WMDs found!

[Doctrine1st]

Just give us time, say, until just before the election {resultopularity spike}.)

I often wonder about this, I know Campaign strategists are somewhere beneath a ambulance chaser, and a used car salesmen with an endless supply of sawdust, but if they indeed found something, would they sit on it eventhough soldiers are losing their lives everday. Are they that unscrupulous?

 

[fungle]

The French were the deciding factor at Yorktown. How little is the honour shown to an ally.If the hessians had won the day the US might be a german speaking nation next to a french colony of canada. Hail the british

 

[notto]

As for the first link, it seems that the French engineer reference was not in the article but contained in the video if I'm not mistaken. My search bot pulled up the reference. It's far easier to find references to the French helping Iraq develop its nuclear program and delivery systems than finding pre-war engineering projects concerning tunnels and bunkers.

"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]French engineers helped build the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, which the Israelis destroyed in 1981. To this day, the French hold $4 billion in unpaid Iraqi debts. German firms specialized in providing poison gas and missile technology."

If you are referring to the nuclear reactor that was destroyed in 1981, the US (and the UN) condemned Israel for destroying it. Iraq was an ally in 1981. I didn't see anything in the article about the French helping them develop delivery systems. Can you point it out?

[/font]

 

[Oliver]

why don't you agree with this? What if the Security Council had voted to go to war on false evidence, and six months later no WMD is found. Would the Security Council ever have credibility again?

I didn't agree with the French government threatening to use its veto mainly because it was not consistent with the position it had adoptd so far: this government had criticised the US for wanting to act unilaterally, in other words for not listening to the majority at the UNSC. Now using a veto is not really listening to the majority either. In fact, it didn't even let the UNSC express the opinon of the majority, since the US took this opportunity of withdrawing the resolution proposal before any vote.

Now I understand that the situation was more complex than what I just depicted, because of the impossibility for any of the permanent members of opposing a resolution without using the veto (you can vote yes, abstain, or use a veto, but there is no "no" without this veto), and because of the difficult position of the non-permanent members. Actually, this veto must have been a real relief for those, especially the three african nations, who would have taken a real risk in voting either for ar agaisnt the resolution.

 

[RaptureTicketHolder]

Gimme back those freedom fries - Im good with that!