bonoman
Refugee
exactly what i was on about....
STING2 said:Interesting the poll takers did not ask the most important question of all: "Has Saddam proved to the world that he no longer has Weapons of Mass Destruction"? If military action does take place, watch Bush's poll numbers, even in liberal newspapers, rise. W's father went from just over 50% approval to 91% approval in just 6 weeks after the 1991 Gulf War ended with the ceacefire in March.
deep said:
Sting,
Dread, et al ,
It is important that W gets support for this action. If the U S can not make a credible case before world opinion this action could prove very costly.
I have been gathering as much information about this as possible from many sources. I think oil is the main reason W had this put on his agenda.
The best case I have heard for action was on National Public Radio.
The program is called ?This American Life.? If you don?t support action, you should give this a listen. It will be available online after Jan 02, 2003.
Why We Fight
December 20, 2002
Episode 227
This show's description and RealAudio will be posted after January 2, 2003.
http://www.thislife.org/
nbcrusader said:I believe the case, if there is one, will be made on February 5 with the release of new declassified intelligence.
Dreadsox said:Sting,
Yes, but that problem was within Nato's jusrisdiction right?
How many Arab countries are coming in on this operation?
I am just trying to convince myself. The book I am reading is convincing me....
The Threatening Storm
You would like it.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:But on the other hand, photos or films or articles can be manipulated so easily.
If the UN says they have nukes, so be it. Then they?ll have to explain why Iraq has to be disarmed. I mean, just bc Hussein is a madman? Thats not very ... objective... pah.
Before bombing around the U.S. should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). If Security is so important, why don?t the U.S. ratify it?
I know - from very reliable sources - that very probably other states would follow the U.S. example.
Without nuclear tests no development of nukes.
So whats the point w disarming (not that I?d be against it...)?