OK, good point. Call it unwilling if you want. The three examples she gave were nations who were better sports about having to back down then. The point is, they showed real cooperation. By contrast, Iraq has not. Even UN inspector Blix has stated that.
No, as I stated, she contrasts Iraq with the other three nations mentioned and wondered, as I do, why this comparison escapes so many people. It is not supposition at all to state that Iraq has sought to evade complying. That is also the position of the UN inspection team.
War? Or regime change?
{QUOTE
QUOTE
n another point......I don't know why I bother, we keep running around in circles with these arguments.{/QUOTE/QUOTE}
It's an experiment to see if one Wotmania liberal will ever concede that an opposing point has even slight merit. I feel like Diogenes.... 
well your point does have some merit. I just don't agree with it. I do agree that ideally Saddam Hussein shouldn't be there, but he is. How to get rid of him? War? I don't see that as being the best way forward. I esp don't see it as the best way forward as the US and the UK have both attempted to prove the case for regime change but give no new evidence. We heard nothing about Iraq until after Sep 11 and after a war in Afghanistan and then suddenly.......
In my opinion George Bush has used the war against terror to attempt to finish Saddam off to secure oil supplies and also to finish off the job that daddy didn't do.
As for the wotmania liberals....for one, I don't see many conservatives saying that an anti war case has any merit. For another.....try chorabliss who I believe thinks that a potential war with iraq could be a good idea.
wads
Onwards the Aussie Spam Invasion!
TwoWongs rocks my world
campaiging for vitamin S
Quai Master is my muffin
