Al Re...To the best of my recollection, france advocated extending inspections and eventually a UN collective position if that was not fruitful...with the UN position ruling the day.
France voted for 1441, which called for severe consequences. If France had vetoed 1441 right away, as France was always going to veto any resolution, which involved anybody, actually taking action; then a lot of the severe recriminations could have been avoided. France had an interest in not taking action against Saddam, not the least of it, being the bribes. Both sides went way above the line. As for extending the inspections, we had 100,000 troops on the border, and we couldn't keep them there forever. Inspections had already gone on, off and on, for 12 yrs, and there seemed to be no end in sight, unless Saddam cooperated completely, and there was no sign of that. So put it in perspective. The sanctions had to end, for varied reasons. The inspectors, weren't finding any weapons, and Saddam wasn't cooperating. We couldn't hold our troops on the border very long. As to whether France would have ever agreed to invade Iraq, under any circumstances, De Villepin said no way, no time, no how. The acrimony was getting worse, and the only way to end it, was for us to do something one way or another.
Did you watch Blix yesterday on the political talk shows? Same story.
Yes, Blix was on O Reilly and on Matthews, pushing his book, I suppose. Blix was more neutral than I had supposed. However he did mention several key points.
1. Blix himself, as did Kay, thought Saddam had WMd, until Jan- Feb. of 03, when, after inspecting sites given by our CIA, they couldn't find anything.
2. He thought Saddam got rid of all of his stockpiled WMD in 2001, but there were no inspector there, and no proof, of the quantity.
3 The scientist were too afraid to be reliable. It was only after the war, and the scientist had no one to fear, and they kept saying no weapons, were they believed.
4 There was no way, no matter how long the inspections went on, there could be proof positive either way. The americans, and the informers , kept on insisting they had them, while Saddam kept on insisting they were destroyed, but couldn't prove it.
5 Saddam didn't live up to his end of the bargain either, possibly because he believed he would again escape, as he did after the Gulf war. If Saddam had cooperated, the war could have been avoided also.
6 Saddam was a brutal dictator, and Iraq isn't better off without him, but the middle east is. There were other reasons for getting rid of Saddam, however, without WMD, Blix didn't think congress, or parliament would have approved of going to war.
No man...you don't follow. They are the will power of human nature in this equation. We are the military might, not them.
I think military might and will power are qualities, both sides have. Being able to send suicide bombers, and kill civilians, is a form of military might. Undoubtedly, they have more will power, but we have more military might. The question is, are we willing to use that might, long enough, firm enough, for us to be victorious, over their stronger will power, but inadequate military might. If Iraq works out, it will be a cheap way to win the war. If not, look out, as it won't be pretty. |
