I would not say it was an overwhelming success but we are talking hundreds of deaths not millions if Saddam and his regime had been left to carry on as they had.
Can you really not see that this war is a new begining for the people of Iraq.
All wars have casulties and all wars have turmoil at the end. Look to the future a future millions of Iraqi can now have.
hell bent on war
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
Dear Paula,
If you want "an overwhelming success" (sic), then hang in close to the 21st century, as defined by The Forces Of Freedom (ie corporate America). Syria's next, and then Iran(?). There is no end to democracy, is there?
It is good and proper that the oil-fields were secured first, before the hospitals, homes, museums, streets..the places where no oil flows, only blood and history.
I have it on good authority that Syria offered night-vision goggles to Iraq.(The British press and their senior "coalition" partners in The United States Of America reported this last week, so it must be true.)
Paula, after Iraq, the rest of the uncivilised world will be a piece of piss, and you will achieve your "overwhelming success".
War is a good investment, if you win: prepare for more victories, Paula.
Andrew.
If you want "an overwhelming success" (sic), then hang in close to the 21st century, as defined by The Forces Of Freedom (ie corporate America). Syria's next, and then Iran(?). There is no end to democracy, is there?
It is good and proper that the oil-fields were secured first, before the hospitals, homes, museums, streets..the places where no oil flows, only blood and history.
I have it on good authority that Syria offered night-vision goggles to Iraq.(The British press and their senior "coalition" partners in The United States Of America reported this last week, so it must be true.)
Paula, after Iraq, the rest of the uncivilised world will be a piece of piss, and you will achieve your "overwhelming success".
War is a good investment, if you win: prepare for more victories, Paula.
Andrew.
Yes, Pete, I agree that one of the absolute benefits of U.N. concensus would have been enough "troops" for the peace-keeping phase. Even now, when countries such as France and Germany have offered to assist with the follow-up of food, medicines, etc. ~ the U.S. has said, basically, "We did it, you keep out. This is our game." Perhaps fearing a splitting of the spoils? All profits kept safely to oneself? If it's about liberation, why would the U.S. not welcome assistance from other U.N. parties....when a young student here was interviewed, she was confused how her school could be lacking in supplies, like pencils, paper, etc. and couldn't some of the $75 billion have been spent on her school, for the simplest of supplies. We could let the other countries share in the cost of the rebuilding and bring some of that money home for our own children in undersupplied schools.
After all, the Bush administration touts its education stance of "No Child Left Behind" [listen to the presidential campaign rhetoric, and to what Brother Bush says in Florida) ~ the problem is that few are aware of an "obscure provision buried deep in the 670 pages of the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by Congress a year ago, requires public schools to turn over names, addresses, and phone numbers of all their students to military recruiters. The paragraph where I read this states 'As Mother Jones (Nov./Dec.2002) reports, the Pentagon is routinely spurned by more than 19,000 schools nationwide, leading Rep. David Vitter (Republican-Louisiana) to sponsor the provision. Such schools, he said, "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive." ' " So, we now have institutionalized easy access to all those great young minds, where seduction can begin early luring them into all the great deals available in the military....and pencils won't really be needed where they're going, anyway. I see more than one plan in the offing. The title of the blurb was "No Child Left Unrecruited."
And yes, there was no hesitation in immediately securing the oil wells, and great relief expressed that so few were set on fire. Yet, hospitals, where the dying and wounded lay, remain tragically unsupplied.
After all, the Bush administration touts its education stance of "No Child Left Behind" [listen to the presidential campaign rhetoric, and to what Brother Bush says in Florida) ~ the problem is that few are aware of an "obscure provision buried deep in the 670 pages of the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by Congress a year ago, requires public schools to turn over names, addresses, and phone numbers of all their students to military recruiters. The paragraph where I read this states 'As Mother Jones (Nov./Dec.2002) reports, the Pentagon is routinely spurned by more than 19,000 schools nationwide, leading Rep. David Vitter (Republican-Louisiana) to sponsor the provision. Such schools, he said, "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive." ' " So, we now have institutionalized easy access to all those great young minds, where seduction can begin early luring them into all the great deals available in the military....and pencils won't really be needed where they're going, anyway. I see more than one plan in the offing. The title of the blurb was "No Child Left Unrecruited."
And yes, there was no hesitation in immediately securing the oil wells, and great relief expressed that so few were set on fire. Yet, hospitals, where the dying and wounded lay, remain tragically unsupplied.
