[quote]So they wouldn't have to destroy the weapons in front of an inspector to avoid a material breach. Just clarifying.<hr></blockquote>
i would say that if they had destroyed them when they were supposed to years ago, and had documented it well, that would be good enough. (they didn't)
at this point if they said they had tons of weapons/chemicals i would say they need to destroy it with the UN inspectors looking on, just to keep everything on the up and up.
IIRC, they have nothing at all in most cases, or terrible documentation on the supposed destruction of these weapons.
<strong>And I'll throw in a **** you to you scott for good measure...I count you as one of the blind lemmings of these whole bunch of idiots.
WAKE THE **** UP PEOPLE!</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think I'm blind? Why, because I don't tow the anti-American party line here at AI? Or maybe because I'm through with the UN and it's endless "process". Maybe I should go around spouting "Bush is an idiot". That would make me seem more open minded?
I know. All I have to do is agree, without question, that the war against the Taliban and Al Queda was/is a "racist war" and that the US "carpet bombed" Afghanistan "without cause" and gave the Taliban no chance to comply with US demands to hand over terrorists. Even though the complete opposite is true. Don?t let the facts get in the way of a good anti-US rant huh?
May you pay it instead of me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed...but any such action must be followed up with...you guessed it...MARSHALL PLANS.
Scott is one of a few here at AI that has clarity of mind and logic to cut through the anti-American BS one so often hears here. I read his posts with envy for their lack of verbiage. Something I never seem to get away from.
Scott is one of a few here at AI that has clarity of mind and logic to cut through the anti-American BS one so often hears here. I read his posts with envy for their lack of verbiage. Something I never seem to get away from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a not so fine line between dismissing true anti-American rhetoric and dismissing anything that criticizes the United States. Furthermore, Scott often ignores the message and dismisses ideas based solely on the messenger, even if the message is good. I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment.
KOFI IS WRONG! He's an appeaser. He thinks the process is the goal. The goal is disarmament. Bush nailed his (UNs) failings to the wall last night.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All this stuff is just you're opinion Scott. The facts remain that the experts, the people actually there ( not the armchair generals ) have said it's not a material breach.
I still say if you guys are sooooooo gung ho I think you should go sign up and be on the front line. Life takes on a little different perspective once bullets are whizing past your head. It's not liike " Soldier of Fortune ". It's much more real.
The other night we had an interesting incident at the university where I work. A couple of military types showed up looking for a student who was also in the reserves. I guess they had been trying to call him for a while now but he wasn't returning their calls. They found him with the help of campus safety and took him away.
War looks a little different when it's your one and only nonrespawnable life. So if you have to go to it you had better make damn sure it's for a real cause.
There is a not so fine line between dismissing true anti-American rhetoric and dismissing anything that criticizes the United States. Furthermore, Scott often ignores the message and dismisses ideas based solely on the messenger, even if the message is good. I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well,
if there are subtleties in the message, it might be that the messenger just finally got a little craftier this time around. To separate the message from the messenger, as though it was born in a vacuum, is just plain folly and extremely naïve.
a) Saddam recieved money and intelligence from the US in order to "deal with" Iran.
b) While "a" was occuring we knew that saddam was "dealing with" kurds etc.
c) The NY TIMES as well as other national papers and a news report broadcast on ABC World News Tonight showed George Bush sr. sitting down with Saddam chillin'.
d) Saddam invades Kuwait, a British created state mind you, We go and bomb Iraq. During this Gulf -joke of a- War, we kill thousands of people ( confirmed fact) and cencor news media ( confirmed fact) while we buldoze dead bodies into trenches that Iraquis had dug ( confirmed fact).
Also during Gulf War, US pilots create the infamous Road of Death, Where aircraft pilots now admit they knew were civilians ( no doubt there were *some* military in there.
So in effect we created a enemy, called him a friend and then gave him enemy status again.
Just so we all understand these events so that none of us are really believeing the whole Good vs.Evil nonsense being thrown at us.
Ok ., Now during the LAST State of the Union address Bush either outright LIED or he was woefully missinformed, when He said that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaida. The CIA itself said that this wasn't so. So either the CIA is lying or Bush is Lying. Either way Someone in the govt. is lying.
Pressed by NATO "Allies" Rumsfeld could not produce ANY evidence to back up any claim that Saddam and Al-Q are linked otehr than a few hacks running around a desert.
Next Bush LIES or is woefully misinformed and states that Iraq has aluminum tubes that are being used to produce Nuclear material for misiles. Inspectors find that there is NO truth to that statement.
