We should give them M1 Abrams tanks too! Maybe some Apaches? F16s?
Don’t worry, Yanny. That’ll happen, but it’s because the weapons industries sell the designs to “friendly” countries (i.e. UK, France, etc.). From there they branch out to the countries that haven’t been deemed “terrorist” or “communist.” It’s not up to the President, only the companies who are bent on making money.
I believe Colin Powell gave a great speech. Right now, I’m not talking about the evidence, just the speech in general. He was very straightfoward and did not wax eloquent and take up everyone’s time and attention (with the exception of France and Germany - they just straight didn’t want to be there - France was literally on the verge of twiddling his thumbs).
I also think the evidence was very compelling. Prior to this, I was hesitant to take a concrete stand about the war. I wasn’t getting enough info - just the same biased stuff over and over again. Why can’t the media give us the straight facts without any twists?
I think Bush did a superb job on picking his advisors and staff.
I totally agree DM. It’s unreasonable to expect a President to be perfect. The entire reason for choosing his Cabinet is to provide people who are strong in the areas where he is weak.
However, I still do not trust Bush’s special interests. Bush raised more money than any President in history, by appealing to corporations. He has promises to keep, promises which are not in the interest of the Iraqi or American people.
Sorry, Yanny, but when people keep using the same pithy, old, worn-out statements I get a little annoyed. Will you please give a less-used reason. I think the whole oil deal is a moot point anyway - or could be if we drilled in Alaska. I think there’s plenty there for us to stop being dependent on the oil from Iraq.
I don’t know about anyone else, but these guys are starting to sound more and more unreasonable every day. The only people that Colin Powell didn’t convince yesterday are those people that won’t be convinced:
A.) They don’t want to believe that Saddam Hussein is guilty.
B.) They don’t want to believe the evidence.
C.) They don’t want to trust their own government.
(and most importantly)
D.) They don’t want to see President Bush be right. He already proved himself as a defining president when he liberated Afganhistan and destroyed the Al-Qaeda stronghold. IMO, liberals are scared to death that Bush might prove himself to be an excellent president yet again.
Anyway, i appreciate that finally the US has humbled itself to present some of their insights to those other nations.
It’s better to confirm your evidence before you just jump the gun and wave it all around saying, “Here’s proof! Here’s proof!” - only to find out that it can’t be corroborated and (1) have to eat your own words, and (2) lose credibility.
- A clear plan for Iraqi democracy. Not a puppet Government which we know Dubbleya wants so badly.
Actually, we don’t know that. I think it’s just an excuse to keep on believing the worst about the President.
Finally, I truly believe that Saddam is using his “Bush is only trying to take over the oil so he can be a dictator” to cover his own sorry butt. It’s hard to convince me that if he didn’t have the stuff that he should still logically refuse to prove that it has been destroyed.
“…the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”