would both hit us. Tidal shifts would be fun though. . If you listen to Bruce Willis films, as I do, you would know that NASA only has enough budget to monitor 10% of the Earth sky. So I wouldn't worry too much about Jupiter hiding things from you.

Ah well, politics is the science of the possible, so long as it remains possible for war I guess the disscussion is pointless. I wonder if it is still an option to make the war impossible by Hussain stepping down. I have the feeling we will be drawn into this affair, and our involvement will be overshadowed by the US. At least our support will be no more of a footnote in history should this ignite the middle east. I'm off to heckle Mr Blair by following him round, clapping really slowly, with a sad look on my face. That seems to really get to him.

Actually, its a valid theory that has been proved by top scientists. Well, apart from marmadukian maths, thats just silly.

I was leaning more towards the religious consequences of the war rather than the benefits of the actual conflict. I should have worked harder to take the anger out of the post! I see the logic that the Pope presents about the conflict in Iraq lighting the tinder in the middle east, the Taliban being only one example of a faction that is out to destroy the west. American political machinations have always revolved round swift decisive action, but as we know it is not always effective and can simply fan the flames. The Middle Eastern countries are scared of America at the moment, which may lead trouble, and the major supporters of the US, the UK, have a worse record in that area than any other western country. I can conceivably see Iraq being used to unite the Middle East against the west. Let’s face it, they control the world economy if they cut off the oil supplies. Does Bush have a plan that takes this into account, if not who will he listen to before it goes to far? I'm guessing the Pope would have had the best chance to warn Bush, if he had listened.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2820085.stm The Pope appeals to halt the efforts to provoke war with Iraq. President Bush, as a born again Christian, ignores God's one representative on earth. Is Bush leading us into a religious war? To whom does Bush answer to? What precisely will it take for a reconsideration of the state of play? Bush has stated that he doesn't require the consent of the United Nations to respond to threats to American security and plans to move against Iraq without the support if necessary. Where will this conflict lead us if it is instigated?

Well, good luck with that. New Jersey can't be the best place to be a nightwatcher, but it's nice to know people are still looking to the stars out there in the big city.

I'm guessing that either you are not from Romania, or yugoslavia forgot to tell you it dosn't exist anymore.

Well, that's the answer then. Latin is always more impressive than being able to order the horse steak in a French restaurant, you can say stupid things and not be contradicted in Latin. Plus the bonus of actually understanding legal, medical and biological terms better than the lawyer/doctor/biologist who just repeats them parrot fashion. You can correct the Judges use of the deconstructive verb as he sentences you for breach of biomedical ethics.

Je ne parle pas français, they don't force us to go and live there. Well, actually they did force me, and others, but that's not the point. Spain is just as easy to get to in Europe, but we don't learn that in school. Anyhow, is Latin ever an option in the US? As the base of all European languages and the basic language of biology, is it avalable for students in the US to study at all?

I'm just worried about these Ass Bombs that your dad remembers. Are they covered by the Geneva convention?

What your asking about is the balance between spiritualism and science, the occult and the arcane from which alchemy stems and from that modern science. That's where this vein of knowledge resides, away from the mainstream for good reason. In amongst what you can learn is enough gibberish and half-truths to drive you crazy, should you try and take it seriously. It's argued that all genuine science is motivated by spiritual ideals, it is not what we see or hear, or even our intelligence, that dictates how we perceive the world; but it is our own moral structure that defines our world around us. What that means is you can take any set of events however you wish, the human form for instance being a physical representation of evolution, or gods supreme will. It just depends which argument happens to be more persuasive to yourself. Foucault's Pedulum (by Umberto Eco) is a good book to read if you like those types of oddity's.

Well, a link on the same news article points toward this http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992890 which is the UK's Nobel prize-winning effort on the extension of life in worms. A slightly better constructed article actually explains the process, I suspect because the scientist explaining it understood what he was doing. Unlike the report from the unnamed US research centre, probably in a trailer park out south, in an article published just 17 days after the Nobel prize was awarded. Genius.