Bush told "the nation" that they should imagine if the hijakers had chemicals or Germs,however, there has been absolutely no explanation as to why the recent Anthrax scare here in the US was a US MADE STRAIN. NOr has he explained why the investigation has been stopped. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the adminsitration is playing the FEAR GAME on the public.
Iraq's Weapons of Mas disctruction are a few Scuds and misiles that can go 200 miles. In other words absoultel NOTHING that can reach the US or most NATO countries. MEANWHILE China Nkorea, Pakistan and India all have Nuclear weapons and the means to drop one right here in the US yet China is Most Favored Nation, Pakistan is a Partner in fighting Terror, though they probably have more AL-Q and Taliban than Iraq has on a Muslim Holy Day.
N. Korea has basically called the US's bluff
India just sends programmers to the US.
Mewanwhile Israel, regularly bombs people who's lone weapons of mass descruction are bodies, nails and gun powder. This country has ignonred any number of UN resolutions yet has not seen the light of a Tomahawk Misile. But of course the Israeli apologists will claim that Isreal is a democratic country.....like THAT makes a difference.
MOst of the 9-11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet that country is yet to see the light of a Tomahawk misile.
So let's get this straight, This ain't about Democracy. This ain't about good vs. Evil. This about a Global Order run by the US.
We should at least be honest enough with ourselves to admit this and stop using double talk.
if there are subtleties in the message, it might be that the messenger just finally got a little craftier this time around. To separate the message from the messenger, as though it was born in a vacuum, is just plain folly and extremely naïve.
a) Saddam recieved money and intelligence from the US in order to "deal with" Iran.
b) While "a" was occuring we knew that saddam was "dealing with" kurds etc.
c) The NY TIMES as well as other national papers and a news report broadcast on ABC World News Tonight showed George Bush sr. sitting down with Saddam chillin'.
d) Saddam invades Kuwait, a British created state mind you, We go and bomb Iraq. During this Gulf -joke of a- War, we kill thousands of people ( confirmed fact) and cencor news media ( confirmed fact) while we buldoze dead bodies into trenches that Iraquis had dug ( confirmed fact).
Also during Gulf War, US pilots create the infamous Road of Death, Where aircraft pilots now admit they knew were civilians ( no doubt there were *some* military in there.
So in effect we created a enemy, called him a friend and then gave him enemy status again.
Just so we all understand these events so that none of us are really believeing the whole Good vs.Evil nonsense being thrown at us.
Ok ., Now during the LAST State of the Union address Bush either outright LIED or he was woefully missinformed, when He said that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaida. The CIA itself said that this wasn't so. So either the CIA is lying or Bush is Lying. Either way Someone in the govt. is lying.
Pressed by NATO "Allies" Rumsfeld could not produce ANY evidence to back up any claim that Saddam and Al-Q are linked otehr than a few hacks running around a desert.
Next Bush LIES or is woefully misinformed and states that Iraq has aluminum tubes that are being used to produce Nuclear material for misiles. Inspectors find that there is NO truth to that statement.
Bush told "the nation" that they should imagine if the hijakers had chemicals or Germs,however, there has been absolutely no explanation as to why the recent Anthrax scare here in the US was a US MADE STRAIN. NOr has he explained why the investigation has been stopped. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the adminsitration is playing the FEAR GAME on the public.
Iraq's Weapons of Mas disctruction are a few Scuds and misiles that can go 200 miles. In other words absoultel NOTHING that can reach the US or most NATO countries. MEANWHILE China Nkorea, Pakistan and India all have Nuclear weapons and the means to drop one right here in the US yet China is Most Favored Nation, Pakistan is a Partner in fighting Terror, though they probably have more AL-Q and Taliban than Iraq has on a Muslim Holy Day.
N. Korea has basically called the US's bluff
India just sends programmers to the US.
Mewanwhile Israel, regularly bombs people who's lone weapons of mass descruction are bodies, nails and gun powder. This country has ignonred any number of UN resolutions yet has not seen the light of a Tomahawk Misile. But of course the Israeli apologists will claim that Isreal is a democratic country.....like THAT makes a difference.
MOst of the 9-11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet that country is yet to see the light of a Tomahawk misile.
So let's get this straight, This ain't about Democracy. This ain't about good vs. Evil. This about a Global Order run by the US.
