Just in case anyone is out of line, FRuiTY will set you straight. Bush is technically right when he denies that war WILL happen. Of course it will, but Bush won't say "definitely" when there is like a .001% chance Hussein fesses up or steps down. Now that that's out of the way, this will be resolved by the military, since we know Hussein will not do what Bush wants. There is the slim possibility otherwise, as I mentioned, but it's not likely. The significance of Bush's speech tonight is twofold. First, Bush said that he will wait for the UN vote (showing of cards). Second, and more importantly, he said that no matter what the vote is, he will move forward with his vision. If the war were to start tonight, without Bush's speech, everyone would be asking, "what about the UN?" Now we don't need to wonder about this anymore. We now know that Bush will go ahead, with or without the UN's approval. WAR = 99.999% FRuiTY P. (good job summing it up for the folks, FRuiTY, you get an A+)
and this is worth repeating-- "How about if these terrorirsts had any intelligence (and thank god they didnt), they would have rammed a plane into the westchester power plant. Can you imagine that? That would have elimnated manhattan, and everything in a 50 mile radius, and we'd be looking at 300 on the S&P. I'm not willing to give them a 2nd chance." abra vinny
March 06, 2003 U.N. Delegates Await Translation of Bush Remarks (2003-03-06) -- Most United Nations delegates withheld comment on U.S. President George Bush's news conference tonight, preferring to wait for a printed translation of his remarks. "It's not that we didn't understand his words," said Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "Most of us speak English. But we are confused because his remarks were almost totally lacking in nuance and subtlety. We're waiting for someone to give us a more complicated version of it." Mr. Bush said that Saddam Hussein should disarm or the U.S. and her allies would disarm him, and that the U.N. should vote yes-or-no on whether Iraq has complied with Security Council Resolution 1441. "We at the U.N. are not accustomed to hearing people say what they mean," said Mr. Annan. "This will take us some time to digest and interpret. Perhaps a committee-of-the-whole could examine the transcript for several months." Posted by Scott Ott http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/000727.html#000727
Losses, Before Bullets Fly As one savvy official observed, occupying Baghdad comes at an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Another expert put it this way: "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." Those comments may overemphasize the risks, but they are from top-notch analysts whose judgments I respect. The first comment was made by Colin Powell in a Foreign Affairs essay in 1992; the second is in "A World Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRIS.html
msfe, same thing was said before the Persian Gulf War I. Remember? At that time there were experts out the wazoo saying that the Iraqi army was then the 4th strongest army, blah, blah, blah.... Then the same thing was said before the Afghanistan war. Remember? At that time there were experts out the wazoo saying that Afghanistan is the graveyard of foreign armies, blah, blah, blah... I would recommend Ginko Biloba (they say its good for memory)
Babak:`same thing was said before the Persian Gulf War I. Remember? At that time there were experts out the wazoo saying that the Iraqi army was then the 4th strongest army, blah, blah, blah....´ i do remember - that´s exactly why Bush senior didn´t occupy Baghdad then `Then the same thing was said before the Afghanistan war. Remember? At that time there were experts out the wazoo saying that Afghanistan is the graveyard of foreign armies, blah, blah, blah...´ Afghanistan is indeed the graveyard of foreign armies. ask the British and the Russians - only to name two. thank you very much for the recommendation of Ginko Biloba - has it helped you ?
msfe, you are so biased I wonder if you can see straight. The reason the coalition didn't push into Iraq was two fold. First the retreating Iraqi army was getting pulverized. It was becoming embarrassing because it was so lopsided. And two, the UN resolution that triggered the war to oust Saddam mentioned nothing about invading/occupying Iraq. If the coalition had gone into Iraq, I'm sure whiners like you would have let their displeasure be known. And regarding Afghanistan. Is it so hard to say that 'experts' were wrong? Sheesh! (maybe you should try and find a link to explain/defend why France is selling military equipment to Iraq right now)