03-22-2003, 12:41 AM
I agree on much of this. But I can't imagine being the President of France, so you're on your own there :P . I'm glad somebody besides me mentioned the differences between then and today, Occhi doesn't seem to want to comment on this :)
To Pete, amazingly this discussion really is still here, ultra-fast-paced as our times may be :lol:
down to bussiness:
Ahem! How I would like this to be cynical (I hope it's not or I'm making a fool of myself).
You completely (intentioanally?) missed my point here. Best for these countries would be if they didn't have to fit into one of shrub's (I love this trem!) "with us or against us" categories, but could freely voice their opinion. However the US is putting SERIOUS pressure on them and so what's best for them now is to comply with the US government or face the consequences (like IIRC Yemen in 1991).
On the weapons issue, I first have to ask: Scuds cannot be used as carrier systems for B or C weapons, can they? I have heard both opinions and now am confusedâ¢.
It is IMO obvious that Iraq has violated the weapons restrictions put on him (her? it?? help plz). I have however strong doubts about Iraq possessing usable weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure Saddam would like some and would use them if he could (he has in the past, as we all know). There had to be done something about it and the UN inspectors seemed like a good idea to me. If their numbers had been increased as had been suggested before things turned out as they did I think this would either have prevented Iraq from ever putting together an ABC (or is it called NBC in English, as in nuclear, biological, chemical) warfare program or would have produced CLEAR evidence of Iraq already possessing one, which would likely have resulted in a new UN resolution legitimizing military action against Saddam.
But maybe I'm a naive optimist.
I guess we'll know in a couple of days about Saddam's arsenal, he'll use everything he has.
Nuur
To Pete, amazingly this discussion really is still here, ultra-fast-paced as our times may be :lol:
down to bussiness:
Quote:Well, looking into the motives of these countries is difficult. However, I don't see what is sad about countries doing what is best for them. I think that that is what governments are supposed to do, look after the well being of the countries.
Ahem! How I would like this to be cynical (I hope it's not or I'm making a fool of myself).
You completely (intentioanally?) missed my point here. Best for these countries would be if they didn't have to fit into one of shrub's (I love this trem!) "with us or against us" categories, but could freely voice their opinion. However the US is putting SERIOUS pressure on them and so what's best for them now is to comply with the US government or face the consequences (like IIRC Yemen in 1991).
On the weapons issue, I first have to ask: Scuds cannot be used as carrier systems for B or C weapons, can they? I have heard both opinions and now am confusedâ¢.
It is IMO obvious that Iraq has violated the weapons restrictions put on him (her? it?? help plz). I have however strong doubts about Iraq possessing usable weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure Saddam would like some and would use them if he could (he has in the past, as we all know). There had to be done something about it and the UN inspectors seemed like a good idea to me. If their numbers had been increased as had been suggested before things turned out as they did I think this would either have prevented Iraq from ever putting together an ABC (or is it called NBC in English, as in nuclear, biological, chemical) warfare program or would have produced CLEAR evidence of Iraq already possessing one, which would likely have resulted in a new UN resolution legitimizing military action against Saddam.
But maybe I'm a naive optimist.
I guess we'll know in a couple of days about Saddam's arsenal, he'll use everything he has.
Nuur
"I'm a cynical optimistic realist. I have hopes. I suspect they are all in vain. I find a lot of humor in that." -Pete
I'll remember you.
I'll remember you.