Ok, Tracy you're right about the discussion. I respect that.

Take care.

Luis

>This could become a long discusssion so I'm going to avoid it. It has been discussed ad nauseum here on the UT already. Those are separate issues entirely, not to mention the fact that there were 49 countries in the coalition. It is not accurate to state that the whole world was against it. It is a separate issue entirely from Iraq. If the U.S. was the sole decider then only the U.S. would have nuclear weapons except perhaps Great Britain. I'm out of it now.
>
>
>>If it's not in USA hands, why did USA and UK decided to invade Irak while France, Germany, Rusia, and the whole world was against that?
>>
>>
>>
>>Luis
>>
>>
>>>It's not the U.S. that decides. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.iaea.org/blog/Infolog/?p=14
>>>
>>>>Ok, since it's not realistic, what gives USA the right to decide which country has weapons?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Luis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well I agree that it would be ideal if no country in the world had nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. However, I really don't think that is realistic nor enforceable. Perhaps one day when there is one world government...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm just saying that all the countries have the same rights, that's all, and none should have nuclear and biological weapons, but that includes USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you stating that you think that all countries should be allowed to have nuclear and biological and chemical weapons? Do you disagree with the UN and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry Tracy, and why Irak can't have weapons but USA can?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Luis Navas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Metin, regardless of whether or not Iraq had or hid or destroyed weapons just before 2003, it is well known that they actually manufactured their own chemical weapons and even had mobile units in the past. Iraq admitted this. They didn't purchase the weapons they used in the 80s, they manufactured them themselves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf
>>>>>>>>>https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html
>>>>>>>>>http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html
>>>>>>>>>http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes it's correct, like when Bush said that Irak had massive destructive weapons, it's in the same way!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Correct. The tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers and Kurds that the UN says were killed by Iraqi chemical weapons in the mid to late 1980s (BTW 'Chemical Ali' got a death sentence from the Iraqis this week for that) actually died of bird flu.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're periodically saying same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's a simple truth, you should see that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They were bought chemical weapons from a country which good at chemicals. Because your men cannot found any massive destructive weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Your country has a lot of and kind of mass destructive weapon and you can talk about these things. How can you do that?