Jumping To Conclusions

I thought for a moment that you were giving the Iraqi response to Bush's speech. However, it lacks the necessary bombast. I think there must be a special list of phrases given to all tyrannical dictators to be used in case of war.

If one looks at the substance of the speech, we've gotta remember that he did repeatedly cite our "broad coalition" that is dealing with Iraq (which, I count as Britian, USA, and Australia as senders of troops -- not that broad), he did say ""has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida," which makes want to say "HUH?" -- repeating an accusation over and over isn't proof -- providing proof is proof... and he repeated the claim about developing nuclear weapons, making one wonder if he has been briefed of the forged African papers.

Could he have made such an effective case if he:

1. Didn't cite al-Queda and tie this war to 9/11?
2. Claim we have a "broad coalition"?
3. Claim that Iraq is developing big bad bombs?

Maybe. Maybe not.

1) The war is accurately tied to 9/11- do you not agree with this?

"In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations.

And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense. It is suicide."

2) The US does not need (or perhaps even want) a "broad coalition" in terms of troops. Military coordination between various countries is not an easy task. The "broad coalition" is in terms of political support- US, Australia, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, etc.

3) Bush didn't say Iraq is developing "big bad bombs." He clearly implied that he would try though: "Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq..." Are you willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? I'm glad W isn't.

1. Poland has also sent troops.

2. "Who has sent troops" is a poor measure of support, because even if this action were unanimously endorsed by the Security Council, only a handful of countries would actually take part in the fighting anyway. The first Gulf War, which did have UN approval, was a US-UK force, with a handful of primarily symbolic contributions from a few other nations.

handful of countries would actually take part in the fighting anyway

...handful of primarily symbolic contributions from a few other nations.

I suppose... but it depends how one defines "handful" and "few."

I'd say, in the Gulf War I, there were a lot of other nations.

http://www.cryan.com/war/AlliedForces.html

Are there going to be 'symbolic contributions' to this effort?

he did say ""has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaida," which makes want to say "HUH?" -- repeating an accusation over and over isn't proof -- providing proof is proof

Partha, what part of the following (part of CNN's transcript of Powell's speech before the Security Council) did you not find convincing enough?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/index.html

Maybe Partha would only be convinced after Partha's family had all been killed from mustard or VX nerve gas. Sadly, Parma and those other liberal commie whackos will refuse to acknowledge that Sodom has WMDs even after our valliant troops are initially shot at with munitions containing these evil and dangerous agents of death!

By the way, Parma, my son says "You're welcome!" for his efforts to keep you and your family safe from such calamity, let alone free to speak your mind against the 'evil' that you would acuse my son of doing in protecting you!

Maybe Partha would only be convinced after Partha's family had all been killed from mustard or VX nerve gas. Sadly, Parma and those other liberal commie whackos will refuse to acknowledge that Sodom has WMDs even after our valliant troops are initially shot at with munitions containing these evil and dangerous agents of death!


Try decaf next time.

And I was asking Partha about the ties to Al Qaeda, not about the WMDs.

Dave S., I don't drink coffee - it prevents me from remaining calm in the face of irrationality. Your asking about Assama "buns" laid-him and his ilk does not invalidate my comments. Sorry that you didn't quite get that.