I'm posting this not so much because I have comments, but because I haven't seen anyone else discussing this. What's up you news savvy folk?

On a related note, a friend of mine had a cool idea. Given the poor economic state, I have before noted we need a really expensive war to encourage so old fasioned Keynesian spending by the government.

Why don't we just drop tanks and helicopters on Iraq rather than bombs? This way we can get rid of mothballed equipment as well as encourage loads of defense spending, which will create jobs, which will kick-start the economy, etc, etc. I like it. ;)

LOL Somehow i don't think that would make Saddam go away. :D

Saddam, who cares about Saddam? Some petty dictator? No, we're going there to make MONEY as much as war.

yeah, you could go far with ideas like this. Bush has :D

Yes, God forbid americans actaully care about anyone else eh?

<font color = lightgreen>I keep hearing people say that this impending war is being staged only because we want cheap oil. What is wrong with wanting cheap oil?

No, I'm not saying start a war simply to get oil inexpensively, but everyone shops around for the best price. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

I think it's because people will die for the cheap oil. That's probably what's wrong with it.

Mark

The speech actually offered nothing new and brought forth unsubstantiated evidence. It's odd that it was only shown on cable stations and not on the "Big Three".

Mark

Here is the news:

Bush fails to sway skeptics on Iraq

Russia rejects military option; guarded welcome in Asia


NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES



Oct. 8 — President Bush’s call for greater pressure on Iraq won guarded support in Asia and Australia on Tuesday, but he failed to sway some skeptics, notably Russia, which has rejected Washington’s efforts to obtain authorization from the United Nations for military force against Baghdad if the Iraqis fail to open their military sites to weapons inspectors.

BUSH’S STRONGLY WORDED attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein deepened concerns throughout the world over the possibility of war.
Russian Deputy Foreign Ministry Yuri Fedotov, although not reacting directly to Bush’s speech, told the Interfax news agency that a U.S. proposal for a new U.N. Security Council resolution on disarming Iraq was disingenuous and contained demands that Washington was “well aware” could not be met.
Fedotov said Russia supported France, which is also hostile to Washington’s position on Iraq and has proposed a solution that would let Baghdad try to comply with existing U.N. resolutions. Russia would not support any resolution that triggered an automatic use of force, Fedotov said.

POWELL UPBEAT
Continuing his diplomatic offensive in Washington, however, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday he believed that members of the U.N. Security Council were moving closer to some kind of agreement.
“There is now, I believe, a view converging on the need for a new resolution with tough inspection standards,” he said.
“The major issue to discuss is how to keep the threat of consequences ... tied as closely as one can to the new requirements that will be placed upon Iraq,” Powell said.
The United States needs the support of the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, or must at least persuade them to abstain from voting. So far, only Britain has sided with Washington. In addition to Russia, China has indicated it prefers the two-step French approach to the crisis, which favors passage of a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force.

Former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe said Bush’s call for an international coalition to force Saddam to accept weapons inspectors indicated Washington was weighing France’s approach. “President Bush said a military operation is neither imminent nor inevitable,” Juppe told RTL radio.
“He speaks of a coalition, of action with allies, and he recalls that the aim is disarming Iraq...so on these aims I think that French diplomacy has made itself heard,” said Juppe, a key figure in President Jacques Chirac’s conservative party.

SUPPORT IN ASIA, AUSTRALIA
In Asia, the initial reaction from Australia and Japan was supportive.
In his speech, Bush called Saddam a “murderous tyrant” and said he may be planning to attack the United States with biological or chemical weapons and could have a nuclear bomb in less than a year.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Bush’s speech renewed pressure on Saddam to disarm or face military strikes.
“Saddam Hussein wouldn’t even be contemplating letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq if he didn’t fear the military threats from the United States,” Downer said. “We think the speech is a very measured and considered speech. It puts the pressure in this debate very much on the shoulders of Saddam Hussein.”
Australia has been one of Washington’s staunchest allies in his campaign against Saddam and Prime Minister John Howard has not ruled out sending Australian troops to serve in a U.S.-led strike aimed at toppling the Iraqi leader.
Japan supports Bush, but has also been reserved on the use of force.
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s spokeswoman, Misako Kaji, said Tokyo welcomed Bush’s confirmation in the speech that it remains important to pursue a U.N. Security Council resolution

ONGOING DOUBTS
But doubts over Bush’s hard-line approach were heard in the largely Muslim nation of Malaysia.
“We are for the U.S. if it is a force for good but we cannot support the U.S. if it pursues the course of unilateralism with scant regard for world opinion,” said Hishamuddin Hussein, Malaysia’s youth and sports minister.
“Maybe Saddam is evil, and he must not be allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction, but the U.N. must be given a chance to explore a peaceful solution,” he told delegates at the East Asian Economic Summit being held in Malaysia’s capital, Kuala Lumpur.



DISDAIN IN BAGHDAD

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri weighed in by denouncing as “illegal” U.S. and British threats of military action against Iraq.
Sabri, arriving in Qatar during a Gulf tour, accused the United States and Britain of “confusing world public opinion (to) launch their campaign against Iraq.”
“Their campaign has no legal or logical grounds,” said Sabri, whose tour aims to drum up regional opposition to an attack
An Iraqi parliamentarian denied that Baghdad possessed any weapons of mass destruction, saying Washington was using that as an excuse to attack Iraq.
“We have no weapons of mass destruction and the whole world knows that but Bush wants to impose his hegemony on the world and subject Iraq to his rule,” said Abdul Aziz Shwaish, head of the finance, trade and planning committee.
He dismissed Bush’s remarks that Iraq had maintained high-level contacts for more than a decade with al-Qaida, the militant Islamic movement accused of staging the Sept. 11 suicide hijacking attacks on America.
“We have no contact with al-Qaida and nobody would believe Bush’s words on that,” Shwaish said.

NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski and Tammy Kupperman at the Pentagon, Betsy Steuart at the State Department and Linda Fasulo at the United Nations, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

(Originally posted here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/811728.asp#BODY )

Mark

Well, Iraqi's always were good in making up things and lie their asses off.