[Davros]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: But I think not going after Saddam is a huge screw up on the entire worlds part. Bit of a generalisation don't you think? Are you judging the world, the rest of the world outside the US, the parts of the world outside the "coalition of the willing", or the people of the world that disagree that war is the correct strategy? Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office? Nope - falsity here. I have seen two television interviews with Chirac. Both recognised that the probability was that Sadman had WOMD and that the world would definitely be a better place without him. Neither interview (of course) agreed that war was the only means through which this could be achieved. Its comes down too there oil contracts right? At least thats what I get out of it. So why arent those two ever harrassed about being money hungry oil mongers like the US is. I seem to defend regularly against the short sighted yokels who write to my local paper complaining that the US is just going to war to be grabbing for oil. When I reply to those people, I suggest in polite manner that they are refusing to exercise their brains on the bigger picture of Saddam and instead grasping an easy emotive excuse to be irrational over. So that is how I defend the US over oil claims. Now let me think - how would I defend claims of similarly poor validity against the French and Germans? [img]smile.gif[/img] - maybe a different tactic is required - I'll get back to you there when I have time to consider the options .