>>>>>If you're referring to the Iraq war, remember, with Iraq, the first gulf war never ended. It was just a cease fire.
>
>>>>Oh, ok. I didn't realise it was just intermission. I withdraw my 'semantics' comment. ;)
>
>>>Right. Commercial break if you will. Otherwise, the short attention span of the Amercians get restless. :)
>
>>We don't agree on much Sam, but I have to admit, I like your style.
>
>>>Duration of the cease fire was all up to Saddam depending on whether he was cooperating with the UN.
>
>>Only if you assume the first war was fought for the same reason(s) as the second, which it wasn't. Otherwise that's changing the rules mid-game.
>
>Well... no.
>Remember all the shell games he would play with the inspectors. He even had them removed from Iraq a couple of times. Why did he do that?

He didn't want the rest of the region to know he was helpless. Like you said, he was playing games - specifically, poker. He was bluffing his opponents.

>
>>Think how you'd would feel if Pittsburgh were allowed to change the rules during half-time in a game with Dallas.
>
>Speaking of which, did you know that Super Bowl XIII, which Pitt. won 35-31 against the Cowboys, Pittsburgh didn't have any panalties called against them? Is that possible? I think not!!!!!!!
>That game was fixed I tell ya. :)
>Chuck Noll probably paid off the refs. before the game.
>There's an anti-Cowboy conspiracy in the NFL.

Opposite of last night. The Giants had 16 penalties for 114 yards, most of them for false starts because of nobody could hear Manning. Hard to win a game doing that. The crowd should have been given the game ball.