-
George Gordon
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Scotland, Greece
While you are all discussing children in Iraq why not discuss Saddam's "children's jails". You know, the undernourished, ragged children that were freed by the American Marines. The ones who swarmed out and began kissing the Americans.
Yeah, I suppose we should have waited another summer. Maybe the French would have lead the way.
And Lizzytysh, if I have to choose between the emancipation of toddlers or pencils for Florida school children. Well, you know what I will choose every time.
Yeah, I suppose we should have waited another summer. Maybe the French would have lead the way.
And Lizzytysh, if I have to choose between the emancipation of toddlers or pencils for Florida school children. Well, you know what I will choose every time.
George ~
You're oversimplifying the point being made here by the pencils. In the segment I referred to, they also weren't Florida children. The relative cost of pencils is quite unsubstantial [thousands upon thousands of pencils compared] to the cost of one, single, solitary cluster bomb that will ~ as an added benefit ~ rip to shreds the ability of another child to hold a pencil or anything else. I could also have talked about the cost to maim and mangle other children in Iraq. I've also been viewing pictures of those children [as Pete has referenced] on the MSNBC site, "Images of War" in the Photo Gallery. I could also have talked about healthcare in the U.S. ~ the man who came into my office, functioning with approximately 25% lung capacity, who had to make a choice between buying his medicine to make breathing easier, or buying his food. Or, the people who cannot afford life-saving operations. You know I could go on. Please don't place yourself in such a pioused position, intimating that you are the only one who truly cares, about the welfare of children or anyone else, for that matter.
The undernourished, ragged children can also thank the U.S. for their state of being, with our 12 years of sanctions, withholding valuable medications, food, clean water, etc. Looting may not be the only reason that those hospitals are so undersupplied. There were definitely no measures in place to keep what was there where it belonged for use. However, they've also been lacking in adequate supplies for many years, thanks to us, the U.S.
This war is not over until it's over....and it's nowhere near over. You might want to hold all of your conclusions until it is.
You're oversimplifying the point being made here by the pencils. In the segment I referred to, they also weren't Florida children. The relative cost of pencils is quite unsubstantial [thousands upon thousands of pencils compared] to the cost of one, single, solitary cluster bomb that will ~ as an added benefit ~ rip to shreds the ability of another child to hold a pencil or anything else. I could also have talked about the cost to maim and mangle other children in Iraq. I've also been viewing pictures of those children [as Pete has referenced] on the MSNBC site, "Images of War" in the Photo Gallery. I could also have talked about healthcare in the U.S. ~ the man who came into my office, functioning with approximately 25% lung capacity, who had to make a choice between buying his medicine to make breathing easier, or buying his food. Or, the people who cannot afford life-saving operations. You know I could go on. Please don't place yourself in such a pioused position, intimating that you are the only one who truly cares, about the welfare of children or anyone else, for that matter.
The undernourished, ragged children can also thank the U.S. for their state of being, with our 12 years of sanctions, withholding valuable medications, food, clean water, etc. Looting may not be the only reason that those hospitals are so undersupplied. There were definitely no measures in place to keep what was there where it belonged for use. However, they've also been lacking in adequate supplies for many years, thanks to us, the U.S.
This war is not over until it's over....and it's nowhere near over. You might want to hold all of your conclusions until it is.
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
I agree with you Linda,
we all should hold back final conclusions and assessments until everything is over. However, some things can already be clearly heralded: This war is not, as some suggested, a question of a few hundred victims.
The deathcount of Iraqi civilians is not definitely clear, but the numbers given are between 1,300 and 1,800 as of Friday, 4/11. These numbers include only those who already died from wounds caused by bombs or bullets. But still there are several thousands in the hospitals without sufficient medical treatment. Those might significantly change the numbers.
Soldiers have been killed as well. The number of soldiers killed lies about 150 on the side of the Allied Forces and estimated 10,000 Iraqi Soldiers.
Victims of the war are those as well, who die by famine, thirst or diseases - all caused by the attack abruptly ending the supply of essential goods. (About 50% of the Iraqi population depended on external food supply. No one knows how many will die that way; it could be hundreds of thousands.)
We have to count those who in the long run will die from cancer and leukemia caused by depleted uranium ammunition as well. After the use of this horrible (and illegal) weapon in Gulf War I the cancer rate about quintupled. (And many veterans from the US suffered and died due to these weapons.)
