--- Dan Minette wrote: <snip> > I read an editorial, I think in the NYT, about the > good and bad reasons for > opposing attacking Iraq. The bad reasons were that > it was wrong to oust > Hussein. The good reasons is that we haven't > thought out what next.
That seems fair to say. In a post Re: the UN, you wrote: "Well, its over a decade later. Hussein still is in power, sucessfully defying the UN mandate. I cannot read the position of France and Russia as anything but "admit the inspectors or we'll talk some more." If the international community were to argue "we'll tell Hussein admit real inspections or else we will automatically authorize force if the inspectors report that you are not cooperating", then I'd strongly be on the side of going for this. Indeed, the way I read the US government, they have publically said they would accept this." This seems reasonable; in a post a month or so ago, I agreed with the concept of "coercive inspections." Since Saddam has defied the UN resolutions, the UN should state that the result of noncompliance with immediate inspections is forced inspections. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
