Of course they weren't going to support any military action to enforce total compliance with resolution 1441. Why go and spoil the perfectly good oil for food gravy train Kofi and his friends were enjoying?

That's bullshit. Why only Iraq, and not the other countries under corrupt and oppressive dictators? Or countries harbouring terrorists? Why is he picking on the middle east? Why can't the US keep it's nose out where it's not wanted?

Bullshit: if I remember correctly official cause were the WMDs, just after that you have discovered that there aren't any (oops) you claimed that you wanted to liberate them.

HardTranceFan: cough*Black Gold*cough

And invade Spain, they can't control ETA. And Colombia, they can't control the FARC.

The real reason was Mass Distraction and Appearing To Be Doing Something, as always.
The stated reason was that humongous stockpile of WMDs that was oh-so-surprisingly never found (hint: if the UN inspectors say there are no weapons, there are probably no weapons).
The "harboring terrorists" reason was invented well after the previous bullshit had been exposed, and is also utter bullshit.

Can't it be both?
The thing is, if you're "liberating" a country you're supposed to be making it better.

I think it's really interesting how these things always fall into two camps:

1) Pacifistas: Those who believe that at no time does anyone or any country have justification to interfere with the affairs of another. Live and let live. There is no right or wrong, no good or evil, just different ways of looking at the world.

2) Non-apologists: We believe that nations and societies have the right and the obligation to take action for our own interests and to redress things we consider to be wrong.

The way I look at things; the Pacifistas practiced appeasement in Europe in the 30's, isolationism until Japan attacked peal harbor; and they practiced non-action after Bin Laden attacked the WTC and US embassies in Africa. We paid for the results of inaction with alot of blood.

Non-Apologist have taken action in Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to ward off the root cause of Islamic extremist; oppressive regimes in the middle east that are artificially maintained by world oil money.

Where do you fall?

My question for the Pacifistas is: What should be done about Darfur?

I think it's really interesting that my observation is more interesting than your observation.

No, those are Non-Apologists; 'I'm a hypcrite and I'm not apologizing.' Guess you're a Pacifista.

Why are these things correlated? They don't need to be (in fact, they often aren't). You can believe in sovereign state rights all while believing in an absolutist Right vs Wrong.

Armed conflicts is also not the only solution to every problem.

Really, they don't teach History in school anymore? Do you believe that you are always the White Knight?

What, do you suppose, should have been done and when? Remember, there is no such thing as "Preventive Strike" in international law. It's an act of war plain and simple.

Now you're just making stuff up.

So far, the cost of non-apology has been far greater than the cost of "pacifitasing", on virtually any scale you care to pick.

That's pretty much what Turkey claimed - the US said "either you're with us, or you're against us", and bullied them into co-operation.

OICW : that's a bad cough you have there, mate . I'm aware of why the US has an interest in the middle east; it perplexes me that they'd spend so much money on the US military, rather than pumping it in research for alternative fuel sources (yes, nonnus29, I guess that brands me a pacifist ).

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's propaganda machine is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world (bar his puppet Blaire). The only people he appears to be fooling now are a some of his fellow Americans.

The procedures of the death penalty vary from state to state. Some don't even have it.

Put him to forced labour, make him break his back mining for the rest of his days. He is being punished and makes the state profit!

What about someone who's been responsible for 5 lives, or 10, 50, 100, 1000... Where do you draw the line, and why?