The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
On Friday Saddam Hussein will not agree to the UN resolution.
This is because he knows that, by doing so, he will further divide the UN and Arab League which all have members opposed to military action.
With no clear consensus the UN will again revert back to indecision and debate, and Saddam will have more time.
If he were to agree he loses popularity with his people, and appears less hard line as the Parliament earlier today voted to reject the resolution.
Whilst his eldest son has voiced support for the UN plan, this just reaffirms Saddam's position as the hard liner he has portrayed himself as. Saddam's son has also called on many nations to cut oil supplies to the rest of the world though this will not happen because doing so would make it easier to gain public support for war. Nothing like being hit in the wallet to get people's attention.....
All this will leave the USA and UK with a difficult decision - take action and risk condemnation, or wait and find out just why Baghdad want's Turkey to supply it with 1 million (approx) doses of the antidote drug Antropine...now why does somebody need an antidote to something they don't have ?
Of course he could accept the UN resolution, with conditions of course... time will tell.
~~Belldandy~~
This is because he knows that, by doing so, he will further divide the UN and Arab League which all have members opposed to military action.
With no clear consensus the UN will again revert back to indecision and debate, and Saddam will have more time.
If he were to agree he loses popularity with his people, and appears less hard line as the Parliament earlier today voted to reject the resolution.
Whilst his eldest son has voiced support for the UN plan, this just reaffirms Saddam's position as the hard liner he has portrayed himself as. Saddam's son has also called on many nations to cut oil supplies to the rest of the world though this will not happen because doing so would make it easier to gain public support for war. Nothing like being hit in the wallet to get people's attention.....
All this will leave the USA and UK with a difficult decision - take action and risk condemnation, or wait and find out just why Baghdad want's Turkey to supply it with 1 million (approx) doses of the antidote drug Antropine...now why does somebody need an antidote to something they don't have ?
Of course he could accept the UN resolution, with conditions of course... time will tell.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Same source. Same problem.
Indeed.
A diesel car, though.
If only GW knew that a car could be run on vegetable oil.
Goatboy wrote:
> I'd like to see unconditional acceptance and compliance from Iraq, I
> truly would - but I just get the feeling it'll be another dance
And I think we both know the probable consequences for Iraq if this is another dance... :( When I think about it I don't know if this is a positive or a negative sign.
Combined with the release of the new Al Queda tape this is a pretty depressing news day....
~~Belldandy~~
> I'd like to see unconditional acceptance and compliance from Iraq, I
> truly would - but I just get the feeling it'll be another dance
And I think we both know the probable consequences for Iraq if this is another dance... :( When I think about it I don't know if this is a positive or a negative sign.
Combined with the release of the new Al Queda tape this is a pretty depressing news day....
~~Belldandy~~
Amusing
I can see it now. They didn't read all of the e-mail.
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Philisitnes
UN buffoons,
You can inspect our weapons.
...
...
...
...
After you pry them from our cold, lifeless fingers!!! Have at ye!
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Philisitnes
UN buffoons,
You can inspect our weapons.
...
...
...
...
After you pry them from our cold, lifeless fingers!!! Have at ye!
I'd like to see unconditional acceptance and compliance from Iraq, I truly would - but I just get the feeling it'll be another dance
This just in on CNN;
-- Iraq accepts U.N. resolution calling for disarmament and return of weapons inspectors. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.
This is great news ! It gives the chance that conflict can still be averted, which has to be a positive thing. Fox also reported this morning that Turkey has refused to sell the drug's Iraq requested after pressure from the US and UK.
~~Belldandy~~
-- Iraq accepts U.N. resolution calling for disarmament and return of weapons inspectors. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.
This is great news ! It gives the chance that conflict can still be averted, which has to be a positive thing. Fox also reported this morning that Turkey has refused to sell the drug's Iraq requested after pressure from the US and UK.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> America, and her allies, have these weapons as a deterrant, whereas
> Saddam does not - 100 000 people can attest to that. His are
> developed, and deployable, as first strike/offensive weapons. There is
> a difference, to all who want to see that difference.
Then of course, there's the issue of *how* you see that difference - either as you suggest, or:
US were happy enough the way things were, so needed weapons only to prevent change.
Others wanted to create change, and so needed weapons and policy specific to their different goals.
You could argue that both sides seem willing to *use* their weapons, and anything else is rather less important to the morality of their development and ownership.
Just to offer a different view.
> America, and her allies, have these weapons as a deterrant, whereas
> Saddam does not - 100 000 people can attest to that. His are
> developed, and deployable, as first strike/offensive weapons. There is
> a difference, to all who want to see that difference.
Then of course, there's the issue of *how* you see that difference - either as you suggest, or:
US were happy enough the way things were, so needed weapons only to prevent change.
Others wanted to create change, and so needed weapons and policy specific to their different goals.
You could argue that both sides seem willing to *use* their weapons, and anything else is rather less important to the morality of their development and ownership.
Just to offer a different view.
Page: