Printable View
I'm not surprised you would use Wikipedia. It is infamous for its lack of reliability. Perhaps you recall the founder enhancing his own biography, in direct violation of the Wiki rules? It's just one step removed from citing what you find written on the bathroom walls. :s mokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
The level of your replies is so low that trying to limbo under those is just impossible.
Most of the links are in Finnish, maybe that's why you got one from Wiki, huh?
How very clever. Another FFL with the inability to address facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
I "got one" from Wiki? You need to read more carefully, pal. It was your FFL comrade that dug down into Wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
I believe it's still more reliable than the US intelligence sources claiming Iraq has WMDs...Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Oh, and I thought it was an opinion of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
I "got one" from Wiki? You need to read more carefully, pal. It was your FFL comrade that dug down into Wiki.[/QUOTE]
http://www.kookas.fi/articles/read/5941
There you go, one article more from Finnish Civil war. Have fun translating it.
OK, agwiii, you don't trust Wikipedia, but you seem to have a blind trust on your government, so here's what the Library of Congress says about the Finnish Civil War:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...(DOCID+fi0024)
Good, you display an ability to learn. Now, let's take a look at this thread and stay within in. "Taking the thread off topic" can earn you negative points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
studiose
Saddam Hussein Hanged
...about an hour ago, new agencies report.
Certainly a major milestone in the conflict, I wonder how it will influence the actions of various parties. Will it lead to more violence? Or can it be the beginning of something more positive?
The fact that you feel the need to repeat the same phrase over and over again suggests that you have little to say on this matter other than spouting slogans.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Can I ask you, though, whether you held such strong views on the UN before the Iraq situation developed? Oh, and what do you suggest putting in the UN's place? A US military junta and associated kangaroo court?
This is nothing more than scrambled eggs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Actually, it's called cut and paste. The UN long ago outlived it's usefullness. The arrogance of the delegates who owe the City of New York a fortune in parking tickets is offensive. The absolute corruption and graft of Annin and his son should have them arrested and brought to trial. Why should there be anything in place of the UN? It has no legitimate function, so how does one replace something that is useless? I do suggest moving it from New York. I think Paris, Sao Paolo, Beijing or Crete would be excellent locations. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If the UN's credibility comes under question,that's rather because of the arrogant action of the US and its allies(UK....).....in much the same way Germany disregarded the League of Nations before WW2
Perhaps, but at least I'm offering my opinions for discussion instead of...what exactly? It seems you only have condescending soundbites and lectures to bring to the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Do you honestly believe that the process of international relations have improved in recent years, and that President Bush has provided effective leadership in this area?
What do you propose takes the place of the UN? If nothing, do you honestly believe that the international community would accept a single state acting as the world's policeman instead?
The UN is far from perfect, but instead of perpetuating Bush's policy of undermining and discrediting the UN, how about working towards reforming it constructively? It's very easy to criticse, and complain about the ineffectiveness of the UN, but all the time the US is doing this the Bush administration continues to withhold funds owed to UN Peacekeeping efforts, thus making them less able to do the work they are there to perform. So yes, the UN may be ineffective, but there you have one of the reasons why.
Arrows,Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The Security Council DID invoke Chapter 7, determine there were threats to the peace and had never declared a formal cease fire since the Gulf War as a result of Iraqs lack of compliance with requirements to do so. As no cease fire was ever enacted, all authorities to use force remained in effect.
In my opinion the best hope of resolving issues should be the UN, but history has shown it to be little other than a paper tiger. The Iraq situation is an example of this. In 12 years and after many resolutions they still had not forced compliance with cease fire agreements, nor did they even get close to doing so.
If the worlds best hope at peace lies in an organization who uses terms such as "as necessary means" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations" and backs it only with more words, then it's a huge paper tiger and nothing else.
The situation in Darfur is a current day example of what the UN is capable of. Without strong pressure from individual nations they would not even term the problem genocide. The UN has done little to nothing, individual member states have accomplished a great deal more.
The UN concluded that a peacekeeping mission would hold risks unless the involved parties quit fighting first. Just how stupid is that?
I agree with your point on legal matters being secondary, but unfortunately unless there is defined legalities the organization has failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Right now, if any individual or collective of member or non UN member nations stopped the genocide in Darfur the world would support it, "legal" or not. Yet if those same nations failed or created a worse situation the world would condemn it as "illegal".
It shouldn't matter, there are more than enough wealthy and equipped countries to stop what is happening, yet they aren't.
I think the main value of the UN is not in its (potential) ability to sort out the world's problems by acting as a super-national kick-ass force, but rather as the only universally recognized forum where nations can sort out matters between them - and before other nations - without having to go to war. And as such, it's an immensely valuable organization.
You haven't answered my question as to whether you felt so strongly about the UN before Bush told you to...Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Here are a few (very few) of the UN's functions. Then tell me if they are useless. Firstly, weapons inspections. The UN weapons inspectors did an excellent job in Iraq. Their presence contained Saddam Hussein's ambitions with regard to developing new weaponry and helped ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction there.
Then there have been the numerous humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in which the UN has been involved over the years. In spite of its many faults, which I acknowledge, it has generally proved to be a very effective co-ordinating body for such tasks, crucially ensuring that more countries are brought together to participate than would be the case if operations were merely, for instance, US-led.
And in spite of what some people might think, it is important to have a framework of international law within which to operate, in order to prosecute people in an appropriate way for war crimes and other such things.
Of course the UN is highly inefficient and needs reforming. Unlike you and some others commenting on these issues, I like to think that acknowledge that and don't just see the situation in black and white. However, it is far more of a force for good in spite of these major faults than you believe it to be, and I would far rather that my country worked within the frameworks provided by the UN than acted unilaterally or just in concert with the USA.
I don't think so. Just as an individual shouldn't take law into his/her own hands but let the justice system to take care of the situation the best it can, any single nation shouldn't take international matters into their own hands but let an international body like the UN to take care of it the best it can. I think this is necessary in order to maintain law and order and not cause more and deeper rifts in international relationships. No means no, and the US should learn to understand it just like Iran, North Korea and Sudan should too.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
The US invasion to Iraq was deemed illegal from the word "go".Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I would like to agree with the former two opinions, however I find it hard to see examples of the UN working to solve any major issue.
For the most part I think that they do a good job of monitoring situations such as the weapons inspectors, or peacekeeping missions. But in both instances they seem to fail when it matters. Iraq simply kicked out the inspectors with nothing other than more resolutions to condemn it, and the peacekeeping missions seem to come after the peace is for the most part already existent.
The one area I can almost agree without condition is that they do a good job of coordinating humanitarian relief efforts, but really often simply identify the need.
Can either of you provide an example in recent history where the actions of the UN alone fixed a real problem?
This is where I cannot agree with you, Arrows, or with BDunnell. The UN is a nice idea, just as the League of Nations was a nice idea. Peace-loving peoples gathering together to talk out their differences, instead of fighting them out. More jaw-jaw and less war-war, as Churchill put it, in uncharacteristically clumsy fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But the sad truth is that a house is only as strong as the bricks it is made of. You can't build a constructive group of nations working toward peace out of quarrelsome countries, each with its own interests and varying levels of power. Either you leave the quarrelsome, power-hungry member states out of the decision-making process, which is what the Security Council system is designed to do, or you include them, and watch the angry results. There is no way around this. There are numerous national governments whom you wouldn't trust to look after your children on an evening, never mind letting them determine matters of war and peace. What are you to do with these regimes? Let them have a say in determining your foreign policy, risking that they will club together and actually dictate it, or shutting them out, and depriving your international body of all legitimacy? I don't see a third way.
