A different perspective

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...rt_id=21892022

[CERuppel]

Very interesting.

Wish I could verify the facts of this independantly, because both sides are giving us different facts...

Bush says that (and its sort of how I remember it) Iraq refused inspection of suspect plants, or limited inspection to only certain areas of plants. He also says that Iran threw out the inspecters and has refused to allow thier return (also how I remember it).

Iraq however states that they did cooperate (with only five failures out of hundreds). That could well be true, as polititions could have blown the fact of the five out of proportion. Iraq also accuses at least one of the inspecters of spying. This would have been grounds to have thrown out (that particular group of) inspecters.

It is on the point of the return of inspecters and the lifting of UN sancians that I believe the polititions are fighting. Bush wants to run the inspections until they find the evidence he needs (or Iraq throws them out again), thus justifying his call for war. Iraq wants those sanctions lifted (at least in part), and then they will allow limited inspections (perhaps to control the access of american spys?).

Anyway thats my two bits for this one.

[daveleau]

That article is so far gone it is not even funny. If someone does not believe the proof that has been laid out thusfar, then they are obviously so anti-American that they can't see straight and are beyond help or convincing.

[Atomic Rooster]

Funny article coming from a country that refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB), claiming national security reasons for not signing.

See this reflects what the world thinks. No country will have the political will to allow their soldiers killed for, what people view as right or wrong, American (read oil) interests.

It's not a question of whether Saddam Hussain is evil or not. I think the whole world has seen through Saddam repeatedly in the last 12 years. The larger issue, as implied in the newspaper article (BTW, Times of India is to India what the NY Times is to the US) is that people are unwilling/unable to trust GBW. Not that Saddam Hussain is trustworthy or not. Saddam is not the issue. It is GWB's credibility. Many European leaders, including the heads of France and Germany, have explicitly told the Bush administration for absolute proof of Iraq's intentions.

Not rhetoric from the CIA/Pentagon/FBI, all of whom have an axe to grind, BTW.

In the event of a full scale war, guess which politicians benefit in terms of re-election and high profile visibility at a global scale. And don't forget the arms lobby.

In summary, my understanding is that the US administration has got to carry all major nations with it if it wants a closure to the Iraq issue.

Can't do it alone, no matter how much money/nukes/"smart soldiers" you have.

And, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, GWB has not accomplished this.

As yet.