my interpretation is just a plain reading of the text...and the fact they keep calling for more inspections...and the need to present them with evidence of the very existence of these weapons bringing saddam in violation. where have you been the last 6 months? i think rm95 is right though...even if i'm misinterpreting this, are the french saying they never thought he'd use them??? isnt that even sillier since we all know he already has??
I don't understand the whole, "we don't think he'll use them" arguement. Isn't that kinda like the "we never thought it would happen here" comments we heard after 9/11?
I agree MadMax that the "we don't think he'll use them" argument doesn't work. That is where the UN fails to support its resolutions. He is not supposed to even have them. If he does, the UN has already voted that it wants to disarm him by force. So yeah, I don't get it. As a voting nation, you have to believe that he doesn't have them, or you have to be against the previous UN resolutions. Either way makes France look really foolish, and it begins to support the notion that France indeed has alterior motives for blocking US/England. I respect anyone he just think that our country should never wage war preemtively, especially such a huge one. I respect that more than I respect France's politicians, or anyone who says that "he might have them, but he's not a threat." It's simple to me: just be against the US being a police force and that preemptive war is never an answer, or take the stance that you just can't believe the President would lie so blatantly, and the world indeed has a job to do. the middle road Sheila Jackson Lee and French stance that we should just trust inspections and threaten war is just that, some political middle road where you are afraid making a real stance will get you hammered politically. No Preemptive War EVER versus Trusting the Administration of Two Voting Nations isn't Lying Can someone explain to me why the other arguments are more than just politico mumbo jumbo.
Wow. I'm usually against oversimplification, but this boils it down nicely, IMO. Even if it makes a lot of my rambling posts fall into the "mumbo jumbo" chasm, I still have to admit it makes sense as heypartner puts it.
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." --David Letterman
I was watching CNN, the support they would provide would be units who's sole purpose is dealing with chemical and biological weapons. I guess that means cleanup and containment. The Germans already have similar units near by and ready to go apparently. Damn CNN hippies are probably lying though.
I just read today that the whole French thing was all malarky. Basically, they meant they would help out on the medical side to treat casualties or some bs. I don't know if I want the French treating our casualties given their position. It just doesn't seem right. Medically speaking...can't we take care of our own?
countries are finding that it is in their interest to agree with an support the USA. Hell, it is better to be with the super power than to not be.
