 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:25
|
|
The best solution is for Saddam to suffer from a sudden fatal illness. Failing that a long exile for Saddam is the next best thing and war is a lost resort if the first two can't be done.
What policies can we put in place to make options 1 or 2 a reality? If either of those could be achieved then no war will occur and every one, except Saddam, is happy.
Last edited by Oerdin on 10-02-2003 at 01:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I like Rumsie. He's like a teddy bear that always wanted to be a werewolf. Just which whacko gave him all the toys? Ah yes, dubya...
Well, what's the outlook now? The bushies will get their war, mid-march or so? France will reluctantly go along. Germany will say "uh, well". NATO is in deep **** over Turkey already.
The funny thing is that virtually all of europe, including the politicians right down to Blair, do not want this war. Bush & co want it under any circumstance.
So the interesting thing will be the follow-up. At one point all US allies, including the UK, will be fed up to the point where an alliance ends (if Iraq turns out to be a big mess, the sooner).
On the other hand, our politicians have shown a level of incompetence over this, that it is about time for another round of election ass-kicking here in good ol' europe. That should bring us a step forward...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well it's the purpose of democracy to have gullible and mediocre people in power. The prime civic duty is to whip them in the direction we the sovereign citizens want.
About Blair's dossier, that was so stupid, if I wouldn't know governments I'd assume he did it to torpedo the US rush to war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Dan:
"Like Rumsfeld, I find the Belgian, German and French response in NATO inexplicable."
NATO is a defensive alliance. "Defending" Turkey against the fallout from a US attack is quite questionable. Also, the issue is mostly about timing - why should they go along with Washington's timetable?
"Hesitation takes the pressure off of Hussein and allows him the luxury of miscalculating that he can get through this with his WMD intact."
Well this is correct, but the Washington position of war no matter what virtually invited obstruction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
NATO is a treaty about mutual defence if subject to external attack. Sounds fine - until the attack is provoked by the actions of another NATO member state.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Dan:
"Why so? Hussein lobs a chemical warhead into Ankara. This wouldn't fall under NATO?"
It would, unless Turkey is aiding in an attack - which makes it an offensive war on Turkey's part.
"Because to do otherwise could leave Turkey undefended."
Then Washington should adjust its timetable.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|