J. van Baardwijk wrote: > At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>> Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it >> reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can >> be thorough? > > I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US > wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. I have seen no suggestions or discussions about what other options should be tried. *If* one thinks that rigorous inspections should occur, how are they to be enforced? Trade sanctions have been ineffective. I would like to hear some ideas on what else should be done. (Question open to anyone! I genuinely want to know.) >> What besides "talk about it some more" will the international community >> support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to >> wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on >> their own. > > That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do > not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him > when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely > target. And this would be better how?? I notice that you have effectively avoided answering Dan's direct question: "What besides "talk about it some more" will the international community support." (And please don't argue that it technically was not a question because he did not use correct punctuation.) Regards, Ray. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
