Subject:
|
K, in even simpler terms, for those of us who hate seeing death and killings and such...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:58:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
Not to boil it down to the lowest possible common denominator...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.iraq/index.html
"
Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction, and its U.N. ambassador,
Mohammed Aldouri, suggested Sunday his country could allow inspectors access
even to the presidential sites not covered by last week's agreement with the
U.N. weapons inspection team.
"I don't think that will be a huge problem between us and inspectors,"
Aldouri said on ABC's "This Week." "I don't think that we will have a
problem on that question, on that issue. Certainly we can accommodate
ourselves with the U.N. to have free access to presidential sites."
"
Not to say that I put much faith into the 'denial of having weapons of mass
destruction', but the Ambassador says that hte inspectors can have access to
the country, even the 'presidential areas', which is better than the access
granted earlier...
So that, contrasted with this quotation from the same article,
"
The Bush administration tried Sunday to downplay concerns about the prospect
of unilateral U.S. action against the Baghdad government.
Any attack likely would be conducted with the aid of a coalition of U.N.
forces or a loosely knit coalition of U.S. allies, said White House press
secretary Ari Fleischer.
"There's no longer a need to go it alone," Fleischer said.
"
To which I say, there's no longer a need to go it at all! Send in the
inspectors, not the bombs!
Are they just not communicating properly? I'm not saying that a military
option may not be necessary sometime in the future, and I wouldn't trust
Iraq if they told me that the sun was up and it was 12 p.m. local time, but
is Dubya so 'trigger happy' that he is just itching to strike out, even when
Iraq is meeting all the demands?
It seems, to me anyway, anytime a rep. from the White House speaks, they
always mention, "Any attack...", or "If we attack..." which just doesn't
start a good discussion of peaceful solution.
Someone please, for the sake of humanity, explain this to me.
Anyway, just little ol' naive me speaking here.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
30 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
