Dan R Allen wrote:
> Dan:
> As do I, although I'm not so sure that won't lead us into untenable
> situations - mainly because his decisions are only going to be as good as
> his sources.

True, but I think that he is fairly wide about which sources to trust.  At
least, that's how it appears to me at this point.

> Jon:
> By the way, to offset all the history revisionists, if you remember, under
> Bush 41 we acted FIRST, and then built a coalition, not the other way
> around.  Does anyone need the history lesson, or do you remember now?
> (Dan,
> I'm not saying you said this, it just popped into my mind as a result of
> this post.)
> Dan:
> What do you consider as first? IIRC, we did start troop movements, but the
> first bombs didn't drop until after the coalition was in place.

That's my point.  it was a LOOONNGGG time between the two events.  We are
not even near the point where bombs would drop, and President Bush seems to
be building his coalition much better than most anyone thought.  of course,
only time will tell.  The big election wins didn't hurt his efforts one bit.

> Also, regarding the Russians; they agreed not to attack us outright, but
> did leave Russian owned anti-air equipment in Iraq for Saddam to use.
> it didn't help him much, but their compliance with the agreement was kinda
> halfhearted.

Yep.  I sort of made that point a bit earlier in my comments about the trade
issues.  Old hatreds die hard, and the end of the cold war is hard for some
on both sides to accept.

> I'm not suggesting that they will renege on their votes, but they are
> pretty skilled at skirting along the edges.

This I will definitely grant you!


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to