We should at least be honest enough with ourselves to admit this and stop using double talk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the problems with being American... duplicitiousness is not an American invention, nor is America its best practitioner. The English, Germans, French... the Iranians, they know the score. They want to bomb the snot out of Iraq just as badly as Bush does, but having seen America play it's cards badly for the past 12 months, they have taken a great opportunity to tease America into doing this little bit of dirty work on her own. [Expect for the English, who beyond hope of Arab-English reconciliation have thought it better to make friendly with the US.] Once you know Bush is going to bomb Iraq regardless, why not come off smelling of peace and diplomatic process whilst the blunt Americans give you what you want anyway? You can't really mollify terrorists, but you can redirect their attentions. The UN gets the assurance it needs two-fold, by dusting another bit of arab chaos, and by redirecting most of the negativity at America. Were I an American, despite my reservations about Bush and Iraq, I would be largely offended at being played in this way.*
The UN WANTS TO ATTACK IRAQ, the US and UK are the only ones willing to say it publicly.
Think about the conditions. Nobody needs a bombing moreso than Saudi Arabia, but once you get rid of the Saudi Royals you get Wahabi and a population predisposed to accept their teachings. Oh joy.
Iraq has at least some secular habits going for it. It is not guaranteed that theocratic mad men would take over the moment Saddam falls, but as the population suffers they are gaining acceptance. Even Saddam has had to re-image himself as a more religious figure despite his natural objections to this disposition.
*Bush made too many mistakes and took way too long and gave the UN cowards this opening so he is as much to blame, but in a much different way than you intend.
*Bush made too many mistakes and took way too long and gave the UN cowards this opening so he is as much to blame, but in a much different way than you intend.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, you underestimate my ability to fault Bush. He really has played this out very poorly but that doesn't mean I think he can or should war his way out of the corner he's backed the U.S. into. I've believed all along that he needs to pressure the U.N. into agreeing to a fight, and it's not even too late. It'll now take longer since Bush has messed up so badly, but were it an objective of this administration it could still happen.
Comments
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
i would say that if they had destroyed them when they were supposed to years ago, and had documented it well, that would be good enough. (they didn't)
at this point if they said they had tons of weapons/chemicals i would say they need to destroy it with the UN inspectors looking on, just to keep everything on the up and up.
IIRC, they have nothing at all in most cases, or terrible documentation on the supposed destruction of these weapons.
<strong>And I'll throw in a **** you to you scott for good measure...I count you as one of the blind lemmings of these whole bunch of idiots.
WAKE THE **** UP PEOPLE!</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think I'm blind? Why, because I don't tow the anti-American party line here at AI? Or maybe because I'm through with the UN and it's endless "process". Maybe I should go around spouting "Bush is an idiot". That would make me seem more open minded?
I know. All I have to do is agree, without question, that the war against the Taliban and Al Queda was/is a "racist war" and that the US "carpet bombed" Afghanistan "without cause" and gave the Taliban no chance to comply with US demands to hand over terrorists. Even though the complete opposite is true. Don?t let the facts get in the way of a good anti-US rant huh?
<strong>You think I'm blind?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
[quote]Why, because I don't tow the anti-American party line here at AI?<hr></blockquote>
No, it is because you interpret any negative criticism about any of our policies as anti-American.
[quote]Don?t let the facts get in the way of a good anti-US rant huh?<hr></blockquote>
This kind of statement only proves my point.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
May you pay it instead of me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.
<strong>
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed...but any such action must be followed up with...you guessed it...MARSHALL PLANS.
Scott is one of a few here at AI that has clarity of mind and logic to cut through the anti-American BS one so often hears here. I read his posts with envy for their lack of verbiage. Something I never seem to get away from.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>Actually,
Scott is one of a few here at AI that has clarity of mind and logic to cut through the anti-American BS one so often hears here. I read his posts with envy for their lack of verbiage. Something I never seem to get away from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a not so fine line between dismissing true anti-American rhetoric and dismissing anything that criticizes the United States. Furthermore, Scott often ignores the message and dismisses ideas based solely on the messenger, even if the message is good. I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment.
<strong>
KOFI IS WRONG! He's an appeaser. He thinks the process is the goal. The goal is disarmament. Bush nailed his (UNs) failings to the wall last night.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All this stuff is just you're opinion Scott. The facts remain that the experts, the people actually there ( not the armchair generals ) have said it's not a material breach.
I still say if you guys are sooooooo gung ho I think you should go sign up and be on the front line. Life takes on a little different perspective once bullets are whizing past your head. It's not liike " Soldier of Fortune ". It's much more real.
The other night we had an interesting incident at the university where I work. A couple of military types showed up looking for a student who was also in the reserves. I guess they had been trying to call him for a while now but he wasn't returning their calls. They found him with the help of campus safety and took him away.
War looks a little different when it's your one and only nonrespawnable life. So if you have to go to it you had better make damn sure it's for a real cause.
