Gets better he wants out of the latest efforts on the bio warfare treaty: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36677-2002Sep18.html
And this is after how long his administration have been screaming about bio warfare and terrorism? I think he may have done a few to many lines in the 1980's and suffered a fair amount of brain damage. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:34 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: So much for GW's plans > > > Andy Ousterhout wrote: > > Unfortunately, all I see is a stall tactic that was > anticipated by GW and > > was part of his speech to the UN. > > If it was anticipated, GW is even more stupid as I thought. > For months > he has been asking for weapons inspections. All of the world > has heard > it countless times. And now, after Saddam gives in, suddenly GW is > behaving like a little child that discovers he should have asked for > something else, the removal of Saddam. > For the entire world [1], he just got what he wanted and even > before the > first weapons inspector has landed in Baghdad he suddenly > wants more and > is asking for Saddams head. > > US: If you amend the Kyoto treaty, we will sign it. > World: OK, we will amend it. > US: Thanx for changing it to the point where it is useless for what > you wanted, but we won't sign anyway. > > US: If you amend the ICC treaty, we will sign it. > World: OK, we will amend it. > US: Thanx for changing it to the point where it is useless for what > you wanted, but we won't sign anyway. > > US: Just let weapons inspectors in. > Saddam: OK, they are welcome. > US: Thanx, but I want your head too. > > Does anybody see a pattern here? > > > How many million people work for GW and should have told him "be > carefull where you aim, 'cause where you aim you just might hit"? > Why can't he just get somebody from the DoD to think up a > doctrine, have > somebody from the DoJ wrap it in some legalese, and send > Powell around > the world saying "This is what we stand for. This is what we > do. This is > what you can expect from us."? > > To many people, GW is behaving like a spoiled little child. > > > > 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 [..] > > I can think of some more resolutions that are not enforced. > But that is > in countries where GW thinks the US has other interests. > > > [1] Naturally those people that actually think for themselves > could see > this coming from miles away and still see the need to replace (not > remove) Saddam. Which makes it even more ridiculous that GW played it > this way. > > Jochem > > ______________________________________________________________________ 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
