To: brian1501 who wrote (194697 ) 7/16/2004 4:57:17 PM From: tejek Read Replies (1) | Respond to Articles 4 and 5 are not the issue; the issue is does attack on Serbia equate to the attack on Iraq. I say it doesn't and I gave you reasons why I think that way. In both cases NATO fulfilled it's obligation (to consider the situation), and in neither case was force required under the NATO charter. The only difference was France and Germany wanted force in one case, and they didn't want it in the other. Their reasons can be debated. This is such shit........you support attacking Iraq which has killed and maimed thousands of Americans and cost hundreds of billions in order to save a couple of billion. That makes absolutely no sense. The bottom line is the climate was changing and Iraq was either going to be held to task, or they were going to be let off the hook. The status quo was not going to go on. You seem to support attacking Serbia which had nothing to do with the security of America, solely on the basis that we're being nice to our allies. A good faith that has not paid off apparently. Maybe we will fail (you seem to be pulling for that), but if we don't, we're a long way to a more stable middle east. Yes, and he moved those forces into place. No one asked him to......there was no change in Saddam's behavior to warrant such a move. Waiting a couple of months would not have killed no one.