This is not a final assessment, nor is it a final conclusion. But it should make one reject the thought that this war has been won with "just a few hundred victims". It adds up to 12,000 by the end of last week with more to come.
Nevertheless I appeal to everyone (from both groups wrongly labelled "pro-War" or "pro-Peace"): Please be careful with final conclusions. I fear, everything will grow worse still, but I hope that these fears will not come true.
Tom
we all should hold back final conclusions and assessments until everything is over. However, some things can already be clearly heralded: This war is not, as some suggested, a question of a few hundred victims.
The deathcount of Iraqi civilians is not definitely clear, but the numbers given are between 1,300 and 1,800 as of Friday, 4/11. These numbers include only those who already died from wounds caused by bombs or bullets. But still there are several thousands in the hospitals without sufficient medical treatment. Those might significantly change the numbers.
Soldiers have been killed as well. The number of soldiers killed lies about 150 on the side of the Allied Forces and estimated 10,000 Iraqi Soldiers.
Victims of the war are those as well, who die by famine, thirst or diseases - all caused by the attack abruptly ending the supply of essential goods. (About 50% of the Iraqi population depended on external food supply. No one knows how many will die that way; it could be hundreds of thousands.)
We have to count those who in the long run will die from cancer and leukemia caused by depleted uranium ammunition as well. After the use of this horrible (and illegal) weapon in Gulf War I the cancer rate about quintupled. (And many veterans from the US suffered and died due to these weapons.)
This is not a final assessment, nor is it a final conclusion. But it should make one reject the thought that this war has been won with "just a few hundred victims". It adds up to 12,000 by the end of last week with more to come.
Nevertheless I appeal to everyone (from both groups wrongly labelled "pro-War" or "pro-Peace"): Please be careful with final conclusions. I fear, everything will grow worse still, but I hope that these fears will not come true.
Tom
Hell Bent
Yes Tom and others, it matters not whether one is pro war or pro peace in this or any other conflict. The fact remains the behaviour of all participants in this Iraq fiasco is appalling and all arguments or discussions on the logistics and particulars still fails to address the root cause. And quite frankly I think it is beyond the capabilites of our species to do so at this juncture of our history. 
Regards,
Regards,
You have to put the deaths in perspective. How many hundreds of thousands died in the two World wars. Would you have preferred they just let Germany invade and take over your countries.
There are an awful lot of Jobs Comforters on this forum
And I can see your point Lizzie so far of taking care of your own first. We have a similar problem here with underfunding for the NHS etc but sometimes you have to lend a hand to people who need it also.
There are an awful lot of Jobs Comforters on this forum
And I can see your point Lizzie so far of taking care of your own first. We have a similar problem here with underfunding for the NHS etc but sometimes you have to lend a hand to people who need it also.
Would you have preferred they just let Germany invade and take over your countries.
yeah....just like Britain did so much of Asia and Africa . History is a hard place for justifications of this sort.
Sorry couldnt resist that....
As bad as it may seem now from whatever point of view, the human species is certainly better off than ever before. We are so much more aware now. Indeed, it is this increasing awareness that we are part of larger and larger groups of our species that is creating doubts and making us to often question our own actions. Human evolution has progressed in large part due to our ability to predict the consequences of our actions (with varying degrees of success) and and we have never attempted so much p. the c. of our a. as we are doing at this juncture of history. When in the history of our species have so many international institutions been in place (with varying degrees of effectiveness) as at this present time ?
-
Byron
- Posts: 3171
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:01 pm
- Location: Mad House, Eating Tablets, Cereals, Jam, Marmalade and HONEY, with Albert
Linda, I have a quick example to answer your question. I speak for myself. The others are more than able to respond in person.
One thread or line of communication is as follows.
Ex General J Garner reports to his boss, Tommy Franks.
Tommy Franks reports to his boss, Uncle Don.
Uncle Don reports to his boss, Mr Bush.
One piece of notable conspiscuousness by absence at the party in the air-conditioned tent in the dessert was as follows. There was only one woman there representing anybody. Democracy is coming to Iraq, but only if you have the right 'equipment.' (Edited here on Thursday 17th April after listening to BBC Radio 4 Discussion on legal and political issues concerning the new Iraq and U.N. involvement, over existing legally binding contracts)
Therefore Linda, how do you feel about being a member of 50% of the Earth's population, but only one member of that 50% has any say at all in the new democratic Iraq?
To partly answer your question, I get some of my information by looking hard at what those with a vested interest try to push in my face, while they try to hide what they don't want me to see.
