>Mogadishu again?

FIGMO! Sorry about that!

>>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>Agreements are worthless if not enforced. The UN is not enforcing these agreements [resolutions]. Keep in mind, the resolutions required Iraq to provide proof of the destruction of WMD. Sterile buildings are not proof. The burden is not on the inspectors to try to find them.
>>>
>>>I agree 100% that Iraq is NOT abiding by either the letter or spirit of the resolution 1441 and many prior ones.
>>>But I also see that Iraq's hands are well tied with the present situation and that the ever tightening noose is getting even more out of them.
>>>I think that is a good situation that IS working, only apparently too slowly for the U.S. and Britain. Much of the rest of the U.N. seems ready to allow slow but continued progress towards ultimate compliance.
>>>
>>>Now it is the U.S., with modest British participation, that is footing the bill for all this pressure and I feel that this does and should give the U.S. extra leverage in 'guiding' the situation. After all, if fighting beyond mid-March puts its troops in extra jeopardy (and I believe that it does) then this NEEDS to be considered carefully by all parties, particularly of the U.N. Security Council.
>>>
>>>I also believe that IF there is war, then the good guys will have no choice but to bomb the hell out of the towns and cities of Iraq before sending troops in. To jeopardize the troops by doing anything else would be unforgiveable. But this means that there will be high civilian casualties and we all know how that will be assessed throughout the world.
>>>So I see a no-win situation with war, especially so for the U.S. and Britain.
>>>
>>>It is a real bad situation. And we can also be sure that there will be calls - if there is war - to have the same muscle put behind other U.N. resolutions made prior and eternally kept alive by those parties most affected by them. What then... more war???
>>
>>Jim;
>>
>>Many experts have appeared on television to define what our troop strength is, what weapons and capabilities they have, our plan of attack and other important details. For example, the administration has stated this war would be over in two weeks.
>>
>>The war would be fought using tactics opposite those used during the Gulf War. First the troops would go in and secure 75% of Iraq within hours and protect the oil wells. Then they would attack Baghdad and fight house to house. Cities would then be bombed. Something seems wrong with this scenario but … Enlist and enjoy the benifits.
>>
>>Tom