It's all a plot by Aznar to build US support for outlawing Batasuna and destroying ETA. Although he is a sly fox, he's not fooling me.

Cali - once again - well said!

Am going to surmise that many of you heard Bush's speech at the UN today - and, like him or not / agree with him or not - the speech was excellent. All the commentaries that I've heard certainly feel that between remarks made by Kofi Annan and Bush about Iraq that there is far more consensus now than a week ago. I, for one, am firmly of the belief that ANY military action, by any country, requires the blessing of the UN and the internal political mechanisms of that country - for the US that means congressional approval.

Spain, France, & Italy have all come out with the statement that they will support steps against Iraq; based on comments by Annan and Bush today - this will, in all likelyhood, be under UN auspices.

The gist of the comments before the UN boiled down to the Security Council had enacted restrictions and requirements on Iraq that - 10 years later - have still not been met. That were, in fact, been totally disregarded by the current regime. In other words - as Annan said - the UN brought the sanctions into effect - now the UN needed to enforce them.

Please note - terrorism was not addressed as 'Bin Laden, El Quida, ETA, November 17th, IRA' or any other group/person - but was primarily dealt with as an outgrowth of the Iraqi regime. Any thoughts on that one?

Puna,

I agree with your statement about the UN. It has to become involved. Last week Hussein announced they were close to having the capability of delivering a nuclear bomb, and in the final stages of developing one. Talk about thumbing his nose at the UN. It couldn't have been a clearer statement of his position, and his intent, in total disregard to the sanctions from ten years ago.

Spain is directly involved in this position, politically, and geographically. The threat isn't against the US alone, it's against the whole of what is loosely known as "The West," as well as some of his neighbors in his own back yard.

There's little doubt that Iraq did, and continues to support terrorism throughout the world, and according to information that surfaced IN SPAIN , they too were already on the verge of becoming a target even before 9/11. As for the names of the groups, they are too numerous to mention. They develop as splinter groups from Islamic extremism, and flourish under governments like Iraq's.

I believe Bush eliminated using bin Laden's name, as well as al-Qaeda, intentionally. He intended to make his statement on a broad base, which would include terrorism under any name, no matter where it is. That would include Malaysia, Chechnya, and the Phillipines, as well as Balkan nations, and yes, Spain.

Wolf

Wolf, I would not say "have to" seek UN approval. Remember, the UN is still in the "dream stages" of a perfect world. I think they should be consulted and asked to support and or participate in an attack. However, their approval or non should have no influence on our decision to attack.

Once again, I thank Spain for their support in the difficult fight against terrorism. They have known and suffered terrorism for many years and it is OVERTIME that the world visa vi the UN or any other organiztion to take back civilization as we democraticaly know it.

"There is a time for peace, there is a time for war."

Thank you PP and to a man who knows when it's time to take a stand, Señor Aznar.SALUDOS
United We Stand!

Toddy,

I think the UN has to become involved. If they don't, they're failing to support their own resolution, which prohibits Iraq from chemical and nuclear proliferation. It's their people that can't get in for inspection.

If the UN fails to recognize its obligation in this matter, and the US and several allies go into Iraq on their own, it's up to Annan and the members who silently support our position in the UN to step forward and tell those who voted against involvement that they were wrong, and the method of determining action must be changed.

The very thought that one nation, like the US or Russia could veto something that's mandated by everyone else in the Security Council is insane. It's been nothing more than a political arena where ideologies instead of realities has been in play. It's time for that to change. Aznar and Blair have alluded to that in speeches over the last two months, as well as Bush.

Had it not been for the Moorish invasion of Parsley Island, there's an outside chance Spain wouldn't have supported us on the issue of Iraq. But, based on the fact that all Muslim nations lined up in support of Morocco, without hesitation, simply because they were Islamic, sent a chilling message to Spain, and other countries as to where they stand when it comes to diplomacy. No matter how strong we think our ties are to a Muslim state, one renegade state can offer controntation, and what we thought were friends, suddenly line up against us. Spain saw that even with Khadafi, and Libya. It's little wonder the Western powers are aligning the same way.

Of course, no matter what, the Russians will be opposed to almost anything we do - hoping to sell more fighter planes to Iraq, and get paid in gold and oil. To think they show interest in joining NATO, or being part of EU, is absurd.

Wolf

"Visa vi"...is that a new credit card offered by Banesto or did you mean "vis-a-vis"? :p

As much as I want us to go in and kick SoDamn Insane's arse, I do think it wise to do it under the auspices of a UN action, not a US-only action...not that we can't handle it ourselves...but that it is wisdom to have a variety of backers in case things turn a little sour.

Wolf & all;

Don't worry about the Russians. they're posturing for a couple of reasons: 1st, to wring additional consessions from Washington on Chechnya, Georgia, IMF, NATO expansion and economic aid (among others) and 2nd to show to the Russian people taht Moscow is still a "Player" on the world stage at the same level as the US. They'll support action vs. Iraq.

Now, about the UN. the UN is not going to protect this country against the Enemy camp that includes (not limited to) Iraq and al Queda. Only the threat of American might will do so. The elimination of Saddam Hussien will solve alot more problems than it creates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be OVER within two years of Hussein's ouster. Mark my words.

And MUCHAS GRACIAS to Spain and Aznar for supporting this nation at a critical time in this crisis. It will not be forgotten.

If you ask me: I wish Spain keeps far from this as possible...but if there on our side ..I'm grateful.
Viva Espana!!!

Go NYPD

PS: Kurt if we remove the nuclear threat (aka Saddam) we will create a whole diffrent problem

but I guess we're dammed either way????

Wolf,
I completely agree with your comments about the total insanity of one nation having the right to veto what has already been implemented in the Security Council! I think we all understand the whys and wherefores of Russia's postulating - especially when in one breathe they liken the situation to what is going on with Chechinya and are asking for UN support in that issue - and in that same breathe can possibly veto the UN sanctions of Saddam.

A bit off the subject but a couple of books by Claire Sterling - The Terrorist Network (1981) and Thieves World (1994) give a vastly informative and still current understanding of some of the funding behind terrorism.

And now - back to Spain .....