there was a sarcastic comment by a radio commentator about the Iraqi offer to let the inspectors back in without conditions.
He said that meant they could come back into the country without any conditions. It said nothing about what they would be allowed to do once they were in the country. <ha> -Ben > Unfortunately, all I see is a stall tactic that was anticipated by GW and > was part of his speech to the UN. > > The question for GW (and the people in the US) is when Iraq acts as > expected, stalling and evading, what position is the UN going to take? If > the UN does not enforce its own directives, then it will be proven to be a > toothless tiger, so much the worse for the world (and all of those folks > working for the UN who make their money and gain their sense of power thru > exercising it). In this case, does GW (and the American people) have the > stomach for not only a unilateral action but also a unilateral support and > rebuilding effort. This may be the toughest question and perhaps the oil > comment made earlier will encourage a UN-driven enforcement. > > No simple answers here, just tough questions and history to show what has > happened when tough decisions aren't made. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:50 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: So much for GW's plans > > > Vinny- > > you said: > "the US needs to stay out of there and let the UN handle > the situation." > > pardon me for asking, but when has the UN *ever* handled > a situation? > > I'm not commenting here on GW or his plans, just that > the idea of the UN as a solution reminds me of > Chamberlain and Munich... > > -Ben > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
