Tweet
I nominate paiktis for weapons inspector.
Not that Saddam would take hostages or nothing.
Not that Saddam would take hostages or nothing.
-
-
This isn't over yet. Bush will have his war on his terms not Sadams. When Sadam refuses access again to a particular site then Bush will attack and the forces will be ready and the UN will be behind it. And the war will be supported by Egypt and others.Comment
-
Yeah. Now they can be gassed by their own leader.
That's better.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
Problem is there are so many horrific regimes in power, if we were attacking them based on that we wouldn't know where to start. Some of them are allies tooOriginally posted by SlowwHand
Yeah. Now they can be gassed by their own leader.
That's better.
Comment
-
Believe me, I'm all for culling names from the "Friends" list.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
You mean Kuwait isn't the great democracy respectful for women which deserves American friendship so much ?Problem is there are so many horrific regimes in power, if we were attacking them based on that we wouldn't know where to start. Some of them are allies too
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
What you forget lincoln is the timetable Bush had...Originally posted by Lincoln
This isn't over yet. Bush will have his war on his terms not Sadams. When Sadam refuses access again to a particular site then Bush will attack and the forces will be ready and the UN will be behind it. And the war will be supported by Egypt and others.
Why did Bush want congress to approve a pro-war resolution by the end of october? Why were they demanding UN action in just weeks, not months? was it because they had breakin intelligence that Saddam was on the cusp of somehting? NO. its because Bush wanted war by January, which meant getting started now. But now, we have to wait months for the inspectors to get rolling (they have to be chosen, budgeted for, equiped, a leader found, so forth), and then they have to start- and once they are on the ground, even when they begin to complain, it woul then take months more to work out new resolutions about complaince, setting new deadlines in the future.
Why was Saddam able to get away wit things for 11 years- because most nations really dind't care that much about Iraq being fully compliant. Bush pushed hard this time and the admin put a lot of pressure, but now that they 'won' and got inspectors back in, the dynamic changes. States more accomodaing to Iraq now have the time to resist the US, and the reason (Iraq gave in). There is a reason Cheney said inspextor were not a solution. Also, all such talk about insectors being a first step becomes more difficult. The only complaint left for the US is that Iraq is being dictatorial- you get all 15 states in the Sec. Council to agree to war for that reason!
fat chance!
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Oh s!it. Bush turned it down.Comment
-
GePap, I agree with your analysis that the Arabs forced Iraq's hand. However, the US will continue to pursue a tough UN resolution, along the lines, "You continue to fully cooperate to our satisfaction or else."
Undoubtedly, the US and the UK will want to have its own inspectors inside Iraq to assure itself of Iraqi compliance. Any gamesmanship by the great Iraqi leader may still lead to war.
Bush, primarily, and Blair deserve credit for this achievement.http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=enComment
-
Fats in the fire and the baby just flew out the window with the bathwater.Comment
-
please explain
Jon MillerJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.Comment
-
Bush rejects Iraqs offer.
"This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions.
This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail.
It is time for the Security Council to act"Comment
-
Hardball.Comment
-
Now this in from the former SU:
Pyotr Simonenko, the leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party released a sensational statement on Wednesday. In his words, there were 2400 nuclear warheads in Ukraine, although the export of only 2200 of them was officially documented. Simonenko claimed that nobody knows where 200 Soviet-era nukes in Ukraine are.
The official reaction followed the next day, but it was a rather weak one. Deputy chief of the Ukrainian Army Headquarters, Nikolay Goncharenko, declared that Simonenko’s statement regarding the disappearance of the nuclear weapons from the territory of Ukraine was absolutely groundless. The high-ranking military official stated that all weapons of the trilateral agreement concerning the execution of the contract for strategic offensive arms had been handed over to Russia. Ok, but how come the leader of Ukrainian communists counted 200 nukes? It seems that the nuke scandal will continue.Comment
Comment