for those of you thinking the French is so morally strong on the Iraq issue….well, the French and the Russians want the US to wait for 4 months and reaccess if war is necessary. So, my moral European “friends”….4 months brings it to the hottest time of the year…as much as your anti-americanism goes, do you really feel that’s “moral”? At American’s expense? 4 months? The question is not the time of waiting, but what condition at the end of 4 months. Why not 3 months, 5 months, 6 months? AFAIK…UN weapons inspectors have not given a timeline of how long they need for satisfactory inspections from their perspective, so, how did this “4” months came about? What if after 4 months, France said “yes” they failed and war is necessary? Again, this goes way back when i said “liberals” often tell OTHERS what to do as morally correct, but when they think they’re threatened it’s another story….read, why is Balkans so dangerous that even Germany and France begged the US to get involved. I don’t think Yugoslavia ever lobbed missiles against its neighbor or invaded others…Yes, Americans are rather naive.
By: Glenn - 13th March 2003 at 12:10
getting tired..
I’ll be glad when this is all OVER one way or another, the whole thing is getting tiresome on the news.. :rolleyes:
As General H. Norman Schwarzkopf said recently… “If you are going to go, why wait?”
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th March 2003 at 01:33
Just more politic :confused:
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th March 2003 at 01:23
i don’t think so…
UN never gave any estimates of time…just last week Germany asked for a formal schedule of inspections.
By: Arthur - 12th March 2003 at 21:43
That 4 months period is based on Blix’ estimates how long he would need to bring his mission to an end as was demanded by the UN: if Iraq cooperates the way it is now, four months will be a good period to asses if war can be avoided or not. If you ask me, it’s less arbitrarly as the US and Britain’s sudden March 17th deadline. No deadline has ever been put forward on any UN resolution regarding Iraq, so i don’t see the big deal.
Okay, you Americans don’t want to fight when it’s warm. Fair enough. So if the war comes, it won’t be for oil, it won’t be for democracy, it won’t be for WMD, it will all be just about the weather 😀
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th March 2003 at 20:57
it’s not about money….
If indeed we agree to wait…we will wait till next year…because if we attack after 4 months it will seriously complicate American forces and no doubt cost much more American lives. In times like this, you’re thinking of money first? Like i said, i’m thinking of AMERICAN soldiers first…..money….next thing you’ll tell me is how that money can be used for welfare. The question is why exactly 4 months? Can you answer that? Don’t side track. Why 4. What part of “Why 4” don’t you understand?
By: Geforce - 12th March 2003 at 20:52
4 months, indeed that is going to cost a lot of money. But nobody forced the US to place 300000 troops in the region. Also, I`m horrified by the idea that we are actually planning war, like we are planning our holidays.
Sign In
March 12, 2003 at 8:38 pm