No Tracy,

The problem here is in reversing and bending the argument. AFAIK, each and every law works like "Anyone is not guilty until proven otherwise". And unless you're proven guilty, you cannot be punnished. It really is beyond me that Saddam had to prove its innocence rather than the UN had to prove its guilt.


>There was no evidence they didn't and every reason at that time (including Saddam's own reasons for letting it be thought) to think that there were. Sheesh Walter, you are beating a dead horse and it accomplishes nothing for the Iraqi people. Where are the posts from you with recommendations on what the U.S. should do now for the Iraqi people instead of focusing constantly on what they shouldn't have done in the past???? It's like an album skipping...or a parrot that keeps repeating the same phrase over and over again.


O.K, you want to know what I think the US should do now?? The reason that I did not made a single statement about this is because I DON'T KNOW. Withdrawl is bad as it leaves the country in a mess and the strategic goal is lost inmediately as I don't expect the iraqi government to be able to sustain itself.

Staying there is not an attractive option either. That would cause an ongoing increace of national debt and probably increase the internation 'hate' against the US. How much longer are countries like china, japan willing to fund those wars? The US is in a financial crisis and it only takes a few countries to take the plug out.

Gradual withdrawl with ensuring a stable iraqi government seems the only viable option IMO. But this is something the US cannot (entirely) control. Much depends on the ability of iraw to stablize itself.

IMO, I agree with Powell. It's like walking in a china shop: "If you break it, you own it".