That is a very short answer Linda and I think it highlights just how much 'men' in power hoodwink others.
Do you know that all of the world's best historians only know half of all the world's history? They know nothing at all of the pain, suffering and hardships which 50% of all 'mankind' has had to endure.
ie: Women.
One thread or line of communication is as follows.
Ex General J Garner reports to his boss, Tommy Franks.
Tommy Franks reports to his boss, Uncle Don.
Uncle Don reports to his boss, Mr Bush.
One piece of notable conspiscuousness by absence at the party in the air-conditioned tent in the dessert was as follows. There was only one woman there representing anybody. Democracy is coming to Iraq, but only if you have the right 'equipment.' (Edited here on Thursday 17th April after listening to BBC Radio 4 Discussion on legal and political issues concerning the new Iraq and U.N. involvement, over existing legally binding contracts)
Therefore Linda, how do you feel about being a member of 50% of the Earth's population, but only one member of that 50% has any say at all in the new democratic Iraq?
To partly answer your question, I get some of my information by looking hard at what those with a vested interest try to push in my face, while they try to hide what they don't want me to see.
That is a very short answer Linda and I think it highlights just how much 'men' in power hoodwink others.
Do you know that all of the world's best historians only know half of all the world's history? They know nothing at all of the pain, suffering and hardships which 50% of all 'mankind' has had to endure.
ie: Women.
Last edited by Byron on Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Bipolar is a roller-coaster ride without a seat belt. One day you're flying with the fireworks; for the next month you're being scraped off the trolley" I said that.
Linda ~
I get my information from various news sources and magazines. I don't listen to or read inflammatory, emotional, rah-rah programs. There are the various media people, but the media is a limited source. There are professors and historians and diplomats and volunteer organizations and the Iraqi citizens themselves [believe me, these go both ways, too! They are not one-sided, regardless of "side"] and other sources, as well. Reports from these make it into public radio much easier, more quickly, and more in-depth than into the mainstream media. As you think of typical, cable-TV broadcasts, you will see in your mind's eye, an ever-scrolling band of ever-changing bytes of information. At the bottom of the screen, along with that, is another, stationary slot of information that remains and then changes and remains and changes, etc. The broadcast itself continues to go on, but with quickly-changing visual perspectives and relatively-short sound-bytes. Our attention span has been, unfortunately, dramatically reduced during the course of the last century. This is reflected in news broadcasts. The advantage of public radio is that it does not pander to the corporate big guys, but plays for the benefit of its public supporters, who are there because of their strong desire for more substantive and in-depth reporting, and they don't mind the length. They are known for their "driveway stories," the ones where people sit in their car in order to finish listening to a long/er story.
Paula ~
When I refer to taking care of one's own, I am not speaking provincially. One statement cannot possibly, alone, reverse people's perceptions of my overall perspective. Can it? Well, I guess it can. The point I made, with the pencils, related not only to the U.S. having been able to spare a few bombs [use 4,500 instead of 5,000 cluster bombs?], so the money might be spent for pencils [pencils being symbolic only], as well as the fact that European countries are offering to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq. The costs will be hefty. However, the U.S. is wanting to be the sole provider, rebuffing their offers, on the premise that "we were the ones willing to go in and you weren't, so we don't need or want your help now."
My question is, well why not? If this is a humanitarian effort for the release of the Iraqi people [well, finding of the weapons of mass destruction, well, deposing the dictator, well, whatever the reason was...], why would we not be welcoming help from those countries. After all, the Iraqi people we care so much about certainly need it. We've certainly spent enough of our money. We've certainly sacrificed some of our people. It's like in all cooperative arrangements, divvying up the tasks....."We'll fight [even if you didn't think we should or wanted to yourselves], but now, yes, we'll be glad to accept your help. We've certainly spent enough and lost enough people [one being too many]. We'll gladly accept your help. As a matter of fact, now that you're offering your own goods, services, manpower, and funds to assist, maybe we can use some of our previously-earmarked funds at home, even for properly equipping our law enforcement and firefighting agencies for homeland security purposes, in the event of terrorism attacks in the U.S. Or maybe we could celebrate by giving some of those schools some pencils."
