WW III?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Maximus67: Perhaps the US school system could teach them to be able to spell "Iraq" 1st. At least try to spell the name of the country you want to attack.

I know Maximus is gone, but just a reminder to us all, this is the type of silly personal insult that gets people banned.

[Timber Loftis]

World war - nope. I agree with the first couple of posts on this - including JR's.

Now, if Turkey and the US can't agree about what to do with NOrthern Iraq and the Kurds, we might just be setting the stage. Let's see if this inter-ally conflict is averted, then re-assess the likelihood of WWIII.

Oh, and let's not forget the conventional wisdom that WWIV will be fought with stones and sticks.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Oh, and let's not forget the conventional wisdom that WWIV will be fought with stones and sticks.

TL, you can put that theory to bed I NEVER have any goodluck

[Animal]

Originally posted by TheCrimsomBlade: First Sorry If I mis-spell anything in this post, spelling is not my strong point, And Animal where have you been for the past 12 years that the U.N. gave Saddam to disarm or be Disarmed? We gave him 12 years and 48 hours to disarm and as far as sideing with the cowards that run the french government you should take a better look at the whole picture because I really think you missed something and sorry if you think I'm slamming you because I'm not, Just look a little harder at the whole picture and not just the past 24 months and maybe you'll see things a little more clearly. May truth and peace rule the day, and may Saddam Go to Hell !!!!

Just because the French don't want to involve themselves in a rebellion against the UN, you think they're cowards?

I don't seem to recall during the 12 years leading up to this that anyone actually stepped in and placed a reasonable amount of pressure on Saddam to disarm. If the US felt that he was such a threat and needed removal, then they should have done so years ago. If in fact he does have WoMD, then it's our own fault for letting him, now isn't it?

Setting a 48 hour deadline for disarmament, is somewhat unrealistic and unachievable and IMHO Bush was well aware of the same.

[Ronn_Bman]

But it wasn't just 48 hours. It was 4 months after 1441, and it was 12 years of deadline after deadline after deadline. One of them had to be the last.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: But it wasn't just 48 hours. It was 4 months after 1441, and it was 12 years of deadline after deadline after deadline. One of them had to be the last.

Agreed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, but as a final deadline, 48hrs isn't really sufficient time. Having re-read 1441, the UN specified no definite consequences to non compliance. Had there been a "We'll give you until this date to comply, or we'll kick your ass," then I could understand the 48hrs, giving people a chance to leave but after giving Saddam 12 years with no consequences to his actions, it's not like he's going to take anyone seriously. It's our own fault for letting it get this bad.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Animal: after giving Saddam 12 years with no consequences to his actions, it's not like he's going to take anyone seriously. It's our own fault for letting it get this bad.

You're right, the world dropped the ball horribly on this one, but I think your statement about Saddam explains exactly why he would have never willing disarmed no matter how much time was given.