>Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad >idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set >the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough >to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. >Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one >behind "you do the crime, you do the time".
Eh.... the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441.
That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce "serious consequences." The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these "serious consequences" 1441 was clearly authorizing.
The UN Resolution says "serious consequences", it doesn't say "war". The consequence "war" is merely America's interpretation of the phrase "serious consequences"; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted.
So, if the US chooses to interpret "serious consequences" as meaning "war", and subsequently starts sending troops to the Middle East to fight that war, they shouldn't complain about the costs. The huge costs of preparing for war are a consequence of America's decision to prepare for war.
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
