To: h0db who wrote (130375 ) 4/29/2004 12:59:45 AM From: Hawkmoon Respond to of 281500 You're trying to say I favor imposing democracy in Iraq; Apparently you flunked your ESL courses... Because no where do I recall saying you favored "imposing" democracy.. It's what YOU SAID WE WERE DOING in Iraq.. I merely told you that it's impossible to impose democracy anymore than it is to force someone to be free. Impose, by its very definition, means to force someone to do something that is contrary to their self-interest. And freedom of action, thought, and spirit is in EVERYONE'S self interest. The only problem is when people's sense of their personal rights conflict with the equal rights of other people.Then why did Bush (at Blair's urging) ask for another resolution sanctioning the use of force? What you should be asking yourself is WHY a second vote was required AFTER the 15-0 unanimous vote with 1441, which promised SEVERE CONSEQUENCES for Iraq's failure to FULLY DISCLOSE all WMD weapons, programs, and R&D within 90 days. France and Russia both voted for 1441... and then attempted to block the implementation of that resolution by requiring a second vote authorizing use of military force (which had already been implied in UNSC 678 and 1441). And after forcing the US to negotiate the language of such a second resolution, AND REALIZING THAT THE US HAD THE ABILITY TO PASS IT BY A 9-6 VOTE, both France and Russia opted to use their permanent vetoes. We played Chirac's game. We went for the second vote and he blocked it. What you need to ask is why 200,000 US/UK troops were left sweating in their Kuwaiti desert camps as long as they were. And you need to ask yourself what role those oil for food bribes to French, German, and Russian politicians played in causing them to use their permanent veto. Hawk Hawk