Did we score a victory?

[chequita guevara]

So, Bush has had to back off his plans of imminent invasion in order to save the political career of his ally, Blair. Score one for the good guys. Democracy in action, yahoo!

So, now we need to go into overdrive. We've made them falter, now we have to knock them out.

[Kyle]

No



Saddam's regime will be over soon enough.

[Urban Ranger]

We have to thank the anti-war people in the UK. Good work people.

[chequita guevara]

While I'd love to see Blair go down in flames, perhaps keeping him off-balance is a better strategy for now. As long as the French veto can cause Blair's government to fall, the US can't unilaterally invade Iraq, unless they're willing to toss their allies to the dogs, which will really hurt America's foreign relations.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
We have to thank the anti-war people in the UK. Good work people.

Based on this statement, you didn't win anything, the british won it for you.

ACK!

[Drake Tungsten]

What makes you think that America has backed off its invasion plans? The anti-war hysteria is making you delusional...

[Boris Godunov]

What was so unreasonable about the UK compromise that France rejected out of hand, btw? I haven't read it, but the summaries I've seen didn't seem to be too outrageous in terms of demands on Iraq.

While a part of me is gleeful at Bush's miserable failings, I also am dismayed because I know he will act unilaterally. He's got too much invested in the war now to just back away from it. I think his masters believe any political damage from a unilateral war could be wiped out by a quick, showy victory, and would be far better than the political fallout of not going to war, which would piss off the right wing to no end.

[Drake Tungsten]

What was so unreasonable about the UK compromise that France rejected out of hand, btw?

What behavior have you seen from the French in the past few months that would lead you to believe that they are reasonable? The French are going to veto any resolution that doesn't allow Saddam to stay in power...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
While I'd love to see Blair go down in flames, perhaps keeping him off-balance is a better strategy for now. As long as the French veto can cause Blair's government to fall, the US can't unilaterally invade Iraq, unless they're willing to toss their allies to the dogs, which will really hurt America's foreign relations.

Since when has the Bush administration given a rat's ass about hurting our foreign relations? They've probably wreaked the most havoc on our international relations than any administration in the history of our country. I think they just don't care. That, and gross incompetence.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

What was so unreasonable about the UK compromise that France rejected out of hand, btw?

What behavior have you seen from the French in the past few months that would lead you to believe that they are reasonable? The French are going to veto any resolution that doesn't allow Saddam to stay in power...

I'd like an intelligent answer to my question, not a BAM, thanks dear!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What was so unreasonable about the UK compromise that France rejected out of hand, btw? I haven't read it, but the summaries I've seen didn't seem to be too outrageous in terms of demands on Iraq.

Because Saddam is a swell guy and what is really important is that Bush is hurt. Everything else is completely unimportant.

BTW. The UK proposal seemed reasonable to me. So instead of Che talking about the plan, his only concern was Blair going down in flames. Because we all know Blair and Bush are so much worse then Saddam.

[SlowwHand]

Bush has said all along, and I keep telling you people, with or against.

Che is just eaten up with trying to be some Leader of The People; but the People, by their numbers, don't agree.
Not in the Democratic USA; I can't speak for communist, socialist, or quasi commalists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What was so unreasonable about the UK compromise that France rejected out of hand, btw?

It demanded that Hussein admit that he has bio/chem weapons (which has yet to be proven, even if it is probably true) and that he declare his UAVs, even if they aren't covered by the UNSC resolution. #1 is the clincher though, as it guarantees war, since there's no way Hussein will ever admit it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'd like an intelligent answer to my question, not a BAM, thanks dear!

How were my comments a BAM? The French have said that they will veto any resolution that places a deadline on Iraqi compliance. They want to string the inspections process out once again so they can keep their strategic partner in the Middle East in power. If you don't want to deal with the truth, fine, but don't accuse me of making baseless assertions.

BTW, Iraq has already said that they would not comply with any of the six requirements in the British plan. They must have faith in their UNSC allies...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Che is just eaten up with trying to be some Leader of The People; but the People, by their numbers, don't agree.
Not in the Democratic USA;

The USA ain't a democracy. Nor is it democratic any longer, since we now have our President's appointed. Anyway, with enough time, we can turn the tide of public opinion to our side. That's why Bush wants to do it fast. The more facts come out, the less people support him.