[DRB]

Originally posted by Damn True
The article (however biased) illustrates that by saying the same kinds of things about Bill that were said about Bush v1 while Bill was in office, and that are being said about Bill now that Bush v2 is in office.

The focus of many of late is that Bush v1 or v2 are responsible for the current situation in Iraq. Based on the above statement IMO that cannot be true. That situation has been effected profoundly by the last 5-6 administrations, Congressional approval or dissaproval of aid to one side or another, The UN, other countries in the region etc etc."

Biased? Not biased, false. Completely false. Just like the Oliver North warning. Just like the "letter" from the Lt. Col. in another thread.

The thought that Bush v2 is not responsible for the current position we find ourselves with Iraq is ludicrious. Of course he is. If he had not made Saddam a focus none of this would have happened. (Remember I think that something should have be done about Saddam in 1998.) Now as you pointed out he is not orginially responsible for everything leading up to his administration. And of course Saddam is ultimately responsible for the whole thing as it is his actions that have caused a response.

But the course that has been taken since Bush v2 has been in office is solely by his direction.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
snip snip snip

The thought that Bush v2 is not responsible for the current position we find ourselves with Iraq is ludicrious. Of course he is. If he had not made Saddam a focus none of this would have happened. (

I think it's reasonable to say that feelings about the upcoming invasion of Iraq are different on this side of the atlantic, and that the reporting of the situation is different too. But I don't really want to go too much into that.

What I'd like to elicit opinions on is whether or not other people here think that conflict is now unavoidable?

It seems to me (from the stuff I get to hear about) that George (and to a lesser extent Tony), have put themselves into a position where their only way out (without complete loss of face) is to invade Iraq. Given that position (which others may not agree with) and the fact that the US is pretty much in a position to do as it pleases I see the invasion of Iraq no longer being an if, but a when, with or without UN support. Unless Saddam Hussein voluntarily gives up power.....

Am I alone in thinking this?

A secondary question is whether Tony Blair will risk joining the US without UN support for a invasion. If UN support is there I'm pretty certain he'd follow, if not he risks alienating the UK from the rest of Europe, if the not the world apart from the US.

 

[laura]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
I don't blame Bush or Clinton or even Reagan for anything. I blame El Nino.

You are so right. i blame el nino as well.

 

[shocktower]

Hang on Laura ,what we really forget ,is we the United states are responcible for Sadam (sp?? FU ) ,the Regan addminstartion is the one who helped him to fight Iran ,I really think we should take care of our own yard so we don`t Eff-up more things ,get a clue people ,every time we are in a resesion we need some sort of war to make money ,think about it