I'd personally like to see the UN be disbanded. maybe NATO too. Even though I'm from a country that is not a member of NATO, many countries within the EU are members of NATO.
you couldn't be any more wrong than saying that the UN is about peace-loving peoples. it would surprise you to see who setup the UN, the founders of the UN were far from "peacenik" in the aftermath of WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Hence the name "peacekeeping". Before you can keep peace there must be a peace to be kept.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
UN alone? The UN is, or at least should be, the sum of its member nations, therefore it needs cooperation from its member nations and the quarrelling parties. I think Cyprus is one good example of a successful peacekeeping mission, there hasn't been fighting in more than 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Al Gore IS an idiot. The State that knows him best didn't elect him over Bush for President. He claimed to have invented the Internet ( a factious argument if there ever was one and one a smart politician would never state). He also claims man is behind global warming. Understand, that global warming may not be caused by man at all, at best the science is very much theory. Nevertheless, Al Gore would cripple his nation's ability to run its economy on theories that are unproven. Al Gore who is suppossed to be brilliant, yet Bush made him look stupid in 2 debates. Al Gore should have won that election in 2000 in a walk, and yet the "idiot" squeaked out a narrow Electoral vote victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
No, Al Gore is not the genius many would have you believe, for if he was so "brilliant" he would have been there again in 2004 but the Democratic party in the US wanted nothing to do with him.
On what basis do you say that? I am convinced you are very much mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I am beginning to think that global warming might be a good thing if it forces people like you to realise the error of your ways when it comes to the issue...
Theories are unproven by definition :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
While I agree with you that Al Gore losing out to Bush can indeed make him look like an idiot, you might be interested to read how Bush may be changing his course / flip-flopping on this issue :p :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010611-2.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...989997,00.html
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif
This is all very true, but no-one ever puts across a better alternative, and I think there needs to be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
This has been my point exactly. All of you trendy "leftwing" posters have to understand something. Whatever George Bush did, he was citing the resolutions of the UN that Saddam was not following as justification. The search for WMD's excuse ( a lame one if none were found and therefore not one I would have used) comes from the failure of the UN to be able to get Saddam to comply with his role in letting the inspectors do their job without his henchmen stopping them from seeing what they had to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
So when Saddam didn't want to obey the 14 Resolutions coming out of his illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait, Bush decided to take it into his own hands. So he is a BAD man for actually making the UN stand for something. You guys say he weakened it. It was discredited in my mind years ago....
Eki stated how Cyprus has had peace because of the UN. Wrong, they have peace because one nation, Canada for the first 25 years sat between two warring parties and kept the peace. The UN didn't do anything except get the two parties to the table, but that only has value if both sides are willing to abide. You have not in 30 pages of posting here proven to me or anyone else with an open mind stated what happens when one party DOES NOT want to take diplomacy as a solution and when they WILL NOT abide by the terms laid out to them by the UN. You are so horrified by war, but what you have to understand, war's are the result of failed diplomacy. To blame the US for Saddam's refusal to go along with your precious UN is blaming the girl in the short skirt and halter top for being raped. It is a weak argument and it shows your anti-US bias.
For 32 pages Eki and his friends have constantly stated the US is the problem. Some of you have used rational arguments and have admitted the weak points in your arguments. I have stated over and over again I don't think Bush is a fantatsic president on any level, but I sure as heck also understand that failed diplomacy brings wars, and failed diplomacy can be laid on the doorstep of one man in this case, Saddam Hussein. Most of you will not accept this, and it seems you apportion Hussein no blame. I just know that when you do this, your arguments are NOT based on logic, they are based on a flawed premise that the US is at all fault for everything that happens, whether they intervene on behalf of the UN or if they ignore situations such as Darfur, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.
For the UN to have ANY meaning at all, despite being a room full of hot air, someone has to say if the UN takes a resolution, then if it is not followed, then the member nations will have to enforce those resolutions. In the world of a few of you, there is no enforcement. You just have a bunch of useless bureaucrats talking, but that is ok with some of you. It isn't for me. Of course, the same people who refuse to allow force to be used in any manner to enforce the UN dictates would also handcuff the US from defending itself, and it would give the rights of nations run by the most dictatorial thugs the same rights as democracies. So you really are NOT intrested in anything but every nation leaving the others alone. Fine theory really, sucks in practice. Saddam loved that he was allowed by the UN to invade Iran, and when the UN stood up to him in Kuwait, he used the UN to stop the war. Of course, when it came to living up to his obligations, he wouldn't, and hence the Casus Belli with the US.