The "reaching out to help another" [if you choose to look at it as that] has already been accomplished via the troops who went into battle, has it not? Is this the time for ego and hogging the "glory," to come into play? Or is it really about maintaining control. I cannot help but be deeply heartened by the joy I've seen expressed by the Iraqis I've seen. I also know that distrust of the U.S. has remained and even deepened and increased in the last several days. There remains far to go in this whole thing. As I've said, if the U.S. doesn't get out quickly, they will see the resentment, anger, and deeper distrust grow ~ possibly out of control. One very effective way to mitigate against that would be to allow other countries to go in to help in the rebuilding of Iraq, furnishing their own money, supplies, and manpower. I am still seeing the real agenda beneath it all as the long claw of U.S. Imperialism reaching out and snaring a virtually helpless country. I am overjoyed by any life spared in the process. It doesn't mean that I don't consider this sparing as "collateral gain," because I do. It's a variation on the theme of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Even so, for the "right" thing to be the things that tom.d.stiller has noted in his above post begs re-examination, as well. I am happy for every Iraqi still alive. I've said repeatedly, I would love to be proved wrong in all of this. Time will be the teller. I am withholding final judgement and have pronounced nothing, but what I think and what I feel have not altered. I continue to listen to reports that suggest this is not going to go as some anticipated.
~ Lizzytysh
I get my information from various news sources and magazines. I don't listen to or read inflammatory, emotional, rah-rah programs. There are the various media people, but the media is a limited source. There are professors and historians and diplomats and volunteer organizations and the Iraqi citizens themselves [believe me, these go both ways, too! They are not one-sided, regardless of "side"] and other sources, as well. Reports from these make it into public radio much easier, more quickly, and more in-depth than into the mainstream media. As you think of typical, cable-TV broadcasts, you will see in your mind's eye, an ever-scrolling band of ever-changing bytes of information. At the bottom of the screen, along with that, is another, stationary slot of information that remains and then changes and remains and changes, etc. The broadcast itself continues to go on, but with quickly-changing visual perspectives and relatively-short sound-bytes. Our attention span has been, unfortunately, dramatically reduced during the course of the last century. This is reflected in news broadcasts. The advantage of public radio is that it does not pander to the corporate big guys, but plays for the benefit of its public supporters, who are there because of their strong desire for more substantive and in-depth reporting, and they don't mind the length. They are known for their "driveway stories," the ones where people sit in their car in order to finish listening to a long/er story.
Paula ~
When I refer to taking care of one's own, I am not speaking provincially. One statement cannot possibly, alone, reverse people's perceptions of my overall perspective. Can it? Well, I guess it can. The point I made, with the pencils, related not only to the U.S. having been able to spare a few bombs [use 4,500 instead of 5,000 cluster bombs?], so the money might be spent for pencils [pencils being symbolic only], as well as the fact that European countries are offering to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq. The costs will be hefty. However, the U.S. is wanting to be the sole provider, rebuffing their offers, on the premise that "we were the ones willing to go in and you weren't, so we don't need or want your help now."
My question is, well why not? If this is a humanitarian effort for the release of the Iraqi people [well, finding of the weapons of mass destruction, well, deposing the dictator, well, whatever the reason was...], why would we not be welcoming help from those countries. After all, the Iraqi people we care so much about certainly need it. We've certainly spent enough of our money. We've certainly sacrificed some of our people. It's like in all cooperative arrangements, divvying up the tasks....."We'll fight [even if you didn't think we should or wanted to yourselves], but now, yes, we'll be glad to accept your help. We've certainly spent enough and lost enough people [one being too many]. We'll gladly accept your help. As a matter of fact, now that you're offering your own goods, services, manpower, and funds to assist, maybe we can use some of our previously-earmarked funds at home, even for properly equipping our law enforcement and firefighting agencies for homeland security purposes, in the event of terrorism attacks in the U.S. Or maybe we could celebrate by giving some of those schools some pencils."
The "reaching out to help another" [if you choose to look at it as that] has already been accomplished via the troops who went into battle, has it not? Is this the time for ego and hogging the "glory," to come into play? Or is it really about maintaining control. I cannot help but be deeply heartened by the joy I've seen expressed by the Iraqis I've seen. I also know that distrust of the U.S. has remained and even deepened and increased in the last several days. There remains far to go in this whole thing. As I've said, if the U.S. doesn't get out quickly, they will see the resentment, anger, and deeper distrust grow ~ possibly out of control. One very effective way to mitigate against that would be to allow other countries to go in to help in the rebuilding of Iraq, furnishing their own money, supplies, and manpower. I am still seeing the real agenda beneath it all as the long claw of U.S. Imperialism reaching out and snaring a virtually helpless country. I am overjoyed by any life spared in the process. It doesn't mean that I don't consider this sparing as "collateral gain," because I do. It's a variation on the theme of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Even so, for the "right" thing to be the things that tom.d.stiller has noted in his above post begs re-examination, as well. I am happy for every Iraqi still alive. I've said repeatedly, I would love to be proved wrong in all of this. Time will be the teller. I am withholding final judgement and have pronounced nothing, but what I think and what I feel have not altered. I continue to listen to reports that suggest this is not going to go as some anticipated.