<strong>
There is a not so fine line between dismissing true anti-American rhetoric and dismissing anything that criticizes the United States. Furthermore, Scott often ignores the message and dismisses ideas based solely on the messenger, even if the message is good. I'm sorry, but I vehemently disagree with your assessment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well,
if there are subtleties in the message, it might be that the messenger just finally got a little craftier this time around. To separate the message from the messenger, as though it was born in a vacuum, is just plain folly and extremely naïve.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong> ...campus safety... </strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
a) Saddam recieved money and intelligence from the US in order to "deal with" Iran.
b) While "a" was occuring we knew that saddam was "dealing with" kurds etc.
c) The NY TIMES as well as other national papers and a news report broadcast on ABC World News Tonight showed George Bush sr. sitting down with Saddam chillin'.
d) Saddam invades Kuwait, a British created state mind you, We go and bomb Iraq. During this Gulf -joke of a- War, we kill thousands of people ( confirmed fact) and cencor news media ( confirmed fact) while we buldoze dead bodies into trenches that Iraquis had dug ( confirmed fact).
Also during Gulf War, US pilots create the infamous Road of Death, Where aircraft pilots now admit they knew were civilians ( no doubt there were *some* military in there.
So in effect we created a enemy, called him a friend and then gave him enemy status again.
Just so we all understand these events so that none of us are really believeing the whole Good vs.Evil nonsense being thrown at us.
Ok ., Now during the LAST State of the Union address Bush either outright LIED or he was woefully missinformed, when He said that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaida. The CIA itself said that this wasn't so. So either the CIA is lying or Bush is Lying. Either way Someone in the govt. is lying.
Pressed by NATO "Allies" Rumsfeld could not produce ANY evidence to back up any claim that Saddam and Al-Q are linked otehr than a few hacks running around a desert.
Next Bush LIES or is woefully misinformed and states that Iraq has aluminum tubes that are being used to produce Nuclear material for misiles. Inspectors find that there is NO truth to that statement.
Bush told "the nation" that they should imagine if the hijakers had chemicals or Germs,however, there has been absolutely no explanation as to why the recent Anthrax scare here in the US was a US MADE STRAIN. NOr has he explained why the investigation has been stopped. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the adminsitration is playing the FEAR GAME on the public.
Iraq's Weapons of Mas disctruction are a few Scuds and misiles that can go 200 miles. In other words absoultel NOTHING that can reach the US or most NATO countries. MEANWHILE China Nkorea, Pakistan and India all have Nuclear weapons and the means to drop one right here in the US yet China is Most Favored Nation, Pakistan is a Partner in fighting Terror, though they probably have more AL-Q and Taliban than Iraq has on a Muslim Holy Day.
N. Korea has basically called the US's bluff
India just sends programmers to the US.
Mewanwhile Israel, regularly bombs people who's lone weapons of mass descruction are bodies, nails and gun powder. This country has ignonred any number of UN resolutions yet has not seen the light of a Tomahawk Misile. But of course the Israeli apologists will claim that Isreal is a democratic country.....like THAT makes a difference.
MOst of the 9-11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet that country is yet to see the light of a Tomahawk misile.
So let's get this straight, This ain't about Democracy. This ain't about good vs. Evil. This about a Global Order run by the US.
We should at least be honest enough with ourselves to admit this and stop using double talk.
The enemy of your *greater* enemy is your friend. Better to fight your enemies through proxy.
<strong>
Well,
if there are subtleties in the message, it might be that the messenger just finally got a little craftier this time around. To separate the message from the messenger, as though it was born in a vacuum, is just plain folly and extremely naïve.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
To ignore a good message because you dislike the messenger is folly and extremely naive.
<strong>Let's run the facs:
a) Saddam recieved money and intelligence from the US in order to "deal with" Iran.
b) While "a" was occuring we knew that saddam was "dealing with" kurds etc.
c) The NY TIMES as well as other national papers and a news report broadcast on ABC World News Tonight showed George Bush sr. sitting down with Saddam chillin'.
d) Saddam invades Kuwait, a British created state mind you, We go and bomb Iraq. During this Gulf -joke of a- War, we kill thousands of people ( confirmed fact) and cencor news media ( confirmed fact) while we buldoze dead bodies into trenches that Iraquis had dug ( confirmed fact).
Also during Gulf War, US pilots create the infamous Road of Death, Where aircraft pilots now admit they knew were civilians ( no doubt there were *some* military in there.
So in effect we created a enemy, called him a friend and then gave him enemy status again.