No, if you are going to want us to buy the fact the US has no reason to be involved in the Middle East, then one of you neutral Finn's better have an answer to deal with the world's nation states that wont follow the rules of civilized man. Your answer is to leave them be. That is an answer to nothing and as I have stated before, only leads to larger conflicts. If the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, and if the sanctions were lifted, you all know that Saddam would have provoked another conflict. If you refuse to believe that, then there is no point to your arguing any further. You have made up your mind, you are blind to the reality of how the world has worked since man started keeping track of world history. Strongmen dictators will often provoke or create situations that sooner or later draw them into wars with other nations. In the case of Iraq, it was a dead certain reality. Nations run by thugs that have not been invaded have kept their cruelty within their own borders. To my Finnish Friend Eki there this is ok with him. He doesn't like it but he is fine with no war. Greater lives are saved this way....except he isn't the one he is condemning to live like this.
Thanks Eki, if the building is burning, I wont wait for you to save me....I am on my own.....
You mean Canadians were there on their own independent of the UN? Can you show us some proof? Finnish UN peacekeeping troops were there about 25 years too, but they were part of UN troops that consisted of several nationalities. Do you have any idea what the UN peacekeeping forces are, what they do and where they are/have been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
There was, as it turned out, nothing for them to see. They actually did a perfectly good job despite the obstructions they faced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
You could accuse Al Gore of being many things, boring, lacking in charisma, out of touch with the ordinary man, politically naive, but idiotic, never! I think Al Gore is one of the best politicians America has. I voted for him enthusiastically when he last ran (I hold both US and British citizenship), and would gladly do so again. I am at a total loss, Mark, to see why you have so little respect for him. What has he ever done to make you think he's an idiot? (Oh, and by the way; he never claimed to have invented the internet. That is just a deliberate misconception put about by his critics.)
I know you weren't asking me, but I fear that people feel threatened by his stance on the environment, and choose instead to stick their heads in the sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
This has been my point exactly. All of you trendy "leftwing" posters have to understand something. Whatever George Bush did, he was citing the resolutions of the UN that Saddam was not following as justification. The search for WMD's excuse ( a lame one if none were found and therefore not one I would have used) comes from the failure of the UN to be able to get Saddam to comply with his role in letting the inspectors do their job without his henchmen stopping them from seeing what they had to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
So when Saddam didn't want to obey the 14 Resolutions coming out of his illegal and immoral invasion of Kuwait, Bush decided to take it into his own hands. So he is a BAD man for actually making the UN stand for something. You guys say he weakened it. It was discredited in my mind years ago....
Eki stated how Cyprus has had peace because of the UN. Wrong, they have peace because one nation, Canada for the first 25 years sat between two warring parties and kept the peace. The UN didn't do anything except get the two parties to the table, but that only has value if both sides are willing to abide. You have not in 30 pages of posting here proven to me or anyone else with an open mind stated what happens when one party DOES NOT want to take diplomacy as a solution and when they WILL NOT abide by the terms laid out to them by the UN. You are so horrified by war, but what you have to understand, war's are the result of failed diplomacy. To blame the US for Saddam's refusal to go along with your precious UN is blaming the girl in the short skirt and halter top for being raped. It is a weak argument and it shows your anti-US bias.
For 32 pages Eki and his friends have constantly stated the US is the problem. Some of you have used rational arguments and have admitted the weak points in your arguments. I have stated over and over again I don't think Bush is a fantatsic president on any level, but I sure as heck also understand that failed diplomacy brings wars, and failed diplomacy can be laid on the doorstep of one man in this case, Saddam Hussein. Most of you will not accept this, and it seems you apportion Hussein no blame. I just know that when you do this, your arguments are NOT based on logic, they are based on a flawed premise that the US is at all fault for everything that happens, whether they intervene on behalf of the UN or if they ignore situations such as Darfur, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.
