Should Saddam be toppled?

[Ned]

LOTM, Why in the world do we have to give either Russia or France any guarantees or assurances. This is simply beyond me.

As to Turkey, well the Turks and Iraqi's were already moving towards granting independence to Kurdistan. We should not stand in the way of Kurdish national independence. Otherwise, the Kurds will be our Palestinians.

As to the Shiiites in the South, I say, turn them loose on Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's are a real pain in the a**.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why in the world do we have to give either Russia or France any guarantees or assurances

Because he realizes that we can't be total *******s. We have to consult with allies to show we don't think we are Rome.

--

Anyway, I don't think the question of whether or not Saddam should be toppled is relevant. We simply can't! One reason, I can't believe Bush is backing Sharon is that Sharon totally ****ed up Bush's plan to invade Iraq. If Sharon didn't start his invasion of the West Bank, Saddam would have been gone by now, with Saudi Arabia being used as a launching pad (The War on Terrorism guilt would be useful there). Now the whole deal with the Palestinians means no invasion, really. And I don't think we can invade without the support of at least 2 ME states, and by support, I mean, be able to use their air bases and their land to put ground forces on.

[joseph1944]

Yes, at our earliest

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why in the world do we have to give either Russia or France any guarantees or assurances

Because he realizes that we can't be total *******s. We have to consult with allies to show we don't think we are Rome.

--

Anyway, I don't think the question of whether or not Saddam should be toppled is relevant. We simply can't! One reason, I can't believe Bush is backing Sharon is that Sharon totally ****ed up Bush's plan to invade Iraq. If Sharon didn't start his invasion of the West Bank, Saddam would have been gone by now, with Saudi Arabia being used as a launching pad (The War on Terrorism guilt would be useful there). Now the whole deal with the Palestinians means no invasion, really. And I don't think we can invade without the support of at least 2 ME states, and by support, I mean, be able to use their air bases and their land to put ground forces on.

Well, Imran, Chirac and Putin have been supportive. I agree with your statement on further consideration.

And yes, the ME situation is FUBAR, not so much because of anything Bush has done, but because I believe the violence in Palestine is escallating in part to prevent us from moving on Iraq. These attacks have multiple purposes.