Saddam has been a dictator (evil) and had weapons for 20 years and there has not been a global event. Dubya has been President for 2 years and he is going to start one. Taken with the fact that there are 2 other unrelated nations that he includes in his "axis of power", this is a dangerous situation.
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 05:52 am, Vahur Lokk wrote: > On Wednesday 29 January 2003 09:50, you wrote: > > All I've got to say for The Shrub, our President, is, "SHOW ME THE BEEF!" > > If he shows me that he has proof for everything he said, especially the > > parts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, I too will stand up and > > join you in saying loudly, "DO IT!" > > 1. No-one believes Saddam has nuclear weapons, even if he has been trying > to get one. > 2. He certainly has chemical - he has used them before > 3. He certainly has biological - he has used them. > I name fools everyone who seriously considers the idea that Saddam-like guy > has destroyed them all. > Now proof is almost impossible - its about finding a needle in a haystack. > So in fact there is quite stupid situation: > 1. There is no formal reason for war - no proof > 2. There is de facto reason - those weapons are out there > 3. War must start in february - climatical reasons > 4. If location of bio and chem weapons cannot be found before the war > breaks out, they can be used and effects of bio weapons will not be limited > to the war regions but could wipe out half the world > 5. If Saddam is just left alone continuing current idiotic policies it will > only get worse - like him getting nukes also. Which would be real shit. > > So there is no good answer, and whichever way they go there are serious > risks. Also this war will be much more difficult than previous Gulf War. > From militery point of view, I mean. If you have a good way to get rid of > Saddam fast, without the war, let uncle Bush know ;-) > > Wahur
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