For the UN to have ANY meaning at all, despite being a room full of hot air, someone has to say if the UN takes a resolution, then if it is not followed, then the member nations will have to enforce those resolutions. In the world of a few of you, there is no enforcement. You just have a bunch of useless bureaucrats talking, but that is ok with some of you. It isn't for me. Of course, the same people who refuse to allow force to be used in any manner to enforce the UN dictates would also handcuff the US from defending itself, and it would give the rights of nations run by the most dictatorial thugs the same rights as democracies. So you really are NOT intrested in anything but every nation leaving the others alone. Fine theory really, sucks in practice. Saddam loved that he was allowed by the UN to invade Iran, and when the UN stood up to him in Kuwait, he used the UN to stop the war. Of course, when it came to living up to his obligations, he wouldn't, and hence the Casus Belli with the US.
No, if you are going to want us to buy the fact the US has no reason to be involved in the Middle East, then one of you neutral Finn's better have an answer to deal with the world's nation states that wont follow the rules of civilized man. Your answer is to leave them be. That is an answer to nothing and as I have stated before, only leads to larger conflicts. If the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, and if the sanctions were lifted, you all know that Saddam would have provoked another conflict. If you refuse to believe that, then there is no point to your arguing any further. You have made up your mind, you are blind to the reality of how the world has worked since man started keeping track of world history. Strongmen dictators will often provoke or create situations that sooner or later draw them into wars with other nations. In the case of Iraq, it was a dead certain reality. Nations run by thugs that have not been invaded have kept their cruelty within their own borders. To my Finnish Friend Eki there this is ok with him. He doesn't like it but he is fine with no war. Greater lives are saved this way....except he isn't the one he is condemning to live like this.
Thanks Eki, if the building is burning, I wont wait for you to save me....I am on my own.....
Don't you "rightwingers" always think everybody should always make it on their own? Then why don't you think that if a country has internal problems, its citizens should fix them on their own and not rely on outside help?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
First off, I am a libertarian at heart. That isn't right wing, that is pro-human rights and pro-freedom of the individual. However, unlike you Eki, I understand that nation states who threaten others and enslave their own often come into conflict with other nations. AT some point, they are often dealt with. History has shown that standing by while a regime bent on conquest and oppression continually threatens other nations, they wont stop until conflict is no longer avoidable. My premise has been all along that sooner or later, Saddam was going to get the war he sought, because past history had shown that he was determined to push the boundries. He could avoided this conflict, and he didn't. You can white wash that, but that fact has always been there.
Eki, you are typical of those on the left. You are all for talking and finding a solution through talking, but there is no end game to all this rhetoric when you have no other recourse. You are naive to think that the people of oppressed nations deserve their fates because the war to liberate them might kill them. I agree, war should be avoided at all costs, but at some point, wars are the only way out. Saddam was a threat to the whole of the Middle East, and he didn't have anyone's best interests at heart except for his narrow desires. Could the world have sat on him for the next 15 years without a war? Maybe, but that situation was untenable for him, and he would have done something to bring about the conflict he ended up losing his nation in. He was starving his people under the sanctions, and while the people of Iraq suffered, you seem to think they were better off. I think a lot of us disagree, and while Bush's premise for war (WMD's) was weak, in the end, the resolutions of the UN dictated it and the failure of Saddam to live to them. You wont stand by the UN's resolutions when Saddam ignores them yet you condemn the US for not listening to Kofi Annan. The thing is, the UN had failed to enforce its own dictates, and Blair and Bush decided they were going to do it for them. Criticize away....you will anyway, but the point remains, there was no easy solution to this, for no matter what was done, people were going to suffer. At least with this, the people of Iraq have a choice now, and they voted 80% plurality in their first election. They didn't have that choice before. For someone who respects the rights of the individual, I am all for that.
You cannot deny someone else the freedoms you enjoy Eki. That just makes you very inconsistent......
