Blair's spokesman said: "There are simply too many unanswered questions. Too much evidence of deliberate deception," the spokesman said.
He said the evidence of Iraqi non-cooperation presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday and earlier evidence from Blix was compelling, and anyone who believed otherwise showed "a degree of unwillingness to face up to reality." ---------- In light of this a friend of mine (same woman who's views I posted the last time hee hee) had this to say: "That last bit.. is exactly what I've been trying to say this isn't really about saddam, saddam is indeed an unstable world leader and is indeed refusing and has been for twelve years to live up to his own part of a bargain there is NO question of that , we wouldn't be having this situaiton at all if he had just done what he agreed to do to begin with.. the rest is just really about no one wanting to face the reality that th4ere is a dangerous situation here.. .no one wants to really believe that, its to dangerou, it makes people nervous, they start getting anxious about what if he has something that will readch here and we piss him off somehow..or they have an issue with the US and this is a good way to get back at them, even though they don't relize thats what their reacting to.. you see what I mean.. trying to see things thru rose colored glasses its a lot easier to feel safe in this world of chemcial and nuclear warfar to just believe the US wants Iraq, period... its no threat to anyone else, and they can feel superior for not " -------- Now I agree with Blair's spokesman. That given the evidence Iraq has not complied and is not complying. I still do not know if the Resolution gave War as a penalty for non compliance or whether the security council was then supposed to decide what to do about the situation. If the SC was supposed to decide what to do about the situation then it has to be put to vote. But on the other hand...if Iraq *IS* attacked...can we stand the terrorist backlash in countries throughout the world? Are these countrys that want to vote against war simply covering their asses? And want the US to go it alone so that in the end they can say..well look. See? The US attacked by themselves..we didn't do anything.... And is America ready for the terror backlash that will be born out of attacking Iraq? Is it ready to fend off another 9/11 launched perhaps from entities that have only very vague ties to Iraq? Is the World ready? Because these attacks could be launched anywhere. Britain..France..Africa..the Caribbean..anywhere there are American or British citizens. Would it not be better to have world solidarity or at least a larger percentage of countries openly backing attacking Iraq?If all that is needed is for the weapons inspectors to DEFINITIVELY SAY that YES! We have inspected...we have analysed the results..and Iraq IS in Material Breach! If that's all that we need to remove all the excuses and all the naysaying from the rest of the world....then why not wait for it? Is Saddam going to build a nuclear bomb in two months? Is he going to have chemical weapons in two months and launch an attack whilst trying to shift things around to aovid detection by spy satellites AND the weapons inspectors? -Gel ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
