>>>I would have given Aziz's word just as much weight as Judith Miller's word. Probably more because Aziz is Christian and Miller is, well, Jewish with a dog in the fight.

>>>Your pants are already crawling with terrorists.

Judith Miller wasn't Vice President of Iraq, though. Yes or no, George... would you have been willing to take his word for it?

Perhaps but then again a study of history might have given us a clue...I stated as such prior to our going in.

On that we disagree...I think Bush Sr. knew full well that Saddam would do that.

It is possible that by giving Blix the "months" he suggested would resolve the intelligence issue...as I've said before...we should have made that an issue and after a couple to few more months we would have then been much more justified in drawing a line in the sand...an argument could have been made at that point and if France/Germany/Russia didn't get on board...screw 'em.

I know...now comes the argument that Saddam had umteen years and even more resolutions, yada yada yada...BUT...what had changed was that inspections had recently resumed...what was the hurry...hell, the region has been a mess since before the time of Christ...no "goggles" required to see that.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT

Look, Cord, Saddam was not a good guy....I don't think anyone argues that. The question is....is the price worth the gain. That's what it comes down to. If we could have done this with....
1) more international participation
2) most importantly, more Arab nation participation...especially in the occupation phase
...then maybe. But, in March 2003, when we went in the way we did, I never thought that removing the threat of Saddam Hussien was going to be anywhere near the monetary and geo-political costs. Why should I think that the US/Britain had it right and everyone else including Canada and, most importantly, Iraq's neighbors had it wrong?

Less so....but, we would've done the same thing, IMO. Money talks, Cord. We would've told him that in no uncertain terms the use of WMDs would constitute the end of his ass....I think we did that anyways. Didn't we?

This is all supposition, but I 100% disagree. We would've dealt with it...just like we would deal with a similar situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Well, that's because "the US" equals the Bush Administration at the current moment.

Sure....who's Baldwin by the way? But, Germany was a country who twenty years earlier took on most of the major powers in the world and held their own. Big difference, Cord. Even that being said, I can't blame those for not being really anxious for another war.

I don't know, Cord...that fact that Chinese troops were coming across the border and killing UN personnel enforcing UN resolutions.....you are more an authority on UN law than me, but I think the bombing of the Chinese bridges could have been legally justified.
There were some who thought war with the Soviets was inevitiable....fight them now (1962) while we have the advantage. There was some logic to this.

Churchill, of course. I don't despise war, Cord...shit I make my living via the military....it just has to be the right war, e.g., the gain is worth the cost.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

>>>I would have taken his word for as long as it took to investigate. And I wouldn't have been stampeded by shrieking neocons like young Ms. Miller.

Doesn't history also show that aggressive dictators have to be confronted?

I don't know about that - he seemed as surprised as anyone when it happened.

What if Blix came out with an inconclusive report, though? What if he said something like, "Well, we can't prove that Iraq destroyed it's WMD's, but since we haven't been able to find any well, I have to assume they're not there." Wouldn't France and Russia have latched onto that as an excuse for backing off on Iraq? What would you have done then?

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.

Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany's "firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq." It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980's.[14]

Russia
Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq's annual imports.[16] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia's total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[17]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[18]
Russia's LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[19]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[20]

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power

France, Germany, and Russia were NEVER going to "go along", there was too much involved.

__________________
There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.
~Archibald MacLeish

Both. Use the good will after 9/11 to create a coalition based on the already existing no fly zones & send in troops to occupy & strangle Saddam from the North & South.

The real problems with that were this:

It would have divided up the spoils of Iraq eventually with France & Germany.
It would most likely have accelerated the shift to the Euro as a currency.
It would have ultimately required the U.S. to further legitimize the role of the U.N.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

Thus the renewed inspections...why do you think that when we went into Iraq in '91 our support from countries in the region was contingent on our agreement not to take out Saddam? Do you really not understand that in a strange perverted sort of way, they wanted him to remain in power? Looking at how we have empowered the Shia and the fact that the surrounding countries are predominately Sunni should provide you with a bit of a clue.

We shall have to agree to disagree but if you would care to share some of your behind the scenes knowledge from your days in the White House at that time, I'd love to hear about it.

We can come up with plenty of what if's...we should have provided the inspectors with what we "knew", if it turned out to be false at least we would have known that what we "knew" was bogus...quite honestly the fact that Saddam was in violation because his al-Samood II missles had a range of 13 miles further than that allowed did not impress me as an imminent threat to anyone.

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Which side will you be on?


OBAMA/PEROT