Guess it's up to the United States and "some of our friends" to put our boots on, cinch up the saddles and go get that crawfishing dictator. Seriously, it sounds like Russia wants their economic interests taken care of before they line up. Only natural. The oil question is still sitting there of course. Way to early to say "game over," though, on whether the US can get a tougher resolution, and maybe even provision on use of force to back up inspections/disarmament.
Re: Re: Putin rejects Bush's Iraq plan I think that last scenario is most likely (and most appealing). Iraq has "offered" to let weapons inspectors back in. Pass a resolution contingent upon unconditional inspections and disarmament. If Hussein blinks, Bush gets to blow the hell out of Baghdad. If Hussein complies, haven't we really achieved the most important goal in all of this anyway?
Re: Re: Re: Putin rejects Bush's Iraq plan Do you really think George the Lesser will see it as such? Hamlet was a great play, by the way.
And why do we want to do that? What threat is Iraq to the U.S. (none)? Let the other countries in the MiddleEast worry about it. Other people consider Bush a dictator, so let them worry about him.
Re: Re: Re: Putin rejects Bush's Iraq plan This is ultra-sly irony, right? We won't know if we've accomplished out objective until Nov. 6.
Apparently you need your dosage of soma upped. Or some more soy to help the propaganda slide down nice and easy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Putin rejects Bush's Iraq plan I actually wasn't trying in the least to be ironic. I'm willing to admit that we need to take a close look at Iraq. Hussein's proven in the past (sometimes with our help) that he's capable of very bad things, including the using of chemical weapons, killing his own people etc. He should be disarmed. Luckily, we already (via the United Naitions) have a framework for this in place. He's already played his trump card by inviting the inspectors back in. If we're smart, we'll let him shoot himself in the foot. Ask the UN for a resolution contingent upon the weapons inspections. That way we aren't the aggressors (we're giving Hussein the opportunity to fail before we attack him) if we have to go to war. If we don't have to go to war, that means that Iraq has been disarmed.
Its theatrics.You need to play the game to get a better deal for yourself.That is what Putin is doing. part of is fo us to look the other way on Georgia.. http://www.gazeta.ru/2002/09/19/Russiaprimed.shtml the other? possibily gaurenteing Russia will have their hands in when it comes to divying up pipeline capacity, Importing into Iraq and payback of Iraqi debts to Russia.This has little to do with right or wrong for any side.. (US , Russia , Europe, Iraq , Saudis etc..) but more who gets to sit at the table when dinner is served.
Russia will look the other way on Iraq if we look the other way on their upcoming incursion in Georgia.
Chechen terrorists, funded by Al-Qaeda, are hiding out in Georgia. It's not looking the other way, it's Russia taking the neccesary steps to ensure their own security. We're fighting the same enemy. Go get 'em, Rooskies. Alex
The US is not backing the incursion cause Georgia is vying to be NATO member. I think the US would be very happy to have a member of NATO bordering Russia.
Honestly, I don't know where I come down on this whole Iraq thing. I guess a part of me, the idealist, really wants to believe that our government has some top secret information with regards to the nuclear capability of Iraq. As a result of this information, Bush wants to go to war. The cynic in me says this all election b.s. or that we want the oil etc. Personally, if the Soviet Union is going to veto our actions in the UN, I say this is the downside of a democracy. That is why so many democracies fail. They are never set up right in the first place. This is a true test of The UN more than anything. I hope it passes, but I think it is going to fail. If we want it bad enough, we should tell Russia they will get $0 in foreign aid from the US next year. Let's see how that one goes over.
> That is why so many democracies fail. They are > never set up right in the first place. If they are set up to always give you the result you want, then it isn't a democracy, is it?
Or you can narrow the inputs down to say...two parties...getting 1 of 2 results that you want and still call it a democracy.