I realize the Finns were there, my father in law served as a liason with them when he was in Cyprus with the Canadian Army. The point remains though that for 25 plus years the two sides are ready to kill each other but are also both willing to let the UN handle being between them. Canada gave up on it a few years ago because of the cost involved and our troops were needed elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
They were there under the UN, I never said they were not. Canada has not put troops in the field without UN sanctions since the creation of that body. You better realize however though that the UN only works when both sides are committed for it to work. Iraq is living proof that one side bent on picking a fight will eventually get it. Saddam didn't want to live up to his obligations under the UN and he received the fight that was the result.
You would hold no one accountable for their actions it seems...
They didn't see anything Saddam didn't want them to see. Do you not remember the constant controversay about the "palaces" being off limits? You mean to say in a nation that is as large as France that something couldn't have been hid? If Saddam had no WMD's, and we know he had them once upon a time, (it wasn't fiction that he gassed the Kurd's with years ago)then why was he constantly putting restrictions on the inspectors and monitoring their movements? They rarely were able to get free of Baghdad. Iraq is a huge nation, and Saddam's efforts to interfere with their movements only heightened the suspicions that the West had about his motives. If you want to be open and honest with the UN, as Libya was in giving up their WMD's, you have no issue. Saddam didn't get this UN treatment because he is a swell guy you know, he invaded a nation for plunder and to steal its resources. The sanctions came out of that invasion. He was not to be trusted with good reason. By acting the way he did, he made things worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
although we probably don't agree on who was bent on picking a fight :p :
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Al Gore was found wanting by a public who endorsed his boss Bill Clinton for two terms. Al Gore's dogged attititude that Global Warming will be our undoing ignores the number of respected theorists that have been pointing out the flaws in the theory. Global warming is a threat to be sure, no one disputes the magnitude of what could happen if our climate changes too much. Understand two things though. Kyoto is the favourite solution by those who agree with Al. Al is a huge fan of the Kyoto protocols yet he and Bill Clinton didn't put it before Congress. They didn't have the courage of their convictions. What is more, Kyoto's flaws are obvious to anyone with the time to read how the measurements and carbon trading credits were to be given out. Not to mention a quarter of the world's ecomomic polluters would be given a free ride (India and China were not part of the Kyoto restrictions) while the more sophisticated nations would restrict their green house gases further or buy "credit" from other nations who had just gone though economic slow downs to buy their "green house credits". Al Gore not only agreed with all of this, he helped write it.
No, we wont go into all of the machinations of Kyoto, but based on this flawed document alone, Al Gore is not to be trusted. We wont even get into his flawed economic theories.....I may not be an American with a vote, but as a citizen of a nation next door, I sometimes deplore the stiffs that manage to get nominated for the election of president.
That includes Bush by the way......but he still is not a war criminal and he certainly isn't evil. Incompetant I will accept....but at least Bush admits his faults and sticks to his principles....
Who exactly did Iraq threaten in the state they were in? Their military was wrecked in the first Gulf War and they hadn't received hardly any new weapons in over 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
you are right, we likely wont. Understand this. I have said this 100 times now. If Saddam Hussein plays welcoming host to the UN for as long as the UN wanted, then there is no war. How many times did Hans Blix say how frustrated he was with the process of inspecting Iraq because Saddam was restricting the access??Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Listen, Bush just was able to exploit Saddam's intrasigence to allow the UN full access to get 53 other nations to follow him to Iraq. If he was a goof with no ability to think as you and others might portray him, 53 leaders wouldn't have committed themselves to dumping Saddam. You cannot just say Bush was the problem. It sounds old and simplistic, and you cannot also ignore it wasn't just the CIA who thought Saddam was hiding WMD's, British and French Intelligence were also open about it. Then Saddam does nothing but add to the suspicions of the world by restricting the UN. THe man was an idiot to think in a post 911 world that the US would not want to put a stop to that. They were hurt badly by the attack on the World Trade Center and to act as he did only made people in the US and outside of it see him as a possible future threat. God knows he would be if he was left to his own devices, he was before.