~ Lizzytysh
-
John the Shorts
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:22 pm
- Location: Wales
Things seem to have cooled down on this thread now, so maybe it is safe for me to post again (?)
A few questions that still need to be answered:
Is the Blair-Bush axis justified in asking for more time to search for proof of Bacterialalogical & Chemical Weaponry - please take into account that they invaded after the UN under Hans Blix had not found anything to fit into these categories?
Would it be more beneficial if Hans Blix & Co were to return to their duty?
Should it happen that no-one finds any Biologic or chemical weapons will this result in the prosecution/removal from post of Blair & Bush or will they simply let things drift into the background?
There's probably a few other thoughts but this will do for now.
JTS
A few questions that still need to be answered:
Is the Blair-Bush axis justified in asking for more time to search for proof of Bacterialalogical & Chemical Weaponry - please take into account that they invaded after the UN under Hans Blix had not found anything to fit into these categories?
Would it be more beneficial if Hans Blix & Co were to return to their duty?
Should it happen that no-one finds any Biologic or chemical weapons will this result in the prosecution/removal from post of Blair & Bush or will they simply let things drift into the background?
There's probably a few other thoughts but this will do for now.
JTS
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
"Things seem to have cooled down on this thread now..." - yes John, so I had thought as well. An answer to your questions will heat everything up again - but be it as it must...
The Blair-Bush axis had had more than enough time to give only the slightest proof of those weapons existence before the invasion. They claimed to have superior knowledge about details, but to the inspectors they didn't give but information that led to nothing, because it simply was wrong. (May one interpret this either as a deliberate attempt at misleading the United Nations, or rather as a proof of their own inefficiency?)
It would be more beneficial if the UN were allowed to take over responsibility again. I don't only refer to Blix & Co, but I talk about the implementation of the Bushist Viceroy as being politically most dangerous as well. An administrator appointed by the UN would be far more appropriate...
You can be assured: they'll find the weapons of mass destruction they are looking for. Not doing so would probably raise a discussion about removal/impeachment/prosecution. So they will find proof, even if they have to hide it first. (Mind: I'm not claiming that the Iraq didn't have those kind of weapons; I merely state that the coalition researchers won't be able to find them, even if they're there, and will feel compelled to "enhance proof"...)
There's a few other thoughts/questions I'd like to add:
Will the Bush-Blair axis really try to implement "Democracy", free and unmanipulated elections, knowing that this will create a second Iran - considering the Shiite majority?
Are they aware that by implementing another puppet dictator they will not only create more international terrorism, but a situation very much like the one in Pahlevi's Iran right before the Islamist Revolution?
Tom
The Blair-Bush axis had had more than enough time to give only the slightest proof of those weapons existence before the invasion. They claimed to have superior knowledge about details, but to the inspectors they didn't give but information that led to nothing, because it simply was wrong. (May one interpret this either as a deliberate attempt at misleading the United Nations, or rather as a proof of their own inefficiency?)
It would be more beneficial if the UN were allowed to take over responsibility again. I don't only refer to Blix & Co, but I talk about the implementation of the Bushist Viceroy as being politically most dangerous as well. An administrator appointed by the UN would be far more appropriate...
You can be assured: they'll find the weapons of mass destruction they are looking for. Not doing so would probably raise a discussion about removal/impeachment/prosecution. So they will find proof, even if they have to hide it first. (Mind: I'm not claiming that the Iraq didn't have those kind of weapons; I merely state that the coalition researchers won't be able to find them, even if they're there, and will feel compelled to "enhance proof"...)
There's a few other thoughts/questions I'd like to add:
Will the Bush-Blair axis really try to implement "Democracy", free and unmanipulated elections, knowing that this will create a second Iran - considering the Shiite majority?
Are they aware that by implementing another puppet dictator they will not only create more international terrorism, but a situation very much like the one in Pahlevi's Iran right before the Islamist Revolution?
Tom