Subject:
|
Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 19:27:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > > When Iraq is foound in breach of 1441, should the US invade? Should there
> > > be a resolution from the UN stating that war is imminent? Or should there
> > > be a resolution laying out a way to go in and peacably disarm Iraq?
> >
> > Do you truly, realistically believe the latter can be accomplished?
> >
> > -->Bruce<--
>
> In my honest opinion--no--which is sad.
Okay, I was just trying to force a reality check. Perhaps there is some
other avenue open rather than war.
>
> But any force that invades Iraq should be under a mandate by a united
> coalition, not by the US.
I don't see why it would be to the United States' advantage to have it any
other way. This threatened unilateral action is a load of Bushit™.
>
> My prayers, however, are for peace.
Mine are for Saddam and Bush to have that personal duel. A win/win
situation in my opinion. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
