fansince62 Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 there has been some fair criticism in the press over the credibility and effectiveness of the Bush team's handling of diplomacy irt Iraq. Submitted for your consideration........the UN efforts have obviously failed........isn't this also a pronounced failure of the French, Russians and Belgians to move the ball forward? Shouldn't the efficacy of their diplomatic efforts be subjected to equally stern rebuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 They are just as responsible for the Failure according to Blairs speech tonight as Saddam is. The only thing we have failed to do at this point, is to uphold our end of the bargain to impute the consequences laid out as a result of Saddams failure to comply with International demands over the past 12 years. If 12 years of diplomacy isn't enough what is one more minute going to do... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 ok.......I'll edge a little closer to the edge of the plank(!): I agree Jags...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 France is the country that has done the most damage to the UN. It has divided the counsel by backing an evil dictator, turning it into little more than a debating society. The dirty birds even said they would veto any new resolution thus saying no to the conditions before Iraq. For such a small country with an equally tiny military they have overplayed their hand and will surly suffer the consequences of their actions over time. The French economy will take an immediate gut shot when the war begins because the lucrative deals they have with Saddam will go up in smoke almost instantly. That coupled with the ongoing backlash in the form of boycotts aimed at their products will be just the beginning of their suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 From the Browns Board... I have to say he has a book going on in this thread http://dawgtalk.clevelandbrowns.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=General&Number=209414&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= beepo (Rookie) 03/16/03 04:12 PM Re: War with Saddam What are the options to solve this problem? 1) Ignore the situation Like I've stated many times ignoring Saddam would only deter a war for the future. Only the war of the future he will have nuclear weapon capabilities. Because Saddam has money and could not be talked down economic sanctions, we would have little leverage to negotiate. We would be forced to fight a war with Saddam when he would have nuclear weapons. Due to his record, he will not hesitate to flex his nuclear arsenal against our troops. This could very well be WWIII. 2) Contain Saddam Containing means we will keep are no fly zones in place and do what we've been doing for the past 12 years. Containing means that Saddam can slip some uranium into his contry and develop these weapons with no pressure what so ever. Containing means practically nothing. 3) Continue Inspections Until when? Until he kicks them out again? Why not the UN isn't going to do sh*t. Saddam can laugh at how dumb the world is as he builds his nuclear arsenal. How effective are the inspections? Saddam knows how to get around them. One things for sure, we're not going to find anything as long as we have big white vans that say UN on them driving around. 4) Preemptive War I don't think I have to state again why I think this is the way we should deal with this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.