Just so we all understand these events so that none of us are really believeing the whole Good vs.Evil nonsense being thrown at us.
Ok ., Now during the LAST State of the Union address Bush either outright LIED or he was woefully missinformed, when He said that Saddam had ties to Al-Qaida. The CIA itself said that this wasn't so. So either the CIA is lying or Bush is Lying. Either way Someone in the govt. is lying.
Pressed by NATO "Allies" Rumsfeld could not produce ANY evidence to back up any claim that Saddam and Al-Q are linked otehr than a few hacks running around a desert.
Next Bush LIES or is woefully misinformed and states that Iraq has aluminum tubes that are being used to produce Nuclear material for misiles. Inspectors find that there is NO truth to that statement.
Bush told "the nation" that they should imagine if the hijakers had chemicals or Germs,however, there has been absolutely no explanation as to why the recent Anthrax scare here in the US was a US MADE STRAIN. NOr has he explained why the investigation has been stopped. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the adminsitration is playing the FEAR GAME on the public.
Iraq's Weapons of Mas disctruction are a few Scuds and misiles that can go 200 miles. In other words absoultel NOTHING that can reach the US or most NATO countries. MEANWHILE China Nkorea, Pakistan and India all have Nuclear weapons and the means to drop one right here in the US yet China is Most Favored Nation, Pakistan is a Partner in fighting Terror, though they probably have more AL-Q and Taliban than Iraq has on a Muslim Holy Day.
N. Korea has basically called the US's bluff
India just sends programmers to the US.
Mewanwhile Israel, regularly bombs people who's lone weapons of mass descruction are bodies, nails and gun powder. This country has ignonred any number of UN resolutions yet has not seen the light of a Tomahawk Misile. But of course the Israeli apologists will claim that Isreal is a democratic country.....like THAT makes a difference.
MOst of the 9-11 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia yet that country is yet to see the light of a Tomahawk misile.
So let's get this straight, This ain't about Democracy. This ain't about good vs. Evil. This about a Global Order run by the US.
We should at least be honest enough with ourselves to admit this and stop using double talk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty much to the point. Thank you!
<strong>
Well since you're not living in the States as far as I know I probably will be the one paying for it in more ways than one.
I had no problem with the fact that we attacked Afghanistan. I have no problem with the U.N. attacking Iraq. I do have a problem with United States unilateral action based off of our own interpretations of U.N. sanctioned treaties.
It's a violation of my country's Constitution and international law.
Inaction is not a possibility. An attack without U.N. approval is not a possibility. There is a very clear middle ground that can be followed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of the problems with being American... duplicitiousness is not an American invention, nor is America its best practitioner. The English, Germans, French... the Iranians, they know the score. They want to bomb the snot out of Iraq just as badly as Bush does, but having seen America play it's cards badly for the past 12 months, they have taken a great opportunity to tease America into doing this little bit of dirty work on her own. [Expect for the English, who beyond hope of Arab-English reconciliation have thought it better to make friendly with the US.] Once you know Bush is going to bomb Iraq regardless, why not come off smelling of peace and diplomatic process whilst the blunt Americans give you what you want anyway? You can't really mollify terrorists, but you can redirect their attentions. The UN gets the assurance it needs two-fold, by dusting another bit of arab chaos, and by redirecting most of the negativity at America. Were I an American, despite my reservations about Bush and Iraq, I would be largely offended at being played in this way.*
The UN WANTS TO ATTACK IRAQ, the US and UK are the only ones willing to say it publicly.
Think about the conditions. Nobody needs a bombing moreso than Saudi Arabia, but once you get rid of the Saudi Royals you get Wahabi and a population predisposed to accept their teachings. Oh joy.
Iraq has at least some secular habits going for it. It is not guaranteed that theocratic mad men would take over the moment Saddam falls, but as the population suffers they are gaining acceptance. Even Saddam has had to re-image himself as a more religious figure despite his natural objections to this disposition.
*Bush made too many mistakes and took way too long and gave the UN cowards this opening so he is as much to blame, but in a much different way than you intend.
<strong>Pretty much more anti-US bullshit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your ingorant rhetoric suits you well.
<strong>
*Bush made too many mistakes and took way too long and gave the UN cowards this opening so he is as much to blame, but in a much different way than you intend.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, you underestimate my ability to fault Bush. He really has played this out very poorly but that doesn't mean I think he can or should war his way out of the corner he's backed the U.S. into. I've believed all along that he needs to pressure the U.N. into agreeing to a fight, and it's not even too late. It'll now take longer since Bush has messed up so badly, but were it an objective of this administration it could still happen.
But oil is more important than law.